history. some one refund down payment I need some one to do it

I have exam for history. i have the study materials in 5 parts each part has one link or more
, each part need to read the attachments that are related to each part and make a summrize for each part from the five part only in one page and half specially the main Ideas so that can help me as study guide for the exam and do will becuse the summrise will focus for the important things in the
links. please see the attachments for each part with names. Due Sunday night 9: 00 pm EST

here is the parts and each has its one attachments. if yo cant open it from the links below you can find them in the attacments with same names.

these the five parts : the links for each chapter or subject will be in the attachment under same names

part1

Mon Oct 14: The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

Attached Files:

Inalcik – Emergence of the Ottomans

(1.667 MB)

19 Early Ottoman State.pptx

(7.881 MB)

Halil Inalcik, “The Emergence of the Ottomans”

Primary Sources:

Art of the Timurid Period – Thematic Essay and Slideshow from the Metropolitan Museum of Art

part2

Wed Oct 16: The Safavid Empire in Iran

Attached Files:

Poetry of Shah Ismail

(4.22 MB)

20 Safavid Iran.pptx

(6.599 MB)

Cleveland, Modern Middle East, ch.1-3

Primary Sources:

V. Minorsky, “The Poetry of Shah Isma’il I”

part3

Fri Oct 18: Imperial Culture

Attached Files:

Tursun Beg – Tarihi Abu al Fath

(3.319 MB)

Evliya Celebi – Book of Travels

(874.757 KB)

Alamara ye Abbasi v2 Year 1601 02 Foot Pilgrimage (401.18 KB)
Alamara yi Abbasi on Ismail (1.179 MB)

21 Imperial Culture.pptx

(11.095 MB)

Primary Sources:

•

Tursun Beg, History of Mehmed the Conqueror [excerpt on conquest of Constantinople]

• Evliya Celebi, Book of Travels [excerpt on Constantinople]

• Tarikh-i Alam Ara-yi ‘Abbasi [excerpt on the Foot Pilgrimage of Shah ‘Abbas]

Tarikh-i Alam Ara-yi ‘Abbasi [excerpt on the legacy of Shah Isma’il]

part4

Mon Oct 21: Islam and the World System: The “Decline” Paradigm

Attached Files:

Lewis – Emergence of Modern Turkey

(4.583 MB)

Said – Intro to Orientalism

(1.862 MB)

22 Modernity and Orientalism.pptx

(2.968 MB)

Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, ch.2-3

Edward Said, Orientalism, Introduction

part 5

Wed Oct 23: Wahhabism

Attached Files: Wahhabism (9.273 MB)

Cleveland, Modern Middle East, ch.4

Primary Sources:

• Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Kitab al-Tawhid (Treatise on the Unicity of God) [excerpts]

AnTr+”rABU,L * F’ATIH
The History of the Life and

Accomplishments of Mehmed II,
Conqueror of Istanbul, by Tursun
B”g. Facsimile Text, Ayusofya
Library MS, published with an
English Summary, Glossary,
Notes and Index bv Halil Inalcik

‘A
and Rhoads Murph”y 6t’

In preparing this summary, we have attempted to present as fully
as possible all of the information of historical significance while
leaving aside for the most part literary embroidery and verse. Care
was however taken to include in the summary all relevant
expressions, terminology, and personal and place names.
Nevertheless, it is clearly impossible to consider the English
summary as ever being capable of taking the place of the original
text. The English summary starts only with the twenty-sixth folio
where the author commences the chronological part of his history.
The first part of his history, referred to by Tursun Beg as the dibdce
(text, 5a-25a) deals with general principles of state and rulership.
This prefatory section of Tursun Beg’s history has been summarized,
along with commentary, in the introduction to this book.

This volume also contains a glossary which was prepared with the
intention of providing an aid to the understanding of difficult
terminology or archaic expressions in old Ottoman. A general index
lists all terms and personal and place names occurring in the original
text along with brief explanations where necessary. In the glossary
and index, as well as in the summary translation of the text, we have
used a simplified version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam transliteration
system.

J I

MEHMED THE CONQUEROR

T h e d a t e s i n t h e c h r o n o l o g y t a b l e w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e

help of outside sources. Tursun Beg’s chronology
is far from

adequate. He often fails to mention the date of occurrence
of

important events, and on some occasions he even gives
inaccurate

dates.
In preparing the map, we chose selectively those place

names

*hor” location would, in our opinion, be difficult to establish
through

the use of modern maPS-

THE HISTORY OF MEHMED THE CONQUEROR

Folios 26b-l8lb

Pr : Printed text of M.
‘Arif

AY : AYa SofYa MS

l. The Return of Suhan Murd.d to the ThronePr3t-33lAv26b-28b

Mehmed’s father Murid had voluntarily abdicated the throne
in

favor of his son. However, Murid’s replacement on the throne
was

carried out too hastily; and $alil Pasha, who attained the
vizirate

through right of inheritance and through his own ability, was of
the

opinion that, although the Sultan was young’ he would soon
be

carried away by the desire to act independently. Furthermore,
he

thought that two actual rulers in one state would inevitably be
a

,orrrJ” of trouble. Mur6d’s close associates were all striving to have

him reinstated as sultan. Murad left all of these matters to
the

discretion of $alil Pasha. At this
juncture, the Hungarians had

advanced as fai us Varna. $alil Pasha, with the approval
of the army

commanders, announced to Mehmed that it was necessary to recall

his father Mur6d to command the troops, with the promise that the

sultanate would again be his. Mehmed reluctantly abdicated
the

throne. With his tutot (ata-beg) Zaganoz Beg, he set out for Manisa’

According to one interpretation, he continued to claim powers as

sultan, recognizing his father only as his lieutenant (ftd.’irn-mal-tdm) on

the rhrone. In Mutrarrem 855 (February 1451), sultan Mur-ad died.

2. and 3. The Accession of Mehmed the Conqueror and’ the $araman

CamPaign Pr 33-40/AY 28b-34b

Mehmed was enthroned on Thursday, 16 Mutrarrem 855 (February

18, 145i). In the spring of that year Dayr I.(araca Beg’ the

governor-general of Rumelia, was left with the Rumelian troops on

!,rutd drty at Sofya against the possibility of
an attack from Hungary’

SUMMARY TRANSLATION

while the Sultan himself set out with the standing army and

ftapu-fualftt. troops from Anatolia against Karaman-oglu Ibrlhim. The
ostensible reason for the campaign was lbrdhim’s failure to observe
the rules as a vassal at the time of Mehmed’s accession. When
Mehmed made camp with his army in Alqehir, Ibrdhim fled to Tag-Ili

and sent Mewlind Weli to negotiate peace terms. He agreed to give

up Algehir, Beggehri, and SeydiEehri, including the territories
surrounding them. In addition, he agreed to send every year a certain
number of soldiers to serve in the Ottoman army. Pr 35/Av 30b

On his return from this campaign the Janissaries made a
demonstration. Standing with their arms in two rows on either side of
the road, they shouted the following words at him: “This was our
sultan’s first campaign, and he should reward us with the customary
bonus.” This uncalled-for display by the soldiers angered Mehmed.
When the diutdn was convened, he summonedthe officers and after a
severe beating dismissed them from the ranks. As a result of this
punishment, the Janissaries came to fear the ire of Mehmed and
never again during his sultanate did they dare rebel against him.
Following this incident Mehmed returned to Edirne. Pr 36/Av 31a

4. The Construction of the Fortress of Bogaz-KesenPr
36-41 /Av 31a-36a

Mehmed was possessed with the idea of conquering Istanbul and
constantly insisted on the necessity of taking the city without delay.
Senior statesmen spoke of the strength of the fortifications and of the

bad consequences that would arise from a prolonged siege of the

city, but Mehmed would not listen and immediately began
preparations for the siege. With this intention he ordered the
building of a fortress on the Bosphorus.
( D e s c r i p t i o n o f I s t a n b u l , G a l a t a , a n d t h e B o s p h o r u s )

t ” i t t 3 l o
, o u

It was intolerable that Istanbul, surrounded by the lands of Islam,
should survive under a Christian ruler, the so-called $ay;er-i Ril.m,
especially since he gave protection within the city walls to pretenders
to the Ottoman throne and constantly tried to stir up conflict in the
Ottoman territories. In the spring of 856 (1452) Sultan Mehmed came
to the spot where the fortress was to be built.P’39/Av34b
(Description of the Fortress of Rumeli-fligerr) Pr 40/Av 35a

A small castle with twenty portals opening onto the sea was built
below Rumeli-$is5n close to the shore and at each opening a cannon
was placed. Across the water below the fortress of Yenice-f;ale a
similar small castle was built and the cannons emplaced. In this way

MEHMED THE CONQUEROR

the straits were effectively blocked so that unauthorized passage

between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea was now impossible’

The sultan gave up all thoughts of relaxation, and through his efforts

the work
“iR,r*”ii’giEdn

was completed in a short time’Pr41
/Av36a

5. The Conquest of Istanbul
Pr41-58/Av36a-51 b

After the construction of Rumeli-$ig-an had been completed, the

Sultan set out for his capital, Edirne. Before the army set out for

Edirne, a scuffle took place between some shepherds and a group of

ottoman soldiers. The people inside the city, mistaking the scuffle for

the beginning of hostilities’ shut the gates of the city and prepared

themsJves for battle. Some of the Sultan’s commanders who

happened to be on leave in the city at that time remained within the

walls. The Prince (Tekaur) treated them well and returned them
with

an envoy to apologize to the Sultan but Mehmed was not amenable

and e*pres.”J hit hostility by voicing the.challenge: “Either
surren-

der the city or stand readyto do battle.”P’42lAv
36a11″ then returned to

E d i r n e .

In the spring of 85? (1453)’ he left Edirne with the intention
of

capturing i.,u.tUr-,t. He ordered the large cannons to be dragged
by

th” ,rorror.tt
42tAY

b The master naftftd.bs, stoneborers from the mines

in it,r*eli, joined the army while the naval forces waited
in

Gelibolu. Pr a-s I
ny 38a The Sultan proceeded by land and the navy by

sea. According to custom, the day that camp was to be made
near

Istanbul the army was ordered by regiment into rows’ He ranged
at

the center of the army around his own person the white-capped

Janissary archers, the Turkish and European crossbowmen’
and the

musketeers and cannonn eers (Qarbzen)’ The red-capped’azebs
were

placed on his right and left, joined at the rear by the caval-

,y. t’44lAv 38b Thus organized, the army marched in formation
on

Istanbul.
On the other side, the Byzantine emperor had received

reinforcements from Christian rulers in Europe’ He sent these

armoured, mounted knights in front of the gates to meet the

approaching army of the Sultan. The Muslim forces pushed them

U””t *ittti” the walls, and finally the Sultan arrived on the scene at

the outer walls. According to ottoman practice, the sultan pitched
his

large tent at the middle of the ranks. The Janissaries set up their

t”rrt. in the form of a circle surrounding the sultan’s . The Beglerbegi

of Anatolia, Islra! Beg, formerly one of the vizirs of Sultan Murid’

SUMMARY TRANSLATION

took up his place on the right wing with the Anatolian forces, while

the Beglerbegi of Rumeli, Dayr Karaca Beg, uncle of Prince
‘Al-aeddin, was on the left. Trenches were dug for emplacing the

cannon, and catapults were set up in several places.Pta6/Avaoa 16″t
set up barricades and vaulted bunkers (mancu-yerleri and, toituz-

dan’tlar) and showed the miners their places. Hostilities immediately

broke out in front ofthe gates.

