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

‘savage-like’ pastoral nomads and villagers to some extent, who were ignorant and
unsophisticated in faith and brutal and war-like in the manner of life; the social class
which is referred to by Ottoman writers as ‘Etrāk-i bī-idrāk’, or ‘the Turks without the
ability of comprehension’.
More important for the purpose of this study is that Khunjī sees a concrete
correlation between the deviation of Ardabil shaykhs from the right path and their links
with the “men of Rūm”, which was reinforced under Haydar and his father. 716 A close
scrutiny of Khunjī’s account shows that to him the intensification of the connection with
the people of Rūm, whom he depicts as foolish, inclined to excessive beliefs,went hand
in hand with the deviation of the doctrinal trajectory of the Order. One feels legitimate to
propose that according to Khunjī it was these people of Rūm who were responsible for
leading the shahykhs of Ardabil off of the true path of their ancestors. 717 Indeed, his
introduction to the chapter dealing with the rise of Haydar and his ‘revolt’ clearly
reveals Khunjī’s approach. While narrating Sultan Yakub’s deeds in 1488 he mentions
Haydar’s third incursion on Circassia and his fight with Shirvanshah starting with the
phrase “Among the events of this year was the revolt of ….Shaykh Haydar … with the
support of the idolators (literally ‘calf-worshippers’) of Rūm.” 718 After clarifying the
point that Haydar went astray by pursuing the temporal power, he makes a flash back in
order to better explain how he went astray. He writes, “As some of his actions were
connected with the plans of his father, we must relate the story of the shaykhs of Ardabil
and explain their links to the men of Rum and the increase of this connection under
716 TA, p. 61.
717 He says, for example, “The excessive obedience of the people of Rum moved the shaykh-zāda
[Haydar] to acquire bad habits and manners.” See TA, p. 66.
718 TA, p. 61.
234