The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angeloviů (1453-1474) 9004121064, 9789004121065

Citation preview

THE SULTAN OF VEZIRS

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND ITS HERITAGE Politics, Society andEconomy EDITED BY

SURAIYA

FAROQHI AND

HAUL INALCIK

Advisory Board Fikret Adanir . Idris Bostan . Amnon Cohen : Cornell Fleischer Barbara Flemming . Alexander de Groot . Klaus Kreiser Hans Georg Maj er . Ir ene Melikoff . Ahmet Yasar O cak Abdeljelil Temimi . Gilles Veinstein . Elizab eth Zachari adou

VOLUME 24

THE SULTAN OF VEZIRS The Life and Times if the Ottoman Grand vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453-1474) BY

THEOHARIS STAVRIDES

BRILL LEIDEN' BOSTON' KOLN 2001

T his book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stavrides, Theoharis. The Sultan of vezirs : the life and times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453-1474) / by Theoharis Stavrides. p. em. ~ (The Ottoman Empire and its heritage, ISSN 1380-6067 ; v.24) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index . ISBN 900412 1064 (alk. paper) I. Turkey-e-History-e-Mehrned II, 1451-1481. 2. Mahmud Pasha , d. 1474. I. Title. II. Series. DR501 .S83 200 1 956.1'0 I '092~dc21

2001025990 eIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnalune Stavrides, Theoharis: The sultan of vezirs : the life and times of the Ottoman grand vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453-1474) / by Theoharis Stavrides. - Leiden ; Boston ; Koln : Brill,2001 (Th e Ottoman Empire and its heritage ; Vol. 24) ISBN 90-04-12106-4

ISSN 1380-6076 ISBN 9004121064

© Copyright 2001 by Koninklijke Brill.Nv,Leiden, TheNetherlands All rights reserved. Nopart qf thispublication mqybereproduced, translated, stored in a retrievalsystem, ortransmitted in a'!Yfirm or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording orothenvise, without prior written permission qf thepublisher. Authorization tophotocopy itemsfir internal orpersonal use isgranted by Brillprovided that the appropriate.fees are paiddirectly to The Copyright Clearance Center, Rosewood Drive 222, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA Fees are subject tochange. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements. ....................................................................... List of Abbr eviations. ....................................................................

IX XI

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction ................................................................................... I. Ottoman Imperial Ideology andthe Office if Vezir A. A New Imp erial Ideology The Creation of a New Imp erial Capital........................... The Palace and the Kanunname The Transformed Image of the Ottoman Sultan B. The Office of Vezir The Vezir in Pre-Ottoman Islamic States The Ottoman Vezirate 1300-1453 The New Position of the Grand Vezir in the Court of Mehm ed II

3 19 19 21 28 34 37 37 51 56

PART TWO: THE ORIGINS AND LIFE OF MAHMUD PASHA .

II. Mahmud Pasha's Origins andFamily 73 Place of Origin .................................................................... 73 Descent and Parents 75 Mahmud Pasha 's Brother: Michael Angelovic 93 Marriages and Children ...................................................... 101 III. The Rise if Mahmud Pasha (1427?- 1463) A. Capture and Rise in the Ottoman Court............................ Capture Rise in the Court.. ............................................................... 1453: At the Siege of Con stantinople 1453-1457: Appointment and First Actions as Vezir 1458: The Great Serbian Camp aign B. 1459-1463: Mahmud Pasha at the Height of his Power 1459: Campaign in Serbia

107 107 107 110 112 113 121

127 128

VI

CONTENTS

1460: The Conquests of the Morea and Amasra 1461: Anatolian Campaign against Sinop and Trebizond 1462: Campaigns in Walachia and Lesbos 1463: Campaigns in Bosnia and the Morea IV Decline if Power andFinal Years (1464-1474) A. 1464-1468: Decline Of Power 1464: Defending Lesbos and Zvornik 1465: Creative Pause 1466: Peace Negotiations with Venice 1467: The Second Albanian Campaign 1468: Campaign in Karaman and Mahmud Pasha's First Dismissal .............................................................................. B. 1469-1474: The Final Years 1469: Appointment as Sancakbey of Gelibolu 1470: The Conquest of Negroponte 1471 1472: Mahmud Pasha recalled as Grand Vezir 1473: Campaign in Anatolia and Mahmud Pasha's Second Dismissal 1474: The D eath of Mahmud Pasha.......... ....................... .

129 132 140 146 155 155 155 160 162 163 164 167 167 168 172 173 175 181

PART THREE: CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEW EMPIRE

"Y. Conquest...... .................................................................................... 187 Mahmud Pasha and the Ottoman Army ............ ................ 187 Strategies of Conquest 197 VI. Diplomacy. A. Venice ................................................................................... 1461-1462: Fugitive Slaves The Ottoman-Venetian War of 1463-1479: Peace Negotiations 1470-1474: The 'Maut Bassa' Affair B. Ragusa Before the 1458 Embassy...... .............................................. 1458: The Embassy of Palladino Gondola and Palladino Lucari.. ....................................... .......................................... Subsequent Contacts betwe en Ragusa and Mahmud Pasha 1459-1473

208 208 208 212 220 234 235 236 246

C. Diplomacy With Other Powers

254

VII. Pious Foundation andArchitectural Patronage A. Property B. The Pious Foundation The Vakf-i Am The Vakf-i Evlad C. Architectural Patronage The Buildings The Significance of Mahmud Pasha's Architectural Project

258 258 259 259 266 267 267 282

VIII. Literary Patronage and Divan A. Literary Patronage Patronage of Poets Patronage of Scholars and Students Mahmud Pasha's Library B. Mahmud Pasha's Poetry Mahmud Pasha's Pseudonym Mahmud Pasha's Divan

294 294 294 301 307 310 3 11 312

PART FOUR: TENSIONS IX. DismissalandExecution A. 1468: Mahmud Pasha's First Dismissal............................... The Ceremony of Dismissal............................................... The Causes of Dismissal B. 1473: Mahmud Pasha's Second Dismissal The Fatal Campaign C. 1474: The Death of Mahmud Pasha .................................. The Camp aign of 1473 against Uzun Hasan Mahmud Pasha and Dulkadiroglu Sehsuvar Bey ............... Relations between Mahmud Pasha and Prince Mustafa .... Mahmud Pasha's Power and Ambitions

329 329 329 330 336 337 34 1 34 1 342 344 352

X. Mahmud Pasha's Fame andPosthumous Legend A. Judgements on Mahmud Pasha in the Sources............ ....... Self-Presentation Mahmud Pasha's Power Mahmud Pasha's Moral and Intellectual Attributes Mahmud Pasha as an Instrum ent of the Sultan

356 356 357 358 359 368

VIII

CONTENTS

B. The Legend The Manuscripts The Cult of Mahmud Pasha Dating of the Legend Mahmud Pasha and the Anti-Imperial Legends Mahmud Pasha as a Saintly Figure The Creation of the Legend

369 378 379 380 384 388 392

Conclusion

397

Appendix I: Venetian Plans against Mehmed II: The Proposals of 'Machomet Bey' and the Case of Yakub Pasha

402

Appendix II: The Span family in Venice in the 16th century ..... 409 Appendix III: The Architectural Projects of the Grandees of Mehmed II............ ... .................. .... ........ ............ ................ .. ..... 411 Bibliography.................................................................................. 418 Index

433

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this project, which started as a doctoral dissertation in the History Department of Harvard University, submitted in 1996, was the result of the direct or indirect contribution of several persons. First of all I want to thank Professor Cemal Kafadar for his help, encouragement and inspiration, for introducing to me the excitement of Ottoman history and for acquainting me with Mahmud Pasha. I also want to thank him for his advice, drawn from his deep knowledge of Ottoman history, and his ideas, without which this work would have been infinitely poorer, if it would have been written at all. I would like to thank Professor Angeliki Laiou for her constant help and rigorous guidance. Her contribution towards the completion of this study was crucial and I am grateful for her sound advice . The debt of this study to Professor Halil ina1cIk is great and the importance of the ideas that he transmitted during the discussions that I had the honor to have with him in the spring of 1993 is disproportional to the brevity of our acquaintance. I would also like to thank him for reading the manuscript and providing me with important comments. The help and support of Professor Suraiya Faroqhi was extremely valuable in the completion of this project and in the transformation of the doctoral dissertation into a book. I would like to thank her for taking the time to read the manuscript and for making thoughtful and important recommendations. I would like to thank Professor Sinasi Tekin for all that he has taught me about the Ottoman language and paleography and, in particular, I would like to express my gratitude to him and his wife, Professor Gomll Alpay Tekin, for their kind help in the translation of Ottoman verses. The advice and encouragement of the late Professor]ohn A. Petropulos were the main reasons for my decision to pursue the study of History and I would like to express my debt to him for this. More importantly, I am grateful to him because his example as a scholar and as a man is a constant source of inspiration to me. The research necessary for this study was covered to a large extent through a grant of the A.G. Leventis Foundation of Paris and I thank the Foundation and Mr. G. Cassimatis for this. I am also grateful to the History Department of Harvard University for providing me with a Travelling Fellowship, which was used for my trip to Italy and

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Croatia. M y long stay in Venice in the fall of 1994 would have been imp ossible without the kind hospitality provided by the Director , th e lat e Professor Nich olaos Pan agiotakis, and th e sta ff of the Istituto Ellenico. The fellows of the Istitu to also deserve mention her e for helpin g me to orient myself in the maz e of Venice and of the Ve netian Arc hives and for their friendship . The staff of th e Archivio di Stato of Ve nice should also be tha nked for their help during my resear ch there, and I would like to thank especially Professor Mar ia Pia Pedani and Professor Brendan Dooley. I would like also like to tha nk the Director and staff of the Historical Archive of Dubrovnik, who did everything in their power to ena ble me to profit to the utmost from my bri ef sojourn in th eir beau tiful city in March 1995. Thanks are also du e to many friends and colleagues who have contributed in various ways to this study: To Hiilya Canbakal, Qigdem K afescioglu and Leslie Schick, each of whom contributed in different crucial ways to thi s project , through discussion s or with th eir practical assistance. T o Himmet T askomur for kindly translatin g some passages from Arabic. T o Selma O zkocak for kindly permitting my access to her unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. T o Dem etrius Kyritses for the illumin ating discussion s we had on Byzan tine and Ottom an history. To man y friends who were at H arv ard in the period 19901996 for indirect, yet valuable support in the completion of this proj ect. T o friends and relatives in Cyprus for th eir friendship and suppo rt. I am parti cularly grateful to Mr. Theod osis Nikolaou for his friendship and wisdom and for helping me in the tran slation of many Greek passages. I would also like to thank M rs. Andriana Jones for reading the manuscript and helping in the improvement oflanguage and style. Last but not least I sho uld say that l owe my greatest debt to my parent s and to my brother, Stefanos, for their consta nt suppo rt and enco ur agement through all these yea rs. Finally, special th ank s should go to Assistant Ed itor Ms . Trudy K amperveen and to the staff of Brill Academic Publishers, who made the publication of this project po ssible. Theoharis Stavrides

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASM

Archivio di Stato di Milano

ASV

Archivio di Stato di Venezia

EI

EJ. Brill's First Encyclopedia if Islam 1913-1936. Edited by M.Th. Houtsma et al. 9 vols. Leiden and New York: EJ. Brill. 1987.

EI2

Encyclopedia ifIslam. New Edition. Edited by H.A.R. Gibb et al. 8 vols. Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1960-.

HAD

Historijski Arhiv Dubrovnik

M

islam Ansiklopedisi: islam Alemi Cogrqjja, Etnogrqjja ve BiJogrqjja Lugatz. 13 vols. Istanbul, 1940-1988.

PART ONE INTRODUCTION

INTRODU CTION

W ith th eir conques t of Constant ino ple in 1453 the Ottom an s man aged to un ite politically the area of the Balkan s and Ana tolia after alm ost four centuries of fragme ntation and disorder. The reign of the conque ro r of the city, Sulta n M ehmed II (145 1- 148 1), was a turn ing-po int in Ottom an history, m arking th e definitive transition of th e Ottom an Sta te fro m a frontier princip alit y to an empire and giving it th e form that it would essen tially maintain for the next four and a half centur ies. The dominant figu re in th e Ottom an State during this period was the Sultan, M ehmed II the Conqu er or , who se for ceful person ality and policies aiming at th e crea tion of a great sede ntary, bureau cratic an d wo rld-co nque ring empire influ en ced all aspec ts of life during that period . One of the greatest inn ovation s of Me hmed II was his use of men of nonM uslim origin at the highest offices in th e sta te. One of these men , one of the very first conve rts to occ upy th e office of G ra nd Vez ir among th e O ttoma ns, was M ahmud Pasha Ange lovic , who , descending fro m a Byzantin e aristocrat ic fam ily resi ding in Serbia, becam e th e second most imp ortan t figure in the state du ring a large part of th e reign of Me hme d II. H e occ upied the office of Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi of Rumeli (com m ander of the army of th e Balkan s) for twelve co nti nuo us yea rs (1456- 1468), the office of Sancakbey of Gelibolu (com mande r of th e Ottom an fleet) for th ree years (1469- 1472), and the office of Grand Vezir again in 1472147 3, befor e his execut ion by orde r of th e Sulta n in July 1474. Besides his Byzantine descent, whi ch proved to be very convenient in th e conquest of C hristian lands in th e Balkan s and Anatolia, it seems that M ahmud Pasha also po ssessed the abilities, which provided the answer to th e particular ne eds of the Ottom an State during the period of his tenure of power. These abilities mu st have been mainly military and dipl om atic, and the expanding Ottoman State of th e 1450 's a nd ea rly 1460 's seem s to have put th em to goo d use. For some reason , Mahm ud Pasha's military skills seem to have been particularl y successful in Balkan and naval campaigns, while

4

INTR OD U CTION

two out of the three maj or Anatolian campaigns in which the Grand Vezi r participated ended with his dismissal. The fact that not mu ch is heard in th e sources co nce rn ing Mahmud Pasha 's adm inistrative activity does not necessarily reflect on a lack of the Grand Vezir's abilities in th at respect , but rather th e pred ominan t focu s of th e Ottom an Stat e and the O ttom an sources during tha t period. Even his rich diplomatic activity would have been irr etrievabl y lost had it not been for western sources, mainly arc hival ones , to preserv e it. This is a n indication th at his adm inistrative ac tivity may have been of equal importance as his military and diplom atic co ntribution , but may not have been p reserved du e to the nature of the sources available . In th e twenty years of his domination in th e Ottom an court, M ahmud Pasha engage d in various activities extending far beyond the strict exigencies of the offices that he held. As the commander of th e a rmy, he particip at ed in all the significa nt Ottoman conqu ests of the peri od , especially in th e Balkan s. Serbia, Bosnia, th e M or ea, Lesbo s, K araman and Trebizond wer e annexed to th e Ottom an Empire, to a great exten t th rough his mil ita ry ac tivity. As Grand Vezir , M ahmud Pasha was also th e main Ottoman negot iato r in all diplom ati c dealings with foreign powers, and th e Archives of Veni ce and Dubrovnik contain imp or tan t informa tion on his activities. Like many high- standing cour t officials of his tim e, M ahmud Pasha was also a great patron of the arts. T hrougho ut the lands of the empire, he patroni zed architectural proj ects, which, beyond the ir artistic significa nce, were also import ant in promoting the social and eco no mic life of th e Empire. In addition to his a rc hitectural patron age, M ahmud Pasha was also a great patron of poet s and learned men , a nd even co ntrib uted his ow n co llection of po em s (Divan) to O ttom an literature. Mahmud Pasha 's fame was so gr eat th at it co n tin ue d posthumously, m aking him in to a sain tly figur e among th e Muslim subjects of th e Empire. The ambivalent position of th e V ezir vis-a-vis th e sovere ign has been noted since th e ve ry beginnings of th e in stitution, and its ea rliest example was prob ably the fall of the Barmakid vezirial family in 803 . Much lat er , with th e appeara nce of M ontesquieu 's Persian Letters (172 1), the image of the powerful Vez ir incessantly conspiring against his C aliph or Sulta n was taken up by Europ ean Orientalists and ha s becom e a stereotype, reach ing eve n to contempo rary popular culture, with figures like G oscinny's Izn ogoud a nd Dis-

INTROD UCTION

5

ney's J afar. D espite the fact th at M ahmud Pasha was perceived by all contempo rary narrative sources as a faithful serva nt of the Sultan , certain referen ces in th e sources indi cate tha t the Grand Vezir's po sition in relation to M ehmed II ca n not hav e been free of tenSIOns.

In part, th e aim of thi s study is to bring together for th e first tim e all th e available information on the life and ac tivity of th e most powerful G rand Ve zir of th e period. T he fra gm enta ry eviden ce on M ah mud Pasha's life as well as his multi-faceted activity dem and th at th e biogr aphy of thi s man must necessarily be composed of studies of va rious disparat e aspects of Ottom an life in th e third quarter of th e fifteenth century, from political , military and diplomatic history, to studies on the culture, literature and architecture of th e period, as well as a closer look at th e social relation ships in th e Ottoman co urt, a nd particul arly at th e rel ation ship betw een the Sulta n and his hi gh est officials. The b ro ad unifying pattern behind all of these apparently disparate eleme nts is the imperi al p roj ect of Su ltan Me hme d II the C onqueror , designed to transform the Ottom an St a te in to a cent ra lize d wo rld empire, and permeating all facets of life. Through a study of M ahmud Pasha it is also hoped th at more light will be she d on th is important period of tr ansition a nd that som e seem ingly contradictory or paradoxical aspects ma y be clarified. T he mo st important of th ese may be visible already in th e structure of thi s study, nam ely, th e j uxta pos ition of M ahmud Pasha's significant cont ribution to the founding of the Ottom an State, with the serious ten sion s arising be tween him and the Sultan. H ow could a man th a t had devoted the greatest part of his life and energies in the service of the Sulta n, to th e expansion of th e Ottoman State and its establishme nt as a cent ra lized empire, have been executed by imp eri al decr ee a nd be po sthumou sly presen ted as a saint in a legend presenting the sovereign in an unfavorabl e light ? The atte mp t to explain thi s fundamental paradox of M ahmud Pasha 's life and activity will be th e cen tra l qu estion of thi s study.