One difficulty, however, was the fact that the Golden Horn was

closed off. Sultan Mehmed ordered that some of the smaller ships
and galleys should be dragged over the hill behind Galata into the
Golden Horn. Thus forced to guard the sector of the walls on the
Golden Horn as well, the enemy forces would necessarily be spread

out. So, as ordered, the ships and galleys were decked out with

banners of every color and dragged overland to the Golden Horn. By

lashing the boats together a secure bridge was formed over which the
soldiers could cross, and the fortress was surrounded on three sides.

Meanwhile, the cannons and catapults continued to bombard the
walls. The shock of the balls shook and rent the walls. Fighting
continued every day from sunrise to sunset, but the defenders placed
their trust in the firmness of the fortifications even after several
towers were completely destroyed by cannon fire. At this stage, two
coques (kiike) filled with arms and reinforcements arrived from
Europe.P’ 47 t Av 42a At that point the soldiers and naval troops of the
Sultan were busily making preparations for the dragging of the ships
over to the Colden Horn. With the aid of a favorable wind, the coques
began to approach very quickly. The admiral Balta-o$lu Siileymin
Beg sent against them all the ships he could gather, and a great
battle took place in which the – Ottomans were defeated. The
Greeks opened up the barrier across the Golden Horn and let in
the coques. Pr 481 AY 42b

After this naval defeat the Muslims were distressed and lost hope,
but in fact the arrival ofthe coques turned out to be a helping factor in
the Ottomans’ final victory. By that time, the walls facing the
Janissaries and the Sultan’s soldiers had been destroyed and paths
prepared to the trenches. The Greeks feared that the fortress would
be taken from this direction and wished to be responsible themselves
for its defense. However, the European troops who had come as
reinforcements demanded that the defense of this area be given to
them, otherwise threatening to withdraw their support. Fearing that

M E H M E D T H E C O N Q U E R O R

they would indeed desert the cause if he did not give in, the Emperor

granted their wish. This, in turn, caused discontent among the

Greeks in the city and the forces defending the city fell info/disunity.

The Sultan proclaimed a general assault and gave the troops

p e r m i s s i o n t o t a k e b o o t y i n t h e c i t y . P r a e / A v 4 3 a 4 , n i g h t t h e s o l d i e r s

reached the walls from the trenches and, against the defenders on the

walls, attempted to climb up under the protection of their shields. At

daybreak the Sultan approached on horseback and the attack on the

fortress began in earnest. The cannons began to fire, then the battle

cry was sounded and the general assault was underway. The

attackers proceeded to rain arrows on the defenderslt
50/Av aab 1tt ,1’t”

breaches which had been opened by the cannon fire, soldiers fought

breast to breast and sword to sword. The enemy threw Greek fire on

the attackers. As the battle proceeded in this fashion, in the section

where the cannons had opened breaches in the walls, the European

troops met the Ottoman troops in front of the smaller outer walls. The

enemy commander arrived at this place and, while he was struggling
with an Ottoman soldier on top of the tower, another soldier pierced
his belly from below.Pr 5.1 /Av

05″ Wh”.t they saw that their commander
had been wounded, the enemy troops were overcome. They tried to
escape by fleeing into the inner fortresses, but the defenders had
barred the gate. Left trapped between the walls, they were all put to
the sword. The Ottoman troops immediately stormed the inner walls
and pushed back the defenders. The rest of the army then began to
spread out into the city by means of the breach in the wall while the
enemy troops fled before them.

While the Sultan’s standing army, the ftapu leulu, was achieving
this victory, the Anatolian, Rumelian, and navy troops continued to
fight unaware of the new developments. The Byzantine Emperor and
his retinue were reduced to panic when they saw the Janissaries so
close behind them, and they too began to flee.Pr52tAv46b Some of
them shut themselves in a tower while others perished charging their
horses desperately against the Ottoman troops. Still others were
taken prisoner.

At that juncture the Emperor was stealthily fleeing towards the
Golden Horn with the intention of escaping in one of the ships. He
was met on the way by a group of ,azebs. This group of ,azebs had
entered the city with a band of Janissaries, and later, becoming
separated from them, had wandered into a side street where they met

SUMMARY TRANSLATION

the Emperor with his retinue. A desperate battle ensued. The
Emperor’s horse slipped as he was attacking a wounded ‘azeb,

rvhereupon the ‘azeb pulled himself together and cut off the
Emperor’s head. Pt 53tAv 47a When they saw this, the rest of the ene-
my troops lost hope and the ‘azebs managed to kill or capture most of
them. A great quantity of money and precious stones in the posses-
sion of the Emperor’s personal retinue was dlso seized. P( 54tAv 48a

After having completely overcome the enemy, the soldiers began to
plunder the city. They enslaved boys and girls and took silver and
gold vessels, precious stones, and all sorts of valuable goods and
fabrics from the imperial palace and the houses of the rich. In this
fashion many people were delivered from poverty and made rich.
Every tent was filled with handsome boys and beautiful
g i r l s . P t s 5 / A Y 4 8 b

Then the gates of the fortress were opened and Sultan Mehmed
toured the city with a group of commanders and religious dignitaries
in his retinue. He visited the great buildings and bazaars and
particularly expressed his desire to see Hagia Sofia. Over the years
this church had deteriorated so that at this time onlv its dome was left
s t a n d i n s .
(Description of Hagia Sofia) er so-s7 / Av 50a-51 a

When the Sultan returned to his headquarters from this tour, a
council was held. There the prominent Byzantines were brought into
his presence. He ordered some of them executed while others were
spared for practical purposes. He appointed Kanqtrran Siileymdn Beg
governor of Istanbul and entrusted to him the work of reconstructing
the city.
6. (Reconstruction of Istanbul) Pr 58-68/Av 51 b-61a

7 . The Capture of Enoz (Ainos) and Tasoz (Thasos), and the Serbian
Campaign Pr 68-70/AY 61a-63b

In the middle of winter Mehmed ordered the palace force and the
regular troops of his Porte (ftapu fualftt) together with the Janissaries
to proceed to Edirne. Because it was not customary to be called for
duty at this season, they resented the order and suffered many
hardships along the way because of the cold. The reason for calling
for a campaign at this time was his decision to conquer Enoz and
Tagoz. As an Ottoman vassal, their lord was permitted to get shares
of the revenues from the salt mines and other sources which were due
to the Ottoman central treasury. He pretended to support the

Imperial Culture
in the Ottoman and Safavid Empires

HIST 113: Islamic Civilization

Prof. Gustafson

Hagia Sophia
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Interior of the Dome atop Hagia Sohia
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Hagia Sophia

Blue Mosque

Sulaymaniyya Complex
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture
Sehzadeh Complex, Istanbul

Bayezid Mosque (16th century)

Source: Lewis, Islam and the Arab World

Expansion of the Ottoman Empire
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Shah ‘Abbas Fighting the Uzbeks, fresco, 16th century
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Safavid Polities
Qizilbash: “red heads;” Turkic tribal military supporters
described as ghulat “extremists”
Tajiks: urban, Persian speaking literate classes
Support Persian high culture, pre-Islamic kingship tradition

Maydan-i Shah, Isfahan

Scene from the Houghton Shahnama
Source: Welch, Persian Painting

Source: Grabar, Mostly Miniatures
Scene from the Houghton Shahnama

Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Shah ʿAbbas and the Image of the Just Ruler
What ideas of legitimate kingship and justice are presented in the story of Shah ʿAbbas’ foot pilgrimage to the shrine of a Shi’i Imam in Mashhad? How do these ideas compare to what we read in other political texts, like the Siyasatnameh of Nizam al-Mulk, or al-Mawardi’s treatise on the caliphate?
How does our Safavid chronicler from the early 1600s describe Shah Ismaʿil when looking back on his legacy? In particular, how does he interpret the Ottoman victory over the Safavids at the Battle of Chaldiran (the last paragraph on page 71, continuing to page 72)? Why?

Modernity and Orientalism

Siege of Vienna
Worlds Together Worlds Apart, 3rd Edition
Copyright © 2011 W.W. Norton & Company

Edward Said
(1935-2003)

Eugene Delacroix
(1798-1863)

Eugene Delacroix “Liberty Leading the People” (1830)

Eugene Delacroix “Death of Sardanapalus” (1827)

Eugene Delacroix “Massacre at Chios” (1824)

Eugene Delacroix “Fanatics of Tangiers” (1838)

Eugene Delacroix “Women of Algiers” (1834)

Jean-Leon Gerome
(1824-1904)

Jean-Leon Gerome “Albanian Fest” (1856)

Jean-Leon Gerome “The Great Bath at Bursa” (1885)

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres “Turkish Bath” (1862)

CHAPTER 4

THE

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

In the second half of the seventh/thirteenth century, as the Seljuk state
fell apart, a number of principalities (beyliks) of a new kind came into
being in the western marches of Anatolia. They were in territory con-
quered as a result of holy wars (sing., gha%a) waged against Byzantium,
and hence are known as gha\i states. The Ottoman principality was one
of these. It was destined within a century to unite Anatolia and the
Balkans under its sovereignty, and to develop into an Islamic empire.
Let us now examine as a whole the formation of these gbifcy principalities.
The emergence of the Ottoman state can be understood only in the
context of the general history of the marches.

THE EMERGENCE OF TURCOMAN BORDER PRINCIPALITIES
IN WESTERN ANATOLIA

When the state of the Anatolian Seljuks developed into a fully formed
Islamic sultanate, three areas came to be designated as marches par
excellence, and attracted settlements of Muslim ghauts. In the south,
facing Cilicia (Chukurova) the ‘ realm of the Lord of the Coasts’ was
centred round’Ala’iyya and Antalya and directed against Lesser Armenia
and the kingdom of Cyprus. In the north, on the borders of the Byzantine
empire of Trebizond and along the shores of the Black Sea, the Muslim
marches consisted of two parts, the eastern, centred round Simere,
Samsun and Bafra, and the western centred round Kastamonu and
Sinop. Finally, the western marches, whose principal cities were Kasta-
monu, Karahisar-i Devle (Afyonkarahisar), Kiitahya and Denizli lay
along the Byzantine frontier from the area of Kastamonu to the gulf
of Makri in the south.

