özdenbekir karakaş

Oct 23, 202359 min read

Continuity in the state is fundamental, 5 Ottoman/Attaman - Ottoman

The issue of the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is shrouded in uncertainty due to a lack of reliable sources. Many incorrect, superstitious, and manipulated pieces of information have been woven into the history of this community known as the Ottomans, making it difficult to trace their origins and the specifics of their arrival in Anatolia. The story that is persistently put forward suggests that the Kayi tribe came to Anatolia, along with the Khwarezmians, during the first half of the 13th century due to Mongol pressure. However, this narrative remains highly speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The character "Süleyman," who is presented as one of the figures in this story, has been manipulated to a great extent to link him to the Seljuk court and to fill in the gaps of the Kayi tribe narrative, reaching as far back as Kutalmış Süleyman Shah. In reality, the existence of the character "Süleyman" is as unfounded and unsupported as being part of the Kayi tribe or coming with the Khwarezmians. The attempt to make "Süleyman" a significant figure in Ottoman history, as seen in the epic of Danişmend Gazi, appears to be somewhat forced and out of place, creating a disconnect in the narrative. The question of who the ancestors of the Ottomans were and where they came from remains unanswered. Even information about Osman Gazi, who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, is limited and lacking in detail. The only period source that mentions Osman Gazi (or Otto/Odman/Otman) is the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, and even in his account, the name used is not "Osman." Despite multiple investigations, there is still no comprehensive information about Osman Gazi's military and political activities, and the impact of the sermon given in his name is also questioned. Even after the time of Osman, there is an unusual lack of mention of the name "Osman" in official Ottoman documents, while the name "Otman" appears more frequently. This is evident in early Ottoman records, suggesting that the more accurate name might be "Toman" or "Ataman." There is an emphasis on the need to delve deeper into the history of Ertuğrul and his name, as more research could provide clearer answers and fill some of the historical gaps with solid evidence. In summary, the true origins of the Ottoman Empire and the story of its foundation remain shrouded in uncertainty, and many aspects of the narrative are speculative and lack concrete evidence. It is important to continue scholarly research in order to uncover the truth about the Ottomans' history.The issue of the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is shrouded in uncertainty due to a lack of reliable sources. Many incorrect, superstitious, and manipulated pieces of information have been woven into the history of this community known as the Ottomans, making it difficult to trace their origins and the specifics of their arrival in Anatolia. The story that is persistently put forward suggests that the Kayi tribe came to Anatolia, along with the Khwarezmians, during the first half of the 13th century due to Mongol pressure. However, this narrative remains highly speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The character "Süleyman," who is presented as one of the figures in this story, has been manipulated to a great extent to link him to the Seljuk court and to fill in the gaps of the Kayi tribe narrative, reaching as far back as Kutalmış Süleyman Shah. In reality, the existence of the character "Süleyman" is as unfounded and unsupported as being part of the Kayi tribe or coming with the Khwarezmians. The attempt to make "Süleyman" a significant figure in Ottoman history, as seen in the epic of Danişmend Gazi, appears to be somewhat forced and out of place, creating a disconnect in the narrative. The question of who the ancestors of the Ottomans were and where they came from remains unanswered. Even information about Osman Gazi, who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, is limited and lacking in detail. The only period source that mentions Osman Gazi (or Otto/Odman/Otman) is the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, and even in his account, the name used is not "Osman." Despite multiple investigations, there is still no comprehensive information about Osman Gazi's military and political activities, and the impact of the sermon given in his name is also questioned. Even after the time of Osman, there is an unusual lack of mention of the name "Osman" in official Ottoman documents, while the name "Otman" appears more frequently. This is evident in early Ottoman records, suggesting that the more accurate name might be "Toman" or "Ataman." There is an emphasis on the need to delve deeper into the history of Ertuğrul and his name, as more research could provide clearer answers and fill some of the historical gaps with solid evidence. In summary, the true origins of the Ottoman Empire and the story of its foundation remain shrouded in uncertainty, and many aspects of the narrative are speculative and lack concrete evidence. It is