C hap ter I is meant to be an in troductory one and aims at presenting the background both to the reign of Mehme d II as well as to the institution of the Grand Vezira te. It deals first with the ideological significance of th e co nques t of Consta ntinople, as well as

6

INTRODUCTION

the policies of Mehmed II following that event, which marked, both symbolically and practically, the foundation of the new empire. In this section some of the most important references are the articles of Halil ina1cIk and particularly, a) "Mehmed II" [1A 7, 506535J, which, despite its brevity, may be the most complete and insightful piece written so far on the entire reign of Mehmed II, b) "The policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek population ofIstanbul and the Byzantine buildings of the city" [Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24 (1969-1970): 231-249J, c) "Istanbul: An Islamic city" Uoumal qf Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1-23J on the reconstruction of Istanbul from a Christian to an Islamic capital, d) "Osmanhlar'da Saltanat Veraseti Usulu ve Turk Hakimiyet Telakkisiyle ilgisi" [Siyasal Bilgiler Fakiiltesi Dergisi 14 (1959) : 69-94J on Ottoman ideology concerning succession, as well as his book TIe Ottoman Empire. TIe Classical Age, 1300-1600 (London and New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1973; reprint, New Rochelle, NY: Orpheus Publishing Inc., 1989), a useful analytical survey of the first three centuries of the Ottoman Empire. An important analysis of the ideology of the early Ottoman State and the transition from frontier principality to empire is Cemal Kafadar's book Between the Old and the New (University of California Press, 1995). The next section deals with the creation of the Topkapi palace and the promulgation of the Kanunname (law code) for the palace organization, both of which are seen as constituting landmarks in the transformation of the image of the Ottoman Sultan. The most important secondary work on the Topkapi is Giilrii Necipoglu's Architecture, ceremonial and power. TIe Topkapi palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1991), giving the ideological background pervading the building of that palace. Besides Necipoglu's book, a key secondary work on the Kanunname is Halil ina1cIk's "Osmanh hukukuna giris" [Siyasal Bilgiler Fakiiltesi Dergisi 13 (1958): 102-126J , which gives significant information on the two Kanunnames promulgated during the reign of Mehmed II. In terms of sources, there are two editions of the Kanunname for the palace organization, one by Mehmed Arif, Kanunname-i Al-i Osman [Tarih-i Osman-i Enciimeni Mecmuasz, ilavesi (AH 1330 / 1912): 1-32J, and a more recent one by Abdulkadir Ozcan, "Fatih'in Teskilar Kanunnamesi ve Nizam-i Alem icin Kardes Kath Meselesi" [Tarih Dergisi 33 (1982): 7-56]. The second part of the first chapter is an attempted survey,

INTRODUCTION

7

through case studies, of the history of the institution of the Vezirate. The most important works used for the history of the Vezirate in pre-Ottoman Islamic states are Dominique Sourdel's Le vi::;irat abbaside de 749 a 936 (2 vols., Damascus, 1960), Ann Lambton's "The Internal Structure of the Saljuq Empire" [in The Cambridge History if Iran, vol.5, ed.].A. Boyle (Cambridge, 1968) 203-282], Carla Klausner's The Seljuk Vezirate. A Study if Civil Administration 10551194 (Harvard, 1973), and ismail Hakki Uzuncarsih's Osmanlt Devleti Teskilatma Medhal (Ankara, 1970), all of which deal with the institutional history of early Islamic empires. For the life and career of Candarh Halil Pasha the most helpful studies are Halil Inalcik's Fatih Devri u::;erinde tetkikler ve vesikalar, vol.l (Ankara, 1954), containing a collection of studies for the period 1444-1453, and Uzuncarsili's Candarli Vezir Ailesi (Ankara, 1974), which traces the lives and careers of the most significant members of that vezirial family. For the succession of Grand Vezirs during the reign of Mehmed II the most helpful modern work is Halil Inalcik's article "Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and his time" [Speculum 35 (1960): 408-427], which is a review article of Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time and contains a section on the dating of the successions in the office of the Grand Vezirate. The single most important source on the topic is the history of ibn Kemal (1468-1534), Teodrih-i Al-i Osman, (ed. Serafettin Turan, 2 vols., Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1954-57), one of the most detailed Ottoman histories of this period. ibn Kemal, one of the most distinguished scholars of his time, started composing his history in 1502-1503. A letter from Pera, kept in the Archives of Milan, gives significant information on Mahmud Pasha's return to power in 1472 (ASM, Archivio Sforresco, Cart.646). Chapter 2 is an attempt to trace the descent of Mahmud Pasha through both his father's and his mother's side, as well as to collect all the available information on his family and his brother. Information was scraped from several sources in an attempt to recreate Mahmud Pasha's family tree, but for the purposes of this chapter the information given by the Greek sources was the most valuable. Kritoboulos [Critobuli Imbriotae Historiae, ed. D .R. Reinsch (Berlin and New York: Corpus Fontium Historiac Byzantinae, vol. 22, 1983)], was a historian who wrote in Greek in order to glorify Mehmed II, and gave a very detailed account of the period 1453-1467 . Laonikos Chalkokondyles [Historia, ed. Immanuel

8

INTRODUCTION

Bekker (Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, vol. 44, 1843)] was another historian who was a contemporary of Mahmud Pasha and gave a very detailed account of Ottoman history until 1464 . Doukas [Historia Turcobyzantina, ed. Vasile Grecu (Bucarest, 1958)] was a historian employed at the court of the Gattilusii in Lesbos, and must have been killed during the Ottoman siege of that island in 1462, since his narrative breaks off abruptly during the description of that siege. George Sphrantzes was a Constantinopolitan nobleman who fled his home city after 1453 and wrote his memoirs [Memorii, ed. Vasile Grecu, (Bucarest, 1966)] in his old age in Corfu, in the 1470's. The anonymous chronicles Historia Politica and Historia Patriarchica [ed. 1. Bekker (Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 1849)] were probably composed in the sixteenth century by a person connected to the Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul. One secondary work deals directly and extensively with Mahmud Pasha's genealogy, namely Matei Cazacu's "Les parentes byzantines et ottomanes de l'historien Laonikos Chalcocondyle" [Turcica 16 (1984): 95-114], the author, however, presents an unconvincing argument. The section written by V. Laurent in the article "Le Vaticanus Latinus 4789: Histoire et alliances des Cantacuzenes aux XIVe-XVe siecles" [Revue des etudes byeantines 9 (1951-1952): 47-105] is very important in determining some of Mahmud Pasha's crucial relationships and, although written before Cazacu's article, allows us to refute some of the latter's assertions. The genealogy of Mahmud Pasha as it appears in Ottoman and Greek sources is summarized well in Sehabeddin Tekindag's article "Mahmud Pasa" 7, 183-188), which is probably the best and most comprehensive work on Mahmud Pasha to-date, and which has been used in all subsequent chapters. The work by E. Trapp, R. Walther, and H.-V. Beyer Prosopographisches Lexikon der Paloiologenzeit (Vienna, 1976) is very important in providing the raw material on which I based my hypotheses and tentative identifications of Mahmud Pasha's ancestors. The most important sources on Mahmud Pasha's brother, Michael Angelovic, are mostly archival, from Milan (ASM, Archivio Sforzesco, Cart.650), Dubrovnik (HAD, Lettere di Levante, 16) and Venice (ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti, 17), but crucial information on the period of the Serbian regency in early 1458 is also provided by the brief Serbian chronicle edited by Ljub. Stojanovic ["Stari

VA

INTROD U CTION

9

Srpski R odo slovi i Letopisi" , Zbomik za istoriju,jezik i k,yiievnost srpskog naroda 14 (1927)]. C hapters 3 and 4 are compleme ntary and tr ace chro no logic ally th e ca ree r and act ivity of M ahmud Pasha as it appears in th e narrative sources of th e period , with special emphasis on th e militar y campaigns. C hapter 3 begin s with th e capture of M ahmud Pasha as a child in Serbia in th e 1420 's and ends in 1463 , th e yea r which, for reason s explained in th e text , may be taken to be a turning point, marking th e zenith of M ahmud Pa sha 's power , but also conta ining the seeds of his eve ntua l decline. Chapter 4 deals with th e peri od 1464-1 47 4, which may be co nside re d as m arking a decline in M ahmud Pasha's fortun es, ending with his exec ution. Sever al sources were used in th ese chapte rs, but th e following are th e most imp ortant ones: From amo ng th e Ottoman sources the two mo st important histories are those of Tursun Bey and ibn Kemal (see abo ve). Tursun Bey' s Tarih-i Ebii'l-Feth [ed s. H alil inalcIk and Rhoad s Murphey (M in neapolis and Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978)] is the personal mem oir of a man who was in th e serv ice of Mahm ud Pasha and co ntains man y details on his activity and person ality. Both Tursun Bey and ibn K emal present detailed acco unts of most of the campa igns in which Mahmud Pasha participated . Ano ther important fifteen th- century Ottoman chronicle, which is widely used in these chapte rs is Asikpasazade's Teudrih-i Al-i Osman [Die altosmanische Chronik des Alzkpalazade, ed. F. Giese (Leipzig, 1929)], writte n by a man of der vish backgro und during the reign of Bayezid II . Nesri's Cihanniima [eds. F.R. D nat and M. A. K oym en (Ankara , 1949-1 957)] was also writte n in the last yea rs of the fifteenth century (between 1486 and 149 3) and largely follows Asikpasazade and Oxford Anonymo us, although it also contains mu ch information th at is un available anywhere else. The lat e fifteenth cent ury Oxford Anonymous Chronicle serve d as th e basis for th e unpublished C hro nicle of Ruhi and was mistakenly published under the nam e of that author by Yucel Yasar and Halil Erdogan Cengiz ["Ruhi Tarihi-Oxford Nushasi" , Belgeler 14 (19891992): 359-472] . Saadcddin's Tacii't-Tevarih [2 vols., Istanbul, (AH 1279 / 1862-63)] was wri tte n in th e late sixtee nt h century by a renowned Ottoman scho lar, and it is essentially a tran slation , from th e Persian, of Hasht Bihisht, a work writte n during th e reign of Bayezid II by a chancery official, Idris-i Bitlisi. T o th ese should also be adde d Enveri's epic Diisturname [ed. Mii krimin H alil Yi-

10

INTRODUCTION

nanc (Istanbul, 1928)], which is of great importance since it is a work composed under the patronage of Mahmud Pasha and contains sections devoted to him. A later Ottoman source is Muncecimbasi 's seventeenth-century history Sahaifii'l-Ahbar [Terciime-i Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, vo1.3 (Istanbul, n.d.)] . From among Greek sources, the two most important ones are Kritobou1os and Cha1kokondy1es, and secondarily Doukas and Sphrantzes (see above). Significant information, that is otherwise inaccessible, is provided by some Italian sources. Gian Maria Angiolello's Historia Turchesca, mistakenly published by 1. Ursu under the name of Donado da Lezze (Bucarest, 1909), is the most important source among them since its author was captured by the Ottomans during the siege of Negroponte in 1470 and spent several years in the Ottoman court before returning to Italy to write his account. An unpublished source, which contains some important information, coinciding with Angiolello in many points, is the Anonymous Chronicle contained in the codex Marcianus Ita!. VI 277 in the Marciana Library of Venice. The Annals of Domenico Malipiero are also valuable in describing the wars of the Venetians against the Ottomans ["Annali Veneti dall'anno 1457 al 1500 del Senatore Domenico Malipiero, Parte Ia et IIa degli Annali", Archivio Storico Italiano 7 (1843)]. Another Italian source, which sometimes provides valuable information but also contains many inaccuracies, is the memoirs of the Florentine Benedetto Dei (1418 1492) [La Cronica dal!'anno 1400 al!'anno 1500, ed. Roberto Barducci (Florence, 1984)], the author of which resided in Istanbul for several years during the reign of Mehmed II . The Memoirs of Konstantin Mihailovic who, like Angiolello, spent several years at the Ottoman court in the 1450's and 60's, constitute a Slavic source, but the author never became a Janissary, as the title of the English translation of his book erroneously suggests [Memoirs if a Janissary, eds. S. Soucek and B. Stolz (Ann Arbor, 1975)]. The most important secondary works are the following: In Ottoman Turkish we have two nineteenth-century historians, Ahmed Ata [Tarihi-i Ata (5 vols., Istanbul, AH 1292-93 / 1875-76)] and Mehmed Sureyya, who wrote a biographical dictionary on Ottoman officials entitled Sicil!-i Osmdni (4 vols., Istanbul, AH 130811 / 1891-94). In modern Turkish, we have a detailed account of the military campaigns of the period in Selahettin Tansel's Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Siyasi ve Askeri Faaliyeti (Ankara, 1953). In western

INTRODUCTION

11

languages, the most important studies used are the following : The seventeenth-century book by Gullet de Saint Georges, Histoire du Regne de Mahomet II Empereur des Turcs (Paris, 1681), relies greatly on Chalkokondyles, but also makes use of other sources, whose identity remains unknown. Then we have the three classic histories of the Ottoman Empire in German, those by Joseph von Hammer [Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol.2 (Vienna, 1828)], J. W. Zinkeisen [Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa, vol. 2 (Gotha, 1854)] and N . Jorga [Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol.2 (Gotha, 1909)], which contain detailed factual accounts of the events of the period. The most factually detailed modern study on the reign of Mehmed II is Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time [Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit: Weltensturmer einer Zeitenwende (Munich, 1953); English edition, trans. Ralph Manheim, ed. William C. Hickman (Princeton, NJ: Bollingen Series, Princeton University Press, 1978)], which has been criticized, particularly by Halil inalClk ["Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and his time", Speculum 35 (1960): 408-427] for insufficient use of primary sources and various mistakes. The most recent account is the one by Colin Imber [17ze Ottoman Empire 1300-1481 (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990)], which is an attempt to provide a narrative of the events of the period staying close to the sources. Chapter 5 is meant to be something like an analytical appendix to chapters 3 and 4, trying to describe what the military offices occupied by Mahmud Pasha entailed as well as to discern patterns in the methods of conquest he employed. The sources used for this part are the same as for chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 6 deals with the diplomatic dealings of Mahmud Pasha, particularly with Venice and Ragusa. On the relations with Venice, the deliberations of the Venetian Senate are our most important source (ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21-23). Some other important documents were published in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vols. 4-5 (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1875-1877). Domenico Malipiero's Annals (see above) are also very important, particularly due to their detailed description of the negotiations between Zuane Capello and Mahmud Pasha in 1466-1467 . From among recent works, the unpublished thesis of Avery DeLano Andrews, "The Turkish threat to Venice, 1453-1463" (Ph.D . diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1962) gives a detailed exposition of Ottoman-Venetian relations in the decade preceding the war of

12

INTRODUCTION

1463-1479, based primarily on archival material from Venice. Also helpful is the book by Kenneth M . Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, vo1.2 (Philadelphia, 1978), which also deals with the diplomatic relations of the two powers during that period. The section on "Maut Bassa"'s proposals to Venice is based almost exclusively on archival documents from Venice. The key texts are to be found primarily in the deliberations of the Venetian Council of Ten (ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti, 17-18), and partly in the letters of the Capi of the Council of Ten (ASV, Capi del Consiglio dei Dieci, Lettere, Filza I). These documents were discovered in the early 1970's by the Serbian historian Ivan Bozic, who wrote an article based on them ["Kolebanja Mahmud Pase Andelovica", Prilozi za knjiievnost, jezik, istoriju i folklor 41, 3-4 (1975): 159I 71]. As this article was written in Serbian, Western historians largely ignored it, and by extension the documents on which it was based, until the appearance of an article by Alexandre Popovic ["La biographie du Grand Vizir Mahmud Pasa Adni entre la 'Turcologie' et la 'Balkanologie"', Melanges offerts a Louis Basin, Varia Turcica 19 (Paris, 1992): 227-229] . Information on "Maut Bassa'''s messenger, Alessio Span, is contained in the deliberations of the Venetian Senate (ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23 and ASV, Senato, Mar, 7), as well as in Karl Hopf's Chroniques greco-romanes inMites ou peu connues, publiees avec notes et tables genealogiques (Berlin, 1873). An un published work by Andreas Angelos Komnenos, entitled Constitutio Ordinis Constantiniani Equestris, which is to be found in the Marciana Library in Venice [ms. Marcianus Lat. X 232 (3732)] contains important information on Span's descent. On Mahmud Pasha's dealings with Ragusa (Dubrovnik), by far the most important sources used are archival documents from Dubrovnik and most particularly the commissions and letters to Ragusan envoys to the Ottomans from 1458 onwards, contained in HAD, Lettere e Commissioni, Lettere di Levante, 14, 16. Brief references are also to be found in the deliberations of the Senate (HAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, 15-22). Two documents issued by Mahmud Pasha in Slavic are published in Ciro Truhelka, Tursko-sloojenski spomenici Dubrooacke arhive [Glasnik remaljskog mureja u Bosni i Hercegovini 23 (Sarajevo, 1911)], while another one in Turkish is published by G. Elezovic [Turski Spomenici (Belgrade, 1940)] and Sinasi Tekin ["Tiirkiye'de XV. yuzyila ait iki pasaport: iI-Can Mektubi ve iI-Can Name", Tarih ve Toplum 23 (1985): 9-11]. An important