It appears that in each of these three areas of the marches the Seljuk
state was represented by a governor-general known as commander
{emir) of the marches. These powerful emirs who represented the central
authority, generally kept their positions in their families as a hereditary
dignity. The post of commander of the western marches on the Byzan-
tine frontier came to be the most important of all. This position was
given in 659/1261 to Nusrat al-Din Hasan and Taj al-DIn Husayn, the
sons of the powerful Seljuk veyir Fakhr al-DIn ‘Ali. We know that this

263

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

emirate took in the whole area between Kiitahya, Beyshehir and
Akshehir. Its capital was the impregnable fortress of Karahisar. The
area of the marches formed the basis of the power of Fakhr al-Din ‘All.
The main strength of the marches lay in the Turcoman tribes, governed
by their own hereditary leaders, or beys. It should be noted, however,
that these tribes were loose social units which could dissolve and reform
around leading ghauts in the marches. They were then usually named
after their new leaders, e.g. Aydmli, Sarukhanh and ‘Osmanli, i.e.
Ottoman. These beys of the marches were linked to the emir of the
marches largely by bonds of personal loyalty. They exercised inde-
pendent authority over their own groups. The marches were a frontier
area where nomads driven there forcibly by the Seljuk state, as well as
refugees from Mongol conquests and oppression, came together in
search of a new life. This mountain region which lay between the
plateau of central Anatolia and the coastal plains provided abundant
summer pastures, and a large proportion of its population was made up of
semi-nomadic Turcomans. At the same time highly developed urban
forms of Seljuk civili2ation had also taken root in such border towns as
Denizli, Kiitahya, Karahisar, Eskishehir and Kastamonu. These urban
centres were destined to influence profoundly the future development of
the border principalities. Seljuk chroniclers, who stood for the interests
of the Mongol-Seljuk central authority, tended to describe the popu-
lation of the marches as robber rebels ready to mutiny at a moment’s
notice.

The Turcomans of the western marches were seen to play an important
part in determining the political development of Anatolia at the time of
the struggle between Kilij Arslan IV, who was supported by the Mon-
gols, and Kay-Kavus II (643-59/1246-61) who tried to base himself on
the western provinces and marches. Kay-Kavus was finally forced to
seek refuge in Byzantium in 659/1261. The Mongol and Seljuk troops
led by Mu’in al-Din Pervane came to the frontier and pacified the
Turcomans. Nevertheless, we know that a fairly numerous group of
semi-nomadic Turcomans joined Kay-Kavus in Byzantine territory, and
were later settled in the Dobruja. At roughly the same time one Menteshe
Bey, a coastal bey who was probably a vassal of Kay-Kavus, left the
southern coastal marches and led a gha^a raid against Byzantine posses-
sions in Caria. As the result of these sea raids, Menteshe Bey succeeded
in establishing himself first of all in the Carian seaports (659/1261 to
667/1269). It appears that he then co-operated with a numerous group

264

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

of Turcoman nomads, migrating between summer pastures in the
mountains of Denizli and winter pastures on the coast. After organizing
these Turcomans, Menteshe Bey extended his authority over the whole
of Caria. Then in 677/1278 he advanced in the direction of the valley of
the Biiyiik Menderes, and captured the cities of Priene, Miletus and
Magedon. In 681/1282 he advanced further to capture Tralles (Aydin)
and Nyssa. Menteshe Bey’s conquests were continued by his son-in-law
Sasa Bey. Turkish conquests in western Anatolia had by that time
assumed the nature of a general advance.

We have already referred to the importance of the area of Denizli and
Kiitahya in the western marches. Here the most advanced position was
occupied by the semi-nomadic Germiyan Turks, who were subject to the
‘Alishir family in the region of Kiitahya-Sandikh. Karlm al-Dln
‘Alishir, who belonged to an old-established family of emirs, had been a
supporter of Kay-Kavus II, and when the latter fled to Byzantium he was
executed by the Mongols. The descendants of ‘Alishir and the Germiyan
Turks were then under the sway of the dynasty of Fakhr al-DIn ‘All. In
676/1277 when great disorders broke out throughout Anatolia, they
fought bravely on the side of Fakhr al-DIn ‘AH and of the Seljuk Sultan
Kay-Khusraw III and captured the rebel Jimri. Fakhr al-DIn then
suppressed the rebellion of the chief emir of the marches in the area of
Denizli. He also pacified the Turcomans who had mutinied round
Karahisar and Sandikh. Fakhr al-Din’s two sons were killed in the battle
against the rebel Jimri. The ‘Alishir dynasty which supported Fakhr
al-DIn then became a force to be reckoned with in the marches.

When, however, the Mongols appointed Sultan Mas’ud II to the
Seljuk throne, the successors of ‘Alishir turned against Fakhr al-DIn and
the central government. It appears that important adherents of the old
regime who had sought refuge in the marches incited the Turcomans to
rebel. Not only those who had been threatened by the change of sultan
but also people dissatisfied with the taxation and land policies of the
Mongols fled to the marches. In the summer of 685/i 286 the Germiyan
Turks raided the province of Gargorum lying between the marches and
Konya. Mongol and Seljuk forces had to wage an intense struggle
against them until 688/1289. The house of ‘Alishir joined forces with
two other border dynasties, the Karamanlis and the Eshrefoghlus. The
struggle ended with the house of ‘Alishir winning the position in the
marches formerly held by the house of Fakhr al-DIn. An inscription in
Ankara by Ya’qub Bey I, the son of’Alishir, shows that he held sway over

265

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

the city while also recognizing the authority of the Seljuk sultan. Under
Ya’qub Bey (d. after 720/13 20), who can be considered as the real founder
of the Germiyan principality, the descendants of ‘Alishir turned their
forces and their energy against Byzantine territory where they could act
independently. They captured Kula and closed in on Alashehir (Phila-
delphia). The commanders (sing., su-bashi) whom Ya’qub Bey sent to
the valleys of the Menderes and of the Gediz founded their own princi-
pality : Mehmed Bey, the son of Aydm, the principality of the house of
Aydin, Sarukhan Bey, the principality of the house of Sarukhan, and in
the north, in Mysia, Qalam Bey and his son Karasi Bey, the principality
of Karasi. Thus new conquests were made in Byzantine territory
outside the province of the marches, and principalities of a new type
were founded. The Ottoman principality was one of these. True, these
principalities were, legally speaking, considered to be part of the marches
and to come under the emirs of the marches, the Seljuk sultans and the
Mongol Il-Khans in Tabriz. In reality, however, the gba^i beys felt them-
selves independent in the Byzantine territories which they had con-
quered. The formation of independent states by forces in the marches
and, later, the emergence of one such state, which turned back from its
area of new conquest to win dominion over the old Seljuk part of
Anatolia were among the most important developments of the history of
the Near East in the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMAN FRONTIER

PRINCIPALITY

The marches from the Byzantine frontier along the River Sakarya to
Kastamonu were subject to the emir of Kastamonu. About 690/1

291

Kastamonu was ruled by Muzaffar al-DIn Yavlak Arslan, a descendant of
the famous Seljuk Emir Husam al-DIn Choban. Yavlak Arslan held the
title of captain-general of the marches. A contemporary source,
Pachymeres, attributes the emergence of ‘Osman Ghazi to a struggle
with the dynasty of ‘Amurios’, emirs of Kastamonu. When the sons of
Kay-Kavus II returned to Anatolia from the Crimea, one of them,
Mas’ud, obtained the Seljuk throne from the Mongol, Arghun Khan. At
his orders his brother Rukn al-DIn Kihj Arslan settled in the marches,
probably near Akshehir. When after the death of Arghun Khan and the
election of Gaykhatu to the khanate (23 Rajab 690/22 July 1291) a
struggle for the throne broke out among the Mongols of Persia, a state
of anarchy developed in Anatolia. The frontier Turcomans rebelled.

266

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

Kihj Arslan rebelled against his brother Mas’ud. When Gaykhatu
arrived in Anatolia in Dhu’l-Qa’da 690/November 1291, Kilij Arslan
went to the march of Kastamonu and gathered the Turcomans round
him. He killed the emir of the marches, Muzaffar al-DIn Yavlak Arslan,
who had been a supporter of Mas’ud. Sultan Mas’ud who was sent to
the area by Gaykhatu, was at first defeated but was later victorious
thanks to the Mongol forces at his disposal (Dhu’l-Hijja 690/December
1291). Kilij Arslan escaped, but was later killed when caught in a raid by
Yavlak Arslan’s son, ‘AIL ‘All, who after the events of 690/1291
renounced his allegiance to the Seljuks and their Mongol overlords,
attacked Byzantine territory, and conquered the land stretching as far as
the River Sakarya. He even raided the far bank of the river. Later,
however, he established peaceful relations with the Byzantines. ‘Osman
Ghazi’s area lay to the south of him, on the far bank of the middle stretch
of the River Sakarya around Sogiid. Pachymeres states clearly that
when ‘All broke off the struggle ‘Osman took over the leadership of the
raids and started waging violent gha%a warfare on Byzantine territory.
The ghauts started gathering under his banner. Pachymeres says that
they came from Paphlagonia, in other words from the territory subject to
the emir of Kastamonu.

By 700/1301 ‘Osman had advanced far enough to press in close on the
old Byzantine capital of Nicaea (Iznik). Old Ottoman traditions on his
origin and on his activities before that date, show that he had come
under the pressure of the Germiyan dynasty and was thus forced to
work in the most forward part of the marches. It was this circumstance
which made for his future success and for that of the principality which
he founded. According to the same traditions, ‘Osman’s early activity
did not amount to a general and ceaseless struggle against the Byzantines.
At first he tried to get on with the more powerful of the Byzantine lords
{tekfurs) in his area. He appeared in the light of a bey of a semi-nomadic
group of Turcomans in conflict with the tekfurs who controlled their
summer and winter pastures.1 Old sources, which are legendary in
character, attribute ‘Osman’s decision to come forward as a gha%i to the
influence of Shaykh Ede Bali. In fact, however, the factors which

1 On ‘Osman’s tribal origin and his membership of the Kayi tribe of the Oghuz Turks,
see M. P. Kopriilii, ‘Osmanli imparatorlugunun etnik mensei meseleleri’, in Belliten, it,
219-303, who defends against P. Wittek the view that ‘Osman was the leader of a small clan
of the Kayi. According to Kopriilii, this tribal nucleus played a negligible part in the
formation of a state which did not have a tribal character even at its inception; on this point
Koprulii is in agreement with Wittek and Giese.

267

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

impelled ‘Osman to become a leader of gbd^ts were the same factors as
motivated the whole activity in the marches of western Anatolia, in
other words the pressure of population and the need for expansion
resulting from the movement of immigration from central Anatolia, the
decay of the Byzantine frontier-defence system, and religious and social
discontent in the Byzantine frontier areas, as well as the desire of
Anatolian Turks to escape from Mongol oppression and to start
a new life in new territory.

‘Osman had become master of an area stretching from Eskishehir
to the plains of Iznik and Brusa (Bursa), and had organized a
fairly powerful principality. When he started threatening Iznik,
anxiety was for the first time felt in the Byzantine capital on his score.
It was then that the Byzantine empire began counting him among the
most important beys of the marches alongside the houses of ‘Allshir,
Aydin and Menteshe. In 701/1301 the Byzantine emperor despatched
against ‘Osman a force of 2,000 men under the command of the
Hetaereiarch Muzalon charged with the task of relieving Iznik. When
‘Osman ambushed this force and destroyed it at Baphaeon, the local
population was panic-stricken and started to leave, seeking shelter in the
castle of Nicomedia (Izmit). In another direction ‘Osman’s forward
raiders advanced as far as the approaches of Bursa. In Ottoman tradition
this victory is known as the victory won near Yalakova over the forces
of the emperor during the siege of Iznik. It was at this time that ‘Osman
is said to have been recognized by the Seljuk sultan as a bey, in other
words as a person wielding political authority. After 701 /i 301 ‘Osman’s
fame is reported to have spread to distant Muslim countries, and his
territory was filled with wave upon wave of immigrant Turkish house-
holds.

