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

3.4. CONCLUSION
By the second half of the fifteenth century, the Ottomans had captured Constantinople
and rose as a world power, with a bureaucracy that had been fully created by traditional
Islamic ulemā and slave-origin bureaucrats. On the other hand, a vast Turkoman
population, still mainly nomadic, or at least sustaining nomadic habits, no longer
considered the Ottoman power as their legitimate state authority. Furthermore, the
centralistic policies of the Ottoman government, which accelerated under Mehmed II’s
reign, created a vast discontent among nomadic tribes of Anatolia. 407 As has been
pointed out by a modern scholar, “their tribal identity is never allowed to disappear into
that of the state, and the interests of the tribe are the only paramount ideal which they are
ever seen to serve.” 408 Nevertheless, the tribal structure of Anatolia did not have enough
potency of resistance against the extension of the Ottoman imperialism. Consequently
they started to wait for a savior who would stop the Ottoman oppression. Furthermore,
the messianism, which had already dominated their belief system, augmented this
expectation. 409 From the poems of qizilbash ozans (poet and singer) of the sixteenth
century, it can be understood that the Turkoman considered the Ottoman governmental
407 See Halil Đnalcık, “Mehmed II”, IA, vol. 7, 506-535; Oktay Özel, "Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's
'Land Reform' Revisited", Journal of Social and Economic History of the Orient, 42/2, 1999, 226-246;
Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, “Un rapport inédit sur la révolte anatolienne de 1527”, Studia Islamica,
LXII, Paris, 1985, pp. 156-7. Another reason aroused discontent of dervish milieu toward Ottoman
administration was the confiscation of waqfs by Mehmed II in 1476, obviously for financial reasons. See
Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Le règne de Selim Ier: tournant dans la vie politique et religieuse de l’empire
ottoman”, pp. 46-7; Oktay Özel, "Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II's 'Land Reform' Revisited", Journal
of Social and Economic History of the Orient, 42/2 (1999), 226-246.
Yet it is reported that right after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmet II bestowed Akataleptos church
in the Şehzadebaşı district to Kalenderîs, who rushed to the army’s aid during the siege. See Oruç Beg,
Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, ed. F. Babinger, Hannover, 1925, p. 65; Mehmed Neşrî, Kitâb-ı Cihannümâ, II, ed.
F. R. Unat-M. A. Köymen, Ankara: TTK, 1995, p. 691. O. Nuri Ergin argues, however, that this was not
because of Mehmed II’s approval of Kalenderîs’ religious path, but because of the necessity to make them
harmless for the society by settling in a certain place. See O. Nuri Ergin, Türk Şehirlerinde Đmaret Sistemi,
Đstanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası, 1939, pp. 26-7.
408 Walsh, p. 203.
409 Ocak, “Babīler Đsyanından Kızılbaşlığa”, p. 148; Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Le règne de Selim Ier:
tournant dans la vie politique et religieuse de l’empire ottoman”, p. 43.
148