important to continue scholarly research in order to uncover the truth about the Ottomans' history.The issue of the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is shrouded in uncertainty due to a lack of reliable sources. Many incorrect, superstitious, and manipulated pieces of information have been woven into the history of this community known as the Ottomans, making it difficult to trace their origins and the specifics of their arrival in Anatolia. The story that is persistently put forward suggests that the Kayi tribe came to Anatolia, along with the Khwarezmians, during the first half of the 13th century due to Mongol pressure. However, this narrative remains highly speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The character "Süleyman," who is presented as one of the figures in this story, has been manipulated to a great extent to link him to the Seljuk court and to fill in the gaps of the Kayi tribe narrative, reaching as far back as Kutalmış Süleyman Shah. In reality, the existence of the character "Süleyman" is as unfounded and unsupported as being part of the Kayi tribe or coming with the Khwarezmians. The attempt to make "Süleyman" a significant figure in Ottoman history, as seen in the epic of Danişmend Gazi, appears to be somewhat forced and out of place, creating a disconnect in the narrative. The question of who the ancestors of the Ottomans were and where they came from remains unanswered. Even information about Osman Gazi, who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, is limited and lacking in detail. The only period source that mentions Osman Gazi (or Otto/Odman/Otman) is the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, and even in his account, the name used is not "Osman." Despite multiple investigations, there is still no comprehensive information about Osman Gazi's military and political activities, and the impact of the sermon given in his name is also questioned. Even after the time of Osman, there is an unusual lack of mention of the name "Osman" in official Ottoman documents, while the name "Otman" appears more frequently. This is evident in early Ottoman records, suggesting that the more accurate name might be "Toman" or "Ataman." There is an emphasis on the need to delve deeper into the history of Ertuğrul and his name, as more research could provide clearer answers and fill some of the historical gaps with solid evidence. In summary, the true origins of the Ottoman Empire and the story of its foundation remain shrouded in uncertainty, and many aspects of the narrative are speculative and lack concrete evidence. It is important to continue scholarly research in order to uncover the truth about the Ottomans' history.The issue of the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is shrouded in uncertainty due to a lack of reliable sources. Many incorrect, superstitious, and manipulated pieces of information have been woven into the history of this community known as the Ottomans, making it difficult to trace their origins and the specifics of their arrival in Anatolia. The story that is persistently put forward suggests that the Kayi tribe came to Anatolia, along with the Khwarezmians, during the first half of the 13th century due to Mongol pressure. However, this narrative remains highly speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The character "Süleyman," who is presented as one of the figures in this story, has been manipulated to a great extent to link him to the Seljuk court and to fill in the gaps of the Kayi tribe narrative, reaching as far back as Kutalmış Süleyman Shah. In reality, the existence of the character "Süleyman" is as unfounded and unsupported as being part of the Kayi tribe or coming with the Khwarezmians. The attempt to make "Süleyman" a significant figure in Ottoman history, as seen in the epic of Danişmend Gazi, appears to be somewhat forced and out of place, creating a disconnect in the narrative. The question of who the ancestors of the Ottomans were and where they came from remains unanswered. Even information about Osman Gazi, who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, is limited and lacking in detail. The only period source that mentions Osman Gazi (or Otto/Odman/Otman) is the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, and even in his account, the name used is not "Osman." Despite multiple investigations, there is still no comprehensive information about Osman Gazi's military and political activities, and the impact of the sermon given in his name is also questioned. Even after the time of Osman, there is an unusual lack of mention of the name "Osman" in official Ottoman documents, while the name "Otman" appears more frequently. This is evident in early Ottoman records, suggesting that the more accurate name might be "Toman" or "Ataman." There is an emphasis on the need to delve deeper into the history of Ertuğrul and his name, as more research could provide clearer answers and fill some of the historical gaps with solid evidence. In summary, the true origins of the Ottoman Empire and the story of its foundation remain shrouded in uncertainty, and many aspects of the narrative are speculative and lack concrete evidence. It is important to continue