The importance attached by the Byzantine empire to the Ottoman
threat is shown by the fact that, in order to stop ‘Osman, the emperor
tried to conclude an alliance with Ghazan Khan, and, after the latter’s
death, with Oljeitii Khan and to bring the Mongol army into play.
Nevertheless, around the end of the century the conquests in western
Anatolia of the house of Germiyan and its commanders, and of Sasa, the
son-in-law of Menteshe, seemed to pose the greater threat. In 677/1

278

and 695/1296 the empire tried to reconquer lost territory here by sending
two armies, but both attempts proved unsuccessful. The expedition of
mercenary Alan and Catalan troops were also fruitless (701/1302 and
703/1304). Ephesus (Seljuk) fell immediately after the withdrawal of the

268

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

Catalans. Mehmed Bey, son of Ay din, captured Birgi (Pyrgion) in
708/1308, made it his capital and, by extending his power as far as
Smyrna (Izmir), became the most powerful prince in western Anatolia.
Sarukhan Bey captured Manisa (Magnesia) in 713/1313, made it the
centre of his principality and became an independent ruler. Further to
the north, in Mysia, Karasi Bey captured Bahkesir (Palaeocastron) and,
having resettled it, made it his capital. This principality expanded,
probably after 728/1328, to the shores of the sea of Marmora, of the
Hellespont and of the gulf of Adrammytion (Edremid). To the east lay
‘Osman’s territory. He too made extensive new conquests after 1301,
occupied the environs of Iznik and Bursa, and blockaded these powerful
fortresses by means of towers which were built nearby. He thus tried to
starve them out.

When the Mongol governor Timurtash Noyon, who had forcibly
tried to exact obedience from the princes of the marches, had to seek
refuge with the Mamluks in 728/1328, after having been proclaimed a
rebel, the authority of the Il-Khans in the Anatolian marches became
weaker than ever before. The tax-register for the year 1349 still shows
Karaman, the principality of Hamid, Denizli, Aydin, Germiyan, the
Ottoman principality, Gerdebolu, Kastamonu, Eghridir and Sinop as
lying within the borders of the Mongol state, grouped under the general
name of marches, but these princes of the marches had long ago become
independent rulers, paying only nominal tribute, and minting coins in
their own names.

THE CULTURE OF THE MARCHES

The principalities of the marches had a distinct way of life, which could
be described as a frontier culture, and this distinguished them clearly
from the hinterland. This culture was dominated by the Islamic con-
ception of Holy War otgba^a. By God’s command the gba^d had to be
fought against the infidels’ dominions, ddr al-barb (the abode of war),
ceaselessly and relentlessly until they submitted. According to the
SharVa the property of the infidels, captured in these raids, could be
legally kept as booty, their country could be destroyed, and the popu-
lation taken into captivity or killed. The actions of the ghauts were
regulated by the SbarVa to which they paid heed. Ceaseless warfare led
to the formation of groups commanded by gha%i leaders specially blessed
by shaykhs. The ghdsj groups were often named after their leaders.

269

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

Successful leaders naturally attracted the greatest number oighasjs. In
the Seljuk marches which were dominated by Turcoman nomads, these
leaders were also often chiefs of tribal clans. But, as we have seen, many
of them had been commanders under the Seljuk sultans. Usually these
gbtrfi beys paid no taxes to the central government, or they sent only
nominal taxes as a token of loyalty.

Life in the marches was dangerous, and required great personal
initiative. At the other side of the border there was a similar Christian
frontier organization, moved by the same spirit, the Byzantine akritai.
Ethnically, frontier society was very mixed. It included highly mobile
nomads, refugees from central authority, heterodox elements and
adventurers. In contrast with the highly developed conservative civi-
lization of the hinterland, with its theology, palace literature, and the
Shari’a, the marches had a mystical and eclectic popular culture, which
had not yet frozen into a final form. They sheltered heterodox sects,
bred a mystical and an epic literature and obeyed customary or tribal law.
Their ethos was chivalrous and romantic.

References to the life of ‘Osman Ghazi in old Ottoman traditions
strongly reflect this way of life. It should not be forgotten, however,
that there are considerable distortions of reality in these legends.
According to Oruj, the Ottomans were

Gba\is and champions striving in the way of truth and the path of Allah,
gathering the fruits olgba^a and expending them in the way of Allah, choosing
truth, striving for religion, lacking pride in the world, following the way of
the Shari’a, taking revenge on polytheists, friends of strangers, blazing forth
the way of Islam from the East to the West.1

In 1354 they told Gregory Palamas that the constant expansion west-
wards of Muslim power was a predestined event reflecting the will of
God.2 They considered themselves as the sword of God, and this view
was widespread not only among themselves but also among the
Byzantines. Later on, Luther was to view the Ottomans in the same
light. In old Ottoman traditions people described as alplar (heroes),
alp-erenkr, and akhiler were among the closest companions of ‘Osman.
‘Osman became zghd^i, it was said, as a result of the preaching of Shaykh
Ede Bali, who was probably a member of the akbi confraternity and who,
in accordance with the akbi custom tied a sword to ‘Osman’s waist. As

1 Oruj, Tavarikb-i Al-i’Osman, cd. F. Babinger (Hanover, 1925), 3.
• G. Arnakis, ‘Gregory Palamas among the Turks’, in Speculum, XXVI, n o .

270

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

for the alplar, they followed the heroic tradition of Central Asian Turks.
In the marches, the alplar cloaked themselves in the Islamic gba^a
tradition and became known as alp-erenler. According to a contemporary
source there were seven conditions for becoming an alp-eren: courage,
strength of arm, endeavour, a good horse, a special dress, a bow and
arrows, a good sword, a lance and an appropriate companion. Kopriilii
believes that the traditions and customs of Central Asian Turks survived
strongly among the semi-nomadic Turcomans of the Anatolian marches.
Wittek, on the other hand, thinks that it was rather the Islamic traditions
relating to the Byzantine frontier districts, developed under the caliphate,
that were dominant.1 It is really a question of degree to determine the
strength of each of the two traditions in forming the common way of
life in the marches.

Between 730/13 30 and 746/1345 the most brilliantgha^a exploits in the
marches were achieved by Umur Bey of the house of Aydin. Umur Bey
extended the gha%a to naval engagements. To counter his raids in the
Aegean, Christian states agreed on a crusade against him and signed a
preliminary agreement on 14 Dhu’l-Hijja 732/6 September 1332. They
formed a fleet of twenty galleys. In 734/1334 many Turkish ships were
sunk in the Aegean, the fleet of Yakhshi Bey, lord of Karasi, being
destroyed in the gulf of Edremid. On 19 Jumada II745/28 October 1344,
the castle in the port of Izmir was raided and captured by the Christian
forces. Umur was killed in an attempt to recapture it (Safar 749/May
1348). The new bey of Aydin, Khidr, seeing the fate of his brother, gave
up the policy oigha^a, preferring the advantages deriving from trade.
Acting through the papacy he made peace with the Christian states con-
cerned and granted them full privileges, allowing them to trade freely in
his dominions (20 Jumada I 749/17 August 1348). He stated in this
document that he had put an end to his war with the Christians, that he
would protect them in the future, would not alter customs-dues and
would allow consuls of the Knights of Rhodes, of Venice, and of
Cyprus to establish themselves on his land, and would permit their ships
to make use of his ports.

Writing c. 730/1330 al-‘Umari describes the beys of Karasi, Sarukhan,
Menteshe and Aydin as maritime ghauts, but he distinguishes Umur Bey
as one waging ceaseless Holy War (//M/).2 When these principalities were

1 P. Wittek, Tbi rist of tbt Ottoman Empire (London, 1938), 17-19.
1 Al-‘Umari, Masilik al-abfSr, ed. Fr. Taeschncr (Leipzig, 1929), 30-47.

2 7 1

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

fought to a standstill by the Christian League in the Aegean, they lost
their function as bases for the gha^a, and, like the Knights of Rhodes,
they came to prefer the advantages of trade. Once this choice was made,
the classical way of life and the institutions of Islamic society of
the hinterland began to predominate. The leadership of the gha^a
then passed to the Ottomans, who occupied the front line of the
marches and crossed into the Balkans, where they established them-
selves.

The ghasj beys of the marches demonstrated the original spirit of unity
of the marches through common action in some of their raids and by
helping each other. Cantacuzenus says that a bey embarking on a gha^a
expedition would willingly accept in his troop gha^ls coming from
neighbouring principalities.1 Nevertheless, there were also frequent
dynastic wars in these principalities. In accordance with old Turkish
tradition, a bey divided his country among his sons. He then ruled from
the centre over his semi-dependent sons. There were frequent internal
struggles between brothers. In the Ottoman dominions, which were
faced with greater dangers and greater efforts to destroy them, unity was
better preserved.

In western Anatolia after the ghiby beys had settled in the rich plains,
and conquered international commercial ports, their countries developed
commercially and culturally, and assumed the character of little sultanates
which had adopted the higher forms of Islamic civilization. This is
demonstrated by the accounts of al-‘Umari and Ibn Battuta in 730/1330
and 733/1333. Ibn Battuta admires the beautiful markets, palaces and
mosques in these cities. He says that Denizli with its seven mosques and
beautiful markets is ‘one of the most attractive and immense cities’.
Bahkesir, the chief city of Karasi, is ‘a fine and populous city with
pleasant bazaars’ and, finally, Bursa is ‘ a great important city with fine
bazaars and wide streets’.2 In western Anatolia, Ayasolug (Altoluogo,
Ephesus) and Balat (Miletus) were two important centres of the Levant
trade. In the middle of the eighth/fourteenth century there were Venetian
consuls inboth cities, and wealthy Christian merchants had settled there. In
Ayasolug, the city built on the hill by the Turks was the main commercial
centre. Merchants from all over the world came there. Italians bought
the products of Anatolia: cotton, rice, wheat, saffron, wax, wool, hemp,

1 P. Lemerle, Ulmirat d’Aydm, hy^pnct et VOccident. Kecbenhes sur la geste d’Umur Vacha
(Paris, 1957), 212-13.

1 H . A. R. Gibb (tr.), The travels of Ibn haffufa, n (Cambridge, 1961), 425, 449-50.

272

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

raisins, alum, and valonia as well as slaves. Valuable cotton textiles
woven in Denizli and precious silks woven in Bahkesir could also be
bought by Western merchants, who sold in exchange valuable woollen
cloth, which was used in the il-khan’s palace under the name saqirlat.
Other imports were tin and lead. In order to facilitate this expanding
trade the Turcoman beys minted in Balat, Ayasolug and Manisa silver
coins known zsgig/iati, with Latin inscriptions, modelled on Neapolitan
coins.

