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

period, and tribal chiefs. However, as J. R. Walsh already underlined, the conditions of
these two opposing groups in the Balkans and Anatolia were completely different. The
akıncı-groups in the Balkans, whose autonomy was threatened by the centralizing polity
of the Ottoman state, were still dependent on the support of the Ottomans, which could
prevent Christians from destroying them piecemeal, for they were still little more than
small, isolated groups in the hostile territory. In Anatolia, on the other hand, the situation
was completely different. First of all, there was no such menace. Second, the social roots
of the Turko-Mongolian tradition were still strong in Anatolian lands. As Walsh says,
Here the Turkish tribal elements could maintain their natural independence of
each other and of the central power; though the petty emirates were gradually
absorbed, that instinctive separatism which had formerly atomized the Seljuq
state of Rūm into ineffectual begliks was too ingrained in these pastoral peoples
ever to respond easily to coercion or argument, especially when to the East lay an
assured and inviting haven. 340
As a matter of fact, the centralistic tendencies in the Ottoman politics created a
serious discontent among the akıncı-gāzi milieu in the frontier regions of Thrace and the
Balkans. Contemporary sources strongly suggest that the early conquests of the
Ottomans in Balkans are associated with the eponymous founders of akıncı dynasties
such as Evrenos Bey, Köse Mihal, Turahan Bey etc. These comrades of Osman, Orhan,
and Murad were acting autonomously in the frontiers. 341 Beldiceanu-Steinherr already
340 J. R. Walsh, “The Historiography of Ottoman-Safavid Relations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries”, in Historians of the Midle East, eds., Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt, New York, Toronto,
London: Oxford University Press, 1962, p. 202. One should note that Ottoman conquests in Anatolia
could attain strongholds only towards the end of the fifteenth century, when the champion of tribal
resistance against Ottoman regime, namely the Karamanid dynasty, was removed. Before, Ottoman
conquests in Asia Minor usually appeared as a temporary military invasion. In most cases, the former
order was re-established following the return of the Ottoman army. See, for example, APZ, p. 191.
Compare Oktay Özel, “The Transformation of Provincial Administration in Anatolia: Observations on
Amasya from 15 th to 17 th Centuries”, The Ottoman Empire. Myths, Realities and ‘Black Holes’.
Contributions in Honour of Colin Imber, eds., Eugenia Kermeli and Oktay Özel, Istanbul: ISIS Press,
2006, 51-73.
341 In the beginning, frontier raider-leaders were acting independently as comrades of Osman and Orhan.
Osman Beg, for example, used to give conquered lands as appanage or yurtluk to those begs who
130