scholarly research in order to uncover the truth about the Ottomans' history.The issue of the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is shrouded in uncertainty due to a lack of reliable sources. Many incorrect, superstitious, and manipulated pieces of information have been woven into the history of this community known as the Ottomans, making it difficult to trace their origins and the specifics of their arrival in Anatolia. The story that is persistently put forward suggests that the Kayi tribe came to Anatolia, along with the Khwarezmians, during the first half of the 13th century due to Mongol pressure. However, this narrative remains highly speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The character "Süleyman," who is presented as one of the figures in this story, has been manipulated to a great extent to link him to the Seljuk court and to fill in the gaps of the Kayi tribe narrative, reaching as far back as Kutalmış Süleyman Shah. In reality, the existence of the character "Süleyman" is as unfounded and unsupported as being part of the Kayi tribe or coming with the Khwarezmians. The attempt to make "Süleyman" a significant figure in Ottoman history, as seen in the epic of Danişmend Gazi, appears to be somewhat forced and out of place, creating a disconnect in the narrative. The question of who the ancestors of the Ottomans were and where they came from remains unanswered. Even information about Osman Gazi, who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, is limited and lacking in detail. The only period source that mentions Osman Gazi (or Otto/Odman/Otman) is the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, and even in his account, the name used is not "Osman." Despite multiple investigations, there is still no comprehensive information about Osman Gazi's military and political activities, and the impact of the sermon given in his name is also questioned. Even after the time of Osman, there is an unusual lack of mention of the name "Osman" in official Ottoman documents, while the name "Otman" appears more frequently. This is evident in early Ottoman records, suggesting that the more accurate name might be "Toman" or "Ataman." There is an emphasis on the need to delve deeper into the history of Ertuğrul and his name, as more research could provide clearer answers and fill some of the historical gaps with solid evidence. In summary, the true origins of the Ottoman Empire and the story of its foundation remain shrouded in uncertainty, and many aspects of the narrative are speculative and lack concrete evidence. It is important to continue scholarly research in order to uncover the truth about the Ottomans' history.The issue of the establishment of the Ottoman Empire is shrouded in uncertainty due to a lack of reliable sources. Many incorrect, superstitious, and manipulated pieces of information have been woven into the history of this community known as the Ottomans, making it difficult to trace their origins and the specifics of their arrival in Anatolia. The story that is persistently put forward suggests that the Kayi tribe came to Anatolia, along with the Khwarezmians, during the first half of the 13th century due to Mongol pressure. However, this narrative remains highly speculative and lacks concrete evidence. The character "Süleyman," who is presented as one of the figures in this story, has been manipulated to a great extent to link him to the Seljuk court and to fill in the gaps of the Kayi tribe narrative, reaching as far back as Kutalmış Süleyman Shah. In reality, the existence of the character "Süleyman" is as unfounded and unsupported as being part of the Kayi tribe or coming with the Khwarezmians. The attempt to make "Süleyman" a significant figure in Ottoman history, as seen in the epic of Danişmend Gazi, appears to be somewhat forced and out of place, creating a disconnect in the narrative. The question of who the ancestors of the Ottomans were and where they came from remains unanswered. Even information about Osman Gazi, who is considered the founder of the Ottoman state, is limited and lacking in detail. The only period source that mentions Osman Gazi (or Otto/Odman/Otman) is the Byzantine historian Pachymeres, and even in his account, the name used is not "Osman." Despite multiple investigations, there is still no comprehensive information about Osman Gazi's military and political activities, and the impact of the sermon given in his name is also questioned. Even after the time of Osman, there is an unusual lack of mention of the name "Osman" in official Ottoman documents, while the name "Otman" appears more frequently. This is evident in early Ottoman records, suggesting that the more accurate name might be "Toman" or "Ataman." There is an emphasis on the need to delve deeper into the history of Ertuğrul and his name, as more research could provide clearer answers and fill some of the historical gaps with solid evidence. In summary, the true origins of the Ottoman Empire and the story of its foundation remain shrouded in uncertainty, and many aspects of the narrative are speculative and lack concrete evidence. It is important to continue scholarly research in order to uncover the truth about the Ottomans' history.

