Halil Inalcrk

ESSAYSIN

OTTOMAN HISTORY

E EREN

"I believe we have to consider first whether the Ottomansthemselves divided their history into periods, whether theywere conscious of a distinction between the age in whichthey lived and earlier ages, and what ideas they had aboutperiods in history. "

*100-03295*

Essavs in Ottoman History

EREN Tef: (212)2520561

llllllllllilllilllllllllillilllllllllllllffi lilllil i

ililil||ilil fiil ilil ililil fiililil ilil|il ililil iltil ilililil tit|

*975-7622-58-3*

I

I

Contents

Preface

Part I Historiography

1 Periods in Ottoman History ... . 15

2 How to Read'Ashrk Pasha-zade's History.. ........31

Part II Sultans and Policies

1 'Ogmdn Ghizi's Siege of Nicaea and The Battle of Bapheus ...5 5

2 Mehmed The Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time . . . . . 8 7

3 Decision making in the Onoman State .. I t 54 The R[znamge Registers of the Kadrasker of Rumeli as

preserved in the Istanbul Miifti.iliik Archives . 1255 Islamization of ottoman laws on land and land tax . .... 155

6 Tax collection, embezzlement and bribery inOttomanfinances ....17j

7 The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch

under the Ottomans . ..... . 195

Part III Society and Economy

I Islam in the Ottoman Empire .2292 Istanbul: an Islamic City ...... 2473 Ottoman Galata, 1453- 1553 ... 2i I

4 Greeks in Ottoman Economy and Finances , 1453-1500 . . . . . 37 5

5 "Arab" Camel Drivers in Western Anatoliain the fifteenth century .... 389

6 The Question of the Closing of the Black Sea

under the Ottomans..... . 4l I

Preface

In this volume are collected papers published between 1960 and 1994,dealing with early Ottoman history and historiography, and Ottoman urbanand legal history.

In Article I-1 an attempt is made to ascertain periods in Ottoman history.After a brief review of the ideas of Ottoman historians themselves on thistheme, the article proposes a division on the basis of an analytical approach.This takes account of the state of equilibrium established between theOttoman Empire and foreign powers, the changes in the ruler's authoritywithin the empire, and the functioning of the system of land-tenure uponwhich the military, financial and social institutions of the empire relied.Written thirty years ago this paper has to be modified or totally replaced by anew essay in the light of investigations made since then.

Article I-2 is an essay examining the life and work of the most importantOttoman chronicler of the first two centuries of Ottoman history. Whencritically used the work provides authentic and substantial information, evenfor the early years of the Ottoman state. It is a mistake to dismiss altogetherthese traditions on the assumption that everything in them is pure legend, as

has been believed by some recent authors (see Article II-l in this volume). Onthe other hand, 'Ashik Pashazade's interpretation of the events of his ownage is strongly colored or distorted by his prejudices and interests. In thisessay I tried to show some of the personal interests and biases which affectedhis history.

In Article II-l the Greek and Ottoman accounts of 'Osman's siege ofNicaea and the ensuing battle of Bapheus are analyzed comparatively.Although totally ignored or misinterpreted by historians this event is the mostimportant in early Ottoman history, clearly responsible for Osman'sappearance as a charismatic leader in the Bithynia frontier region and for thefoundation of the Ottoman dynasty.

In Article Il-2 a detailed critical review is made of Franz Babinger's book,Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit, Weltenstiirmer einer Zeitenwende,considered as the definitive account of the Conqueror's history. In thisreview the important sources neglected by the author are noted, his

HALIL INRI.CM

interpretations discussed and mistakes in chronology shown, (in the Englishversion of this work references are made to this article by the ffanslator).

In Article II-3 the decision-making process in Ottoman government

meetings as well as the ruler's actual position in the process are discussed.

The important question as to what extent the consolidation of independently

organized groups of bureaucrats, ulema or soldiery as well as established

customs or law-codes provided a check on the independent or arbitrary orders

of the Sultan is examined.In Article II-4 kadi-ship, the paramount institution in the Ottoman

administration system, is examined in its various aspects including ranks and

the procedure of assignments as well as conflicts within the group. All this indone on the basis of the original appointment lists of the kadraskers preserved

in the archives of the shaykhulislamate, Istanbul Mtiftiiltifti.Article II-5 asks the question why, during Suleyman I's reign, an attempt

was made to reinterpret and adjust Ottoman laws on landholding and taxation

to the shar'i principles established by the authoritative jurists of the second

century of Islam. Eb0ssu'0d argues that the appropriation by individuals ofthe state-owned (mtrt) lands is illegal, and the attempt to create new sources

of revenue for the state treasury by raising the rate of tithes from 8 percent to

5 percent was made because of the khara$i nature of the miri lands. Thus,the reasons for the islamization of Ottoman state laws under Suleyman the

Lawgiver are examined.

