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

Anatolia). 1914 On the other hand, Ismail organized his army under two wings: on the
right wing were the 20.000 qizilbashes under the command of Ismail 1915 , while the left
wing of Safavid army composed of 15.000 fighters who were commanded by
Ustacaluoğlu Muhammed Beg 1916 and his brother Karahan. Ismail also separated some
10.000 men under the command of his grand vizier Seyyid Abdülbāki and his kadıasker
Seyyid Şerif to protect his standard. 1917
On the arrival of the Ottoman army to the plain of Çaldıran, two different views
appeared at the court of Ismail. Muhammed Han Ustaclu and Nur Ali Khalifa, who had
been already acquainted with the Ottoman methods of warfare, advised to attack at once,
1914 See HYDR, p. 76. Also see CLZ, pp. 239-40; ALI, pp. 1097-8. According to the tradition, during the
wars in Europe, Rumelian troops fight on the right while Anatolian troops on the left; during the
campaigns in the east, on the other hand, Anatolian troops take place on the right while Rumelian troops
form their ranks on the left. See IDRS, p. 148; HSE4, p. 199; SLZ2, p. 23; MNB, p. 462. Ottoman
historians depict the majesty of the Ottoman army in detail. See, for example, Lütfi Paşa, pp. 221-228.
1915 KPZ depicts these qizilbashes as very good fighters dealing with at least ten enemies in a battle. He
says that “meymenesi tarafından kendü hulāsa-i ceyşiyle, ki yiğirmi bin mikdarı var idi, emmā her biri
savaşta on merd-i neberde berāber idi, içi kara dışı kızıl, gören musavver mevt-i ahmer sanurdı, sol kola
Rumilinün üzerine azimet itdi. Salābet ü şevketle meydan-ı muharebeye gelüb mizmār-ı muharebeye bir
mehābet bırakdı ki kulūb-i ins ü cini korkutdı.” KPZ9, pp. 107-108. IDRS gives the number of soldiers
under Ismail’s command as 40.000. See IDRS, p. 172.
1916 Muhammed Han Ustaclu was the governor of Diyarbekir since the capture of this city by Safavids in
1507. He was famous for his bravery and skill in the art of war. HR says that his success in fights with
local governors around Diyarbekir made him so conceited and self-esteemed that he began to write letters
to the Ottoman sultan (Selim) provoking him to war. See HR, p. 177.
1917 KPZ9, pp. 106-107; ALI, p. 1098. Apart from KPZ, ALI, who had most possibly derived his
knowledge from KPZ, and Lütfi Paşa, another Ottoman historian do not mention the third wing of Safavid
army commanded by Seyyid Abdülbāki. Rather, they narrate that Ismail divided his army into two
branches: one was commanded by him and the other was commanded by Ustaclu Muhammed Han. See
Lütfi Paşa, p. 220, p. 229; HYDR, p. 143; YSF, p. 58; CLZ, pp. 240-41. On the other hand, Safavid
chronicles confirm KPZ’s account. HR depicts, for example, the organization of Safavid army in a similar
fashion to KPZ. According to HR, Ismail divided his army into two main branches: on the right were
Durmuş Han Şamlu, Halil Sultan Dulkadirlu, Lala Hüseyin Beg, and Hulefa Beg; the left wing of the army
was commanded by Muhammed Han Ustaclu and Çayan Sultan Ustaclu (HS says, however, that
Muhammed Han Ustaclu was dubbed “Çayan”, literally means “scorpion”. See HS, p. 604); the forces at
the center were given under the command of Persian-origin notables, namely Emir Abdülbāki, Seyyid
Muhammed Kemūne, and Emir Seyyid Şerif. Additionally, Korucubaşı Sarı Pīre was sent to the frontal
line with some gāzis. Đsmail himself, with a group of korucu, was to watch over the progress of the battle
and to help the weakened wing if any. See HR, pp. 179-80. HS describes Safavid organization of the army
in a similar fashion. See HS, p. 605. AA chiefly follows the figure of these early Safavid historians.
Differing from them, however, he says that “Esma’il himself was in command of the Safavid center.” See
AA, p. 69. Selahattin Tansel, a contemporary historian who wrote the history of the reign of Selim I,
follows KPZ and Safavid chronicles’ view. See TNSS, pp. 54-55. For a similar view also see Tekindağ,
“Yavuz’un Đran Seferi”, p.67.
581