TURKOMANS BETWEEN TWO EMPIRES: THE ... - Bilkent University

ideological discourse of gazā nor supreme lineage of the dynasty, as formulated by later
historians. Rather, arguably the most effective factor was Osman’s success in preserving
the common interest of the tribal participants in his service. Rudi Paul Lindner, moving
from the results of modern anthropological studies on ‘tribe’, concludes that shared
concerns or shared interest played a much greater role in formation of medieval tribes
than did kinship or other factors such as ideology. He also underscores the inclusive
feature of ‘common interest’ which, contrary to the ‘exclusive’ nature of kinship, allows
the entrance of ‘foreigner’ element into the tribal structure, thus explains the rapid
growth of tribes. Common interest as a cohesive force holding a tribe together as a
political and military entity was, in the Ottoman case at least, supported by raids and
predation. 245
As it clearly appeared then, during its early phases under Osman and Orhan, the
Ottoman Principality was rather a tribal confederation gathered around the Ottoman
dynasty on the basis of common interest, which was almost wholly rested on gazā-raids,
as well as predation, and was cemented by the idea of holy war. On the one hand, the
successful raids of Osman and his tribal comrade-in-arms reinforced the influx of
245 Lindner, “What was a Nomadic Tribe?”, p. 698; Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia,
Bloomington: Indiana University, 1983, p. 2. Lindner, however, totally rejects the role of gazā ideology in
the forming early Ottoman war-bands. To him, gazā was simply later innovated and formulated by ulemā
in order to depict early Ottoman success as a classical Islamic enterprise. Lindner establishes his
argumentation on the inclusiveness of ‘shared interest’ against exclusiveness if gazā ideology in forming a
tribe. He argues that there were a considerable amount of Greek elements in early Ottoman enterprise. If
the gazā was principal stimulus, argues he, then how can one interpret exclusive nature of gazā together
with the Greek allies of Osman? See Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans, pp. 2-18. However, Lindner’s
argumentation is neither well-organized nor supported original materials. He seems to overtone
exclusiveness of gazā while neglecting worldly content of the concept, which was as affective as its
religious connotation. For some criticism of Lindner’s attitude, see, for example, Halil Berktay, “Osmanlı
Devleti’nin Yükselişine Kadar Türkler’in Đktisadî ve Toplumsal Tarihi”, in Türkiye Tarihi 1: Osmanlı
Devleti’ne Kadar Türkler, ed. Sina Akşin, Đstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1995, pp. 79-80; Ümit Hassan,
Osmanlı. Örgüt-Đnanç-Davranış’tan Hukuk-Đdeoloji’ye, Đstanbul: Đletişim Yayınları, 2001, pp. 137-47. In
a recent publication, Heat Lowry pursued a similar line of argument (with Lindner) regarding the meaning
and function of gazā during the early periods of the Ottoman history. Lowry develops the term
‘plundering confederacy’ for the gāzi bands fulfilling early conquests in Anatolia and the Balkans. See
Heat W. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, p. 46.
91