In Old Turkic, "Tuman" means "smoke." It was also used as a personal name among the Uyghurs. In Mongolian sources, it appears as "Tuman/Tümen." During the period when the Mongols were attempting to assimilate themselves with the Turks, there were many commanders with the names "Tuman" and "Tümen." However, it is challenging to claim that the Mongolian "Tuman/Tümen" is synonymous with the Turkish "Tuman/Duman" in terms of meaning. The founder of the Gokturk Khaganate, Bumin Khagan, is also referred to as "T’u-men" in Chinese sources. It is suggested that the father of the famous Hun ruler Mao-tun (Mete) should also be read as "T’ou-man" (=Tuman). In Turkish dialects, the word "Tuman" means "cloud and darkness." There are numerous idiomatic expressions related to mountains shrouded in clouds and the fog that moves above mountains in Turkish. When we examine the inscriptions in Kaşgarlı Mahmud's work, we find idiomatic expressions related to "Tuman" meaning "smoke" and "clouds." For example:

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

In the work "Türkmenlerin Seceresi (Şecere-i Terâkime)" by Ebülgazi Bahadır Khan, the story of Tuman Khan is shared, shedding light on how the Ottoman myth might have been created. According to the story, the Oghuz tribal leader Korkut-Ata had a son named Tuman, and his birth was celebrated with a grand feast. Korkut-Ata explained that the name "Tuman" signified that just like how smoke rises and eventually clears, Tuman would grow up to be a great leader and bring light to the world. This story and the use of the name "Tuman" in the context of clouds and darkness suggest that "Tuman" could have been a name or a symbol related to natural elements and powerful attributes. The story does not necessarily fit into the modern narrative of the origins of the Ottoman Empire, but it provides an alternative perspective that is deeply rooted in Turkish history and culture. It is essential to approach the history of the Ottoman Empire and its origins with an open mind and consider a wide range of historical sources and interpretations to gain a more comprehensive understanding. The modern tendency to overly emphasize Turkish and Islamic aspects of the Ottoman Empire should not overshadow the rich diversity and complexity of its history.In Old Turkic, "Tuman" means "smoke." It was also used as a personal name among the Uyghurs. In Mongolian sources, it appears as "Tuman/Tümen." During the period when the Mongols were attempting to assimilate themselves with the Turks, there were many commanders with the names "Tuman" and "Tümen." However, it is challenging to claim that the Mongolian "Tuman/Tümen" is synonymous with the Turkish "Tuman/Duman" in terms of meaning. The founder of the Gokturk Khaganate, Bumin Khagan, is also referred to as "T’u-men" in Chinese sources. It is suggested that the father of the famous Hun ruler Mao-tun (Mete) should also be read as "T’ou-man" (=Tuman). In Turkish dialects, the word "Tuman" means "cloud and darkness." There are numerous idiomatic expressions related to mountains shrouded in clouds and the fog that moves above mountains in Turkish. When we examine the inscriptions in Kaşgarlı Mahmud's work, we find idiomatic expressions related to "Tuman" meaning "smoke" and "clouds." For example:

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

"Tuman turdı" (The smoke cleared, the smoke rose)
"Yaşın atıp yaşnadu, tuman turup taşnadı" (The lightning struck, the clouds stood still and met)
"Bulut örüp kök örtüldi, tuman türüp tolı yağdı" (The cloud rose and covered the sky; the smoke gathered, and hail fell)

When a historian conducts research on the cultural and political figures of that time in the region, they are often told, 'No, it should be sought in the context of the Byzantine Empire.' But when you ask, 'Why?' the usual memorized response is as follows: 'Today, mentioning the Central Asian and Anatolian civilizations in the formation of modern Ottoman state and culture has started to be equated with 'nationalist narrow-mindedness.'

If we do not examine the field of history on an objective platform, if we continue guided thinking rather than applying the methodology of scientific reasoning, we will derive answers in the haste of Timur's question to Bayezid I. What did Timur ask Bayezid, 'Aren't you descendants of boatmen?' Why was Timur associated with Turkish tribes and not the Ottomans? Didn't he know? Or did the Ottoman Empire, which Bayezid quickly established, turn out to be an empty shell? Was there perhaps a hole in the boat that was causing it to take on water? Why did this boatmanship cause such alarm to the Ottomans?

One of the arguments put forward in these objections is as follows: the claim that the Islamic civilization of the Anatolian Seljuks is completely ignored. No historian denies the Seljuk civilization, but to forcibly make the Ottomans the heirs of the Seljuks and to constantly repeat that the influence of the Turkish Seljuks seen in the Ottoman structure in a negligible amount is exaggerated to magnify the Ottomans and to make them the heirs of the Seljuks is a practice that does not change the real situation no matter how often it is repeated.

Yes, the Seljuk influence is found in the Ottomans in a small amount. The influence of the Persian bureaucracy, which influenced the Seljuks, even became more effective in later periods in the Ottomans. The Ottomans did not have the aim or strategy of being the heirs of the Seljuks and being the flag bearers of Islamic culture. Claims that the Ottomans acted this way are later-period exaggerations and speculations put forth by historians with a penchant for exaggeration.

Today, when historians explain Ottoman history, and everyone is already familiar with the name "Ottoman," when asked why chronicles say "Ottoman" instead of "Osman," they cannot explain. They stumble over their words and present various forms of guided thinking. Like mental gymnastics. When some suggest that a comparative approach should be taken in the study of Ottoman history and mention that it might be helpful to look at the Holy Roman German Empire that was emerging during that time along with the Byzantine Empire, the response is, 'No, we can only understand the Ottomans by looking within the framework of Muslim Turkish Seljuks.'

In the periods of II. Murad and II. Abdulhamid, Ottoman history, which was already dark, became a history full of myths, and it was only in the Köprülü period that the thesis of the great historian, who was the sole authority, refuted many unsubstantiated claims. Halil İnalcık's new approach to studying Ottoman history, especially in the last twenty years, revealed valuable information. And it enabled Ottoman history to be put back on the agenda of historians and brought it to light as the real history. However, he also adhered to the unchanging taboos of his mentor Köprülü and often returned to Köprülü's doctrines in his writings.