INTRODUCTION

13

narrative source is a chronicle by Giovanni di Marino Gondola [Cronica, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium 25 (Zagreb, 1893)], containing much information on Ragusan relations with the Ottomans. The most recent and helpful study on Ragusan-Ottoman relations during this period are the two articles of Bosko Bojovic in Turcica ["Dubrovnik et les Ottomans, I: 20 Actes de Murad II et de Mehmed II en medio-serbe", Turcica 19 (1987): 119-173, and "Dubrovnik et les Ottomans, II: Onze Actes de Mehmed II en Vieux-Serbe 1473-1476", Turcica 24 (1992): 153182], which give a thorough survey of the relations of the two states during the reigns of Murad II and Mehmed II and also present some documents from the period. Chapter 7 concerns Mahmud Pasha's pious foundations (evkqf) as well as his architectural patronage. A description of the state of Mahmud Pasha's foundation in 1546 is published in Orner Lutfi Barkan's and Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi's edition of a document describing all (but the royal) pious foundations of Istanbul in existence during that year [istanbul Vakiflan Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546) Tarihli (Istanbul, 1970)]. His vakif is also described in an article by Suheyl Dnver ["Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan ve Ekleri", Vakiflar Dergisi 4 (1958): 65-76]. It is also published in part by M. Tayyib Gokbilgin in his book XV.-XVI. Aszrlarda Edime ve Pasa Livasz (Istanbul, 1952). For the architectural patronage of Mahmud Pasha some information is contained in Kritoboulos and Asikpasazade as well as in other sources. Poets praising Mahmud Pasha have left us some remarks on his buildings. Most notable among them is Enveri (see above), whose work was commissioned by Mahmud Pasha, and Hamidi [Kiilliyat-i Divan-i Mevlana Hamidi, ed. t.n. Ertaylan (Istanbul, 1949)], a Persian poet who wrote in praise of Mahmud Pasha , apparently with the hope of receiving favor from him. However, our most important source for Mahmud Pasha's architectural projects is archaeological evidence, all the extant traces of which are amply displayed by Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi in his monumental Osmanlz Mimarisinde Fatih Devri (Istanbul, 1974) as well as in the earlier version of that, Fatih Devri Mimarisi (Istanbul, 1953). Another extensive history of Ottoman architecture is Godfrey Goodwin's A History of Ottoman Architecture (Baltimore, 1971). The unpublished doctoral dissertation by Qigdem Kafescioglu, "The Ottoman Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the Fifteenth Century" (Ph .D. diss., Harvard Universi-

14

INTRODUCTION

ty, 1996), is an important interpretative study of the transformation of Istanbul under Mehmed II. It contains a crucial section, which studies in detail the building project of Mahmud Pasha, as well as those of Rum Mehmed Pasha and Hass Murad Pasha, in Istanbul. The unpublished doctoral thesis of Selma Ozkocak, "The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in the sixteenth century" (Ph.D. diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1997), provides interesting information on the city quarter of Mahmud Pasha and its position in the development of Istanbul. A couple of articles have been written concerning specific buildings of Mahmud Pasha's patronage: One is Ali Saim Ulgen's "Ankara'da Mahmud Pasa Bedesteni ve Bitisigindeki Han" [Fatih oe Istanbul I (1953): 69-77], on the Bedestan in Ankara, and the other is M. Ayashoglu's "Istanbul'da Mahmud Pasa Tiirbesi", [GiL~el Sanatlar 6 (1949): 148-154], on Mahmud Pasha's mausoleum in Istanbul. In the analytical section of the chapter, Halil Inalcik's articles "Bursa and the commerce of the Levant" rJournal if Economic and Social History if the Orient 111/2 (1960): 131-137], "Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire" [The Journal if Economic History 29 (1969): 97-140], "The Ottoman economic mind and aspects of the Ottoman economy" [Studies in the Economic History if the Middle East, ed . M.A. Cook (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 207-218], and "The hub of the city: The Bedestan of Istanbul" [International Journal if Turkish Studies I (1980): 1-17), as well as his book The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age (see above) were very helpful in providing the context highlighting the significance of Mahmud Pasha's architectural project. Chapter 8 consists of two parts. The first one describes Mahmud Pasha's patronage of poets and scholars, while the second briefly describes and analyzes his collection of poems (Divan). In the first section the most important sources were those commissioned by Mahmud Pasha, as well as the Ottoman biographies of poets. The only extant books written under Mahmud Pasha's patronage are Enveri's Diisturname and Sukrullah's Behcetii't- Tevarih, an Ottoman history in Persian verse commissioned to one of the most respected Ottoman scholars of his time [Osmanlz Tarihleri, vol. I, ed. and trans. Qift In Anatolia, however, th e Seljuks encoun tere d an un exp ect ed problem: According to Cl aude C ah en , in th e Muslim sta tes of th e east Lambton, "T he Int ern al Struc ture", 263. Klausner, 'The Seijuk Vezirate, 50. Lambton, "T he Intern al Structur e" , 265. Klausner, 'The Seijuk Verirate, 79-82. 113 Claude Cah en, Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London, 1968), 78, 225. Aydm T an eri, Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nun Kurultq Doneminde Vezir-iA 'eamhk (1299-1453) (Ankara, 1974), 13-14. Uzuncarsih, Osmanlt Deuleti Teskilatma M edhal, 43. Ali Sevim and Yasar Yucel, Tiirkiye Tarihi. Fetih, Selcuklu ue Brylikler Diinemi (Ankara, 1989), 109. III

112

OTIOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

47

"there was a clear-cut distinction in profession and racial origin between the administrative offices and the politico-military classes". The Seljuks and the other dynasties of the east employed members of the local population in their bureaucracy, while their army was staffed by men of Turkish origins. In Anatolia, the local population was not only Christian, but was also ignorant of the two major Islamic languages, Arabic and Persian. The Seljuks solved this problem by 'importing' bureaucrats, particularly from Khorasan or northwestern Iran. 114 Although the appointment of a Vezir was one of the important manifestations of the coming to being of the state of the Seljuks of Rum, little is known about individual Vezirs from this period. C. Cahen poses the question whether this was an expression of the fact that under the Seljuks of Rum the office of Vezir was institutionally diminished compared to that of the Great Seljuks, which had produced officials like Nizam al-Mulk. Pointing out that even the names of the men who occupied the office in the 11th and 12th centuries are not known for certain, he also wonders whether this was a result of the possibility that the early Seljuk Vezirs were local converts.U > Lack of information prevents us from judging Cahen's hypothesis, however, there was at least one local convert who apparently occupied the office of Vezir. Ihtiyar al-Din Hasan bin Gavras was a descendant of the Byzantine Anatolian aristocratic family of Gavras and served as Vezir under the Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan II from before 1176 until 11891192. 116 His ancestors can be traced back to the l Oth century and in the 11th and 12th centuries held the Byzantine theme of Chaldia in eastern Anatolia as Dukes. In their ranks they included a saint (St. Theodore Gavras) and they appeared as akritai (frontier warriors) in the 13th century Turkish frontier epic Donismendname.t'! There were several Gavrades in the service of the Seljuk Sultan and it is not always easy to discern which information pertains to Ihtiyar al-Din Hasan. A certain Gavras, who was brought up among the Seljuks and fought the Byzantines on their behalf, was captured by Manuel I Komnenos near Konya in 1146. Bryer specuCahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 224. Ibid., 225. Taneri, Vezir-i Aeamhk, 14-16, gives a list of names of the Vezirs of the Seljuks of Rum . 116 Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 225. Taneri, Vezir-i Azamhk, 29, 104. 117 A. Bryer, "A Byzantine Family: The Gabrades, c.979-c.1653" , Unioersuy of Birmingham Historical Joumal 12 (1970): 174-179. 114 115

48

CHAPTER ONE

lated that he might have been the father ofIhtiyar al-Din Hasan.Uf The next mention that we have of a Gavras in the service of the Seljuks comes from 1175-1176, when a member of the family, who had been brought up among the Byzantines, was sent by Kilij Ars1an II to conduct negotiations with Manuel I before and after the battle of Myriokephalon. Both Cahen and Bryer identify this Gavras with Ihtiyar al-Din Hasan, although Bryer seems to think that he might have been the Vezir's father.I!? Nevertheless, four years later there is a definite reference to Ihtiyar al-Din Hasan; this makes it probable that the 1175-1176 mention may have also been referring to him. In 1180, Kilij Arslan II sent Ihtiyar al-Din Hasan to conduct negotiations with the Ayubid Sultan Saladin, and the Vezir visited Saladin once again in 1188 in order to congratulate him on behalf of Kilij Arslan II on the conquest ofJerusalem. 120 Little is known about the activity and patronage of Hasan bin Gavras. Based on Arab historians, Bryer says that he "was regarded as a wise statesman and noted for the splendor of his robes and personal jewelry", 121 while Taneri, without citing his sources, mentions his extensive pious foundation (vakif) in Kayseri.P? The year and the manner of the fall of Hasan bin Gavras from the Vezirate are controversial. According to Cahen, he was forced to give up the Vezirate in 1189, following the intrigues of Kilij Arslan II's son , Kutb al-Din Malikshah, who had managed to create mistrust between the Sultan and the Vezir.t-" Bryer, on the other hand, says that Hasan bin Gavras lost the Vezirate after the death of Kilij Arslan II in 1192. 124 After his fall from power, Hasan bin Gavras retired to his estates near Erzincan, but was murdered by Turkmen on the way there.P> According to the Seljukname, a Gavras was 118 Claude Cahen, "Une Famille Byzantine au Service des Seldjuqides d'Asie Mineure" , in Polychronian. Festschrift Franz DO/ger zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Wirth (Heidelberg, 1966), 147, says that Gavras was bought back by the Seljuks. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 97. Bryer, "A Byzantine Family", 179-180, says that Gavras was decapitated. 119 Cahen, "Une Famille Byzantine", 147. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 103. Bryer, "A Byzantine Family", 180. 120 Cahen , "Une Famille Byzantine", 147. Bryer, "A Byzantine Family", 181. Sevim and Yucel, Tiirkiye Tarihi, 134. Taneri, Vezir-i Aeamlik, 18. 121 Bryer, "A Byzantine Family", 181. 122 Taneri, Vezir-i Azamhk, 28. 123 Cahen, "Une Famille Byzantine", 147. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 112. 124 Bryer, "A Byzantine Family" , 181. 125 Bryer, "A Byzantine Family" , 181. Cahen, "Une Famille Byzantine", 147. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 112. Taneri, Venr-i Azamhk; 100.

OTfOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

49

accused in 1192 of having poisoned Kilij Arslan II and his son and successor Kaykhosraw. 126 We do not know whether this refers to Hasan bin Gavras or to one of his relatives. Fragmented as it is, this biography may furnish us with some interesting information concerning the institution of the Vezirate in Anatolia. Here we probably see one of the first instances of the cooperation of Byzantine aristocratic families with a TurkishlIslamic dynasty in Anatolia in an official capacity, a phenomenon which would flourish a few centuries later under the Ottomans. Through this biography we may also see Hasan bin Gavras carrying out one of the basic functions of the Vezir, namely, the conducting of diplomacy with foreign powers on behalf of his sovereign. The issue of conspicuous consumption also appears in the biography of Hasan bin Gavras through the mention of his splendid clothes and expensive jewelry, as is the issue of generosity, if we are to believe Taneri's mention of his pious endowment in Kayseri. Finally, the biography also touches on the issue of the Vezir's relations with the Sultan and his family, since it is possible that Hasan's downfall may have been caused by the intrigues of Kutb al-Din, the son of the Sultan. If the information on the Vezirate under the Seljuks of Rum is scarce, that which concerns the numerous beyliks, which sprung up in Anatolia between the 13th and 15th centuries, after the dissolution of the Seljuk state, is practically non existent and may only be scraped together from passing references in the sources. According to t.n. Uzuncarsih, since the Ottoman beylik, which, at the beginning of the 14th century, was neither the biggest nor the most important of the Anatolian beyliks, had instituted the office of Vezir and a Divan from quite early on, then it would be natural to suppose that the bigger and more important beyliks must also have had similar institutions.J-? For the beylik of Germiyan we have a fleeting reference in the Mesalikii'l-Ebsar, according to which Yakub I Bey of Germiyan was such a great sovereign that he had emirs, vezirs, kadis, treasuries, etc. under his command.U" For the emirate of Aydm we have a Cahen, "Une Famille Byzantine", 148. Bryer, "A Byzantine Family", 181. Uzuncarsih, Osmanli Devleti Teskilatma Medhal, 149-150. 128 Mustafa Cetin Varhk, Germiyan Oguilar! Tarihi (1300-1429) (Ankara, 1974), 36-37, 100. Uzuncarsih, Osmanli Devleti Teskilauna Medhal, 150. T.H. , "Vezir", jA 13,313. 126 127

50

CHAPTER ONE

reference in the Diisturname of Enveri, according to which Umur Bey of Aydm had a Vezir named Pesrev Beyoglu Yusuf Bey from whom he never separated.P? The last beylik for which we have evidence is Karaman, where there is mention that Karamanoglu Ibrahim Bey, sometime in the 1440 's, sent his Vezir Server Aga, together with his wife, who was the Ottoman Sultan's sister, as ambassadors to Murad II in order to negotiate peace.P" One of the most extraordinary figures in the history of 14th century Anatolia was Kadi Burhaneddin Ahmed, a poet and jurist, who managed to achieve the office of Sultan in the beylik of Eretna, after occupying successively the offices ofJudge, Vezir and Tutor to the prince. Although it is atypical, being a rare success story of a Vezir managing to become Sultan, it should be briefly recounted since it is the best-documented case of a Vezir of an Anatolian beylik. Kadi Burhaneddin Ahmed was born in Kayseri in 1345. His ancestors had held the office of Kadi in Kayseri for several generations. At a young age he went to Egypt and Syria to study and, upon the death of his father, was appointed Kadi of Kayseri at the age of twenty-one in 1365. 131 After the death of the Sultan of Eretna Giyas al-Din Mehmed, Kadi Burhaneddin helped the new Sultan, Ali, to defeat his enemies and, as a reward, received the Vezirate from him, a position which he held between the years 1378-1380. 132 During his brief tenure as Vezir, Kadi Burhaneddin proved to be very active and, besides accompanying Eretnaoglu Ali Bey in his military expeditions, he concerned himself with the internal organization of the state, introduced centralizing policies, and pushed aside the traditionally established families, replacing them in the high offices of the administration with his own men. Eventually, he also assumed the office of Melikii'l-Omera, which gave him control of the army. His 129 Enveri, Diistumame, ed. Mukrimin Halil Yinanc (Istanbul, 1928), 19. "Pisrev Beyoglu YusufBey Vezir / Oldi andan ayru olmazdi emir" . Hirnmet Akm, AydmOgullan Tarihihakkinda bir arasttrma (Istanbul, 1946), 31. Uzuncarsih, Osmanli Devleti Teskilauna Medhal, 150. T .H., "Vezir", M 13,313. 130 Uzuncarsih, Osmanli Devleti Teskilauna Medhal, 150. ism ail Hakki Uzuncarsih, Anadolu Beylikleri (Ankara, 1969), 26. Sevim and Yucel, Tiirkiye Tarihi, 331. T.H., "Vezir", M 13,313. 131 Yasar Yucel, Kadi Burhaneddin Ahmed ve Devleti (1344-1398) (Ankara, 1970), 15-22. Uzuncarsih, Anadolu Beylikleri, 162. Sevim and YiiceI, Tiirkiye Tarihi, 422-423 . J. Rypka , "Burhan ai-Din", £12 I, 1327. M. Bala , "Kadl Burhaneddin", M 6, 46. 132 Yucel, Kadi Burhaneddin, 34. Uzuncarsih, Osmanlt Devleti Teskilatina Medhal, 158. Sevim and Yiicel, Tiirkiye Tarihi, 358, 423-424.

OTfOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

51

successful policies earned him increasing support and influence, which was resented by Ali Bey, who gradually found himself in the shadow of his Vezir.P'' However, he did not have the opportunity to react, dying unexpectedly, after a brief illness, in August 1380. 134 Being Vezir, Kadi Burhaneddin was appointed as regent to Ali Bey's seven-year-old son , M ehmed Bey II. During the period of his regency he tried to take under his direct command all the resources of the state, such as the army and the treasury, and judged complaints daily in the presence of the young sovereign. In 1381 Kadi Burhaneddin proclaimed himself Sultan. 135 The remainder of this story falls out of the scope of our discussion here since it concerns a sovereign and not a Vezir. Although atypical, the story of Kadi Burhaneddin's Vezirate is indicative of the fact that in the Anatolian emirates the office of th e Vezir existed, and that its occupant enj oyed more or less the same high status and was charged with more or less the same tasks as in the great Islamic states that had existed before. In the early l-lth century the beylik of Osman was a small emirate apparently possessing similar institutions as the other Anatolian states.

