03.07.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Arguably more significant than its damage on economy, the Şahkulu rebellion<br />

created deep cracks in the social structure of the empire. I have already evaluated that,<br />

starting with the activities of Shaykh Junayd in the mid-fifteenth century, a large group<br />

of Safavid followers, principally from nomadic tribes, emerged in Anatolia. In the<br />

course of time, we can observe a two-fold process regarding this social segment of<br />

Ottoman Anatolia: on one hand their number increased through gaining new recruits,<br />

and on the other hand, the religious doctrine and practices that they followed was<br />

developed further. By the first decade of the sixteenth century, the new synthesis of the<br />

Safavid Order, which can be called ‘qizilbash way of Islamic mysticism’, for its most<br />

essential parts, had already appeared. Thus the adherents of this ‘path’, or the original<br />

word in Turkish ‘yol’, already formed an identifiable relio-social entity. The socio-<br />

cultural background of this group was constituted mostly by Turkoman nomadic tribal<br />

element, who had already been alienated from the Ottoman regime. By the Şahkulu<br />

revolt, however, the qizilbash society of Anatolia, which was still congealing its<br />

religious-political identity, was not only alienated from the Ottoman state agents but also<br />

from the sunni population of Anatolia as well.<br />

The outcomes of this rebellion in both domestic and international politics were<br />

decisive. In the domestic affairs, before all, Ahmed lost his most valuable and influential<br />

supporter: the grand vizier Ali Pasha. This rebellion’s consequence in the domestic<br />

politics was quite paradoxical. It would not be an exaggeration to assert that the Şahkulu<br />

rebellion facilitated greatly Selim’s capture of the throne. A passage in Künhü’l-Ahbār,<br />

even if it was later fabrication, reveals how Selim used Ahmed’s passive stand against<br />

Shahkulu to legitimize his dynastic claims. ‘Āli states that Selim defeated his brother<br />

Ahmed and captured him. Ahmed beseeched Selim, “Oh my sultan! Do not kill me!<br />

413

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!