Of course, it's not easy. The founding date of an empire, which is claimed to carry so much heritage, was presented to the world for the first time by Efdaleddin Bey, the historian of the time, as ordered by the palace, even a history of ancestry and foundation stories was ordered to be prepared for presentation to Europe by the current authorities. It is important to remember that these stories are ordered for limited periods, and even today, these stories, which are called the tale of foundation of the whole history, continue to obscure and even darken the reality of all history.

If we continue to operate under the belief that Ottoman history is a branch of Islamic and Turkish civilization, we go down the path of a single ship with no harmony in the oar towards the current, moving further away from reality. Unfortunately, passengers cannot evaluate the situation even though the outcome of this journey is uncertain. Under the pressure of creating an Ottoman Seljuk Islamic civilization, there's no "nationalist narrow-mindedness.When a historian conducts research on the cultural and political figures of that time in the region, they are often told, 'No, it should be sought in the context of the Byzantine Empire.' But when you ask, 'Why?' the usual memorized response is as follows: 'Today, mentioning the Central Asian and Anatolian civilizations in the formation of modern Ottoman state and culture has started to be equated with 'nationalist narrow-mindedness.'

It is also necessary to look at Ottoman History from Zeki Velidi Togan's great work, Introduction to General Turkish History. In doing so, although it was put forward with the data available at the time and certain assumptions, he actually says other things between the lines, apart from the official theses.

"How it came about that the beys of the Kayı tribe established a Turkish state on the Byzantine frontier remains a matter that needs to be carefully examined. What we know about their first contacts with the Byzantines is based on rumors that were only discovered in later times. What we know about Ertugrul's father and brothers is based on accounts collected much later. Even the question of who were Osman Bey's own sons has only been revealed in some documents published in recent years.

... It was only in 1327, after Temürtaş Noyan had left Anatolia and the beys had become independent, that Orhan Gazi began to mint coins in his own name. It seems, however, that the memories of Osman Bey's fathers were only discovered after his sons crossed the Bosporus and settled in Edirne. Therefore, we have to be very cautious when making use of these memories.

It is certain that the Kayı beys were the civilizationally backward warriors among the Uc beys at that time. In this respect, we learn their early history more from their neighbors than from themselves. However, their neighbors were only very late interested in their origins and origins. Neither Ertuğrul nor Osman Bey are mentioned in the history of Reşideddin, the chronicler of the Ilkhanids, and in local sources such as the works of Ibn Bibi and Aksarayi, which are devoted to Anatolian events. However, they were contemporaries and Aksarayi had personally participated in the Uc campaigns. If Ertuğrul and his son Osman had the slightest importance in the political life of the time, they would have been mentioned."

TOGAN, Zeki Velidi. Umumi Türk Tarihine Giriş – En Eski devirlerden 16.Asra Kadar-. İŞ Kültür Yayınları. İstanbul, Şubat 2019. S:454-455

As Togan noted, even if a genuine border principality (Uc Beyliği) had existed, no matter how insignificant it might have been, the Turkish imperial sources of the time would somehow mention this group. Particularly in a region under Byzantine rule with little Turkish presence, claiming the existence of a border principality in this community's mission was likely not taken lightly. However, it is intriguing that officially accepted historical legends become widely recognized and are considered true. What I mean by reading between the lines is precisely this. Even Togan himself could not help but accept this official acceptance as an article of faith, as is evident from his sentence: "What is certain is that the Kayı chiefs must have been warlords who lagged behind in terms of civilization among the border chiefs of those times." Curiously, the name and significance of the Kayı chief, who is claimed to hold one of the most important positions among the border chiefs, do not matter at all. Even the person who sent him there as a border chief never felt the need to remember his name or engage in any contact. On the other hand, during the reign of Murad II, in the translation of the Selçukname, which was commissioned by the throne to Yazıcıoğlu and which Yazıcıoğlu tried to depict as having some contact with the Seljuk dynasty by making additions, there are attempts to show that a connection was established. However, there are no such pieces of information in the original documents and chronicles of the side alleged to have established contact. In his translation of the Selçukname, Yazıcıoğlu added the following, which is not found in the original text: "Sultan Alâeddin came to Sultanöyüğü. As the infidels had acted hostilely against him, he went to the border. Then he received news that the Tatars were coming, so he returned, entrusting it to the Kayı chiefs, Ertuğrul, Gündüzalp, and Gökalp." Please note that this passage you've provided appears to be part of a discussion about the historical narratives and legends surrounding the early history of the Kayı tribe and the Ottoman Empire. It reflects skepticism about the accuracy of some official historical accounts and suggests that much of the early Ottoman history may have been shaped by myths and tales.