TIe Ottoman Vezirate 1300-1453 The office of the Vezir in the Ottoman Empire was first introduced by Orhan I (1326-1362), who, quite early in his reign, appointed to that office Alaeddin Pasha.l '" In the earlier Islamic states the Vezirate was an office occupied by only on e person. However, in the Ottoman State multiple Vezirs appeared from quite early on. The particular time of the introduction of this innovation is not known and it is very possible that it may have been introduced for the first time by the Ottomans, since it is encountered neither Yucel, Kadi Burhaneddin, 34-36. Sevim and Yiicel, Tiirkiye Tarihi, 424-425. Yucel, Kadi Burhaneddin, 42. Uzuncarsih, Anadolu Beylikleri, 159. 135 Yticel, Kadl Burhaneddin, 47-59. Sevim and Yticel, Tiirkiye Tarihi, 427-428. 136 Taneri, Vezir-i Azamlsk, 33. ismail Hakki Uzuncarsih, "O smanh Tarihine ait Yeni bir Vesikanm Ehemmiyeti ve bu Munasebetle Osmanhlarda ilk Vezirlere dair Mutal ea", Belleten 3 (1939): 101. For the succession of Ottoman Grand Vezirs in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries see Taneri, Ve;::ir-i Aramhk, 33-38, and Uzuncarsih, "Osmanh Tarihine ait Yeni bir Vesikanm Ehemm iyeti", 99-106. George G. Arnakis, Ol Ilodrto: 'O OWfl a VOt. ~Vfl{30Ai] fit; r:o ne6{3AfJfla r:rjt; nxiboeox; rov 'EAAT/VIOfl OV nlt; MIXedt; 'Aotat; (Athens, 1947), 164. Babinger, "Wa zir", EI, 9, 1136. 133

134

52

CHAPTER ONE

in the institutions of the Anatolian Seljuks nor in the scanty information that we possess about the Anatolian beyliks. F. Babinger's assertion that until the conquest of Constantinople there was only one Ottoman Vezirl-? cannot be correct since the existence of three or four Vezirs is attested by sources at least as early as the reign of Murad II. Sources indicate that at the time of the battle of Varna in 1444, in addition to Candarh Halil Pasha, who was the first Vezir, Sahabeddin Pasha, Saruca Pasha and possibly Zaganos Pasha also held the office of Vezir.l'" The existence of more than one Vezir in the Ottoman State necessitated that the first among them be called Grand Vezir isadraram, oear-i azam). In order to gain an idea of the nature of the office of the Grand Vezir before the conquest of Constantinople and before the advent of Mahmud Pasha , we should proceed to a brief examination of the life and career of the last Ottoman Grand Vezir before 1453, Candarh Halil Pasha. Candarh Halil Pasha descended from a prominent Muslim family of ulema background, which furnished the Ottoman dynasty with Grand Vezirs and high officials for several generations. Halil Pasha's grandfather, Halil Hayreddin Pasha, after serving as Kadi of Bilecik and iznik, ended up , during the reign of Orhan I, as Kadi of Bursa, then capital of the Ottoman State. From there he reached the office of Kadiasker and, eventually, was appointed both Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi under Murad 1. According to t.u. Uzuncarsih, he was th e first true Ottoman Grand Vezir, in the sense that he was the first person to hold both of those offices simultaneously. 139 Halil Pasha's uncle, Ali Pasha, served as Grand Vezir under Mehmed I, and his fath er, Ibrahim, served as Grand Vezir under Mehmed I and Murad II. Both Ali Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha reached the Grand Vezirate after becoming Kadi and Kadiasker.v" Candarh Halil Pasha received medrese education and, like his ancestors, was first appointed to Kadi positions. He had risen to Babinger , "Wazir", £19, 1136. Halil Inal cik, Fatih Devri iirerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar I (Ankara, 1954), 85, relies on Oruc Doukas and Kasifi for this inform ation. 139 ismail HakkI Uzuncarsih, "Qandarh", iA 3, 351-353. ismail HakkI Uzuncarsih, Candarli Ve:::.ir Ailesi (Ankara, 1974), 3-28. Taneri, Ve:::.ir-i Azamhk, 35. Ismail Hakki Uzuncarsih, Osmanli Devletinin Merke; ve Bahriye Teskilatt (Ankara, 1948), III, 158163. 140 Uzuncarsih, "Candarh", iA 3, 353-354. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Ve:::.ir Ailesi, 3155. Colin Imb er, "Kh alil Pasha, Djandarli" , £123,968. Taneri, Ve:::.ir-i Azamlik, 3536. 137

138

OITOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

53

be army judge and, upon the death of his father in 1429, he was appointed third Vezir. He must have reached the Grand Vezirate some time in the l430'S .141 After his appointment as Grand Vezir, he assumed responsibility for all the affairs of the state and became the absolute deputy of Murad II, whose complete trust he enjoyed.U" Halil Pasha concerned himself with foreign policy and received foreign emissaries before their audience with the Sultan. He followed a cautious policy of conciliation and peace towards the enemies of the Ottomans and was the main negotiator for the peace of Szegedin, which was signed between the Sultan and the Hungarians in 1444. 143 Following the conclusion of this peace, Sultan Murad II abdicated in favor of his son Mehmed II and retired to Bursa. During that period, Halil Pasha retained the Vezirate, but his relations with the young Sultan became very strained due to the latter's close relations with a group of officials of deosume (levy of Christian children) origins led by Zaganos Pasha and Sahabeddin Pasha.U! At the time of the Hungarian breach of the treaty of Szegedin in the autumn of 1444 , contrary to the will of Mehmed II, Halil Pasha invited Murad II to lead the Ottoman army against the Crusader invasion. He led a contingent guarding the straits at the time of the Ottoman army's crossing from Anatolia to Rumcli, but remained in Edirne with Mehmed II during the expedition, which culminated in the battle of Varna in November 1444. 145 After the victory at Varna, Murad II left the throne once more, but he was soon called to return to Edirne again. In 1446 a Janissary revolt erupted in the capital and because of the seriousness of the situation, Halil Pasha invited back to the throne Murad II, who accepted the invitation and was reinstated as Sultan. The role of Halil Pasha in this incident was dubious and some sources saw the Janissary revolt as a product of his own instigation. It is even related that Halil Pasha invited Mehmed II to go hunting, so that 141 Inalcrk, Fatih Devri, 81. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 56, says that Halil Pasha moved directly from the position of Kadiasker to that of Grand Vezir. Uzuncarsih, "Candarh" , IA 3, 354. Taneri, Vezir-i Aramltk, 95. 142 Inalcik , Fatih Devri, 81. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 56. Taneri, Verir-i

Aramhk, 63. 143 Inalcik, Fatih Devri, 24, 80-83 . Uzuncarsih, Condarli Vezir Ailesi, 57-58. Taneri, Vezir-i Aeamlik, 76. \ 44 Inalcik , Fatih Devri, 74-75, 84-90 . 145 Ibid. , 36, 70-75. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 60-63.

54

CHAPTER ONE

he would be absent from Edirne at the time of Murad II's return. 146 Murad II, however, died five years later, in 1451 and Halil Pasha invited Mehmed II to return to Edirne in order to succeed him to the throne. Contrary to Halil Pasha's expectations and fears , the new Sultan retained him in the office of Grand V czir, although the group that had opposed him during the period of Mehmed II 's first reign was reinstated to positions of power. 147 The great debate of the period concerned the question whether the new Sultan should attack and conquer Constantinople or not. Mehmed II's favorites, Zaganos Pasha, Sahabeddin Pasha and their circle, advocated conquest, while Halil Pasha advised against it, fearing a western reaction and a renewed crusade movement. Halil Pasha's insistence on these views continued even during the siege of Constantinople, in which he participated, and aroused suspicions in the Sultan and his camp that he was supporting the Byzantines and that he might have been receiving bribes from them.U" The day after the conquest of Constantinople, Candarh Halil Pasha was arrested together with his sons. He was imprisoned in Edirne, his property was confiscated and he was later executed. There is no universal agreement on the reasons for Halil Pasha's dismissal, but several suggestions have been made: There were rumors that he collaborated with the Byzantines during the siege of Constantinople, while another interpretation is that Mehmed II held a grudge against Halil Pasha, considering him responsible for his dethronement in 1446 . 149 Some other, more important Inalcik, Fatih Devri, 92-104. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 63-66. Inalcik , Fatih Devri, 111-113. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 67-68. 148 Inalcik, Fatih Devri, 124-131. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 71-78. 149 On the dismissal and execution of Candarh Halil Pasha see the following sources: Laonikos Chalkokondyles, Historia, ed. Immanuel Bekker, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 44 (Bonn, 1843), 403-405. Doukas, Historia Turcobyzantina, 311313, 377. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 87. Ecthesis Chronica, 17. Historia Politica, 24. Nesri , Cihanniima, 707. Tursun Bey, History, [62v. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 131-132. Oxford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi-Oxford Nushasi", eds. Yucel Yasar and Halil Erdogan Cengiz, Belgeler 14 (1989-1992): 449 . Zoras, X(!OV1UOV, 87-88 , 93 . Muneccimbasi, Terciime-i Sahaifii'l-Ahbar 3 (Istanbul, n.d ), 367ff. Guillet de SaintGeorges, Histoire du Regne de Mahomet II Empereur des Tum 1 (Paris, 1681), 260-261. See also Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300-1481 (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990), 159. Inalcik, Fatih Devri, 132-133. Taneri, Vezir-i Azamlik, 88-90. ismail HakkI Uzuncarsih, "O smanli Tarihinde gizli kalmis veya suphe ile ortulu bazi olaylar ve bu hususa dair vesikalar" , Belleten 41 (1977): 508-51 O. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 78-83. Uzuncarsih, "Qandarh", iA 3, 354-355 . Imber, "Khalil Pasha, Djandarli", EI2 3,968-969. 146

147

OTTOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

55

political reasons may have also been at play, but these will be examined below. Candarh Halil Pasha must have been extremely wealthy. It is related by Asikpasazade that at a time when the imperial treasury was unable to provide the three thousand gold coins that Murad II annually sent to the poor of Mecca and Medina, this amount was borrowed from Halil Pasha. 150 With this wealth Halil Pasha became a patron of architecture. Together with Zaganos, Saruca and Sahabeddin Pasha, he built the fortress of Rumeli Hisar in 1452 . He also built his own mausoleum, a soup kitchen, a dervish lodge (zavrye) and a mosque in Iznik, an inn in Bursa, and another one in Edirne.P! His patronage must have also been directed towards building a personal patronage network. It was known that Halil Pasha exercised great influence over the Janissaries; he may have been the one who instigated them to revolt in 1446, but he was also responsible for stopping their planned rebellion after the death of Murad II in 1451. 152 Like all of the Ottoman Grand Vezirs before the reign of Mehmed II,153 Candarh Halil Pasha came from ulema background and rose to that position through the offices of Kadi and Kadiasker. The only notable exception to this was the Grand Vezir Bayezid Pasha, who served under Mehmed I and was killed in 1421 by the pretender Duzrne Mustafa.P! According to Doukas, Bayezid Pasha was 'of the race of the Albanians', and 'to him had fallen the lot of slavery since childhood'T'> The modern historian U zuncarsih, without citing the source on which he is based or directly addressing the assertion of Doukas, mentions Bayezid Pasha as Yahsi Beyoglu Amasya'h Bayezid Pasha, which would indicate that he was not a convert, or at least not a recent one . 156 Considering the position of the Grand Vezir before Mehmed II in terms of length of tenure, we see that two Grand Vezirs held the position for nineteen years each, one for fourteen years and Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 91. Taneri, Vezir-i Azamhk, 83. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 84-86. 152 Inalcik, Fatih Devri, 110. 153 Taneri, Vezir-iAramhk; 34-36. Uzuncarsrh, Osmanlt Devletinin Merke; ve Bahriye Tqkilatz, 111, 128. 154 Taneri, Verir-i Azamhk, 87-88. Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 54. 155 Doukas , Historia Turcobyzaniina, 165. Mehmed Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani 2 (Istanbul, AH 1308-11 11890-94),6, says that Bayezid Pasha had been trained in the Enderuni Humayun, Taneri, Vezir-i Azamltk, 34-37. 156 Uzuncarsih, Candarli Vezir Ailesi, 49. 150

151

56

CHAPTER ONE

another for eleven years. If we consider that twelve men occupied the office in a total of about one hundred and twenty years (if we calculate the institution of the Grand Vezir as dating from the beginning of the reign of Orhan I), then we have an average tenure of ten years per person, which shows remarkable stability. It is also important to point out that from among the twelve Grand Vezirs who served before 1453 Candarh Halil Pasha was the first and the only one to be executed by order of the Sultan.

The New Position The Position

if the

if the

Grand Vezir in the Court

if Mehmed II

Grand Vezir in Theory

According to the opening paragraph of the first section of Mehmed II's Kanunname of the court, the position of the Grand Vezir was conceived to be the following: Know that the Grand Vezir is, above all, the head of the vezirs and commanders. He is the greatest of all. He is the absolute deputy in all matters. The defterdar is deputy for my Treasury, and he [the Grand Vezir] is the supervisor. In all meetings and in all ceremonies the Grand Vezir takes his place before all others. 157

This paragraph legally established the precedence of the Grand Vezir over all other Ottoman officials. Also, the delegation of sultanic power was sanctioned legally by the description of the Grand Vezir as the Sultan's 'absolute deputy' ('vekil-i mutlaki'). As it had been in the times before Mehmed II, a basic function of the Grand Vezir was to preside over the Divan. The Kanunname prescribed the composition of the Divan, with the vezirs being first in order of precedence. "And it is the way of the vezirs and the kadzaskers (army judges) and the defterdars (ministers concerned with finances) and the nisanci (official concerned with adding the Sultanic signature on documents) to sit in my Imperial Divan. The vezirs should be seated first, on the one side should be seated the kadzaskers and under them the defterdars and on the other side the nisanci should be seated" .158 Although it was not explicitly stated, by virtue of 157 Ozcan, "Fatih'in Teskilat Kanunnamesi" , 30. Kanunname-i Al-i Osman, 10. Inalcik, Ottoman Empire, 94. Hedda Reindl, Manner um Bayezid. Eine prosopographische Studie tiber die Epoche Sultan Bayerids II. (1481-1512) (Berlin, 1983),25-26. 158 Ozcan, "Fatih'in Teskilat Kanunnamesi", 33. Kanunname-i Al-i Osman, 13.

OTIOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

57

his position as first among the vezirs, the Grand Vezir should be presiding over the Divan. He also had to hold consultations with other high officials, like the defterdars, in order to regulate the affairs of the state.P? The Grand Vezir, as the absolute deputy of the Sultan, could also make use of two important sultanic symbols of power, the imperial signature (tugra) and the imperial seal. According to the Kanunname, the imperial signature could only be used by three officials on ordinances pertaining to their specific fields: by the Grand Vezir for the 'affairs of the world' ('umur-i a/em') , by the defterdars for the affairs of the treasury ('mar) and by the kadiasker for affairs concerning canon law ('Jer-i JeriJ).160 The Kanunname also prescribed that the seal of the sultan ('miihr-i Jerif) should be in the possession of the Grand Vezir, who should use it for affairs concerning the treasury, in the presence of the difierdars. 161 The fact that the Grand Vezir had at his disposal these significant symbols of sultanic power indicates the great importance of his office and his close association with the sovereign. Although the Grand Vezir came before all other officials of the court, in certain matters of protocol he was regarded as no higher than some of the highest officials. "And in the robes and the winter clothing and the summer clothing and in the food, the Vezirs and the kadiaskers and the defterdars are like equals" .1 62 This is also apparent in the fact that the Kanunname prescribed that the Grand Vezir was supposed to dine with the head defterdar at the Divan, while the other Vezirs would dine with the defterdars and th e nisanci, and the kaduiskers would dine separately.tv" Besides th e Kanunname, a second significant group of sources describing the position of the Grand Vezir in the court of Mehmed II are the reports on the order of the Ottoman court composed by western observers. Two of the main western observers of the Ottoman order during the reign of Mehmed II were J acopo de Promontorio and Konstantin Mihailovic . The Genoese J acopo de Promontorio wrote his report around 1475 and gave extensive descriptions of the function of the Vezir during the reign of Mehmed II. According to Promontorio, "[the 159 160 161 162 163

Ozcan, Ozcan, Ozcan, Ozcan, Ozcan,

"Fatih'in "Fatih'in "Fatih' in "Fatih'in "Fatih' in

Teskilar Kanunnamesi", Teskilat Kanunnamesi", T eskilat Kanunnamesi" , T eskilat Kanunnamesi", T e§kilat Kanunnamesi",

36. 36. 46. 33. 35.

Kanunname-i Al-i Kanunname-i Al-i Kanunname-i Al-i Kanunname-i Al-i Kanunname-i Al-i

Osman, Osman, Osman, Osman, Osman,

16. 16. 27. 13. 15.

