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

establish his own government in Anatolia and gathered his most trusted begs and
commanders in Yenişehir, where he allocated governorships to each of them. In his
second letter, sent from Yenişehir, Ahmed calls Musa Beg to his presence and explains
that he would grant official post and source of income (dirlik) to the beg of Turgut-oğlu
tribe. 1602 And his last letter was just mentioned in the former paragraph.
What is of primary interest for the purpose of this study is that the same Musa
Beg was also among the prominent allies of Shah Ismail in Anatolia. It has already been
delineated that in the advent (hurūc) of Gilan in the summer of 1500, Ismail’s principal
source of warrior was Anatolian qizilbashes most of whom pursued a nomadic-tribal
way of life. Since the social roots of his disciples were chiefly in Anatolia, Ismail could
not be uninterested in the domestic affairs of the Ottoman state; and he did not. Archival
evidence shows that he aimed to organize discontent tribal population of Anatolia,
primarily but not necessarily the qizilbash society, especially against Selim’s ascendance
to the throne. In the establishment of the allegiance between Prince Ahmed and the tribal
forces of central and southern Anatolia, Ismail’s interference must have played a
considerable role. His letter to Turgutoğlu Musa Beg, dated May 23, 1512, just one
month later than Selim’s ascendance to the Ottoman throne, clearly shows how he
oriented these tribal forces of Anatolia. The complete text of the letter runs,
Bismillahirrrahmanirrrahim
Ya Ali
El hükmü lillah Ebu’l-muzaffer Đsmail Bahadır sözümüz
(on iki imamın ismi bulunan mühür)
Emir-i a’zām-ı ekrem Musa Durgutoğlu’na ināyet ve şefkatimize ümidvar
olandan sonra şöyle bilesün kim iftiharü’l-e’azim ve’l-āyān Ahmad Ağa
Karamanlu ol tarafa gönderdük ve ol her ne ki ihtiyar gelesi gendüye şefkat
etmek gerekkim müşarü’n-ileyh sözünden maslahatından çıkmasun ve mutābaat
1602 ULCY2, pp. 121-2. Most probably because of the confusion referred in the former footnote, ULCY
again refers to the document E 2667 as the source of this letter.
467