Ibn Battuta mentions the pages dressed in silks whom he saw at
Birgi in the palace of the Aydin prince. He stresses the importance and
prestige of the Muslim jurists in the courts of the beys. The first ve^trs
were undoubtedly chosen from among the jurists invited from the great
urban centres of the interior. This was also the case with the first Otto-
man veytrs and with the jurists who organi2ed the Ottoman state.
Orkhan Bey opened a medrese in Iznik in 731/13 31, and converted to a
medrese the monastery inside the castle of Bursa. The complex of
buildings, including a mosque, an alms-house, bath and a caravanserai,
which Orkhan Bey built in Bursa remains to this day at the centre of the
city’s life.

The most salient characteristic of the culture which developed in these
Turcoman principalities, was the survival of essentially Turkish cultural
traditions within the context of Islamic culture. Most significantly, the
Turkish language had a predominant position as a language both of the
state and of literature. We know that, at the order of these Turcoman
princes, classical Persian and Arabic works were translated into Turkish.
Creative literary activity began in the second half of the eighth/four-
teenth century with writers such as Sheykhoghlu Mustafa and Ahmedi.
In these principalities, deeds of endowment (sing., waqfiyya) were drawn
up not only in Arabic and Persian but also in Turkish. As for the works
of architecture which came into being under the beys in western
Anatolia, the two most important ones are the Great Mosque in Birgi
built in7i2/i3i2 and the mosque of Orkhan, built in Bursa in 741 /13 40.
In the second half of the century there were such other great works of
architecture as the Great Mosque in Manisa, the mosque of ‘Isa Bey in
Ayasolug (777/1375), the medrese of Ahmed Ghazi in Pechin (777/1375)
and the Green Mosque in Iznik (781/1379). These demonstrate a refined
artistic taste. In decoration these buildings are simpler than the
monuments of Seljuk architecture, while their plans also show novel
features.

273

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

C O M I N G OF T H E STEPPE PEOPLES

EXPANSION IN THE BALKANS AND ANATOLIA UNDER

ORKHAN AND MURAD

By capturing in quick succession Byzantine fortresses such as Bursa,
Iznik and Izmid, which had long been blockaded, Orkhan Ghazi, the
son and successor of ‘Osman, became pre-eminent among the beys of
the marches. Bursa fell on 2 Jumada 1726/6 April 1326. In 729/1329 the
effort made by the Emperor Andronicus III to relieve Iznik was defeated,
and the town surrendered on 21 Jumada 17 31 jz March 13 31. Andronicus
having failed to relieve Izmid, that city too fell in 738/1337.

By annexing the principality of Karasi by 746/1345, the Ottomans
became masters of the area between the gulf of Edremid and Kapi-daghi
(Cyzicus), and found themselves facing Europe. The Karasi ghauts
entered the service of Orkhan, and encouraged his energetic son,
Siileyman, appointed by his father bey of the important march of
Karasi, to extend his conquests into the Balkans (Rumeli, whence the
English term Rumelia). Umur Bey, who was at that time engaged in the
Aegean Sea with the Crusaders, had an ally in John Cantacuzenus, to
whom he recommended Orkhan. In 747/1346 Orkhan married
Theodora, daughter of Cantacuzenus, became his faithful ally, and won
the opportunity of intervening in Byzantine affairs as well as in
operations in Thrace. At this time the command of the marches was
given, in accordance with the old Turco-Mongol tradition, to
Orkhan’s eldest son, Siileyman, who then moved to Adrianople
(Edirne) in Thrace in order to help Cantacuzenus. On his way he
occupied the castle of Tzympe (Jinbi) on the isthmus of Gallipoli
(Gelibolu) and refused to evacuate this bridge-head in spite of all the
efforts and pressing requests of Cantacuzenus. By concluding an agree-
ment with the Genoese in 75 5/1354 Orkhan obtained valuable allies for
his operations in the area of the Hellespont. Siileyman strengthened his
position by moving a stream oigha^is over the Straits and capturing the
castle of Hexamilion (Eksamil) which dominated the isthmus of
Gallipoli. The great fortress of Gallipoli was thus isolated from Thrace.
The embattled front facing Gallipoli was immediately constituted under
the command of Ya’qub Eje and Ghazi Fazil who thus formed a new
march. Another was formed on the left flank, under the command of
Hajji Ilbegi and Evrenuz (Evrenos) in order to extend the conquests to
the north. Siileyman himself operated in the middle sector. In the
night of 7 Safar 755/2 March 1354, a violent earthquake brought down
the walls of Gallipoli and of other fortresses around it. These were

274

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

immediately occupied and re-fortified by the ghauts. This event, which
allowed the Ottomans to establish a permanent foothold in Europe and
opened limitless possibilities before the ghauts, caused great concern and
excitement among the Byzantines and in the Western Christian world.
The Venetian ambassador (bailo) wrote in Sha’ban 7 5 5 /August 1354 that
Constantinople was ready to accept the protection of a powerful
Christian state. Cantacuzenus, who was deemed responsible for this
turn of events, had to renounce the throne. In Europe people began to
say that a crusade had to be organized, this time not against the Aydin
dynasty in Izmir but against the Ottomans. Gallipoli became a base for
the ghauts.

When Siileyman died unexpectedly in an accident in 758/1357 his
brother Murad accompanied by his tutor was sent to the command of the
marches. In 760/1359 he launched a great offensive against Edirne,
which surrendered in 762/1361. Rumours spread in Italy that Con-
stantinople was about to fall. Under papal leadership a stimulus was
given to exchanges between the king of Hungary, the Byzantine emperor
and the Italian states with a view to organizing a crusade. By a bull dated
25 December 1366 the pope proclaimed a crusade to expel the Turks
from the Balkans. The only ruler to respond was the duke of Savoy,
Amadeus II, who led his fleet to Gallipoli and recaptured it from the
Ottomans (767/1366). The following year he handed over the castle to
the Byzantines. This, however, did not check the Ottoman advance.

Murad I (763-91/1362-89) had now succeeded Orkhan, and
threatened both the Byzantine empire and the Serbian. When the
journey of the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologus to Italy to meet
the pope and mobilize aid failed to produce results, and when the last
joint operation of the Serbian princes in Macedonia was defeated on the
Maritza (battle of Chirmen 15 Rabi’ I 773/26 September 1371), the
emperor and the rulers of the Balkans acknowledged Ottoman suzer-
ainty, one after the other. As early as 773/1372 or 774/1373 John V
realized that no hope was left, and agreed to accept the suzerainty of
Murad I, taking part in his Anatolian expeditions as an Ottoman vassal.
Later, his son Andronicus IV obtained the protection of the Ottomans,
thanks to which he succeeded to the Byzantine throne (778/1376). Then
he returned Gallipoli to the Ottomans (781/1379).

In brief, Murad had succeeded by 782/1380 in creating in Anatolia
and Rumelia an embryo empire made up of vassal principalities.
Relations with these were at first so regulated that in exchange for aid or

275

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

formal alliances the Ottomans subjected local princes to a number of
obligations which eventually turned them into Ottoman vassals. When
this process was complete, the Ottomans forced these princes and beys to
send their sons to the Ottoman court as hostages, to pay tribute, and to
participate in Ottoman expeditions with forces commanded by these
princes in person or by their sons. At the same time these vassal states
remained under the constant pressure of the beys of the marches, lest
they should escape from Ottoman dominion. The moment that they
renounced their subject status, their territories were considered ddr
al-harb, i.e. a field of battle which attracted the terrifying onslaughts of
the akinjt raiders (see below, pp. 2830″). Under Murad I, Ottoman occupa-
tion of roads and centres of population in the Balkans followed three
main directions: in the centre, the valley of the Maritza, which the
Ottomans followed, reaching the foothills of the Balkan range as early
as 767/1366 and then going on to conquer Sofia c. 787/1385 and Nish
in 788/1386; on the right the valley of the Tunja, and on the left, the south-
ern march, commanded by Evrenuz, where Serez (Serrae) was occupied
on 21 Rajab 785/19 September 1383, an event which was followed by
the beginning of the siege of Salonica. This second largest city in the
Byzantine dominions surrendered in Ramadan 789/September 1387.
Divisions and rivalries in the Balkans and attempts by Balkan states to
ally themselves to the Ottomans and win their protection, facilitated
these advances. Thus in 766-7/1365-6 the Bulgarian King Shishman,
threatened from the north by an invasion of Hungarians and of the
prince of Wallachia, and from the Black Sea by the fleet of Amadeus of
Savoy’s Crusaders, had sought safety in becoming an ally of the
Ottomans. It appears that he accepted Turkish help, as Cantacuzenus
had earlier done. Between 767/1366 and 771/1370 there are references in
chronicles to Bulgarian-Turkish co-operation and to Turkish units
fighting alongside the Bulgarians on the Danube. Let us add that Prince
Wladislaw of Wallachia also sought Ottoman help in 775/1373 when he
turned his back on the Hungarians.

The reign of Murad I also saw the expansion and consolidation of
Ottoman power in Anatolia. In 755/1354 the Ottomans had captured
Ankara, which was at that time an important economic and political
centre. This marked the start of Ottoman expansion into the former
Seljuk-Mongol area—the old Islamic hinterland, it embroiled the
Ottomans with the emir of Sivas, and with his neighbours and powerful
allies, the house of Karaman. The princes of Karaman were the most

276

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

powerful of the Turcoman frontier-beys in the south. After a long
struggle, they had established themselves firmly in the old Seljuk capital
of Konya, whence they considered themselves as heirs to the Seljuks—
sovereigns of the sultanate of Rum and suzerains of the other beys of
the marches. The Ottomans, greatly strengthened by the success of
their gha^a in the Balkans, came up against the house of Karaman with
precisely the same claim. Resistance to Ottoman overlordship was
crushed in 789/1387, when Murad I marched on Konya and won a
pitched battle there.

But while Murad was in Anatolia, there was a revolt in the Balkans
by the Serbians, whom the ruler of Bosnia joined. The Bulgarians sided
with them. Thereupon an expedition was undertaken against Shishman
the Bulgarian king in the first place. In 790/13 87 he was eliminated from
the fray, and Bulgaria was occupied. The following spring Murad
marched down to the plain of Kosova against the Serbs. The victory
which the Ottomans won (19 Jumada II 791/15 June 13 89) showed that
they were destined to stay in the Balkans as the ruling power. Murad
was mortally wounded on the battlefield and was immediately succeeded
by his son Bayezid, called Yildirtm, ‘the Thunderbolt’. To avoid a civil
war Bayezid’s brother was executed.

