Newsletters
Some researchers, noting that certain Ottoman historians referred to Turks as "etrak-i bi-idrak" – meaning "Turks without comprehension" – in their works, argue that the Ottoman Empire was not a Turkish state. This is an inconsistent approach.
Upon examining the works of Ottoman historians, it becomes evident that such expressions regarding Turks were used to denote a sociological and political situation, rather than ethnic identity. Furthermore, those criticized with this expression were generally Turkmens involved in various incidents against the state or who had joined Shah Ismail. To denigrate these individuals for joining a state considered an enemy, Ottoman historians employed such language.
The association of Turkish and Turkmen names with negative connotations was not exclusive to Ottoman-era historians. Seljuk historians also had similarly unfavorable remarks about the Turkmens.
Some historians of the Ottoman period used these negative expressions to disparage peasants and nomads, not the Turkish identity itself. Particularly, the semi-nomadic Turkmens were criticized for their inability to adapt to the state order and for causing disruption to settled life. It is possible to find similar expressions used by Ottoman historical writers for other nations as well.
For instance, nomadic Arabs were called "Arab-i bed-fial" (Arab who does bad deeds), "Arab-i bed-rey" (Arab with bad intentions), and "Arab-i sekavet-siar" (Arab who has made banditry a habit). The ethnonyms here do not primarily express an ethnic meaning but rather indicate the lifestyle of these communities. Indeed, the phrase "whether Turk or city dweller" in a section on penalties in the "Fatih Kanunname" (Sultan Mehmed II's Law Book) clearly demonstrates that the term "Turk" was used for nomadic Turkmens and peasants.
Those who bring up the negative expressions about Turks in the works of Ottoman historians overlook the positive remarks found in the same books. In reality, no thorough examination has been conducted. For years, without any new research, the statement that the Ottomans disparaged Turks by calling them "etrak-i b-idrak" has been repeated.
When historical books are examined, negative expressions about the names Turk and Turkmen are generally encountered in the context of struggles against the Ottoman administration. While narrating events from the Interregnum to the Sheikh Bedreddin rebellion, from the Safavid State's activities in Anatolia to the Jelali revolts, Ottoman historians used descriptions such as "crude Turk or Turkmen," "ignorant Turkmen," "deceitful Turk" (Turk-i bed-lika) and "ugly Turk" (Turk-i suturk).
Hoca Sadeddin, one of the most important Ottoman historians and who served as Grand Mufti for a long time, praises the Ottoman army in his influential work "Tacu’t-Tevarih" (The Crown of Histories), which greatly impacted subsequent historians, using expressions like "Turkish heroes" and "Turkish soldiers whose victories cast shadows" while describing Ottoman conquests.
Solakzade Mehmed Hemdemi, a 17th-century historian, also uses the name Turk positively in many parts of his history and refers to Cem Sultan, while narrating the Cem incident, as "the son of the Turk who conquered Constantinople." Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, one of the greatest historians of the 16th century, in his world history "Kunhu’l-Ahbar" (The Essence of Histories), describes the Turkish tribes as "a distinguished nation, a beautiful community." Besides these, similar expressions are found in the works of many other Ottoman historians.
Examination of Ottoman histories reveals that they were aware of their origins in Central Asia and their Turkishness. In these books, the Ottoman dynasty is traced back to Oghuz Khan. The Ottomans were from the lineage of Oghuz and the Kayi tribe. Ottoman history is treated as a part of Turkish history. Indeed, the naming of Prince Cem's son as Oghuz Khan and Bayezid II's son as Korkud was not a coincidence but a conscious choice within the political structure of the time.
Ottoman is not the name of a nation. The name Ottoman, like the names Seljuk, Karakhanid and Ghaznavid, is the name of a dynasty. Like the Seljuks, Karakhanids and Ghaznavids, the Ottomans were a Turkish state. However, it should never be forgotten that the Ottomans were an empire.
It is a widespread belief that from the time of Mehmed the Conqueror onward, all administrators in the Ottoman Empire were individuals of non-Turkish "devsirme" (levy) origin. However, this is incorrect.
After Sultan Mehmed II had Candarli Halil Pasha executed, administrators of Turkish origin were not appointed to the vizierate and grand vizierate for a while. However, this was a result of a policy of balance. Indeed, upon the increase in the influence of the devsirmes, Sultan Mehmed II appointed a Turk, Karamanli Mehmed Pasha, as grand vizier.
The assassination of this grand vizier during the revolt that occurred after Sultan Mehmed II's death initiated the dominance of the devsirmes once again. However, grand viziers were not exclusively from the devsirme class. There were grand viziers of Turkish origin such as Candarli Ibrahim Pasha in 1498, Piri Mehmed Pasha in 1518, Ozdemiroglu Osman Pasha in 1584, Lala Mehmed Pasha in 1595, Okuz Mehmed Pasha in 1614, Kemankes Ali Pasha in 1623, Bayram Pasha in 1637, Tayyar Mehmed Pasha in 1638, Deli Huseyin Pasha in 1656, and Boynuegri Mehmed Pasha.
However, the number of grand viziers of Turkish origin increased after the 1680s. From this date onward, the vast majority of those who became grand viziers were of Turkish origin. If all Ottoman grand viziers are examined, the ratio of devsirme to Turk is approximately 56% to 44%.
Looking only at the vizierate or grand vizierate might lead to the conclusion that the Turks were excluded from the administration. Another area where devsirmes predominantly served was the palace. However, state administration was not limited to these positions. Outside of these, Turks held a very significant presence in other levels of the state.
Almost the entire body of the ulema (religious scholars), especially the Sheikh al-Islam and the kazaskers (chief military judges), were Turkish. Rarely were people of other nationalities found in these positions. Turks were also in the majority in the bureaucracy, which was one of the important pillars of the state. When the high-level bureaucrats of the Ottoman period, such as the defterdars (finance ministers), nisancis (chancellors), reisulkuttabs (chief clerks), and defter emins (treasury officials), are examined, it is seen that most of them were Turkish. Moreover, the officials who worked with these bureaucrats, such as katibs (scribes), sakirts (assistants), and mulazims (apprentice officials), were also Turkish.
The Ottoman administration's prioritization of Turks in positions requiring trust clearly demonstrates its awareness of its Turkishness. Devsirmes were given to Turkish villagers to be integrated into the Ottoman system. Giving someone to a villager for the devsirme was called "giving to the Turk." Furthermore, the soldiers of the Garb Ocaklari (Western Provinces) in North Africa, which required completely reliable personnel, were chosen from Turks of Western Anatolia.
1 min read
3 min read
