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

Their number increased significantly so that they even began to dream of a temporal
suzerainty. They were pillaging villages and towns, killing all the people and spoiling
their properties. 1193 Some of the people living in this region were killed and some others
could save their life only by fleeing over mountains. 1194
One interesting point in the testimony of an arrested sufi dispatched by Korkud,
draws attention. According to this testimony, after defeating Karagöz Pasha’s army
outside Kütahya and executing him, qizilbashes toasted three people. 1195 The testimony
does not specify, however, why they toasted these three people and what they did with
toasted corpses. 1196 Another extreme practice attributed to the rebels by Ottoman authors
1192 HSE4, p. 44.
1193 HSE4, p. 44.
1194 ANMB, pp. 174-5. CLZ narrates events more or less in the same manner. But a couplet of him is
worth to cite here. He says, “Şarab u hamr içildi āşikāre / Harāmī başladı sayd u şikāre.” See CLZ, p.
121. Also see HSE4, p. 44. A contemporary inspector reports the early phases of the rebellion as follows:
“Hurūc edeliden bu demedeğin gālib budur ki ricalden ve etfalden ve avretden on binden ziyade nefs
katlolunmuşdur. Efvāh-ı ricalde hod ziyade mübalağa ederler. Hāsıl-ı kelam bir gün önden memleketin
ahvāline tadārik gerekdir. Gāyet gerekdir. Asıl Kızılbaş kendi gelse bu kadar āfet olmazdı. Kendudan
eşeddir. Bu zalim uğradığı yerlerde ricalden ve avretden ve etfalden ne bulursa kırar. Hatta kendu
maslahatından ziyade koyun ve sığır olsa cümlesin kırar. Kediyi kırar, tavuğu kırar. Kütahya’da talan
etdüğü esbabı, mahbub kaliçalar ve sayir esbab her ne var ise cem edüb oda yakmuş. Hāsıl şerh olunur
zalim değildür. Ve bazı ahvāl ve kelimāt vardır yazılmak edeb olduğu sebebden yazılmadı. Çavuş Đskender
bendeniz cümleye vakıfdır, mahfice teftiş oluna. Cengin evvelinden ahārına cemī’ ahvāla vākıfdır. Takrir
eyleye. Çok namus eksikliği oldu. Ve memleket halkı, hususa Kütahya şehirlisi rızıkların
yağmalatmışlardır, kurtaramamışlardır. Müslümanların halleri gayet mükedder olmuşdur, hayf
olmuşdur.” See TSA, document E. 6187.
1195 TSA, document E 5035.
1196 Indeed, contemporary sources often refer to cannibalistic practices of qizilbashes, both in Anatolia and
in Iran. For example, On May 13, 1504, Ismail captured Amir Husayn Kiyā Chulāwī, the Shi’ite ruler of
Fīrūzkūh and Damāwand and confined him in an iron cage. On the return march, however, Amir Husayn
Kiyā managed to commit suicide. His corpse was burnt in meydān at Isfahān. (Sarwar, pp. 48-9)
Furthermore, two of his officers, Murad Beg Jahānshānī and Sāylatmish beg were roasted alive. As a
warning to others, Sūfīs ate them as a kebāb. Roger Savory determines, Ismail was alleged to have given
the order, “whoever is a convinced believer, let him eat a morsel of this kebāb.” (Roger Savory, “The
Consolidation of Safawid Power in Persia”, Der Islam, 41, 1965, p. 74.) As recorded in one Safavid
chronicle, such was the zeal of the gāzis neither fleshes nor bones remained. (Khwurshāh b. Qubād al-
Husaynī, Tārikh-i Īlchī-yi Nizāmshāh, Manuscript, British Museum, Add. 23, 513, fol. 451a, cited in
Roger Savory, “The Consolidation of Safawid Power in Persia”, p. 74.) Jean Aubin also calls attention to
some cannibalistic practices of qizilbashes. He reminds, for example, that Ismail made the skull of
defeated Ozbek Sheybāni Han goblet and with it drunk wine. He also indicates that Shah Ismail invented
new methods of torture such as coating captives with honey and posing to wasps, putting in a boiling
caldron. See Jean Aubin, “La politique religieuse des Safavudes”, Le Shî’isme Imâmite, Colloque de
Strasbourg, 6-9 mai 1968, Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1970, p. 237. Still more unfortunate
361