Article II-6 is an inquiry on the basis of an official report of the

malpractices committed by the defterdar of Syria. Employing a set ofdocuments we attempted also to explain the struggle between the Ottomanadministration and the Druze chieftains for control of the fiscal and economicresources of the Mountain of Lebanon.

Article II-7 reexamines the theory that under the Ottomans the Greek

Qrthodox Patriarch enjoyed an autonomous position, representing the Greeknation with full religious, judicial and administrative powers. With a revisionof this theory our study attempts to correct this highly exaggerated theory,showing that the Patriarch was closely dependent on the Sultan for his acts

outside religious affairs, and that the Christians, having the status of dhimmi,were the direct subjects of the sultan.

Article III-1 is a brief essay on the islamization of the Turks in general,

and on Islam in Asia Minor in particular. A bibliographical essay is added tothis new edition covering the period from the early Turkish conversion toIslam in East Europe and Central Asia.

Article III-2 is an attempt to show what measures Mehmed the Conquerortook to rebuild the conquered city of Constantinople and whether or not the

PERIODS IN OTTOMAN HISTORY

typical Islamic city had a ground plan with well-defined urban sections

determined by Islamic concepts and traditions.In Article III-3, first with an analysis of the ahdnlme, the document of the

surrender of Genoese Galata to the Ottoman state, misinterpretations made on

the nature of this act by western historians are corrected. In the second part ofthe paper the process by which the Genoese city was transformed into an

Ottoman one is discussed, mainly on the basis of the original Ottomandocuments.

Article lll/4 describes, on the basis of the archival documentation, the

important roles the Greek subjects of the Sultan played in the economy and

finances of the empire. An interesting observation is that during the Ottomanperiod members of the Byzantine aristocracy continued their pre-Ottomanactivities as tax-farmers.

In Article III-5 a detailed investigation is made of the origin and

organization of a group called "Arab boghurdjular", Arab camel drivers, (read

as Azebs in Barkan) in western Anatolia. Ottoman archival evidence and

anthropological data suggest that these "Arabs" might originally have been a

mixed population of Arabs, Turcomans and other ethnic groups, rearingcamels and employed by the Ottoman government under a specialorganization in the transport service of heavy goods, principally salt, in the

region.Article III-6 examines, again in light of the Ottoman archival materials,

how and exactly when the Ottomans established complete control of the

Straits and the Black Sea traffic.In Collecting these articles here in one volume, no attempt has been made

to revise them except to add a few necetlary footnotes. While in the originalof some of the articles terms and personal names are rendered intransliteration alphabets in others modern Turkish spelling is followed.

Here is a list of the original editions.

I-l: "Periods in Ottoman History", Published for the first time in thisvolume.

l-2: "How to Read 'Ashtk Paga-zade's History" Studies in. OttomanIlistory in Honour of Profe.tsor V.L. Mdnage, edited by ColinHeywood and Colin Imber, Istanbul: Isis Press, 1994,, 139-156.

II- 1 : "Osmdn GhazT' s Siege of Nicaea and the Battle of Bapheus" , The

Ottoman Emi rate ( I 3 00 - I 3 89 ), ed. Elizabeth Zachariadou, Rethymnon:Crete University Press, 1993, 77 -98.

ro HALIL Nnrcrc

rr-2: "Mehmed the conqueror (1432-r4gl) and His time,,, speculttm,xxxv (1960), 408_427.

II-3: "Decision Making in the Ottoman State", Decision Making anclChange in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Caesar E. Farah, Kirksville: TheThomas Tefferson University press, 1993, 9_l g.

rl-4: "The RDznlmge Registers of the Kadrasker ofPreserved in the Istanbul Miifti.iltik Archives", TLrcice,251-27 5 .

II-5: "Islamization of Ottoman LawsFestgabe an Josef Matuz: OsmanistikC. Fragner and K. Schwarz, Berlin:r00-1 16.

II-6: "Tax collection, Embezzlement and Bribery in ottomanFinances", The Turkish studies Association Bulletin, 16. (l gg2).

II-7: "The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans".Turcica, XXI-XXil ( I 991), 407 -436.

ilI-1: "Islam in the ottoman Empire",, cultura Turcica, 5-7 (196g-1970), tg-29.

lrr-2: "Istanbul: an Islamic City", Journal of Islamic Studies, I (1990),l-23.