BAYEZID I AND THE CLASH WITH TIMUR

As soon as news was received of the death of Murad, the beys of Anatolia
revolted once again. Thereupon Baye2id immediately crossed into
Anatolia with prestige of the great victory won at Kosova. Within a year
he occupied and annexed to the empire what remained of the gha%i
principalities of western Anatolia, i.e. the principalities of Aydin,
Sarukhan and Menteshe and the remnants of those of Hamid and
Germiyan. He then marched on the prince of Karaman, and forced him
to sue for peace (793/1391)- He crushed the bey of Kastamonu, and
added his territories to the empire. However, in the area of Amasya,
further to the east, he was faced with a dangerous rival in the person of
the sultan of Sivas, Qadi Burhan al-Din. In the meantime the Wallachians,
acting under Hungarian protection, established themselves on the south
bank of the Danube in Silistre (Silistria) and in the Dobruja, while the
Byzantines reoccupied Salonica. Once again Bayezid crossed over to the
Balkans(795/i393) and annexed the Dobruja; Tirnova, Shishman’s cap-
ital, was occupied on 7 Ramadan 795/17 July 1393. He summoned all the
vassal princes of Rumelia to attend on him. His object was to underline

277

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

his rights as suzerain and to punish the Palaeologi who were gravitating
towards Venice. However, the princes succeeded in evading the
summons. Bayezid then reoccupied Salonica (19 Jumada II796/21 April
1394) and sent his aktnjt raiders into the Morea. Having done this, he
appeared before the walls of Constantinople and blockaded the city in
the hope of forcing it to surrender through the exercise of unrelenting
pressure. He then made an expedition into Hungary in order to intimi-
date the Hungarians and subdue the Wallachians. The army, which he
commanded in person, devastated southern Hungary and then entered
Wallachia, where he had a fierce battle with a Wallachian army at
Argeshe. On his way back, Bayezid crossed the Danube at Nicopolis,
and had Shishman arrested and executed. This marked the extinction of
the Bulgarian kingdom. These operations led to the formation of a
crusading army made up of groups of knights from all over western
Europe under the command of King Sigismund of Hungary. The
Crusaders came as far as Nicopolis, while the Venetian navy stood guard
over the Hellespont. Bayezid was at that time near Constantinople. He
immediately marched off, and encountered the Crusaders outside
Nicopolis, which they were besieging. The Crusaders were completely
routed (21 Dhu’l-Hijja 798/25 September 1396). This victory won the
sultan great fame as &gha%t throughout the Muslim world. Returning to
Anatolia, with this victory behind him, Bayezid occupied Konya the
following year and destroyed the state of Karaman (beginning of
800/autumn of 1397). The following year he also put an end to the state
of Qadi Burhan al-DIn around Sivas, and, entering the territory of the
Mamluks in the upper valley of the Euphrates, occupied several cities
including Malatya and Elbistan. Thus Bayezid was at one and the same
time waging war on the most powerful Muslim sultan, the Mamluk
ruler, and encroaching on Timur’s sphere of influence in eastern Anatolia
as far as Erzinjan. His pressure on Constantinople was such that the
Emperor Manuel II went himself to Europe (802/1399) m o r der to
plead for a crusade. The sultan of the ghauts in this way eliminated the
petty states of Anatolia and Rumelia and, having founded an empire
within a brief spell of time, put it in the forefront of a world-wide
struggle for power. Envoys were exchanged between Timur and the
king of France. Timur went into action, crushed Bayezld’s imperial
army, which was not yet well integrated, and captured the sultan himself
in a battle of Ankara on 27 Dhu’l-Hijja 804/28 July 1402.

Bayezid, encouraged by his victories and by the forces at his disposal,

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

had tried to transform the empire made up of vassal principalities, which
existed under Murad I, into a true empire coming under a centralized
administration. He acted with force and determination. He tried to
eliminate Hungarian influence from the Balkans. By establishing a
fortified naval base at Gallipoli he won control over the Hellespont
and challenged Venice at sea. He sought to conquer Constantinople and
make it the capital of his empire, joining Anatolia and Rumelia. While
challenging the entire Christian world, he sought from the caliph in
Egypt the official title of sultan al-Riim, as the legitimate heir to the Seljuk
possessions in Anatolia. Meanwhile, however, Tlmur had raised his
banner in the East, espousing the cause of the descendants of Chingiz
Khan, and seeking recognition of his right to rule over Anatolia and
with it over Bayezid, whom he considered as simply a bey of the
marches. After crushing Bayezid at Ankara, Tlmur revived the Anatolian
principalities and placed them under his protection against any further
Ottoman encroachments.

The nucleus of the Ottoman dominions was divided among three
brothers, Siileyman in Edirne, Mehmed in Amasya, and ‘Isa in Bursa.
These recognized Tlmur as their suzerain. Ottoman possessions in
Anatolia having now been reduced to the area which they had occupied
under Murad I, the centre of gravity of the state moved to Rumelia,
Edirne becoming from this date the main Ottoman capital. Even before
Timur died in 807/1405, a civil war started among the brothers for
possession of the two Ottoman capitals, Edirne and Bursa, and for
undivided rule over the empire. This period is known as the interreg-
num. Finally Mehmed I triumphed over his rivals and re-established the
unity of the Ottoman state U1816/1413. With this end in view Mehmed
adopted a policy of conciliating the beys, princes and local lords, who
had reappeared in Anatolia and Rumelia and, above all, of getting on
peacefully with the Byzantines. This policy forced him into important
concessions. The states in question regained some of their former
possessions and won a greater freedom of action in the face of the Otto-
man sultan. After the experience of Timur’s onslaught, the Ottomans
made a point of advancing their policy of conquest and oigha^a with
greater care, avoiding as far as possible giving rise to crusades in the west
and to a fresh intervention in Anatolia, this time by Timur’s son, Shah-
Rukh. It was only in the reign of Mehmed II the Conqueror that the
Ottomans launched an offensive policy both in the east and in the west in
order to revive the empire of Bayezid.

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

To understand why the Ottomans succeeded in re-establishing the
unity of their state, one must remember above all that Bayezid had
abandoned the traditions of the marches and had introduced the highly
developed classical Turkish-Islamic system of central government into
the administration of the state. Provincial land and population surveys,
fiscal methods developed in the Il-Khan state in Persia, a central
treasury and a bureaucracy which sought from the capital to regulate
affairs of the state throughout the provinces, were introduced or
strengthened in his reign. The system of control through the sultan’s
own slaves (sing., ghuldm, kapi-kulu), which was above all instrumental in
establishing the absolute authority of the sultan in the provinces, came
to dominate the administration in the time of Bayezid I.1 Military and
administrative commanders were chosen largely from among the
ich-oghlans (slaves educated at the sultan’s court), and even the majority
of timar fiefs in the provinces were granted to the sultan’s slaves brought
up within the ghuldm system. The military units made up of the sultan’s
slaves came to number 7,000 men. These elements helped in the re-
establishment of a centrally administered empire, for, as long as there
were rival sultans, neither the holders of timar fiefs nor members of the
kapi-kulu slave class could be certain of their positions. The rights and
influence which they had acquired could only be guaranteed by a stable
centralized administration. It is they who supported first Mehmed I and
then Murad II against his rival, Du\me Mustafa. They defended the
absolute central authority of a single sultan against the divisive
tendencies of the marches.

Furthermore, although weakened in Anatolia after Tlmiir’s incursion,
the Ottomans maintained their former strength in Rumelia. They were
then able to come back to Anatolia from the Balkans and re-establish
their supremacy.

THE OTTOMAN RECOVERY

The reign of Murad II (824-5 5/1421—51) was a time of preparation for the
extension of the empire under Mehmed II the Conqueror. When Murad
ascended the throne in Bursa, Edirne and the whole of Rumelia gave alle-
giance to his uncle Mustafa, known as Du\me, ‘the Impostor’. Mustafa
was also supported by the Byzantines, who hoped to regain Gallipoli.
In Anatolia the princes of the Germiyan and Karaman dynasties

1 Thus kapt-kulus were recruited originally from the Sultan’s share of prisoners-of-war,
and subsequently from a periodical levy (devshirme) of Christian boys. Most of the youths
entered the Janissary corps.

280

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

supported Murad’s younger brother, also called Mustafa, who was a
governor in Hamld. Like his father, Murad spent the first two years of
his reign in dangerous struggles to establish himself on his throne and
ensure the unity of his state. The beys of Anatolia did not recogni2e
him. The prince of Karaman occupied Hamld, while the bey of Kasta-
monu made himself master of the area round Tosya and Qal’ejik.
Things had returned once again to the state of affairs which had prevailed
in 804/1402. However, Murad II succeeded finally in crushing Dti^me
Mustafa. He besieged the By2antines in Constantinople as a punishment
for the support which they had given to Mustafa (Rajab 825/June 1422).
But the beys of Anatolia attacked him and established his younger
brother Mustafa as sultan in Iznik. Thereupon Murad, who had been
besieging Constantinople for fifty days with guns, crossed into Anatolia.
He had Mustafa arrested and executed. He forced the princes of Karaman
and Kastamonu into submission, obliging them to return their newly
won lands. He annexed the gba^t principalities of western Anatolia,
those of Izmir-Aydin, of Menteshe and the Teke branch of the Hamld
dynasty. Nevertheless, he followed a policy of conciliation towards the
principalities of Jandar and Karaman in so far as they were part of the
old Seljuk area of Anatolia which came under the protection of Shah-
Rukh. When the Byzantines who had regained Salonica in 805/1402,
ceded the town to Venice in 826/1423 the Ottomans started a war against
Venice. This war dragged on for a long time, from 8 26/142 3 10833/1430,
because of the weakness of the Ottoman navy, and passed through some
dangerous phases. In the meantime Hungary attempted to establish its
supremacy over Wallachia and Serbia. This led to clashes which were
ended by the truce signed for three years in 831/1428. The princes of
Wallachia, Serbia and Bosnia reaffirmed their allegiance to the sultan.
Finally Salonica was occupied in 833/1430.

Although Murad was described as a peace-loving sultan, his court
was nevertheless under the influence of people who wished to return to
the forceful policy of conquest pursued by Bayezid. Their counsels
were particularly strong between 837/1434 and 846/1442. In 837/1434
struggle was renewed with Hungary for supremacy in Serbia and
Wallachia. Benefiting from the death of King Sigismund in 841/143 7 the
sultan himself led an army into Hungary (1438). In 843/143 9 he occupied
and annexed Serbia. The following year the Ottomans made the first
attempt to gain from the Hungarians the fortress of Belgrade, which
was the gate leading to central Europe. Murad’s withdrawal from

281

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

Belgrade was a turning point. In 845/1441 and 846/1442 there were
large-scale Ottoman raids in Transylvania (Erdel). These were, however,
totally crushed by the attacks led by John Hunyadi. These Ottoman
defeats raised the hopes of Crusaders in the Christian world. The
Hungarians launched a counter-offensive. In another surprise attack
Hunyadi captured Nish and Sofia, and pressing on the last Balkan passes,
threatened Edirne. Murad II succeeded with difficulty in halting the
invading army at the battle of Izladi (Zlatica), on 1 Sha’ban 847/24
November 1443, a n d thereupon returned suddenly to a pacific and
conciliatory policy. He signed a peace with the Hungarians and with
the despot of Serbia, George Brankovic, promising to return Serbia to
him and to refrain from crossing the Danube (24 Safar 848/12 June
1444). He then made peace with the prince of Karaman, who had once
again gone over to the attack (summer 848/1444). By this agreement
Hamld was ceded to Karaman. Thinking that he had thus made peace on
all sides, he voluntarily renounced the throne in favour of his son,
Mehmed II (summer 848/1444). The king of Hungary, the Byzantine
emperor and the pope saw in this a golden opportunity, and pushed on
with their preparations for a crusade. A Hungarian-Wallachian army
crossed the Danube. At the same time the Venetian navy held the
Hellespont. However, the despot of Serbia, who had been reinstated by
the Ottomans, did not join the allies. The army of the crusaders reached
the neighbourhood of Varna. Panic broke out in Edirne. In answer to
pressing requests and petitions, Murad II came back to command the
Ottoman army. Its victory at the pitched battle of Varna (28 Rajab
848/10 November 1444) is one of the vital battles in the history not only
of the Balkans and of Byzantium, but also of Europe as a whole.
Although Hunyadi later entered the Balkans for a third time, planning
to co-operate with the Albanian, Iskender Bey (Scanderbeg); he was
again defeated at Kosova (18-21 Sha’ban 852/17-20 October 1448).
This proved to be the last effort to free the Balkans and relieve
Constantinople.

