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

Selim obviously appeared as the symbol of aggressive policy. 1513 In 1507, during
his invasion of the Dulkadir principality, Ismail passed over the Ottoman lands and
enrolled Turkomans who were Ottoman subjects in his army. Although it was an open
violation of Ottoman sovereignty, Bayezid avoided any open conflict with the shah.
Meanwhile, Selim, in his own turn, pursued a rather aggressive policy. As explained
above, he raided Erzincan in 1507. He did not hesitate to criticize Bayezid’s passive
policy especially against Shah Ismail. 1514 As Đnalcık puts it succinctly,
While, by his submissive attitude, Prince Ahmed was favored by the Sultan and
the Grand Vizier, Selim became the symbol of an aggressive policy. Selim,
however, declared that his concern was not to secure the throne but to save the
empire from the havoc in which it had fallen. Openly criticizing his father’s
inactivity, he showed himself as a champion of the warfare against heretics as
well as Christians. Already from Trabzon he had organized raids into the
neighboring Georgia. His ghazā activities, used as political propaganda, won him
the favor of the Janissaries, the timariot Sipāhīs and Akindjis in Rumelia. It was
the military campaigns that gave opportunity to these military classes to get
promotion, more valuable tīmārs or booty. 1515
One would easily realize that this offensive policy made military classes whose
income and wealth was depended on warship become inclined to Selim. On the other
hand, as reported by Celalzāde, viziers and high bureaucrats were favoring Ahmed’s
candidacy. Selimnāme authors unanimously argue that these statesmen were in favor of
Ahmed since Ahmed was relaxed and soft in disposition. They thought that if Ahmed
1513 ULCY says that Selim first realized the vitality of the qizilbash threat and wrote several letters to the
Porte in order to call attention to this rising danger. But he never received a satisfactory answer. Then he
waged campaigns on the Qizilbash with warriors gathered from the provinces of Rum and Karaman. He
became the leader of sunnism against shi’ism. ULCY1, p. 76. ULCY follows, however, the footprints of
Ottoman court historians, not only in this specific case but also throughout his article, and takes a pro-
Selim stand. As explained in the former sections, the Porte was actually quite aware of the qizilbash threat
and took severe preventive measures.
1514 When their pro-Ahmed orientation became apparent Selim pointed his bitter criticism especially
against viziers and high officials at the Porte. His undated letter, possibly written in Kefe during his
rebellious movement, clearly shows how he accused erkān-ı devlet: “Memleket ahvālinin tedārik olunması
hususunda daima iğmaz-ı ayn vāki’ olub memleketin ahvāli bābında sū-i tedbirinizden gayri nesne zāhir
olmaz. Mā-hāsal-ı kelām bu kadar fitne ve fesāda sizing adem-i ikdamınız vāki olmuştur…” See ULCY1,
p. 79.
1515 Đnalcık, “Selim I”
443