III-3 : "Ottoman Galata, | 453-t553", P remibre Rencontre Internationalesur l'Empire ottomen et la Turquie Moderne, ed. Edhem Eldem,Istanbul-Paris: (1991 ), 1 7- I 05.

III-4: "Greeks in ottoman Economy and Finances, 14s3-1500",To E'4ANIK2I{: studies in Honor of speros vryonis, Jr., vol. II.Byzantinoslavica, Armenica, Islamica, the Balkans and ModernGreece, J.S. Allen et alia, New Rochelle- New York: A.D. Caratzas1993, 307 -3tg .

UI-5: "Arab Camel Drivers in Western Anatolia in the Fifteenthcentury" , Revue de Histoire Maghrebine, xl3l-32 (Tunis, 1983) , z4j -270.

III-6: "The ouestion of the Closing of the Black Sea under theOttomans" , Arkheion Pontou,35 (Athens, l97g),74-1I0.

Rumeli as

xx (1988),

on Land and Land Taxatior",-Turkologie- Diplomatik, eds.

Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1992,

Periods in Ottoman History

I believe we have to consider first whether the Ottomans themselves dividedtheir history into periods, whether they were conscious of a distinctionbetween the age in which they lived and earlier ages, and what ideas they hadabout periods in history.

In the prologue to the elaborate history which he wrote at the command ofBayezid II, Kemal Pashazade compares the Ottoman history with earlierMoslem dynasties and sums up under three heads, viicuh-i rilchan,'thereasons frrr their superiority'.t First, he says, the Ottomans unlike otherMoslem dynasties, came to power not through the violent overthrow of olderMoslem states within the Islamic community, but through the conquest ofterritories pertaining to the infidel world, the Dar ul-Harb. Secondly, in theOttoman state the authority of the sovereign and the validity of the laws arecomplete and absolute. Thirdly, the Ottoman state is richer, more populousand more extensive than all others. No other state possesses the militarypower of the Ottomans; the Ottomans have powerful artillery and a greatmaritime power; the aims of the Ottoman Sultan are'tedblr-i'imaret-i ruy-izemln' to make the face of the world to flourish', to destroy the foes of thetrue Faith, and to uphold the Holy Law.

In popular works such as 'Ashik Pashazade's history and the anonymousTewarrkh-i ALi 'Ogman, we find the ideas of a distinction between differentperiods expressed in a more subjective fashion. In the AnonymousChronicles2, for example, we firrd in the reign of Bayezid I (1389-1402) quitea violent expression of the reaction of the classes upholding the traditions ofthe Ucbeyligi, -the Principality of the Marches- against the imperialcenlralist policies of the Sultan.

These chronicles contan bitter criticisms of the elaboration of the courtceremonial and the development of a centrahzed administration, and of theadoption of various "Frankish" customs which occurred during Bayezid'sreign. These criticisms contrast sharply the'new'period with the period that

I Kemal Pashazade, Tevarlh-i Al-i Osmdn, Defter I, ed. $eraf'ettin Turan, Ankara 1970similar points are made by pseudo- RUhi, Oxford Bodleian Library, Marsh 313.

2 Tawarikh-i Al-i 'Osmdn (Die alt osmanischen amonynten Chroniken), ed. F. Giese,Breslau 1922,30; a more complete text: Topkapr Sarayr Mtizesi Kiittiphanesi, M.R.700.

How to Read 'Ashrk Pasha-zade's History

I. Notes on 'Ashrk Pasha-zide's Life and Work

In his chronicle 'Ashrk Pasha-zade (hereafter Agpz.) gives his genealogy as"Dervish Alrmed 'Ashrki, son of Yahya, son of Selman, son of Bali, son of'Ashrk Pasha, son of Mukhlis Pasha, son of Baba llyas, who was one of thekhallfus of Ab[' I -W'afa"'. I

We have Agpz.'s signature at the bottom of the miilkname of Hadji Begdated 1 Rabi'I,891/12January 14912 as "Fakhr al-Mashayikh Ahmed b.'Ashrk Pasha". In the document, before his name, we find the name ofSeyyid Welayet rendered as "'umdat al-Awlad al-Rasul Mawlana SeyyidWelayet bn Al-Seyyid Alrmad bn Al-Seyyid AbLr 'l-Wafa'al-Baghdadi". Thename of the \adi'asker Mawlana Wildan Efendi precedes their names. Thisdocument is a definitive proof that Agpz. was still alive on that date. A$pz.says that members of his family are all called 'Ashrki, and were all born andlived in the territory under the Ottoman sultans, and the Ottoman dynastyalways extended their favors to them.