TOGAN, Zeki Velidi. Umumi Türk Tarihine Giriş – En Eski devirlerden 16.Asra Kadar-. İŞ Kültür Yayınları. İstanbul, Şubat 2019. S:455

When Yazicioglu wrote this translation, the date is estimated to be around 1391, that is, almost 90 years after the alleged founding, and many additions were made to this work that were not in the original, many events such as the Kayı tribes, the Osmans, the Ertugruls were added. Although these events took place in history, for some reason, the Ottomans are not mentioned in the records of the period in which they took place.

In order to write Ottoman history, it is absolutely necessary to reach back to the Otto dynasties of the Holy Roman Germanic Empire. Research on the Karesi Principality must be done. Otherwise, we will continue to wallow in a history of superstitions full of fabricated tribes, lineages and names and historical contradictions.

Because our biggest problem is the rush to link the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish tribes that came to Anatolia dragged in front of the Mogols. For example, even the following prediction is more grounded than this: "In 1453, the Ottomans inherited the Roman Empire, to which they were heirs and which was their natural right. And the state was founded on this right of inheritance, grew and eventually became the owner of the inheritance."

Throughout history, Turks' achievements against civilization have only been military. Culturally, they were very much influenced by civilizations and became similar to them. In the context of political thought, there have been small-scale changes in substance and sometimes radical changes in procedure.

With the beginning of the Ottoman period (1299/1302), another link will be added to Turkish political thought: Byzantium. For some orientalist historians, the Ottomans were not only influenced by Byzantium, but also dissolved into it.

Historians try to legitimize the situation with memorized fallacies instead of saying where the Roman and Slavic tradition of slaughtering brothers and relatives for the throne came from.

The view that the Ottomans were not "Kayı" (i.e. from a Turkish tribe), as stated by many historians before and after, notably Halil Inancık, and Köprülü's theory of Ottoman descent collapsed as a whole. Looking for Ottoman practices in Turkish traditions and trying to reconcile them with Islam is nothing but a futile effort to make the truth perceived differently by looking at the same places over and over again.

- The Ottomans did not exterminate any of the ruling people of Balkan origin in the places they conquered in the Balkans, and even made them their subordinate rulers in that region.

- However, the same Ottoman did not show the same behavior in Anatolia and in its eastern campaign, and massacred all ruling families. Especially in the Turkish principalities, almost all the ruling families were exterminated.

"The policy of the beys towards the Greek peasants, who were left defenseless in the outskirts of the fortresses, is expressed in the menâkibnâmes with the term 'istimâlet' (to win them over to one's side). Even before the conquest of a country, the Ottoman ruler would promise the local population, especially the clergy and the elders of the people, the guarantees of Islamic law in the form of âmân and dhimma, and thus try to win them over."

Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı Tarihinde Efsaneler ve Gerçekler. Kronik. İstanbul, Ağustos 2017. S: 14

In the paragraph above, İnalcık actually makes the reasoning for 'istimâlet' - appeasement - clear in the later parts of the text. This appeasement is due to the depopulation of the conquered territories as a result of the migration of the local population, rendering these areas economically and socially dysfunctional. The logic of the Gâzâ culture is to seize, as İnalcık also points out, "the warriors, as described in the narratives, 'break the enemy's backbone, take their women and children as captives' no matter for what noble (!) purpose we do it. ... The most valuable 'satisfaction' commodity is the captive." (The same work; Pages 14-15) Therefore, the Ottoman solution was found in the principles of Islamic protection and responsibility. The period when this emerged was when bureaucrats representing the Iranian-Islamic bureaucratic tradition began to settle in the Ottoman Empire. These scribes and scholars managed to instill in the Akıncıs and Uc gazis that labor was more important than land. The warrior-conquerors, who were the founding elements of the state, soon realized the need to support the local farmers, craftsmen, and artisans who would cultivate the land and sustain tax resources. This is why in the Balkan region, those who submitted and accepted to pay jizya (poll tax) were given peace and protection guarantees by the state. The issue was purely economic, and as the state evolved towards becoming more Islamic in the periods following its establishment, this appeasement was transformed into a more divine form, adorned with Islamic elements, allowing for the sanctification of the spoils taken by the Islamic warriors. It is essential to remember that those who participated in Gâzâ perceived the spoils as a divine gift (legitimate recompense) in their consciousness of fulfilling a religious command. It is a reward from Allah for the Gazacı, it is His gift, and it is lawful.