Among factors which paved the way to the conquest of Constanti-
nople, certain internal developments in the Ottoman state hold an im-
portant place. In the first phase of the reign of Mehmed II, who in
848/1444 was only twelve years old, the sultan was surrounded by a
circle of commanders thirsting for war and conquest. This group tried
to break the absolute power of the grand ve^ir Chandarh Khalil, who
came from the ‘ulemd’, and to supplant him. Chandarh succeeded, how-

282

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

ever, in retaining the support of the Janissaries, and engineered the
return to the throne of Murad II (Safar 850/May 1446). Chandarh
refrained from threatening subject-states, fearing lest this should lead
the Ottomans into adventures similar to those of 848/1444. When
Murad II died on 1 Muharram 855/3 February 1451, Mehmed II, who
was then nineteen years of age, ascended the Ottoman throne for a
second time. Power then passed to his governors Shihab al-Din
Shahin Pasha and Zaganuz Pasha, both of them advocates of further
conquests, who had already tried to persuade Mehmed II to attempt the
conquest of Constantinople in 848/1444. The young sultan and his
entourage needed a great victory in order to reaffirm their power and
their influence against the grand ve^tr. Preparations were immediately
put in hand for the siege of Constantinople.

FACTORS IN THE OTTOMAN CONQUESTS

The Ghazis and the Akinjis

The Holy War or gba^a was the foundation stone of the Ottoman
state. The tradition of the ghauts of the marches, which lay at its origin,
dominated all its history, and constituted the fundamental principle of
its policies and its organization. The concept of thegba^a stimulated great
initiatives and endeavours, and, later, attempts at renewal; it inspired both
individuals and society. The Ottomans took in all seriousness the duty
of protecting and extending Islam, and even tried to justify their claim
to sovereignty over the whole Islamic world, by the argument that they
alone were carrying out that duty.

For ghauts in the marches, it was a religious duty to ravage the countries
of the infidels who resisted Islam, and to force them into subjection.
The only way of avoiding the onslaughts of the ghazis was to become
subjects of the Islamic state. Non-Muslims could then enjoy the status
of dhimmis, living under its protection. Most Christian sources confuse
these two stages in the Ottoman conquests. The Ottomans, however,
were careful to abide by these rules, and this helped in the expansion of
their empire. Faced with the terrifying onslaught of the ghauts, the
population living outside the confines of the empire, in the ‘ abode of
war’, often renounced the ineffective protection of Christian states, and
sought refuge in subjection to the Ottoman empire. Peasants in open
country in particular lost nothing by this change. The institutions and
traditions of the marches which existed at the time of ‘Osman Ghazi
lived on in Ottoman history, moving, however, to new frontiers. Later

283

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

ghauts became known as ahnjis (raiders) and the old term uj (march) gave
place to serhadd (frontier), but the concepts remained unchanged. An
investigation into them can give us a clearer picture of the old marches.

From the point of view of organization the sanjaks (provinces) of the
marches differed considerably from those of the interior. This was
particularly true in the eighth/fourteenth and ninth/fifteenth centuries.
In Uskiip, for example, the free sipahi cavalry was loyal to the person of
the bey of the march. These beys of the marches were often descendants of
the original frontier leaders and they formed dynasties such as the houses
of Evrenuz, Mikhal, Turakhan and Malkoch, which inherited their
sanjaks and ruled them more or less independently. We have already
mentioned that they could at times receive tribute from foreign states.
They disposed of vast properties in freehold or in waqj. Each of these
main leaders, who enjoyed great power and renown in the marches,
became a subject of legends, and epic poems were written about their
exploits. The troops of these great beys of the marches in the Balkans
were known by the names of their leaders as late as the tenth/sixteenth
century. The aktnjts of the right flank were known as Mikbalhs, those of
the left flank as Turakhanhs. Seven thousand of the latter were active in
the Morea in 966/15 59. Under Murad II (824-5 5/1421-51) the Ottoman
sultan began to appoint his personal slaves to commands in the
marches, a custom which had existed under the Seljuks.

As for the ghauts themselves, known now under their new name of
aktnji, these in the eighth/fourteenth century consisted largely of
volunteers (sing., goniUlu”) who had come from Anatolia, drawn by the
prospect of warfare and of booty or by the hope of gaining a fief for
themselves. These aktnjts were, unlike the o\Aghauts, a kind of auxiliary
militia. We know also that nomad yuriiks, and Christian voynuks and
martolos (Greek: armatolos, armed irregulars) were enrolled as aktnjts for
service in the frontier areas, and that they were used for intelligence and
other purposes in enemy territory. The aktnjts normally set off on an
expedition with two horses. The weapons of the aktnjts, who constituted
a kind of light cavalry, were a sword, a shield, a scimitar, a lance and a
mace. The akinjts were formed in units of tens, hundreds and thousands.
Their officers were known as tovija and were rewarded with fiefs (sing.,
timar). They were commanded by a sanjak beyi known as the bey of the
akinjts. In the tenth/sixteenth century the duties of the aktnjis on an
expedition were to penetrate into enemy territory ahead of the main army
and destroy the enemy’s preparations, to carry out raids, to destroy the

284

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

enemy’s sources and routes of supply, to open roads for the Ottoman
army, to check bridges and roads which the army had to cross, and to
capture prisoners for intelligence purposes. From the end of this century
raids became more difficult and, therefore, less frequent in central
Europe. From then on Crimean auxiliaries came only when an expedition
was in progress and carried out the duties of ahnjis. The organization
of the akinjis was thus considerably weakened. In 1034/1625 there were
only two or three thousand left.

During the early stage of Ottoman history when the Ottoman state
could still be considered a frontier principality, the marches played an
important part in home politics. Ottoman beys of the marches or
members of the ruling house might well have established independent
principalities in the Balkans, following the example of the other frontier
principalities. However, faced as they were with particularly strong
enemies in the Balkans, the Ottoman beys of the marches needed the help
which only the central government could provide. What is more, the
Ottoman sultans were always personally active on the field of the
gha^a. Thanks to the bejlerbeyi organization and the force of the
sultan’s own retainers or slaves {kapi-kulus) the Ottoman sovereigns
had the practical means of exerting their authority. Bayezid both as a
gtesLtgba^i himself and thanks to his kapi-kulu forces, was fully master of
the marches. After his death, when his sons and grandsons struggled for
power, the marches once again came to the fore. Contenders who could
gain the support of the hereditary beys of the ahnjis in the marches could
become masters of all Ottoman possessions in the Balkans. They could
then ascend the throne in Edirne which had become the main royal
residence since 80 5 /1402. Musa Chelebi, who had been closely associated
with the ahnjis in his father’s lifetime, utilized their help to defeat
his brother Siileyman in the Balkans, and this allowed him to gain the
throne (22 Shawwal 813/17 February 1411). His first action was to
appoint to the dignity of beylerbeyi the famous bey of the ahnjis Mikhal-
oghlu. Since the time of Orkhan the function of beylerbeyi had been
given to the sultan’s slaves and this allowed the central government to
maintain its authority over the sipahi cavalry and the marches in the
Balkans. There was always jealousy, open or hidden, between the
beylerbeyis, who stood for the interests of the central authority, and the
beys of the marches. The appointment of Mikhaloghlu meant that
the bey of the ahnjis was in control of all the military forces in the
Balkans. From their side the ahnjis, and their officers, the tovijas, viewed

285

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

with jealousy the sipahis who had rich timars in the interior. Mikhaloghlu
and the chief judge (qddi ‘asker) Shaykh Badr al-Din, who was
known for his extreme views, granted fiefs in the interior to many
aksnjis from the Dobruja. Nonetheless, Musa continued the tradition of
appointing his own slaves to key positions to counteract the influence
of the beys of the marches. At the death of Mehmed I (824/1421), his
brother, Dii^me Mustafa became master of the Balkans and of Edirne,
largely through the support of the house of Evrenuz. To outweigh this,
Murad released Mikhaloghlu, who had been imprisoned in Tokat after
the fall of Musa, and with his help succeeded in winning over the beys
of the marches and eliminating his rival. Under Murad II the refusal of
Turakhan, a powerful bey of the marches, to obey the beylerbeyi of Rumeli
was one of the factors which led to Murad’s abdication. In 1444 a
pretender to the throne named Orkhan went from Istanbul to the
Dobruja, where he tried to organize a rebellion of the forces in the
marches. Mehmed the Conqueror, as a great gha\i himself, was able to
dominate the marches, and attach them to the central government.

Expansion in Byzantine and Balkan territories

When the Ottomans appeared as a dynamic unifying force amidst the
anarchy of the Balkans, Byzantine territories and the Balkans were prey
not only to political but also to deep social and religious divisions.
Qvil wars and the absence of a central authority had allowed local lords
in the provinces to strengthen their hold over the land and to subject
the peasantry to a more or less arbitrary regime. The Byzantine adminis-
tration struggled hopelessly to free from the grasp of these lords the
estates which it wished to see returned to central control. This struggle
over land between the central government and local lords was undoubt-
edly one of the main problems of Balkan history. Serfs tied to the land
had to pay the lord a tax on produce as well as render free service in com-
pulsory corvees. These services included the provision of firewood and
hay, and free labour with oxen two or three days a week. When Ottoman
administration was established, there was almost a social revolution
through the application of the following principles: first, all
agricultural land passed to the overriding ownership of the state, in
other words the state established close control over the land. Land
which thus passed to the state became known as miri land. Secondly, all
local feudal rights which limited the state’s control over the land and the
peasants were abolished. Local manorial rights were eliminated. The

286

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

rights of local lords and, in some cases, of monasteries to exact forced
labour from the peasants, and all similar privileges were suppressed.
The Ottoman administration was always and everywhere opposed to the
corvit system. The obligation to transport firewood and hay, and to
work manorial estates, was replaced by a tax, known as plough dues
(chift resmi) amounting to 22 aspers. The commutation of feudal service,
which could easily be abused, into an easily payable fixed monetary tax
was a major social reform. In addition, it was in principle forbidden to
compel the peasants to any service. In brief, the Ottoman regime
represented a strong and impartial central administration which
extended to the peasants effective protection against feudal lords.