58

CHAPTER ONE

Sultan's] first three barons are called Vezirs, also called pashas ('baxe') in Latin and Turkish, who are his secretaries and ministers and executives in every affair just like the person of the Sultan himself' .164 Promontorio gave 17,000 ducats as the annual salary of the Grand Vezir, while the salary of the other Vezirs was 10,000 ducats.l'v Promontorio also described the role of the Grand Vezir and the other Vezirs in certain ceremonies. The first one, because of his greater dignity, when they appear before the Sultan carries in his hand a long and thick stick, and they stand up in front of him with great reverence and have the following prerogatives: the first one writes the name of the Sultan. The second one adds the year and day, namely, the date. The third one holds the seal in which it is written: Meemet cahan neheby elmorat cahan. In Latin this means: Emperor Mehmed son of Emperor Murad. 166

Promontorio also describes other ceremonies involving the three Vezirs and the consultations held between them and the Sultan.lv? Mihailovic, who spent time in the court of Mehmed II as a prisoner, presented a lively description of the Imperial Divan. "Their council is called in their language the 'bacht' [i.e.bahis], which means in our language 'disputation'. The masters and scribes have among themselves this custom: they arrange their deliberations before the highest lord after the Emperor [i.e. the Grand Vezir]. And during the time when I was in Turkey they arranged their deliberations before Machmutbassa" .168 Konstantin Mihailovic also writes that there were only two Vezirs, and that it was arranged thus by the Sultan so that "his head is not sent spinning by too many men, he not knowing whose advice to heed first and what to rely upon". He adds that "during this time when I was in Turkey at the court of Emperor Machomet, Machmutbassa was one and Ysakbassa was the other". Mihailovic says that the Divan, which was composed of the two Pashas, did not deliberate in the presence of the Sultan Promontorio, "Die Aufzeichnungen" , 30. Ibid. 166 Ibid., 30-31. According to Hans Georg Majer, "Ein osmanisches Budget aus der Zeit Mehmeds des Eroberers", Der Islam 59 (1982): 40-63, Promontorio in his book gives in a detailed manner a budget from the time of Mehmed II, which is, in fact, the earliest Ottoman budget that we have. This indicates to a large extent the fact that Promontorio may be regarded as a very reliable source, since he was in continuous contact with the Ottomans for several years and had access to inside information on several important aspects concerning the Ottoman Empire. 167 Promontorio, "Die Aufzeichnungen", 37-39. 168 Mihailovic, Memoirs, 25. 164 165

orroMAN IMPERIAL

ID EOLOGY AND THE OFFI CE O F VE ZIR

59

and presents th e way in which this council fun ction ed: "Summoning before them familiar men , th ey ask each indi vidu ally what is happening whe re , and havin g hea rd all this th ey write down all th e things th at an yone has said be fore th em. Then the two of th em delib er ate, and wh at is best and mo st suitable they will take with th em before th e Empero r. And onl y whe n th e Emperor himself, having considere d this and having taken council j ointly with them conce rn ing what must be don e, concludes th e counc il altogethe r, do th ey depart from the Emperor and order th e necessary things. And th e Emperor himself has charge of th at " . 169 From the descriptions of th e po sition of th e Grand Vezir in the Kanunname and in th e rep orts of western ob server s, we learn that th e Grand Vezir, during th e reign of M ehmed II , wa s not onl y th e high est official in th e court, but was also th e ab solute deputy of the Sultan . We sho uld now turn to a bri ef study conce rn ing the men who held the office of Grand Vezir during the reign of M ehmed II .

77ze Grand Vezirs if M ehmed II The success ion of G rand Ve zirs under M ehmed II is co nt roversial. The only point that is certain is th at sho rtly after the conquest of C on stantinopl e the Sulta n dismissed, imprison ed an d exec uted his first Grand Ve zir, C andarh Halil Pasha. W hatever the apparent reason s behind this action, it seems to have had far-reachi ng significance : It signalled th e end of th e supre macy of tr adi tionally esta blishe d Muslim fam ilies of ulema backgr ound in th e Ottoman State and th e beginning of the asce ndancy of th e kuls. 170 The controversy conce rni ng the succe ssion of G rand Vezirs under M ehmed II begins over th e qu estion of who succeede d H alil Pa sha in 1453. Kritoboulos and Ottoman sources ind icate th at Halil Pasha's successor must have been Zaganos Pasha .!"! Zaganos Pasha 's Ibid ., 157. For a discussion of the reasons pr esented by the sources for Halil Pasha's execution see above. 17\ Kr itoboulos, Historiae, 87-88. ibn Kemal , Teuarih-i Al-i Osman, ed. Sera fettin T uran (Ankara: Turk T arih Kur umu, 1957), 121. Oruc Bey, Die friihosmanischen Jahrbiicher des Urudsch nach den Handschrifl en zu Oxford und Cambridge erstmals herausgegeben undeingeleitet (Teuarih-i Al-i 'Osman), ed. Fran z Babinger (H annover, 1925), 72. Also, H alil Inalcik, "Mehmed the Co nquero r (1432-148 1) and his time", Speculum 35 (1960): 413-414. In alcik, "Me hme d II", £ 12 7, 978. Inalcik, Fatih Deuri, 135. For a fuller discussion of the question of who succeeded H alil Pasha see Chapter 3. \69 170

60

C H A P T E R ONE

tenure of the Grand Vezirate seems to ha ve lasted for about three yea rs a nd he must have been dismissed in 145 6, after th e un successful siege of Belgr ad e. H e was repl aced by his son-in-law, M ahmud Pasha, wh o was dismissed , in turn, in 1468, aft er th e Ottoman campaign in K aram anU '' The qu estion of who repl aced Mahmud Pa sha in th e Grand Ve zirate is also controve rsial. M od ern historian s like Sureyya and Babinger , mention Rum M ehmed Pa sha as Mahmud Pasha's suecessor.F' but nothing in th e sources seems to suppo rt this. In stead, i shak Pa sha seem s to be a m or e likely ca ndidate for th e suc cession. H alil inalcIk argu es th at upon th e dismissal of M ahmud Pa sha th e Grand V ezirate was occupied by i shak Pa sha, citing three sources. l?" Tursun Bey, who mentions ishak Pa sha as second Vezir (' Verir-i duvum' ) in 1463,175 a nd ibn K emal and Ruhi, who mention him as Grand Vezir in th e Negroponte campaign of 1470 . 176 A lat er source , Muneccimbasi, also sta tes th at th e m an who re placed Mahmud Pa sha was i shak Pasha. I n Documentary evide nce from Dubrovnik corro bo ra tes inalclk's th esis by indi cating that i shak Pasha wa s second V ezir already in 1458 and held th at position throughout the decad e, until 1468 . 178 The referen ce by ibn K em al th at K emal Pasha replaced M ahmud Pasha 179 probabl y implies that he became Vezir, occupying the position of i shak Pasha, who was prom ot ed to th e G ran d Vezirate. C on cerning th e next suc cession, Inalcik, based on a refer en ce in ibn K em al, argues th at i shak Pasha was dismissed in 1471 and was replaced by Rum M ehmed Pasha.I't" Althou gh th e promotion of Rum M ehmed Pasha is not explicitly stated by ibn K emal, it is known that Rum M ehmed Pasha had been Vezir already since 1466 or 1467 . 181 H er e, again, th e referen ce by ibn K emal th at wh en See Ch apter 3. Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani, vol.4, 104. Also, Babinger , Mehmed the Conqueror, 272. 174 Inalcik, "Mehmed the Co nqueror", 4 14. 175 Tursun Bey, History, f11 4r. 176 Inalcik, "Me hmed the Co nq ueror" , 414. 177 Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. 178 HAD , Lettere et Commissioni, Lettere di Levant e, 14, f l 92v [Apr il 1458] and HAD , Acta Consilii Rogatorum, 20, f 2 1v, IS February 1468. See also C hapter 6. 179 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 277-278. 180 Inalcik, "Me hmed the Conqueror" , 4 14. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 309. 181 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 265. A note in the registers of the R agusan Senate from 15 February 1468 (HAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, 20, f2 l v) mentions a certain Mehmed Pasha as 'new Vezir '. T aking into consideration ibn Kemal's inform ation, this ' new Vezir' should probab ly be identified with Rum Mehmed Pasha. 172 173

OTIOMAN IMPERIAL ID E OLOGY AND THE OFFI CE OF VEZIR

61

i shak Pasha was dismissed from the Grand V ezirat e, a certain Mustafa Pasha became Vezir ,1 82 should be int erpreted as indicating Mustafa Pa sha's occupati on of the position that rem ain ed vacant after Rum Mehmed Pasha's promotion to the Grand Vezirate. According to ibn K ema1, Rum Mehmed, in his turn, was dismissed in 1472, upon th e arrival of the news of the combined Akkoyunlul Karamanid attack on Ottom an Anatolia. Mahmud Pasha replaced him in order to enjoy a second term in office.183 However, an Italian lett er from Pera, whi ch is to be found in th e Ar chives of Milan, says that when Mahmud Pasha returned to pow er in 1472 he replaced 'C hamal bassia '.1 84 It would have be en possible to consider that this 'Chamal bas sia' may be the Kemal Pasha who had become Vezir upon Mahmud Pasha's dismissal in 1468 , had ibn Kemal not indicated that K emal Pasha died around AH 875 (14701471) and was replaced by G edik Ahmed Pasha. P" It can not be determined whether th e Pa sha mentioned is another K emal Pasha, ibn Kemal's dating is mistaken or the mistake lies in the document. In an y cas e, in th e following year, 1473 , Mahmud Pasha was dismissed in his turn, to be exec uted in 1474. The causes for his dismissal seem to have been connec ted to his performance during th e An atolian ca mpaign of 1473. 186 In his 1960 article, Inalcik argued that M ahmud Pasha was repla ced by Gedik Ahmed Pasha in 1473 , and that th e latter was in turn repl aced , in 1476-1477 , by K aramani M ehmed Pasha, who held th e office until M ehmed II 's d eath .I''?

Uzuncarsih, in an article that appeared later, in 1963, relying on Taskopruzade and a document in Topkapi, argues that in 1476, upon his dismissal, G edik Ahmed Pasha wa s repl aced by Hizir 182 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 309. "M ustafa Pasa vezir olub i shak Pasa vezaret yerinden aym ldr". 183 Inal cik, "Mehmed the Conqueror", 414-415 . ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 325. "0 1esnada Rum M ehm ed Pasa mazul olub yeri mahlul oldi; Mahmud Pasa ki merduddi, hizmete davet olunub makbul oldi". 184 ASM, Archivio !ijOrzesco, Cart .646, Letter from Pera, 27 O ctober 1472. Monumenta Hungariae Historica 5 (Budapest, 1877), 241. See Ch apt er 4. 185 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 303-304. 186 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 54. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 345. Ecthesis Chronica, 31-32. Historia Politica, 43. Muneccimbasi , Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 392. Saad eddin , Tacii't-Teoardi 2 (Istanbul, AH 1279/ 1862-63), 542-543. Asikpasazade , Die altosmanische Chronik, 171-172. See Chapter 9. 187 In alcik, "Me hrned the Co nquero r", 4 15.

62

CHAPT E R ONE

Beyoglu Sinan Pasha, who occ upied the post for a year and was repl aced by Karamani M ehmed Pa sha in 1477. 188 According to H edda Reindl, however , this seems to ste m out of a misunderstanding of th e source, which simply says th at " Sina n Pasha was dismi ssed and Karamani M ehmed Pasha took his place" . R eindl rejects U zuncarsili's arg ume n t, by saying th at in th e usage of the tim es, th e exp ression 'yeri' ('his place') do es not necessaril y mean the Grand Vezirate, but the po sition of Vezir in gene ral, and ther efore throws doubt on wh ether Hizir Beyoglu Sin an Pasha ever became Grand Vezir. 189 In his list of the Conquer or 's Grand Vezir s, the 17th century histori an Muneccimbasi includes M esih Pa sha , but, since no other con temp ora ry source m entions this, it should be regarded as the result of confusion stemming from th e fact that he seemed to have served as V ezir in the period 147617-1480. 190 The following list of Grand Vezirs may serve to sum marize Halil IBB ismail H akki Uz uncarsih, " H izrr Bey O glu Sinan Pa sa'nm Vezi r-i Azam hgina dair cok kiyrnetli bir Vesika", Belle/en 27 (1963): 37-43. Hizir Beyoglu Sina n Pa sha was born aro und 1440 in Sivrihisar, near Bur sa and was the son of Hi zir Bey, who was one of the m ost ren owned scho lars of his age and the first kadi of Ista nbul. H e served as professor (miidmis) in Edirne an d then was chosen by Mehmed II as his tutor. H e becam e Vezi r in 1470 and possibly, if th e arguments of Uz uncarsih are to be acce pted, Grand Vez ir in 1476. H e was dismissed in 1477 and imprisoned. Soon thereafter he was released and sent to his hom eland, Sivrihisar, as professor and kadt. H e was restore d to th e Vezirate by Bayezid II and later beca me Sancakbey of Gelibolu. H e composed several works in Arabic and Turkish, an d the most important of them is the Tazarruname, a boo k of prayers in verse. H e died in 1486. [Uzuncarsih, "H izir Bey O glu Sina n Pasa" , 4 1-43. M . Sa id Yazrcioglu , Ht ztr Bey (Anka ra, 1987), 2833]. For th e life and wor ks of Hi zir Bey see Yazicroglu, HlZlr Bey, 1-27. IB9 Reindl , Miinner um Bcyezid, 274 nn.4-5. 190 R eindl , Mii nner um Bayezid, 280-28 1. M esih Pasha was of Gree k origi n and was a descendant of the Byzantine imperial famil y of the Palaiologoi. Acco rding to th e Ecthesis Chronica, he was a son of Gid os Palaiologos, wh o, as Angiolello relat es, was th e br oth er of a Byzantine Emperor. M esih Pa sha was also a brother of Hass Murad Pasha, th e Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, who was killed in action during the war with U zu n H asan in Anatolia [Ecthesis Chronica, 3 1. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 105106. Franz Babinger, "Eine Verftigun g des Palaologen Ch ass Murad-Pasa" , Aufsau» undAbhandlungen zur Geschichte Siidosteuropas undder Leoante I (M unich, 1962), 347-348. Reindl , Miinner um Bayezid, 279]. According to Teodoro Spandugino, M esih Pasha was a relative of his, a broth er of his paternal grandmoth er , and was capt ure d by the Ottomans, together with two of his broth ers, upon the conquest of Co nstantinople, whe n he was ten yea rs old [Teodor o Spandugino, "De la origine delli imp eratori otto ma ni, ordini de la corte, forme del guerr eggiar e, loro religion e, rito et costum i de la natione" , in Documents inedits reLatift a l'histoire de La Grice, vol.9, ed. C . Sathas (Paris, 1890) 164]. During the reign of Bayezid II he served three times as Grand Vezir (1483- 1485, 1499-1500, 1500-1501) and died in 1501, to be bu ried in the mosque ere cted by his brother , H ass M urad Pasha, in Istanbul (Reindl, Manner um Bayezid, 279 -29 1).

OTIOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLO GY AND THE OF FI CE OF VEZIR

63

Inalcik's argume nt ab out the succession to th e Grand Vezirate during the reign of M ehmed II , and it is based primarily on the information given by ibn K em al: 191

1.1 451-1 45 3 2.1453-1 45 6 3. 1456- 1468 4.1468-1 471 5. 14 7 1- 14 72 6.1472-1 47 3 7.1474-147 6 8.1476-1481

Qandarh Halil Pasha Zaganos Pasha M ahmud Pasha i shak Pasha Rum M ehmed Pasha Mahmud Pa sha G edik Ahmed Pasha Karamani M ehmed Pasha

It seems at this point th at this list should be accepted as th e most plausible one for th e success ion of Grand V ezirs under M ehmed II . A closer look at M ehmed II 's Grand Vezirs reveals that four out of seven were conve rts of Christian origin, wh o adm inistere d the Empire for more th an half of his reign. Below will be presented brief prosopographical information on each of th ese Grand Vezirs: 1. 9andarlz Halil Pasha: See th e rel evant section above . 2. Zaganos Pasha: H e was probably the man who replaced H alil Pa sha in 1453. The sources tell us nothing abo ut his descen t. ] orga, citing Pusculu s, says th at he was of Alb anian origin. 192 Zaganos Pasha had serve d as lala (tutor) to young Prince M ehmed and became Vez ir during th e reign of Murad II.193 H e was a rival to H alil Pasha and, in the ea rly yea rs of M ehmed II 's reign , the most prominent leader of th e wa r part y, which opposed the G rand V ezir 's peaceful policies towards Byzantium.l'" Besides being Grand Vezir, he wa s also, for a tim e, father-in-law of M ehmed 11. 195 Very little is kn own about th e Grand V ezirate of Zaganos Pasha. H e was probably dismissed in 1456, after the unsuccessful siege of Belgrade, and was exiled to Asia Minor, togeth er with his daughter who had Inalcik, "Mehmed the Co nq uero r", 4 15. N. J orga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, vol.2 (Gotha, 1909), 5. Bab inger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 15, 47. In alcik, Fatih Devri, 86 n. 75. 193 Inalcik, Fatih Devri, 86 . Babinger , Mehmed the Conqueror, 15. Sur eyya, Sicill-i Osmani, vol.2, 426 . 194 In alcik, "Mehmed II", M 7, 507ff. lnalcik, Fatih Devri, 128- 133. 195 Chalkokondyles, Historia, 404. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 88. 191 192

64

CHAPTER ONE

been married to the Sultan.l'" Although he seems to have been a convert, we have no evidence whether he was a kul or not. 3. Mahmud Pasha Angelovic: He was of Byzantine and Serbian origins. 197 For twelve years he held simultaneously the offices of Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi of Rumeli. His activities are described in the following chapters. He was dismissed by the Sultan and executed in AH 879 (1474).198 4. Ishak Pasha: There is considerable confusion regarding ishak Pasha: He seems to have served under three Sultans, as Vezir during the reign of Murad II , and as Grand Vezir under both Mehmed II and Bayezid 11. 199 Halil Inalcik, however, seems to believe that the figure of ishak Pasha described here stems from a general confusion between several Ottoman Ishak Pashas and ishak Beys who lived in the fifteenth century, and in particular between ishak bin Abdullah and ishak bin Ibrahim, both of whom served as Beylerbeys of Anatolia during the reign of Mehmed 11. 200 As inalClk admits, it is not always possible to distinguish between these two ishak Pashas.F''! In any case, one of the two main ishak Pashas seems to have been a convert, since he was mentioned with the surname 'bin Abdullah', which was usually reserved for converts. On the other hand, ishak bin ibrahim was descended from an Anatolian Turkish family, possibly from the city of Inegol, where he also financed his building project. 202 There are several indications that the more important of the two men, the one who served as Grand Vezir under Mehmed II and Bayezid II , was ishak Pasha bin Ibrahim, which would make him the first Muslim-born official to hold that office after the execution of Qandarh Halil Pasha. He survived Mehmed II and supported his son, Bayezid, in his bid for the throne, in 1481. He served as Bayezid's first Grand Vezir (1481-1483), and later he received the position of 196 197 198 199

Kritoboulos , Historiae, 88. Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani, vol.2, 426. See chapter 2. See chapter 9. Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani, YoU , 323-324. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 14-

15. 200 Inalcik, Fatih Deim; 83-84 n.67. Reindl , Manner um Bayerid, 223. The confusion concerning the ishak Pashas of the period is illustrated by Cahid Baltaci 's mention that ishak Pasha was of Greek or Croatian origins and that he held offices in the reigns of Murad II, Mehmed II and Bayezid II [Cahit Baltaci, XV-XVI. Astrlar Osmanlt Medreseleri (Istanbul, 1976), 259-261]. 201 Inalcik, Fatih Deon, 83-84 n.67. 202 Reindl, Manner um Boyezid, 223-224.

OTTOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

65

Sancakbey of Thessaloniki, where he died in 1487. 203 5. Rum Mehmed Pasha: As his name suggests, Rum Mehmed Pasha was of Greek origin. He had a very bad press in Ottoman sources and was chiefly known for being Mahmud Pasha's main rival in court intrigues and for being responsible for the conversion of Istanbul houses, which had initially been given out as freehold ('miilk'), into public possessions given out for rent ('mukataa') .204 Asikpasazade also accused Rum Mehmed Pasha of stopping the custom of receiving the ulema with respect in the court. 205 Rum Mehmed Pasha served briefly as Grand Vezir under Mehmed II, but was finally dismissed and executed by order of the Sultan. The date of his execution is controversial. According to Sehabeddin Tekindag and Babinger, this must have taken place in AH 875 (end of 1470), while A.H. de Groot gives AH 877 (1472-1473).206 Halil Inalcik, relying on the fact that Rum Mehmed Pasha's buildings at Uskiidar bore the inscription AH 876 (1471-1472), refutes the dating of Tekindag and Babinger.s''? Also, together with Mehmed Sureyya, ina1cIk says that as late as AH 879 (1474), Rum Mehmed Pasha held an appointment in Karaman.o" As to the reasons for his dismissal, ibn Kemal gives the enmity of Karamani Mehmed Pasha. The twentieth century historian Babinger, without citing his sources, gives another explanation for Rum Mehmed Pasha's dismissal by mentioning his failures in Karaman in 1470. 209 6. Gedik Ahmed Pasha: He was also a convert, probably from Serbia or Albania. He was one of the most successful Ottoman generals of the reign of Mehmed II and participated in several campaigns, particularly in Anatolia and Albania. According to Sureyya, he was son-in-law to ishak Pasha.U" He was also the conqueror of Crimea and Otranto. Gedik Ahmed Pasha was appointed Beylerbeyi of Ibid ., 223-239. On these accusations see chapter 9. 205 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 198. 206 Sehabeddin Tekindag, "Mehmed Pasa, Rum", iA 7, 594-595 . Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 286-287 . A.H. de Groot, "M ehrned Pasha, Rum", £126, 1000. 207 Inalcik, "Mehrned the Conqueror", 414 . 208 Ibid., 415. Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani, vol.4 , 104. 209 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 265. Tekindag, "Mehrned Pasa, Rum", iA 7,595. de Groot, "Mehrned Pasha, Rum", £126, 1000. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 286-287 . 210 Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani, YoU , 193, 324. ismail Hakki Uzuncarsih, "Degerli Vezir Gedik Ahmed Pasa II . Bayezid tarafmdan nicin katledildi?", Belleten 29 (1965): 491-492. Reindl, Manner um Bayezid, 100. 203 204

66

CHAPTER ONE

Anatolia around 1464 and became Vezir in 1470 . He succeeded Mahmud Pasha after his final downfall in 1473 but was in turn dismissed and imprisoned in 1477, after disagreeing with the Sultan about the Ottoman campaign in Albania. In the following year he was released and appointed admiral of the fleet. After the death of Mehmed II , he supported Bayezid II for the throne. The latter, however, had Gedik Ahmed Pasha executed towards the end of 1482, because he suspe cted him of collaborating with his brother Cem . 2 11 7. Karamani Mehmed Pasha: He was from Karaman and was a descendant of Celaleddin Rumi.212 He received ulema education and came under the patronage of Mahmud Pasha Angelovic.U '' He rose to the Grand Vezirate through clerical service in the court. He was credited with the reforms that characterized the last years ofMehmed II's reign, and his Grand Vezirate was seen as being responsible for the codification of the Kanunname .s'" Karamani Mehmed Pasha came under criticism from contemporary Ottoman historians for instituting unpopular reforms, which abolished pious foundations (evkafJ and freehold (emlak) in favor of the imperial treasury.v' > After the death of Mehmed II, Karamani Mehmed Pasha took the side of Prince Cern in the civil war and opposed the party of the janissaries, which favored Bayezid II. For that reason, he was murdered by thejanissaries upon the latter's accession in 1481. 216 As appears from the above prosopographical notes on Mehmed II's Grand Vezirs, the majority of them came from kul origins , which means that they were born Christian and later converted to Islam. The regular appointment of kuls to the highest position in the Ottoman court was an innovation introduced by Mehmed II , and 211 Ecthesis Chronica, 40. Mukrimin Halil Yinanc , "Ahmed Pasa, Gedik", iA I, 193199. Halil Inal cik, "Ahmad Pasha , Gedik", EI2 I , 292-293. Sur eyya, Sicill-i Osmani, vol.l , 193. U zuncarsih, "Degerli Vezir Gedik Ahm ed Pasa", 491-497. Reindl, Manner um Bcyerid, 100-128 . Bahan, Osmanli Medreseleri, 209. 212 Sur eyya, Siall-i Osmani, vo1.4, 105. Sehabeddin Tekindag, "Mehmed Pasa , Karamani", iA 7, 588. 213 Sehi Beg, Hest Bihist: the Terkire by Sehi Beg, ed. Giinay Kut (Cambridge, MA, 1978), f.24r. Tekindag, "Me hmed Pasa, Karamani", iA 7, 588. 214 Inalcik, "Osmanh Hukukuna Giris", 113. Ozcan, "Fatih'i n Teskilat Kanunnam esi", 15. Necipoglu , Architecture, Ceremonial and Power, 16. T ekindag, "Me hmed Pasa, Karamani", iA 7, 589. 215 Asikpas azad e, Die altosmanische Chronik, 198-199. Tekindag, "Mehrned Pasa, Karamani", iA 7, 589. For more information on this reform see chapter 10. 216 T ekindag , "Mehmed Pasa , K aram ani" , iA 7, 589-590. A.H . de Groot, "Mehmed Pasha, Karamani", EI2 6, 995-996. Sureyya, Sicill-i Osmani, vol-t, 105.

O'ITOMAN IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AND THE OFFICE OF VEZIR

67

was a major turning point in both the po sition of the Sultan and that of th e Grand V ezir.

The Position qf the Grand Vezir under M ehmed II Kuls were servants or slaves of th e Sultan and the institution of the use of kuls in th e court went back to earlier Islamic times.v'? The Ottomans used kuls since the ea rliest tim es and gathe red them from different sources: a) from amo ng prison er s, espec ially through the pencik, which was the sovereign's right to take one fifth of the prisone rs of war, b) from th e deosirme, whi ch wer e regul ar levies of C hristian children from the Balkans, and c) from hostages who were sent to the Ottoman court. 2 18 Once at th e Ottoman cour t, the kuls underwent training, and th en were either appointed in administrative pos ts or used in th e Janissary army. U? Sin ce th e kuls wer e servants or slaves of th e Sultan, th ey were expecte d to owe and often indeed owed th eir allegia nce onl y to him a nd were dep endent exclusively on him.220 M ehmed II was th e first Ottom an sover eign to systema tically use kuls in th e high est adm inistra tive posts and particul arl y in th e office of th e Grand Vezir. 22 1 His first action after th e co nques t of Co nsta ntinople was th e dismissal, imprisonment and exec ut ion of Candarh H alil Pasha. This action mu st ha ve been planned for some time , since th e young Sultan prob ably held a per son al gru dge 217 Cemal Kafadar , "The Ottomans and Europe", in Handbook qf European History J 400- J600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, vol. I: Structures and Assertions, eds. Thomas A. Brady, Heiko A. Ob erman and J am es D. Tracy (Leiden, 1994), 603 . Dominique Sourdel, "Ghulam-The Ca lipha te", EI22, 1079-1081. C.E. Bosworth , "Ghulam-Persia", EI2 2, 1081-1084. Speros Vryonis, "Seljuk Gulams and O ttoma n Devshirm es", Der Islam 4 1 (1965): 225 . 218 Geo rgius de Hungaria, Tractatus de Moribus, Condicionibus et Nequicia Turcorum, ed. Reinhard K1ockow (Cologne, 1993), 2 10. Kafadar , "O ttomans and Europ e", 603. Halil Inalcik, "Ghulam- O ttoman Empire", EI22 , 1085-10 87 . ismail H akkI Uzuncarsih, Osmanlt Devlet Teskilatindan Kapukulu Ocaklan, vol. I (Ankara, 1984), 5-30. Vryon is, "Selj uk Gularns", 227- 228. 219 In alcik, "Ghulam- O uornan Empire" , E12 2, 1087-1 090. 220 Geo rgius de Hungaria, Tractatus, 2 12. Kafadar , "O ttomans and Europe", 605. In alcik, "Ghulam- Ottornan Empire", E122, 1086-1087. Roy P. Mottah edeh , 1JJyairy and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton, 1980 ), 88. Vryonis, "Selj uk Gulams", 225 . 221 Inalcik, "Ghulam- O ttoman Empi re", EI2 2, 1086. Kafad ar, "O ttomans and Europe", 605 . Yasar Yucel, "Reformcu bir Hukumdar Fatih Sultan Mehm ed", Belleten

55 (199 1): 82.

68

CHAPTER ONE

against the Grand Vezir who had managed to depose him seven years earlier, in 1446. Most importantly, however, Halil Pasha's execution had great political significance since it initiated a period of kul ascendancy in the court. For the decades that followed Halil Pasha's dismissal, the office of the Grand Vezir would be dominated by men of kul origins. The importance of this practice, introduced by Mehmed II, becomes evident if we examine the Grand Vezirs of his successor, Bayezid II. Eight out of the ten officials who served, according to Hedda Reindl, as Grand Vezirs during the reign of the Conqueror's son, were kuls originating from Christian families of the Balkans.222 The notable exceptions were ishak Pasha, who held the Grand Vezirate during the first three years of Bayezid's reign (1481-1483), and ibrahim Pasha, son of c;andarh Halil Pasha, who held the office for two years, in 1498-1499. 223 Although it is not explicitly documented, the execution of Halil Pasha and the promotion of men of kul origins to the Grand Vezirate seems to have been a calculated move on the part of the Sultan, who, in this way, attempted to reduce the power of traditional Ottoman families of ulema background, which had been associated with the dynasty since its inception, and to strengthen his own position by using men who were directly dependent on him personally.224 An incident which illustrates the new situation and the increasing association of the office of the Vezir with the kuls was the refusal of Molla Giirani to accept the vezirate by saying that it was a position suitable for slaves .225 The contemporary historian Chalkokondyles also comments on the position of the kuls vis-avis the Sultan. He says that in 1462, when Mehmed II learnt that his envoys to Walachia had been executed by Vlad Drakul, he became so angry that he struck Mahmud Pasha, who had brought the news to him. Chalkokondyles comments that this was not considered an insult since Mahmud Pasha was a slave (ovLx6v, 116. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 248. Tursun Bey, History, f.114r . Chalkokondyles, Historia, 560561. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 182, is the only one of these sources who relates that the Venetians fled after being defeated in batde by Mahmud Pasha. The combined authority of all the other sources makes this highly dubious. 217 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 248. 218 Malipiero , "Annali Ven eti", 22. 219 Archivio di Stato di Mantova, Gonzaga E XXII, 3, Busta 795, quoted in Lopez, "II principio", 117.

THE RISE OF MAHMUD PASHA

153

return of his contingent.F" The latter assertion could have been considered to be an authoritative one since it comes from Tursun Bey, who was a participant in the events. On the other hand, however, strangely, he is the only one of our sources to say this . All the other sources, without exception, mention that Mahmud Pasha continued his campaign in the Morea, or at least that he went as far as Hexamilion in order to destroy it. 22 ! According to the other sources, at the reception of the news of the Venetian retreat, Mahmud Pasha went through Plataia, towards Mount Kithairon by night, and appeared at the Isthmus in the morning. Finding the Isthmus deserted, he camped there.222 Most Ottoman sources agree that at the Isthmus Mahmud Pasha destroyed once more the fortifications of the Hexamilion.F'' From there he proceeded to Argos. The Venetian garrison surrendered to the Ottomans without a battle; Mahmud Pasha deported all the inhabitants, sending them to Istanbul, and razed Argos to the ground.224 From there, he went on , through T egea, to Leontarion, and camped there. He dismissed isa Bey from the position of Sancakbey of the Morea and appointed Zaganos Pasha to that office.225 From Leontarion, Mahmud Pasha sent Zaganos Pasha to Patras and the other cities of Achaia in order to fortify them and provide for their provisioning. Then, he sent Turahanoglu Orner Bey to raid the land of the Venetians around Modon. 226 Mahmud Pasha j udged that the time was not opportune for an attack on the other Venetian possessions in the Morea, so he deTursun Bey, History, fII14r-v. ibn Kemal , Teoarih-i Al-i Osman, 249. Dei, Cronica, 162. Zoras, XI}OVLXOV, 116. Liitfi Pasa , Tarih, 186. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. Giese, Anonymen Chroniken, 112. Oxford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi", 458. Marcianus Orient. 28 (87), ff.77r-v . Saadeddin, Tacii't-Teoanh, 502. Nesri, Cihannuma, 769. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 561. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 183. 222 Chalkokondyles, Historia, 561. 223 Enveri , Dustumame, 105. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 249. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 458 . Nesri, Cthanniima, 769. 224 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 183. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 561. 225 This Zaganos Pasha must not have been Mahmud Pasha's predecessor or father-in-law who , according to the inscription on his mausoleum, died in 1460-1461 [Ali Himmet Berki, "islam 'da Vakif Zaganus Pasa ve Zevcesi Nefise Hatun Vakfiyeleri" , Vakiflar Dergisi 4 (1958): 28]. 226 Chalkokondyles, Historia , 561. Mahmud Pasha's expedition against the Venetian possessions in the Morea is also describ ed , in a more summary fashion , by ibn Kemal, Teuarih-i Al-i Osman, 249. Dei, Cronica, 162. Zoras , XI}OVtXOV, 116. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382 . Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 503. 220

221

154

C HAPT ER THREE

cide d to withdraw . "Putt ing eve rything in th e Pelop onnese in order , as he thought, and placing garrisons in all the fortresses, settling the best of the men from the court of the Sulta n, and repairing wha t was destroyed , he ha nde d ove r everything to O rner Bey; an d taking the prisoners captured at the Isthmus and all those th at he found in th e Ve ne tian fortresses, as well as th ose of the Pelop onnesian s who had revolted , and some booty, he returned to Istan bul by the middle of winter" .227 T hese events a nd ac tions, covering th e peri od between th e years 1459 and 1463, mark the apogee of M ahmud Pasha's power . The wra th of M ehmed II again st Mahmud Pasha for his agree me nt with Stjepan Tornasevic, th e King of Bosnia, marks a turning-p oint in the relations betw een th e Sultan a nd his Grand V ezir: From thi s point onwards, M ahmud Pasha started to gr adually lose th e grip of his influenc e over th e Sultan and, parallel to th at , his fam e as a gene ral sta rted to diminish. With th e excep tion of the ca mpaigns of Zvo rn ik in 1464 a nd Negr op onte in 1470, M ahmud Pasha 's na me is not associa ted with inde pe nde n t ac tion in glorio us conqu ests a nymo re . T he yea r 1463 also mark s a turn ing point in the reign of M ehmed II in general: The concerte d attack of Hunga ry and Venice initiated a war with Ve nice th a t would last for the next sixtee n yea rs. T he existence of an ongoing war, a nd the co nstant threat posed by Ve nice's activities, p rovoked a rel ative declin e in the pattern of yea rly Ottom an campaigns. Fro m no w on, and for th e following years, the Ottom an s wo uld co nce n trate in co nfronting th ree major ene mies, the Ve ne tians, the Hungarian s and the Akkoyunlu, rather than wipi ng out weak principaliti es. The new conditions of the period 1464-1468 would inflict a blow to the role of campaign gene ra l!conque ror whic h had been assume d by M ahmud Pasha un til th at tim e, and would trigger the steady decline of his power. 227 Kr itoboulos, Historiae, 183. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 563. ibn Kemal, Teuarihi Al-i Osman, 249 .

CHAPTER FOUR

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS (1464-1474)

A. 1464-1468:

DECLINE OF POWER

1464: Difending Lesbos and Zvornik The two activities connected with Mahmud Pasha in the year 1464 were defensive, in the island of Lesbos, and in the Bosnian city of Zvornik, against Venice and Hungary respectively. This reflects the new conditions for the Ottomans, who had to accept the constraints of regular warfare against two powerful enemies and temporarily abandon the strategy of yearly campaigns against weak principalities, which they had hitherto practiced.