The same process was carried out by the Turks "Avars" who raided Europe from the North. This society, which attacked only for booty in the Hungarian, Bulgarian and Balkan geography during the first raids, later realized that it needed these local people for the products and booty it needed, and it moved to a settled society structure and met them on a common ground. The indigenous people would produce, process and keep the economy alive, and in return the Looters would provide state order and ensure their security. When the warrior society on horseback began to settle down, agricultural societies began to change these societies as they had developed and changed the plants through culture. And eventually assimilated them. The Ottoman Empire had turned its face to the Balkans with its initial raids from this Bithynian bind, which it entered culturally later, but the first way they went was very harsh. Afterwards, it gradually found solutions to the problem within itself. The Ottomans, like Byzantium, survived on a tax system. It had two sources of income: first, the spoils from the places it had conquered and then the tax and tax collection system it had inherited from Byzantium. The Ottomans never proselytized in this geography. The Ottoman Empire never practiced proselytizing in this geography, and it settled populations from Anatolia in the places it conquered, including the Balkans, solely and exclusively to keep the populations of the Turkish tribes in Anatolia under control.

Apart from that, Anatolian Turks did not mean much to the Ottomans economically. And the transition to the modern army (until the closure of the Janissary Quarry), the Anatolian Turkish - Islamic population did not make much sense militarily. And when young men were withdrawn from those regions as devshirme, there was a reduction in labor, which was somehow tried to be covered with this Anatolian population.

Considering that the Ottoman Empire applied the devshirme army model especially among the Balkan peoples and kept its Turkish subjects as far away from the army as it could. Also, when the Ottomans were converting those children to Islam through devshirme - although Islamic jurisprudence considers them innocent under a certain age - they were taken around the bazaars and markets; they were given new clothes from the state budget as "Nev-muslim akçası" and they were encouraged and promised to give the perception to the society that we had converted them to Islam - in Islamic jurisprudence, there is no forced Islamization. They make an effort. At the root of it, these people, the devshirim, were "forbidden Muslims" and the Ottomans did not consider them Muslims.

- While the Ottoman Empire granted privileges to families of Balkan descent, it did not grant privileges to any Turkish tribe or clan except the Karakeçili Turkmen tribe. Not even to the Kayı tribes to which he claimed to belong.

- The fact that the Ottoman throne bears the title of Hakan (just as Mehmet the Conqueror used the title Hakanı of the Mediterranean and Black Sea when describing himself) may be true for the claim that he is Turkish and of Turkish tradition, but even in the early 600s, the Bulgarian Kings and the Slavs/Germans who formed the Hungarian society were also using the title Hakan. In addition, the Northern Slavs also use the name Hakan as a personal name.

It may be that Mehmet II used this Turkish title as well as the titles of the peoples he conquered.

- One of the clearest and most interesting examples of the fact that the Ottomans did not follow the Turkish tradition from the very beginning is the fact that when a girl was taken from Germiyanoğulları, Kütahya was taken as dowry.

In 1381, Murat I married his son Yıldırım Bayezid to Devlet Hatun, the daughter of Süleyman Şah, the ruler of Germiyanoğulları. Germiyanoğulları gave Kütahya, Simav, Tavşanlı, Emet and Tavşanlı to the Ottomans as dowry and Süleyman Şah retired to Kula.

This custom of giving and receiving drachma when giving a girl away is a Greek/Balkan tradition. Turkish tribes did not have the custom of giving drachma when giving a girl. They were given pieces called dowry, but the Ottomans were the only ones to give such a price.

- From the very beginning, the Ottoman structure was built with mercenary and devshirme soldiers. The quality of Turkishness was not sought here, and afterwards, the relationship with Turkishness was completely severed, and it was fed from the same source inherited from Byzantium and developed the devshirme model.

"In this struggle, the balance of power between Turkmens and Greeks was in favor of the Turkmens. Because, while Byzantium had to rely mainly on paid soldiers (Kipchaks, Alans, Catalans, even Turkmens) and had to constantly raise money for them from the treasury, the alp/gâzî leaders found countless Turkmen warriors who came to them voluntarily only for the holy gaza and booty (saturation). Seeking a means of livelihood, having left their homelands and tribes, these "strangers" often did not hesitate to join the Byzantine service as mercenaries, becoming Christians and serving the other side under the name of Turkopouloi. This Turkmen population pressure in the Byzantine-Seljuk Ucs was undoubtedly the main demographic factor in these developments. On the one hand, an impoverished emperor struggling to find money for paid soldiers, and on the other hand, thousands of 'garîb' seeking 'fulfillment' (booty) on the border and rushing under the command of successful alps/gâzîs, constituted the main factor of this encounter."

Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı Tarihinde Efsaneler ve Gerçekler. Kronik. İstanbul, Ağustos 2017. S: 12-13

As İnalcık points out, for Turkmens looking for a livelihood, the satisfaction part was the most important. Islam or Christianity was of little importance in order to make a living. In other words, it was obvious that no one would run away for an unsatisfying gaza.

