Наследие Рима. Том 1. Oт Византии дo Кордовского Халифата и Османскoй империи - Нурлан Аманович Наматов

several occasions, mostly pertaining to educational circles, for students and teachers.

678

He is said to be the tutor of Hızır Beg, who was the son of famous Yörgüç Pasha and was the sancakbey of Amasya. See Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşilı, Osmanlı Tarihi, I, 1972, p. 450.

679

Ali b. Hüseyin el-Amâsî, Tarīku’l-Edeb, haz. Mehmet Şeker, Ankara: Diyanet Işleri Başkanlığı Yayınları, 2002, pp. 254–255.

680

For a similar usage of ‘Türkmen’ see Kemal, Selâtîn-nâme (1299–1490), haz. Necdet Öztürk, Ankara: TTK, 2001, pp. 180–181. Modern scholars also appriciate the usage of ‘türk’ and ‘türkmen’ with such connotation. See, for example, Irène Mélikoff, “L’Islam hétérodoxe en Anatolie”, in her Sur les traces du soufisme turc. Recherches sur l’Islam populaire en Anatolie, Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1992, p. 63. Mélikoff puts stress on that ‘türk’ indicates the sedentary Turkish people who became ordinary Muslims and Iranized culturally while ‘türkmen’ denotes nomadic or semi-nomadic Turkish groups who were either mal-Islamized or not Islamized.

681

Faruk Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 619; “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 454.

682

Faruk Sümer, “Avşar”, DIA, 4, p. 160.

683

The reader might remember that Mehmed Beg of Karaman (d. 1277) declared, for the first time, Turkish as the only ofifcial language, forbidding the speaking any other language in “divan, dergāh, bārgāh, meclis, meydān”. Sümer puts special stress on two policies of Mehmed Beg’s: supporting the Turkish language and initiating the war of independence of Turkomans against the Mongols. See Sümer, “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 455; Şehabeddin Tekindağ, “Şemsüddin Mehmed Bey Devrinde Karamanlılar”, ĐÜEFTD, 19, 1964, 81–98. Also consider Faruk Sümer, “Anadolu’da Moğollar”, Selçuklu Araştırmaları Dergisi, I, 1969, рр. 1–147.

684

Cited and quoted in Faruk Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 621.

685

Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 619; “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, pp. 454–455.

686

Sümer, “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 454.

687

For a short assessment of Şikārī’s work, see Rudi Paul Lindner, “Appendix Two: Şikari”, in his Nomads and Ottomans, pp. 145–147.

688

See, for example, Şikârî, Şikâri’nin Karamanoğulları Tarihi, edited by Mes’ud Koman, Konya: Yeni Kitab Basımevi, 1946, pp. 10, 19, 20–21, 34.

689

Modern scholars agree upon the idea that the Karaman army was consisted of tribal forces inhabited central Anatolia, Tas-ili and Taurus region. See for example, Đnalcık, “Ottoman Methods of Conquest”, p. 118.

690

Şikârî summarizes this confederative system as follows: “Ol zamanda adet bu idi ki: etrafta olan beyler yılda bir kere üç gün gelüb Lārende’de sākin olurlardı. Sultandan yeni hüccet alub gene diyārlarına giderlerdi. Yahud Sultan çıkub etrafı devr iderdi. Ellerine hücceti nev verirdi. Zira azil ve nasb yokdu.” See Şikârî, p. 149.

691

Şikârî, pp. 47, 78.

692

Şikârî, pp. 78, 130.

693

Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 623; “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 457.

694

Şikârî often accuses Ottomans for being not of noble blood, disloyal, not keeping their words. See, for example, Şikârî, pp. 149, 161, 162. Sufifce it to quote following expressions from Şikârî to show Turkoman perception of the Ottoman rule: “Ibn-i Osman’ın ne ahdi dürüstdür ne imanı!”. (Şikârî, p. 159.) “Bu ādem and içer tutmaz, ahd ider tutmaz. <…> Osmanoğlu’nun ne dostluğu belli ne düşmanlığı belli!” (Ibid, p. 165.) I would like to remind the different nature of relationships in bureaucratic state and tribal organization already delineated in this study. In the tribal mode of socio-political organization keeping one’s ‘word’ is of utmost importance since the relationships are constructed on face-to-face interactions. On the other hand, in the bureaucratic system, the system rests on a scribal base, thus personal relationships are always subordinated by impersonal rules. See “Theoretical Framework” in this study.

695

Şikârî, p. 141.

696

Şikârî, p. 191.

697

KPZ8, p. 40.

698

Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 624; “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 459.

699

Şikârî, pp. 206–207. As will be delineated, Bayram Beg Qaramanlu was among famous seven great qizilbash sufis of Lahijān, who protected, educated, and trained young Ismail. Following the foundation of the qizilbash state of Ismail, he undertook high-ranking functions. See “The Rise of Shah Ismail” in this study.

700

For a detailed examination of this attempt see “The Qaraman Uprising, 1500” in this study.

701

On one occasion, Kemalpaşazāde recounts Yüregir, Kuşunlu, Varsak, Kara Đsalu, Özerlü, Gündüzlü, and Kuş Temurlu among Tas-ili tribes. See KPZ8, p. 88.

702

Halil Inalcık, “The Yürüks”, p. 106.

703

“This is a region very precipitous and dififcult to access … it was a den of mischief and the station of seditious-natures and bad-races.” KPZ8, pp. 40, 52.

704

“The tribes of aforementioned region did not hitherto accept suzerainty and service of any sultan.” KPZ8, p. 87.

705

KPZ8, pp. 88, 90, 103, 104.

706

Turgutlu tribe lived in Taşlık-Silifke region and in the area between Akşehir, Aksaray, and Karaman. See Faruk Sümer, “Turgut-eli”, IA, 12/2, p. 120.

707

Hammer, Osmanlı Tarihi, III, trs. M.Ata, Đstanbul, 1330, p. 92.

708

Togan, Umumi Türk Tarihine Giriş, Đstanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1981, pp. 318–319.