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

egional power but also established early forms of her centralized institutions, curbing
the power of feudal lords. The first Ottoman-Karaman confrontation occurred between
Murad I and Alāaddin Beg (d. 1398), who married the daughter of the former, in 1386-
7. 372 This battle marked the first victory of the centralized bureaucratic state of the
Ottomans over the tribal confederacy of the Karamans. 373 The rise of Ottoman
imperialism at the cost of the power of tribal-hereditary dynasties is reflected in Şikārī’s
narration as follows: “[Karamanoğlu] Osman’ı bir gedā iken şah eyledi. [Osman] Aslı
cinsi yok bir yürükoğlu iken bey oldı. Beyzādeleri beğenmez oldı, ocak erlerin incidür
oldı.” 374 As clearly seen, Şikārī points his criticism, which might be a common
sentiment of Turkoman milieu, particularly towards the Ottoman policy of reducing the
power of tribal leaders.
The Ottoman-Karaman struggle continued throughout the fifteenth century. As
Şikārī himself also admits, however, Ibrahim Beg (d. 1464) had to admit Ottoman
superiority. 375 In 1475, Mehmed II finally finished the Karamanid rule. By the death of
Kasım Beg, who ruled the region until 1483 as a vassal of the Ottoman sultan, 376 the
political existence of the Karamanid dynasty de facto diminished. 377 An account of
Şikārī is of primary interest for the purpose of the present study. Şikārī says following
372
Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 623; “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 457.
373
Şikârî often accuses Ottomans for being not of noble blood, disloyal, not keeping their words. See, for
example, Şikârî, pp. 149, 161, 162. Suffice it to quote following expressions from Şikârî to show
Turkoman perception of the Ottoman rule: “Đbn-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.
374
Şikârî, p. 141.
375
Şikârî, p. 191.
376
KPZ8, p. 40.
377
Sümer, “Karāmān-oghullari”, EI2, IV, p. 624; “Karamanoğulları”, DIA, 24, p. 459.
141