The Venetian Siege

if Lesbos

As we have seen above, the Hungarians attacked the newly conquered territory of Bosnia and captured some of its most important cities, like Jajce and Zvecaj .! In response to this, the Sultan planned on proceeding to a new campaign in Bosnia, but this was delayed because of the news that the Venetian fleet, under the command of Orsato Giustiniani, had attacked the island of Lesbos. 2 Mehmed II sent Mahmud Pasha to Gelibolu to prepare a fleet of one hundred and ten 'triremes' and go to the besieged island in order to relieve it. 3 At Gelibolu, Mahmud Pasha prepared and Mihailovic, Memoirs, 141. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 23-24. For the Venetian siege ofLesbos and Mahmud Pasha's expedition there see the following sources: Enveri, Diistumame, 105. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 250251. Tursun Bey, History, fT. I 15v-116r. Saadeddin, Tadi't-Teoanh; 504-505. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 458. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 191-192. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti" , 24£f. Osmanzade Taib, Hadikatii'l- Viizera, 10. Dei, Cronica, f.80v. Guillet de Saint Georges, Histoire, vo1.2, 62. From among secondary literature see Imber, Ottoman Empire, 189.Jorga, Geschichte, 129fT. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 236. Tansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 179, 200-201. 3 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 191. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 250. Saadeddin, 1

2

156

CHAPTER FOUR

equipped a fleet in twelve days." Then, he learnt that four Venetian vessels were in the harbor of Tenedos for reconnaissance. In order to capture them, Mahmud Pasha "immediately ... set out from Gelibolu with all the fleet by night, so that he would not be seen and discovered, and with favorable winds he arrived at T enedos by day". He managed to capture two of the enemy 'triremes', together with all their crew, while the other two fled to Lesbos and announced to the Venetian commanders there the news of his approach.P As had happened at Hexamilion the previous year, the Venetian forces dispersed upon hearing of the approach of Mahmud Pasha. According to Kritoboulos, they managed to escape only eight hours before the arrival of the Ottomans in the island." When the Grand Vezir reached Lesbos the enemy fleet had already left. 7 Up to this point, there is general agreement in the sources about Mahmud Pasha's activities; however, there is divergence as to the action taken by the Grand Vezir upon his arrival in the island. Kritoboulos says that he pursued the Venetians up to Lemnos, and then returned to Lesbos ." Tursun Bey, on the other hand, relates that, although Mahmud Pasha wanted to pursue the fleeing Venetians, the navy commanders thought that this would be too dangerous and dissuaded him." According to all sources, Mahmud Pasha stayed on the island of Lesbos for four days taking care of repairs and rebuilding, and appointing men in the castles.!" Kritoboulos says that the Grand Vezir returned to Istanbul at the end of autumn and disbanded the fleet.!' Tursun Bey, on the other hand, says that Mahmud Pasha returned to Edirne and, after resting there for three days, he set T'adi't- Tevarih, 504. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 458. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'lAhbar, 382. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769. Tursun Bey, History, £l15v. 4 Tursun Bey, History, f.115v. 5 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 191. 6 Ibid. , 192. 7 Ibid . Tursun Bey, History, f.116r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 251. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 458. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 505. 8 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 192. 9 Tursun Bey, History, f.116r. 10 Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. Tursun Bey, History, f.116r . ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 251. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 192. Oxford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi", 458. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 505. II Kritoboulos, Historiae, 192.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

157

out for Bosnia on the fourth day, in order to counter the Hungarian invasion. The date given by Tursun Bey for Mahmud Pasha's departure for Bosnia is Thursday 12 Rebiu'l-evvel AH 869. 12 This should correspond to the 12th of November 1464. So , by the beginning of winter Mahmud Pasha was on his way to Bosnia.

The Hungarian Siege if Zvornik In the previous summer (1464), the main body of the Ottoman army, under the command of Mehmed II himself, had gone to Bosnia in order to recapture the cities taken by the Hungarians. Although it is not mentioned by any of the narrative sources, it is possible that Mahmud Pasha also participated in the operations at this early stage. This is suggested by the letters of the Venetian Senate to the Venetian ambassador to the Pope, Alvise Foscarini, from June 1464. According to these letters, the 'Bassa' was about to move against the King of Hungary. 13 The title 'Bassa' was frequently used to refer to Mahmud Pasha in Western sources at this time. Also, since at that time the Venetian attack on Lesbos had not yet taken place, it would seem strange for Mahmud Pasha, who was taking part in all important Ottoman operations, not to have followed the main army to Bosnia. Of course, even if he was in Bosnia, he must have then temporarily abandoned that operation in order to go and rescue Lesbos. Between 10 July and 24 August the Ottoman army, under Mehmed II, was besieging Jajce once more.!" This siege, however, proved unsuccessful, because in August 1464 King Mathias Corvinus of Hungary came out from Buda with an army and turned towards Bosnia.P The Hungarian King went to the city of Zvornik and started besieging it, while Mehmed II retired to Sofia. From there, after the completion of the operations for the relief of Lesbos, he sent Mahmud Pasha to counter the Hungarian siege of Zvornik, while he himself returned to Edirne.l" A letter of the Tursun Bey, History, f.116r. ASV, Senato, Secreta 22, ff.19v, 22v, 1-21June 1464. Also in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol-l, 277. 14 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 32-33. ASM, Archivio Sforeesco, Cart. 650, Michael Stifkovic to Zara, August 1464. 15 ASM, Archivio Sforzesco, Cart. 650, Michael Stifkovic to Zara, August 1464. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 33. 16 For sources on Mahmud Pasha's campaign to Zvomik see Enveri, Diistumame, 12

13

158

CHAPTER FOUR

Milanese ambassador to Buda, Gerardus de Collis, written on 8 December, confirms the information also given by Tursun Bey that this must have happened in late autumn: "The Turk has returned to Edirne and has left against the King of Hungary the Beylerbeyi of Anatolia, together with that of Rumeli" .17 According to Saadeddin, Mehmed II sent Mahmud Pasha to Zvornik, instead of going there himself, "because it was not the custom of the greatest kings to enter such a dangerous place, and because the season of winter was approaching't.l'' Mahmud Pasha entered Bosnia with the Rumeli army, and had under him four commanders: Nasuh Bey of Albania, Develuoglu Umur Bey ofYanya, Ishakoglu isa Bey and Mihaloglu Ali Bey.19 Tursun Bey, who participated in this campaign, and ibn Kemal describe in detail th e perilous passage of the Ottoman army through the Bosnian mountains. Tursun Bey writes that, on the road that the victorious army had to pass, on the one side there was a steep mountain and on the other side there was the river Drina; th e defile was so narrow that the y had to pass on e by one. With all this, the accursed enemy was ready, having placed cannons in every narrow pass on the other side of th e river , and Walachians, who ar e the toughest ones among the infidels, being hostile and vicious, held the mountain passes ; even birds could not fly.20

Because of the difficult situation, Mahmud Pasha was obliged to hold consultation with his main commanders. Most of these commanders knew that land well, and they told him that it would be impossible for the army to reach Zvornik by that way, and that if they went by way of Srebrenica, the distance was so great that they would probably arrive at Zvornik too late . When Mahmud Pasha 105. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. Lutfi Pasa , Tarih, 186. Giese, Anonymen Chroniken, 113. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 459. Saad eddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 506-508. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769-77 1. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 257-260 . Kr itoboulos, Historiae, 189-190. Tursun Bey, History, ff.118v-121v. From among secondary sources see, Imber, Ottoman Empire, 191. Inalcik, "Me hrned II", iA 7, 523. Hammer, Geschichte, 79ff.]orga, Geschichte, 126-127. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 231-232. Tansel , Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 180-183. 17 Makusev, Monumenta Historica, 237, Gerardus de Collis, 8 December 1464. 18 Saadeddin , Tacii't-Tevarih, 506. Tursun Bey, History, f.118v. ibn Kemal , Tevarihi Al-i Osman, 257. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 189. Enveri, Diisturname, 105. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769, says that Mahmud Pasha marched towards Zvornik with the Rumeli and Anatolia armies. Also, Oxford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi" , 459. 19 Tursun Bey, History, ff.118v-119r. Saad edd in, Tacii't-Tevarih, 506. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. 20 Tursun Bey, History, f.118v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 257-258.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

159

learnt of the impossibility of this endeavor, "he entered in retirement; he placed his head on one side and confided his tears and sighs; he showed supplication and need towards God".21 As a result of his humility and supplication, Mahmud Pasha received inspiration and decided to use deceit in order to achieve his goals.22 He summoned a local soldier (marlolos), who was skillful and quick and, promising him timars, he assigned him the following task: he had to go through the forest to Zvornik in any way possible, arrive at the foot of the castle and shout to the defenders to hold on because the Sultan was three days away .23 According to the Ottoman historians, the announcement of the imminent arrival of the Ottoman army led by the Sultan caused fear in the enemies who, after making a final unsuccessful attempt to capture the castle, fled in panic, when they saw the arrival of Mahmud Pasha's akinct advance guard led by Mihaloglu Ali Bey.24 When the Pasha received this news, he covered a three-day distance by galloping in one night. 25 He pursued the Hungarians and defeated them and, taking much booty and many prisoners, he returned to Sofia. 26 According to Tursun Bey, Mahmud Pasha found great favor with the Sultan after his success against the Hungarians at Zvornik.27 Here it should be mentioned that, although Kritoboulos' version of the events is similar to that of the Ottoman historians in many points, the two versions differ in some respects. Kritoboulos does not mention the Hungarian siege of Zvornik, but rather, he says that the King of Hungary with a large army attempted to force the Sultan to lift the siege ofjajce.28 When Mehmed II learnt of the Hungarian mobilization, he sent Mahmud Pasha to go against Mathias Corvinus, together with a sufficient force of cavalrymen and infantry. Mahmud Pasha went near the Hungarian camp, next Tursun Bey, History, f.119r. Ibid. 23 Ibid., f.119v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 258. Nesri, Cihanniima, 771. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 507. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 459. 24 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 259-260. Nesri, Cihanniima, 771. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 508. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 459. Tursun Bey, History , ff.119v-120v. Tursun Bey does not mention the arrival of Mihaloglu Ali Bey. 25 Tursun Bey, History, f.l20v. ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 260. 26 Tursun Bey, History, f.120v-121r. ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 260. Nesri, Cihanniima, 771. Saadeddin, Tacu't- Tevarih, 508. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 382. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi" , 459. 27 Tursun Bey, History, f.121v. Saadeddin, Tacu't- Tevarih, 508. 28 Kritoboulos , Historiae, 188-189. 21 22

160

CHAPTER F OU R

to the river 'Vrynos', and camped th ere. H e chose to rem ain th ere and watch the ene my m ovem ents from his camp, instead of crossing the river. When the Hungarian King atte mpted to go to J ajce and help its defender s against the forces of th e Sultan, M ahmud Pasha crossed th e river an d a ttac ked him . The Hungarian s were defeated and fled in disorder , while M ahmud Pasha pursued them , killing and capturing man y men .29 The rem ainder of th e story is th e same as th at presented by th e Ottom an historian s: M ahmud Pasha returned to th e ca m p of th e Sultan with much booty a nd man y prison er s.I"

1465: Creative Pause 1465 wa s a year in whi ch M ehmed II and M ahmud Pasha d id not engage in any campaigns. The onl y indication th at M ahmud Pasha particip at ed in a campaign during this yea r is to be found in Ben ed etto D ei's Cronaca, and it is not co rro bo ra te d by any of the othe r sources. D ei relates th at the Sulta n sent M ahmud Pa sha with sixty thousand cavalry agai nst th e Ven etian s in K alam at a, in the Morea, and th e G ra nd Ve zir defeated his ene m ies a nd ca ptured the city.31 It is, however, improbable that Mahm ud Pasha would have go ne to the Morea in 1465. O ne reason that enables us to come to this concl usion is the silence of the other na rrati ve sources . At least one or two of these sources would have mention ed some thing if M ahmud Pasha had undertaken such a major campaign against th e Ve ne tia ns in thi s year. M oreover , th e fact that M ahmud Pasha is not mention ed in th e regular and det ailed reports of th e war in th e M orea in 1465, written by J ac omo Barbarigo, is a further indi cati on that the Grand Vezir did not go to th e Morea during that year. In stead, Barbarigo frequently m ention s 'Arnarbey', that is, Turah anoglu Orner Bey, as the commande r of the Ottoman forces in the ongoing war between Ottoman s and Ven etians in the M orea.V For these reason s, it seems possible that Ben ed etto D ei confused M ahmud Pasha with Orner Bey. Ibid., 189. Ibid., 190. 3 1 Dei, Cronica, 164. 32 J acomo Barbarigo, "Dispacci della Guerra di Peloponneso (1465- 1466)", in ed., C.N. Sathas, Documents inidits relatifi a I' histoire de la Gtice au Moygen Age, vo!.6 (Paris, 1884), 1-92. 29

30

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

161

A letter from Ragusa, dated 22 April 1465, gives a more plausible account of the activities of the Sultan and his Grand Vezir during this year. According to this letter, both Mehmed II and Mahmud Pasha were at Istanbul and did not show any signs that they would proceed to a campaign, but rather, watched carefully the movements of the Hungarians in Bosnia.F' In fact, this inactivity on the part of Mehmed II-1465 was the first year in his reign in which he appeared to be inactive-seems to have surprised his enemies to such an extent, that it became the cause of rumors concerning the Sultan's health. In a letter, written in the summer of 1465, Gerardus de Collis informed the Duke of Milan that the Sultan had become so fat that he could no longer endure the strains of a campaign.I" This is also borne out by Kritoboulos, who says that the Sultan was worn out, both mentally and physically, at this time : "The Sultan himself was greatly exhausted and worn out in body and mind by his continuous and unremitting planning and care and indefatigable labors and dangers and trials, and he needed a time of respite and recuperation". 35 Although there is truth in this statement-it is known that Mehmed II suffered from gout 36the fact that he participated in several subsequent campaigns shows that he must have recovered soon from this temporary crisis. The information contained in the letter from Ragusa cited above, indicates that this pause may have also been due to strategic considerations, that it was part of a policy of 'wait and see ' on the part of the Sultan in order not to take any hasty decisions concerning the two simultaneous wars that he was waging in Bosnia and the Morea. The fatigue in the army may have been another cause: the previous years saw continuous campaigns and, particularly in the two preceding years, 1463 and 1464, campaigning lasted well into winter. According to Kritoboulos, the soldiers became restless when Mehmed II started preparing for a new campaign in 1465 : As he perceived that the soldiers, even including his own bodyguard, were complaining, and felt abused and annoyed, especially because of the frequent long journeys and expeditions and because they were constantly ASM, Archivio !iforzesco, Cart. 647, Letter from Ragusa, 22 April 1465. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.4, 350, Gerardus de Collis to the Duke of Milan , 9 August 1465. 35 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 194. Translation, Riggs, History, 208. 36 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 424-425. 33

34

162

CHAPTER FOUR

kept on troublesome trips abroad, and since they said that they had lost everything, both their physical health and their money, their horses and donkeys, and were ruined and suffering in every way, he postponed the start. 37

Babinger describes the year 1465 as a 'forced creative pause', that is, being forced to abstain from campaigning due to health reasons and the restlessness of the army, Mehmed used this year for other endeavors: he probably started the construction of the Topkapi Palace and he devoted himself to philosophical study.38 Kritoboulos relates that the Sultan at this time studied Arab, Persian and Greek philosophy translated into Arabic.f" Mahmud Pasha was also very active during this period in other than military matters. His main activity throughout this year seems to have been the peace negotiations with Venice, which are amply documented in the Archives of the Venetian Senate, and which are dealt with in a separate chapter. 40

1466: Peace Negotiations with Venice The information on Mahmud Pasha's activity for the year 1466 is concentrated mainly on his role in the peace negotiations with Venice, which will be treated in another chapter. There are also a few other references to Mahmud Pasha's name during this year, for example, on the 16th of May 1466, the Ragusan Senate decided to start a search for three books requested by Mahmud Pasha on behalf of the Sultan's personal physician, Yakub Pasha."! The main military activity of the Sultan in the year 1466 was his invasion of Albania. The target of this campaign was apparently Skanderbeg's independence, as well as the numerous Venetian possessions in Albania. Mahmud Pasha's role in this campaign is not mentioned in any of the accounts describing it. The two main points that summarize this operation are the construction of the Kritoboulos , Historiae, 194. Translation, Riggs, History, 208. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 245-247. 39 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 194. 40 ASV, Senato, Secreta , 22. Monumenta Historiae Hungarica, vo1.4, 327-384. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 242-244. See Chapter 6. 41 HAD, Acta Consilii Rogatorum, 16, f.47v. Truhelka, Tursko-slovjenski Spomenici, 27, n.I. Ciro Truhelka, "Dubrovnik ArsivindeTiirk-islav vesikalan", istanbul Enstitilsii Dergisi I (1955): 51-52, n.I. See Chapter 6. 37 38

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

163

fortress of Elbasan and the unsuccessful siege of the city of Kruje, which carried over to the following year. 42

1467: The Second Albanian Campaign Mehmed II probably planned to send a fleet against the Venetians, to the Morea or N egroponte, in 1467, and for this reason he ordered the construction of new ships .43 Events, however, did not follow the planned course: In Albania, Skanderbeg attacked the Ottoman force that was besieging Kruje and killed Balaban, its leader. This forced the Sultan to turn his attention once more to Albania and he decided to proceed to a new campaign there.t" When the Ottoman army arrived, Skanderbeg took refuge in the Albanian mountains. Mehmed II sent Mahmud Pasha to the mountains, together with the greatest and most experienced part of the army in order to pursue Skanderbeg, while he himself ravaged the rest of the land with another part of the army.45 The Grand Vezir spent fifteen days in the mountains, searching every part and taking much booty and many prisoners. They overran all parts as easily as horsemen on a plain, encountering no opposition. They searched carefully everywhere, even more so than Datis is said to have searched the region of Eretria, mountains, ravines, crevasses, precipices, caves, valleys , defiles, dens, and all holes in the ground-nothing of the kind remained hidden or escaped them, even in the most inaccessible or distant or wild or impassable sections. Not only did they capture every fortress and all who had fled into them, but they overran every place and took it, and made slaves and destroyed, for a space of fifteen days .46 42 For the Albanian campaign of 1466 see the following sources: Kritobou1os, Historiae, 196-200. Tursun Bey, History, ff.121 v-123v. ibn Kema1, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 261-265. Asikpasazade, Diealtosmanische Chronik, 162. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 460. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 508-509. Ne~ri , Cihanniima, 777. From among secondary literature see Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 251-253. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 195. Tansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 137-138. 43 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 39-40. Barbarigo, "Dispacci", 91. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 196-197. 44 On the 1467 Albanian campaign see the following sources: Kritoboulos, Historiae, 203-204, 207. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 265-272. Tursun Bey, History, ff.124r-126v. Nesri, Cihanniima, 779. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih , 509-510. Muneccimbasi, Sohaifii'l-Ahbar, 383. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 460. From among modern works see Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 259-261. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 197. Tansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 139-140. 45 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 203. 46 Ibid., 204. Translation , Riggs, History, 219.