The zaviye of Elvan Qelebi3 at Mecidcizi.i near Qorum, where Agpz. wasborn and lived in his youth, was located in the area of Mehmed Qelebi's

I t am using Qiftgio$lu N. Atsrz' edition in his collection of early Ottoman chronicles,Osmanlt Tarihleri, Istanbul: Ttirkiye Yayrnevi 1949, 91 ff; in his edition Atsrzcombined earlier editions by 'Ali, 'AS,k PaSa-z.ude Tarihi,Istanbul 1332H., and F.Giese, Die altosmanische Chronik des 'Aiiq paiaz.ade, Leipzig 1929; cf . idem, "Dieverschiedenen Textrezensionen des ASiq pa5azade bei seinen Nachfblgern undAusschreibern", Abh. der Preuss. Ak. der Wiss., Phil.-Ilist. Klasse, Nr. 4; since none ofthe editions are satisfactory a new critical edition with appropriate emendations isabsofutely necessary (here are some examples of misreadings: "Makam oldu dene AllahuEkber" (Atstz, 96) (dene > dlne); "Gerekdtir yir u hemdem i mtinasib" (p.98) (miinasib> musahib); "Bunun iistadrnt buldumdu hakdan" (buldmtdt > bildinuli); "Osrnan Gaziyerlti yerinde kondt" (p. 105) (kondt> kod); "Bu Tatdr'a gerge and verdiik" (p. 108),editions skipped over the phrase "ammd Tatar and bekler ta'ife olmaz" (cf. Neshri, Unat-Kdymen ed. 124). M. F. Koprtilii, "Agrk Paga-zdde", isldrn Ansiklopeclisi, I.summarized what was known by his time about Agpz.'s lif'e.

2 The fine original roll with Bayazid II's gold tttgltra is now in my possession. I purchasedit from Cahit Oztelli about twenty five years ago. I am preparing it for publication: seethe photos of the beginning and the end of the document in the Appenclix.

3 O:r Elvan Qelebi and his zaviye see is^ldnt Ansiklopedisi (thereafter iA1,70l-708; SemaviEyice, "Qorum'un Meciddzti'nde Agrk Paga-oglu Elvan Qelebi Zdviyesi", Tiirkiyat

'Ogman Ghazr's Siege of Nicaea andThe Battle of Bapheus

During the period 1075-1086 Nicaea became the capital city of the Seldjukidruler Stileymanshah I, founder of the Seldjukid Sultanate of Anatolia.l Lostto the Byzantines as a result of the siege by the crusaders from the west in1097 its re-conquest remained a constant concern for the Seldjukids.Seldjukid rule was restored in Nicaea in 1105, but the city was lost again inca. 1147 to the Byzantines.

The 'dry Eskigehir plain where Turcomans were pushed back nowbecafire a frontier between Byzantines and Seldjukids. Pastoralist Turcomansneeded the hilly country with good mountain pasturelands beyond theborderline and quite often penetrated with their herds into the Byzantineterritory. Against them Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143-11S0) built orreinforced fortresses on the border including Karaca-Hisar on a mound justthree kilometer from Eskiqehir. However, the crushing Seldjukid victory at

I See "Stileyman-$ah I", (O. Turan) istdm Ansiklopedisi (thereafter iA) fasc. III (1967),210-219; S. Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Processof Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley: UCP 1971 ,

96-142; C. Cahen, La, Turquie pr6-Ottomane, Istanbul: Institut Frangais des EtudesAnatoliens, 1988, 13-15; Ali Sevim, Anadolu Fatihi Kutalmtgo[lu SiiteymanSah,Ankara: TTK, 1990; Siileymingah I conquered Nicaea in 1075 and made it the capitalcity of the Seldjukid Sultanate in Anatolia. Emperor Alexios Comnenus recognized hispossession of Nicaea with the treaty of Dragos-Creek (near Maltepe) in 1081. UponSi.ileyminEih's death in June 1086 (See Ali Sevim, 37-39) the Seldjukid SultanMelikshah sent his general Porsuk, and then Bozan to take possession of the city. Ab['lKasim, lieutenant of Siileymang[h at Iznik, approached the emperor to be able to resistthe Seljukid emirs until he was put to death by Bozan in 1087. It is to be noted thatAbu'l (asim is credited with the conquest of Nicomedia (Izmit) before his death. OsmanTuran,2l7-218, asserted that the state Siileymangah founded gave rise among theTurcomans in this part of Anatolia to a tradition of "the frontier state of the ghazis". Theclaim in the early Ottoman traditions that Si.iteymingdh was the ancestor of 'OsmanGhazi may be taken as an evidence of such an enduring tradition over centuries.However, Enveri, Diisturname (ed. M. H. Yinang,Istanbul 1928,18) correcting the erroron the basis of the better sources, recognizes Si.ileymangah as the son of Kutalmrg andeives a different genealogy for 'Ogman's ancestors. What is important here is that the re-conquest of Nicaea and revival of the Turkish-Muslim state of Iznik must become theultimate ambition among the Turcomans settled in this area. On the Seldjukid presencern Nicaea in general, see S. vryonis, op. cit.,3l-36,52-58, 112-116, 146-155.