- The foundations of the people of Turkey in the future can be read through the balance of population-demographic structure that started during the founding period and was gradually institutionalized. The Greeks and Armenians, who were the main element of the region (Bithynia), started the path of Islamization-Turkization due to the changes in the demographic structure day by day and the heavy taxes imposed on them by Byzantium in order to pay for their mercenaries. Of course, once they converted to Islam, they continued to pay a reasonable jizya, which would continue for a long time in the belief that they would be relieved of this tax burden (After the conquest revenues ran out, the Ottomans returned to the existing population and tried to cover their financial needs with new taxes imposed on the taxpayers. These later Muslims were recorded in state registers as ahriyan and were considered as a separate community from the Muslim communities. The rules applied to non-Muslims continued to apply.

However, in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, it seems that the Ottomans did not have a clear goal of implementing such rules and conducting their conquests systematically according to Islamic methods. Even if they did, we do not have any data that clearly states their intentions. During that time, the Ottomans were a tribal community living in the Bithynia region in a semi-nomadic way, switching between seasonal pastures and winter quarters. They tried to maintain good relations with Byzantine rulers and were careful to adhere to mutual agreements. Realizing that Anatolia was in a chaotic state and that they needed to either expand in a specific direction or take advantage of this turmoil to at least slightly improve their own situation, they began raiding nearby villages and settlements with the agility provided by their nomadic lifestyle. As their success in these raids became known, individuals who aimed to benefit from this unfavorable situation started gathering around them. Despite having different religious backgrounds, these individuals formed a coalition with a common goal, which was the spoils of war. The Ottomans did not initially favor intermarriage with Turks, and in the early days, encouraged their warrior allies, known as ghazis, to marry captive Greek and Armenian girls. After the conquest of the Balkans, they also promoted marriage with Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, Jewish, and local community girls. "There are many records indicating that the ghazis had a great desire to marry Christian women. The Islamic religion considered this a great blessing. Children born of captive Christian women were considered free. After the conquest of Nicaea, Orhan encouraged the ghazis to marry widowed Greek women. Historian Gregoras observed that a generation after the conquest of Nicaea, the population in the Nicaea region consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi, and Turks. Children born of Greek mothers played an important role in the Seljuk upper class and the army." Halil İnalcık, "Osmanlı Tarihinde Efsaneler ve Gerçekler" (Chronicles, Istanbul, August 2017), pp. 18-19. These intermarriages gave rise to a new culture, blending elements of Islam, Christianity, Turkish, Shaman, Greek, and Byzantine influences. As a result, you can find traces of Byzantine folk tales in works like Danişmendnâme, Saltukname, and Tevarih-i Âl-i Osman, and even hints of Greek mythology. When considering the origin of the Ottomans, it's essential to think about the tribes and communities living in the Northern Black Sea steppes. In the 11th and 12th centuries, successive Turkish tribes migrated from the East to the Northern Black Sea steppes, including the Pechenegs and Kipchaks (Cumans). The Kipchaks held sway over a vast territory from the Aral Sea to Dobruja until the establishment of the Golden Horde in 1240, and they were in alliance with the Byzantines. The Ottomans essentially superimposed themselves on top of everything the Byzantines had. The grand heritage included the ancient Roman and the preceding Hellenic-Greek civilization, which the Byzantines had blended in their melting pot, as well as the remnants of civilizations in Istanbul and Anatolia. Even the Ottoman palace-based artificial language was modeled after the Byzantine Palace. In religious control and setting the direction of religion, the Ottoman Empire adopted the Byzantine system. Eventually, they took over the control they had sought, but their preference was the Byzantine method of managing religion (many practices today, such as Mevlid and Kandil, have significant Byzantine influences). Even the harmonies and tones in music continued as Byzantine and Persian legacies (Art Music has Byzantine and Persian roots). In societal structure, state organization, judicial system, army, tax system, the Ottomans built their structure on top of the established Byzantine system. The Ottoman Empire was so influenced by this heritage that it had difficulties moving beyond the Middle Ages. Despite various struggles and efforts, it could never overcome this period. The Ottoman journey, which began as a medieval empire, concluded as a medieval empire five centuries later. Just as they could not catch up with the age of Byzantium and were eventually conquered with the advanced technology of that age, the Ottomans were also eradicated by the technological, intellectual, and social changes of the new modern ages. Carrying a legacy for nearly seven hundred years, the Ottomans placed their tomb in the imperial aristocratic graveyard of history with a fall befitting their splendor.

Continuity in the state is fundamental, 5 Ottoman/Attaman - Ottoman

Recent Posts

Comments