It is true that at the same time the Ottoman invasion deprived the
Balkan peoples of their national cultural institutions and of the ruling
class which embodied them. The Ottomans incorporated in the timar
fief-system the local Balkan aristocracy which adhered to them. They
left it part of its old lands, which these local nobles continued to hold
in the changed capacity of holders oitimars. In this way they entered the
ruling group and came under the close control of the new empire,
becoming in time ottomanized. Some of the more important noblemen
tried, however, to preserve their position during the Ottoman conquest
by relying for help on the Western Catholic world, and eventually fled to
the West. Even before the conquest of Constantinople, the Ottomans
appeared as protectors of the Church, and considered the Greek
Orthodox ecclesiastical organization as part of their administrative
system. Greek Orthodox archbishops were granted timars. The struggle
between Greek Orthodox and Catholics in the Balkans was founded on
deep-rooted social causes. It is an historical commonplace that the
popular masses, fanatically attached to Greek Orthodoxy in Byzantine
territories, preferred the Ottomans to Latin Catholics, and disowned
their own ruling class and aristocracy which tried to unite with the
Catholics. The ruler of Bosnia complained in 1463 to the pope that the
peasants seemed to favour the Ottomans, who treated them well and
promised them freedom. In any case, we know that the Balkan
peasantry did not support the local feudal lords against the Ottomans,
with whom, on the contrary, they sometimes co-operated.

Attempts to describe the conquests made by Anatolian Turks in
western Anatolia and the Balkans as a large-scale movement of popu-
lation have been borne out by recent research in the Ottoman archives.
This movement of population not only modified the ethnic composition

287

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

of the territories in which it occurred, but almost inevitably stimulated
further conquests.

Population registers for the provinces (sanjaks) of Aydin and of Thrace
in the middle of the ninth/fifteenth century show that the overwhelming
majority (eighty to ninety per cent) of the population of these areas was
already by that time made up of Muslim Turks. It appears therefore that
Byzantine sources do not exaggerate when they say that the Turks came
to settle in masses. After moving into the Balkans, the Ottomans
encouraged immigration into the newly conquered territories where they
transferred nomads en masse. This old system of transfer of population,
known as siirgiin or ‘exile’, had already been used on a large scale by the
Seljuks. Nomad Turks who were known in the Balkans by the name of

yiirtik (yoriik), were especially numerous in the districts which lay in the
path of the conquering armies and in the marches, Waqf deeds and reg-
isters of the ninth/fifteenth century show also that there was a wide move-
ment of colonization of western Anatolian peasantry settling in Thrace
and the eastern Balkans and founding hundreds of new villages. The
newly arrived Muslim Turks did not usually mix with Christian peasants,
but settled in their own villages. Villages which kept their old names
and where the population was mixed were usually old Byzantine villages
converted to Islam. Muslims were also settled in cities which had put up
resistance to the Ottomans. These soon became Muslim cities. For
example the frontier town of Oskiip (Skopje) which was captured in
793/1391 had by 859/1455 twenty-two Muslim quarters as against only
eight Christian ones. But the cities which surrendered remained in
most cases Christian. This widespread wave of Turkish emigration to
western Anatolia and the Balkans coincided with the conquests of the
eighth/fourteenth century. A fresh wave was set off by the conquests of
Timur. It appears that emigration slowed down in the second half of
the fifteenth century, since we do not see similar concentrations of new
settlers in Serbia, Albania and the Morea.

As new conquests were added, the area of the marches moved forward.
During the reign of Bayezld I (791-806/13 89-1403) the march of the
Dobruja and Deliorman, centred on Silistria, faced Wallachia (Eflak)
and Moldavia (Boghdan); the march of Vidin faced Serbia and Hungary;
the march of Oskiip faced Bosnia, Serbia and Albania; and, finally the
march of Tirkhala (Trikkala) faced Epirus and the Morea. After the
conquest of Serbia and Bosnia, Semendere and Saray-Bosna (Sarajevo)
became the centres of the marches facing Hungary. After the conquest

288

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

of Hungary the marches moved again, this time to the sanjaks bordering
on Habsburg territory. In Albania, Avlonya (Valona) was the centre of
the march facing Italy. The islands of the Aegean, the Morea and the old
maritime #&<££/" principalities of western Anatolia were the marches of the sailor ghauts of the Mediterranean. These pushed their operations as far as the western Mediterranean, and turned Algeria and Tunisia into a fresh march as a base for expeditions against the Spanish monarchy, which had driven the Muslims from Spain, and against Spanish posses- sions in Italy. Such is the brief history of the role of the marches in the expansion of the Ottoman empire.

Expansion in Muslim Anatolia

The concepts of the gha^a and the marches were applied by the
Ottomans not only to conquests of infidel territory, but also to expansion
within the confines of the Islamic world. When they annexed the Turco-
man principalities of Anatolia, by peaceful means, by threats, or, when
necessary, by war, they granted to the former beys, as a general
rule, rich timars in the Balkans. This often enabled the Ottomans to
annex the beys’ territories without a struggle. In any case, religion
forbade a Muslim, and particularly zghd^f, to use arms on another Muslim
(Qur’an, 4. 90). The reputation of the Ottomans as ghauts was
vulnerable to criticism in the case of wars waged against other Muslims.
The Ottomans therefore tried to pass off as licit acts annexations achieved
through pressure and threats. The Ottomans argued, for example, that
they had acquired through canonically licit ways the lands of the houses
of Hamid and Germiyan which were a bone of contention between them
and the house of Karaman. The latter refused of course to countenance
the acquisition by the Ottomans of centres like Ankara and the land of
Hamid, formerly a part of the sultanate of Konya. The struggle between
the houses of Karaman and of’Osman revolved, in the main, round this
territory.

As a general rule, whenever they wanted to wage war on Karaman or
any other Muslim state, the Ottomans did not neglect to provide them-
selves with a legal ruling (fetvd; Arabic,/atow) from the ‘ulemd’ demon-
strating that their actions were in accordance with the Sbari’a and
therefore licit. It was thus argued that it was canonically mandatory to
wage war against those who attacked them in the rear while they were
engaged in a gha^a against the infidels. The house of Karaman and
others were thus proclaimed rebels against religion. This view recurs

289

COMING OF THE STEPPE PEOPLES

constantly in Ottoman sources. In 848/1444 Murad II obtained from
the independent ‘ulama’ of Egypt a fatwd proclaiming to the Muslim
world and particularly to Timur’s successor, Shah-Rukh, the legality of
the expedition against Karaman which he was about to launch. The
Ottomans insisted in particular that the house of Karaman collaborated
with the Christians, a fact which is confirmed by Western sources.

The second direction of Ottoman expansion in Anatolia followed the
Persian silk road. Not content with the capture of Ankara they used that
city as well as the city of Bolu as a base for operations aimed ostensibly
at protecting the weak emirs of the region of Tokat and Amasya, lying to
the east of them, against the pressure of Qadi Burhan al-Din in
Sivas. When Murad I crossed over to the Balkans for an expedition
against Serbia in 790/1388, Burhan al-Din’s commanders argued that a
golden opportunity had presented itself for an offensive against the
Ottomans. However, the Qadi rejected their advice saying that it was
tantamount to weakening Islam and strengthening the infidels. Never-
theless, when Murad I was killed on the battlefield of Kosova, as soon as
news of it reached Anatolia, Qadi Burhan al-Din had Muruvvet Bey
capture Kirshehir, while Karaman regained Beyshehir, and the house of
Germiyan the territory which it had lost to the Ottomans.

For political reasons the Ottoman sultans attached the greatest
importance to safeguarding and strengthening the reputation which
they enjoyed as ghauts in the Muslim world. When they won victories in
the gba%a in the Balkans they used to send accounts of them (sing.,
feth-name) as well as slaves and booty to eastern Muslim potentates.
Knights captured by Ytldtrtm Bayezid I at his victory over the Crusaders
at Nicopolis in 798/1396, and sent to Cairo, Baghdad and Tabriz were
paraded through the streets, and occasioned great demonstrations in
favour of the Ottomans. This widespread fame as ghauts was the source
of extensive political advantages to the Ottomans. For example,
Timur’s entourage long resisted launching an attack on the sultan of the
ghauts. When TImur defeated the Ottoman sultan in 804/1402, he
himself felt the need of waging a token gba^a by capturing Izmir from
the Crusaders. In a letter written some time before 1420 Mehmed I
emphasizes his title as gha^i in order to parry the threats of Shah-Rukh,
and says that he is about to set off on a gha^a against the infidels. In a
letter sent to Shah-Rukh justifying his expedition against Karaman,
Murad II argues that the latter had impeded the gha^a by attacking him
from the rear.

290

EMERGENCE OF THE OTTOMANS

In the feth-name which he sent to the sultan of Egypt after his great
victory in Constantinople, Mehmed the Conqueror concedes to him the
duty of’ reviving the obligation of the Pilgrimage’, reserving for himself
that of being the only king to ‘ fit out the people waging the holy wars of
gha^a zndjihad’-1 Thegha^a became so important as a source of political
influence and power in the Muslim world that other Muslim kings also
tried to gain the title of gha%i, e.g. Timiir and Uzun Hasan. But
none of them could compare in stature with the Ottoman sultans
who fought for Islam in ceaseless wars in Europe, the Mediterranean
and the Indian Ocean. This is why as the Christian threat grew for the
Muslim countries of Asia, the influence and the power of the Ottomans
increased proportionately in the Muslim world. The Ottomans did not
fail to make the most of this. In Asia as in Europe, the gha%a was the
main factor in Ottoman expansion.

1 Feridun, Munsha at al-saldfin (Istanbul, 1274), I, 256.

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

HIST 113

Islamic Civilization

Source: Hodgson, The Venture of Islam

Source: Rashid al-Din, Jami’ al-Tavarikh (Universal History) (14th century)
The Ilkhan Ghazan converts to Islam

Timur (Tamerlane)
1336-1405

Timur’s Mausoleum, Samarqand

Source: Lewis, Islam and the Arab World

Source: Tarihvemedeniyet.org

“Ten Sultans” Thesis
Ottoman Sultans (1299-1566)
Osman I (1299-1324) Murad II (1421-44; 1446-51)
Orhan (1324-62) Mehmed II (1444-46; 1451-81)
Murad I (1362-89) Bayezid II (1481-1512)
Bayazid I (1389-1402) Selim I (1512-1520)
Mehmed I (1413-21) Sulaiman I (1520-66)

Ulou Mosque, Bursa
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Interior of Ulou Mosque, Bursa
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Source: Hodgson, The Venture of Islam

Janissaries
Jeni cheri : “new troops”
Christian captives recruited and educated through devshirme system
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Stanislaw Chlebowski, “Imprisonment of Bayezid” (1878)

Mehmed the Conqueror
(r. 1444-46,1451-81)
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Hagia Sophia
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Expansion of the Ottoman Empire
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Safavid Iran

HIST 113

Islamic Civilization

Source: Historical Atlas of the Middle East

Source: University of Texas Map Collection

Shah Ismaʿil

(r.1501-1524)

Maydan-i Shah, Isfahan

Scene from the Houghton Shahnama
Source: Welch, Persian Painting

Source: Grabar, Mostly Miniatures
Scene from the Houghton Shahnama

Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Shah ‘Abbas Fighting the Uzbeks, fresco, 16th century
Source: Hattstein and Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ history. some one refund down payment I need some one to do it ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now