Mehmed The Conqueror (1432-148 1)

and His Time

- : the occasion of the five-hundredth anniversary of the conquest of- -,nstantinople by the Ottoman Turks there appeared a number of:-:lications on the last days.of Byzantium and on the rising empire of the

-::omans (A bibliography of the publications in western languages can be-.rnd in the 1950-1956 issues of Byzantinische Zeitschrffi; Turkish:-rlications are listed rn istanbul Enstitiisii Dergisi, 1955-1956). Foremost

--rong all these new publications is the work of Professor Fr. Babinger, the:ll-known German orientalist.l His work deserves special attention becauseits scope and the great variety of sources and studies utilized. One reason

.: have not had a detailed review of the book until now is probably that the

--thor promised in his prefce to publish a second volume with the source: rterial and bibliography on the subject. But I believe it is not too difficult'- r a student of the period to find out which sources are used in it and which;: not.

Professor Babinger has clearly used the best known sources, such as- rcas, Sphrantzes, Chalcocondyles, Critovoulos, G.-M. Angielello, and the. .llections of documents from the archives in Ragusa, Venice and the, :tican, as well as the classic works by Jiredek, Kretschmayr, Von Pastor,

-.:rkeisen, and Jorga. But it is not easy to explain why he completely,erlooked some of the most essential contemporary Ottoman sources of the

:o:rod, available in printed form for a long time, which he himself described- ris book on the Ottoman soruces, Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und"'e Werke (Leipzig, 1927). These particular sources could have saved him

"-rrr various mistakes. I shall try to review the book with the help of these

-rces and also add some new data from the archive material to support::m.

::lnz Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit, Weltenstiirmer einer Zeitenwende,\lunich: F. Bruckmann, 1958, xiv, 592; -

Mahomet II le Conqudrant et son temps1132-1481), ln Grande Peur du Monde au tournant de l'histoire; trad. H. E. del Medico,

:evue par I'auteur, Paris: Payot, 1954,636 pp; - Maometto il Conquistatore e il suo:entpo, Turin, Italy, 1957.

Decision making in the Ottoman State

-- his analysis of the patrimonial state, Max Weber often refers to the special::trimonial character of the Ottoman State. In general, he states that the::trimonial state "makes administrative and military organization a purely::rsonal instrument of the master to broaden his arbitrary power".l?rtrimonial authority "where it indeed operates primarily on the basis of:rscretion...will be called sultanism which is distinct from every from of-.tional authority". It is also totally different from estate-type domination as

: iisted in the medieval west. Sultanism is characterized by a complete-:liance on military force and arbit nary power or despotism. There occur a- rmplete "differentiation between military and civil subjects and an increasing::ofessionalization of the army. The Janissary and Mamluk armies, Weberlserves, consisting of slaves, were typical examples of such professional

::mieS. They were tully integrated into the ruler's household and served the-.rler with absolute loyalty.

As Weber rightly notes, the ruler's exercise of power in the interest of:aintaining a balance between rival status grops was a fundamental principleI the Ottoman political system. The Sultan's kuls versus the reaya, ulema

'ersus bureaucrats, janissaries versus sipahis, or salaried army versus..rnariot army, and low ranking cadis against high ranking ulema were all.:atus groups traditionally in conflict. However, "Sultanism" is also modified:i' tradition. According to Weber, tradition is primarily the origin andrlidation principle of patrimonial domination. "What is customary and has

.lw'ays been so" had a sacred character and demanded obedience to the:.irticular person who represented it. The "ruler's powers are legitimateisofar as they are traditional".2 Tradition thus defined by Weber functioned

.s a factor modifying the personal discretionary power of the ruler.

In general, patrimonial domination according to Weber "establishes itselfrrough an administrative apparatus. Either by virtue of a constellation ofrterests or by virtue of authority, domination expresses itself and functions

Max Webet, Economy and Socieh,: An Outline of Interpretive sociology, trans. G. Rothand C. Wittich (Berkeley: CUP.l978), I,231-232,1I, l03l

I Vax Weber on Law in Economy and Sociefv, trans. E. Shils and M. Rheinstein, ed. M.Rheinstein (New York: Clarion 1954), 330.