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

sipāhis during the fight outside the fortress of Antalya. According to the report,
rebellious sipāhis said,
... bir dahi timar satarlarmı? Timarlarımızı satın alı alı cemi’ rızkımız tükendi.
Timar almağa deve gerek mal gerekdir. Yoldaşa timar yokdur. Nerede maldar
etrak taifesi varsa bezirganoğulları varsa kadıoğulları, mütevellioğulları varsa
cümlesi ehl-i timar oldular. Padişahın ne kadar āşinası, seyisi mehteri ve sāir
hüddāmı varsa cümlesi ehl-i timar oldular, yoldaşa dirlik kalmadı. Görsünler
imdi timarı nā-mahall verüb sipahi taifesini zulmetmekten ne fitneler zahir olsa
gerektir deyu dürlü dürlü mühmelatlar söylemişlerdir. ... Ekseri fesadlara ikdam
itdüren sipahilerdür ve müslümanlar askerinde olan sipahilerden yoldaşlık
gelmedi. Dahi artuk dahi olsa fiillerinden yoldaşlık ümid olmazdı... 1265
A short account in Haniwaldanus Anonym is complementary to this report. The
anonymous author states that there were sipāhis among people who joined the
movement of Şahkulu. Among those sipāhis there was a man whose name was
Uctaclıoğlu and was a subaşı dismissed from his timar by Karagöz Pasha. His aim in
joining the rebellion was to take revenge from the pasha. 1266
On the other hand, another report written by the defterdār of Antalya to Korkud
gives further details of this fight outside the city walls. The defterdār says following the
first advent of sufis that some Ottoman forces confronted them, but was defeated. Then
the defterdār and subaşı of the city recruited an army of three thousand men from
dwellers of Antalya and villages nearby. But when they confronted with rebels some
sipāhis and villagers in the Ottoman army changed sides. It was especially by the crucial
support of these betrayed sipāhis that the rebels defeated the Ottomans, who were forced
to retreat into the fortress. These betrayed soldiers even surrounded the subaşı, who
could barely flee to the fortress with a serious injury. The defterdār underscores in his
1265 TSA, document, E. 6187.
1266 ANMH, p. 49. ANMH describes this man as the second leader of the rebellion, who received a
province from Ismail when they arrived in Tabriz. Other sources do not specify names of any other leaders
than Şahkulu. It is highly possible that ANMH confuses the second leader of the rebellion with famous
qizilbash leader Ustaclıoğlu Muhammed Han, the governor of Amid.
383