164

CHAPTER FOUR

However, they did not find Skanderbeg, who had managed to flee to the coast. Mehmed II, after ravaging the rest of th e land, went to Kruje and besieged it for several days. When he realized that it would not be taken by assault, he decided to return, leaving behind a force to continue the blockade and siegeY According to Tursun Bey and ibn Kemal, before his return, the Sultan sent Mahmud Pasha to raid the city of Shkoder (Scutari), which was held by the Venetians. After crossing the Boyana river by swimming, Mahmud Pasha attacked the city and destroyed the ar ea around it. He returned to the Sultan with much booty.t''

1468: Campaign in Kamman and Mahmud Pasha's First Dismissal The Campaign against Kamman The events that led to the Karaman campaign were triggered by the death of the ruler of the area Karamanoglu Ibrahim Bey, which occcurred in 1464. The death of Ibrahim Bey caused a war of succession among his sons, especially between th e half-brothers Pir Ahmed and ishak. With the help of Mehmed II , who was his cousin-his mother being a sister of Murad II-Pir Ahmed managed to defeat ishak and to take over th e throne of Karaman.f" The new Karamanid ruler, however , showed himself ungrateful towards his cousin and refused to join the Ottoman army for the planned campaign against the Mamluks.t" This forced Mehmed II to change his plans and to take the decision to attack Karaman instead of the Mamluks.P! Kritoboulos, Historiae, 204, 207. Tursun Bey, History, f.126r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 271. 49 For the wars of succession in Karaman see Tursun Bey, History, ff.lllr-111 v. ibn K emal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 236-24 3. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 160-162. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 460-461. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 497ff. Nesri , Cihanniima, 771-777. Cantemir, History, 109-110 . Secondary literature: Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 269-271. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 192-194 . F. Sum er, "Karaman-O gullan ", EI2 3, 624. 50 Tursun Bey, History, ff.127r-v. ibn KemaI, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 272-274. 5 1 For the Ottoman campaign in Karaman see the following sources: Tursun Bey, History, ff.126v-128r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 272-279. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 162-164. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi" , 461-462. Saadeddin , Tacii't- Tevarih, 510-512. Nesri, Cihanniima, 779-785 . Oruc, Diefruhosmanischen 47 48

DE CLINE OF POWER AND FI NAL YEARS

165

M ehmed II and M ahmud Pasha entere d th e land of K araman together with th e Ottoman army and conque red its capital, K onya . Pir Ahmed fled towa rds Larende, and the Sulta n, remaining in Konya, sent Mahmud Pasha to pursue him.52 Pir Ahmed, however, managed to flee. So me histor ians say th at Pir Ahme d's successful flight was a result of M ahmud Pasha's negligence. P Then , M ehmed II sent th e Grand Vezir to find and pursue th e Turgutog-Iu, who were Pir Ahmed 's allies. Mahmud Pasha found out that th ey were at Bulgar D ag- and went in th at direction. The Turgutoglu, however , learnt th at M ahmud Pasha was coming aga inst them and man aged to flee to Tarsus, whi ch was p art of M amluk domain s. Mahmud Pasha rav aged th eir country a nd, ca p turing th e remainder of th e tribe, brought it to M ehmed II.54

Mahmud Pasha's First Dismissal After the completion of the conquest of Karam an , M ehmed II decide d to weaken his ene m ies a nd develop his new ca pita l, so he orde red M ahmud Pasha to dep ort part of the populati on of K onya a nd Larende so th at th ey wo uld be settle d in Istanbul. Later, the Sulta n relieved Mahmud Pa sha of this duty and orde red him to return to the capital. 55 On the way back from K araman to Istanbul , at K arah isar, Mahmud Pasha wa s informed that he was dismissed from th e office of Grand Ve zir an d his tent was sud de nly collapsed on his head , prob ably following an olde r tribal custo m .56 Jahrbiicher, 126. Mu neccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Cantemir, History, 110. Guillet de Saint Georges, Histoire, vol.2 , 155-16 1. Fro m among secondary literature see Babinger, Mehmedthe Conqueror, 27 1-273 . Im ber, Ottoman Empire, 198-200. Zinkeisen , Geschichte, 346 -34 7. H ammer, Geschichte, 88 -90 . T ansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 287289. 52 ibn Kem al, Tevarih-iAI-i Osman, 274. Nesri, Cihanniima, 783. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 163. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 5 11. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'lAhbar, 384. 53 Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Saa deddin, Tacu't- Tevarih, 5 1!. Nesri, Cihanniima, 783. ibn Kem al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 278. See below, section on Mahmud Pasha's first dismissal. 54 ibn Kem al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 275. Nesri, Cihanniima, 783. Saadedd in, Tacu'tTevarih, 5 11. Asikpasaz ade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 163. 55 ibn Kem al, Teoanh-i Al-i Osman, 276. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Nesri, Cihanniima, 783. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 163. Saa deddin , Tadi't-Tevarih, 5 12. See C ha pter 9. 56 Asikpasazade, Diealtosmanische Chronik, 164. Nesri, Cihanniima, 785. M uneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384 . Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 5 12. i bn Kem al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 278. Tursun Bey, History, f.127v. See C ha pter 9.

166

CHAPTER F OUR

After this, M ahmud Pasha withdrew to his estate at H askoy.V ibn K emal tells us how, after twelve years of cont in uo us ac tivity in the service of th e Sultan in his ca pacity as Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, M ahmud Pa sha was dism issed fro m both offices .58 T he re is di sagreement in the sources co ncerning the question as to who replace d M ahmud Pasha in the position of G rand Vezir. T he only direct reference to this eve n t is in Muneccimbasi, who gives i sh ak Pash a as Mahm ud Pash a 's successor to th e G ran d Vezira te .t'' ibn K emal re ports th at in the office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli M ahmud Pasha was repl aced by H ass Murad Pasha , who appare ntly held th at office until his death in b attl e against U zu n H asan in 147 3.60 The sources also give div ergent exp lanations for M ahmud Pasha's dismissal. This qu estion is di scu ssed in another chap te r, but we ca n sum m a rize here th e m a in reas ons give n by the Ottoman sources. The expla natio n give n by almost eve ry author was th e sup posed sla n de r an d ca lum ny of Mahmud Pasha's rivals, espe cially of Rum M ehmed Pasha. v' Anothe r possibl e reason was the purported n egligence of Mah m ud Pasha in th e pursuit of Pir Ahme d, which was supposedly the rea son for th e latter 's escape .62 T his m ay b e co n nected to a m ore ge ne ral accusatio n th a t Mah m ud Pasha was favorable to Pir Ahmed.P A fin al possible exp lanati on is give n by i bn K em al, who says th at the Sultan told Mahmud Pasha that he d ismi ssed him because he was the p rotector of Nasuh Bey, a tyr annical commande r in Albania .P" M ahmud Pash a ' s di smissal in 1468 was a b low to hi s ca reer. Eve n tho ug h he was appoin te d Sancakbey of Gelibolu in th e following year and was recalled to th e G rand Vezirate in 147 2, he

57

164.

ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 278. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik,

ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 277. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. For a fuller discussion of the source references and historiograph y concerning M ahmud Pasha's successor in 1468, see Chapter I. 60 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 277-278. 6 1 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 163. Nesr i, Cihanniima, 785. Saa deddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 5 12. Mu neccimbasi , Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. See Chapter 9. 62 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osmani, 276 . Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 5 12. Nesri, Cihanniima, 783. M uneccimbasi , Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384 . See Chapter 9. 63 T ursun Bey, History, ( 127v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 278 . See Chapter 9. 64 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 279-280. See Chapter 9. 58

59

DECLINE OF P OWER AND FINAL YEARS

167

never again recover ed th e prestige that he enjoyed during th e decad e 1458-1 46 8.

B. 1469- 1474:

THE FINAL Y EARS

1469: Appointment as Sancakbey qf Gelibolu We have no informati on on M ahmud Pasha for th e yea r following his first dismi ssal. The office he held, if any, and his wh er eabo uts during this yea r are unknown. It is known that at some point after his dismissal from th e Grand Vezirate and the Beylerbeylik of Rumeli, and before th e Negrop onte expe dition of 1470 , Mahmud Pasha was appointed Sancakbey of Gelibolu and commander of the Ottom an fleet. Some autho rs suggest that he became Sancakbey of Ge libolu shortly after his dismissal and that he did not rece ive any offices in between. Ki vami, for exa mple, says that wh en th e Sultan dismissed M ahmud Pasha fro m the Grand Vezirate, he made him Sancakbey of Gelibolu .65 No ne of the Ottom an historian s gives even an approximate date for Mahmud Pasha's appoi ntme nt to th at office, bu t we know that by the end of 1469, he had cer ta inly been appointed Sancakbey of Gelibolu , a position , whic h also m ad e him admira l of the Ottoman fleet. 66 The terminus ante quem for this appo intment is provided by a letter of the C hio t mer ch ant Piero D olfin to C andiano Bollani, which is included in th e Annali of D omeni co Malipiero . T he dat e of th e letter is 14 February 1470 and it is a rep ort on th e Ottoman prep ar at ion s for th e cam paign against Negroponte, in which Mahmud Pasha 's name is m ention ed seve ral tim es as Sancakbey of G elibolu. The earliest dat e on which M ahmud Pasha appears in thi s lett er is 8 J anuary 1470, wh en th e am bassado r of the Maonesi in Gelib olu informed Piero Dolfin that Mahmud Pasha had sent a command throu ghout th e Empire in orde r to collect sailors for th e campaign .v? From this, we learn th at by th e beginning of J anuary 1470 M ahmud Pasha was already Sancakbey of Kivami, Fetihname-i Sultan Mehmed, ed. Franz Babinger (Istanbul, 1955), 199. Ibid., 199. Asikpasazade, Die aliosmanische Chronik, 164. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi T arihi", 462. Nesri, Cihanniima, 785. Saadeddin , Tacii't-Teoarih, 5 13. T ursun Bey, History, ( 128r. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. ibn Kemal, Teuarih-i Al-i Osman, 284. 67 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti" , 46. T he date of the letter is given as 14 February 1469, Venetian calendar, which took I March as the beginning of the year. 65 66

168

CHAPTER FOUR

Gelibolu and was responsible for the preparation of the Ottoman fleet. Thus, we may possibly set December 1469 as the terminus ante quem for Mahmud Pasha's appointment to the command of the Ottoman fleet. This appointment was significant for Mehmed II's upcoming campaign against Negroponte.

1470: The Conquest

of Negroponte

Negroponte was one of the most prized Venetian possessions in the Levant and an Ottoman attack on it had been a long-standing Venetian nightmare. An example of this is a letter by Antonio Michiel in Istanbul, to the Capitano General Vettore Capello, from the year 1466, which describes the preparation of a large Ottoman armada; the author of the letter wondered "where is this cloud going to burst? It is judged here that it is going to be on Negroponte" .68 This nightmare became reality in the summer of 1470. 69 According to the sources, Mahmud Pasha spent the winter in naval preparations and managed to have the Ottoman fleet ready by spring. 7o The Eastern and Western accounts of the beginning of the siege of Negroponte are not contradictory, but differ in focus. The main information that we learn from the Ottoman historians is that Mahmud Pasha went to Negroponte from Gelibolu with the fleet, while the Sultan proceeded there by land."! AnothIbid., 39. For the siege of Negroponte see the following sources: Kivami, Fetihname, 199202. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 284-292 . Tursun Bey, History, ff.128r-130r. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 513-514. Nesri, Cihanniima, 785-787. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 462-463. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384-385. Lutfi Pasa, Tarih, 187. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 35-37. ASV, Senato, Secreta 24, f.122r. Muali, "Muali'nin Hunkarnamesi", ed. Robert Anhegger, Tanh Dergisi I (1950): 150. Dei, Cronica, 167. Giese, AnOlrymen Chroniken, 113. Oruc, Diefriihosmanischen ]ahrbiicher, 126127. Marcianus Ital. VI 277, f[ I44r-v. Marcianus Orient. 28(=87), D8v. Zoras, Xeovtx6v, 118. Malipiero , "Annali Veneti ", 48-65. Promontorio, "Die Aufzeichnungen", 84. Cantemir, History, 110-111. Guillet de Saint Georges , Histoire, vol.2, 167-179. Giacomo Rizzardo, La Presa di Negroponte fatta dai Turchi ai Veneziani net 14 70 descritta da Giacomo Rizrardo (Venice, 1844). ASM, Archivio !ffiirzesco, Cart.646, Letter of21 April 1471. From among modern historians see, Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 280-284. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 200-204. Zinkeisen, Geschichte, 319. Hammer, Geschichte, 98100. Tansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 202-205. 70 For the preparations for the campaign against Negroponte see Chapter 5. 7l Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 462. Tursun Bey, History, U28v. Lutfi Pasa, Tarih , 187. Kivami, Fetihname, 200. Oruc, Die friihosmanischen ]ahrbiicher, 126. Giese, 68 69

DE CLINE O F POWER AND FI NAL YEARS

169

er piece of information given by some Ottoman sources is th e number of arabs (marines) that acc ompanied M ahmud Pasha's fleet. The numeri cal information , however , does not see m to be reliab le: while Oxford Ano nymo us gives fifty to sixty tho usand men , Oruc and Marcianus Orient. 28 give twelve tho usand.Y On the other hand, what seems to impress gre atly the Western sources is the immen se size of th e Ottom an fleet directed against Negro pon te . Girolam o Longo estimated th at the fleet mu st have been composed of four hundred sails, one hundred galleys, one hundred and fifty fustas, etc.73 Ben ed etto Dei and a lett er of th e Sen at e to th e Veneti an am bassa do rs in R om e estim ated th e fleet at abo ut thre e hundred and fifty ships .?" Finally, Jacopo de Promontori o gave an estimate of two hundred and eighty ships.P The Ottoman fleet left the Strait s on th e 3rd of June 1470,76 On the way to N egroponte through th e Aegean , M ahmud Pasha and the Ottoman fleet at tac ked severa l islands. Oxford Ano nym ous mention s that th ey co nque re d ' isla nd fortresses'i " In his letter, Girolam o Longo spe cifies th at the islands attacked we re Imbros, Lemnos and Skyros. " [T he fleet] ca me ou t of the Straits on the 3rd of June . . . on the 5th it went to Imbros and captured the castle ... on the 8th it went to Lemnos and besieged Paliocastro for five days and could not ta ke it. Our Ge ne ral appeare d from a distan ce and th e Turks lifted th e siege ; on the 13th they went to Skyros , burned th e town , but did not do any thing else becau se th e castle was fortified" .78 Acco rding to a lett er of Fra Giaco mo Pugliese, the Ottoman fleet entere d the Negro po nte canal on th e 14th of June and appeared before th e city on th e next day.79 When M ahmud Pasha arrived a t Negro po n te, he proceed ed to build a bridge of ships in or de r to connec t the island with th e mainland, since the Ven etian s had destroyed th e bridge th at existe d th ere previou sly, for defensive An01rymen Chroniken, 113. Mun eccimb asi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 164. Nesri, Cihanniima, 787. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 287. 72 Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 462. Oruc, Diefriihosmanischen ] ahrbiicher, 127. Marcianus Orient. 28 (=87), f.78v. 73 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 5 1-52. 74 Dei, Cronica, 167. ASV, Senaio, Secreta 24, f.122r. 75 Promontorio, "Die Aufzeichnungen", 84. 76 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 50. 77 Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 462. 78 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 50. 79 Ibid., 56.

170

CHAPTER FOUR

reasons.f" According to Fra Giacomo Pugli ese, the constru ction of th at bridge must not have taken more than five days, since he reports that it was completed on th e 20th of June.8l With th e help of this new bridge, M ehmed II , M ahmud Pasha and the Ottoman army managed to cross to th e island. 82 Giacomo Rizzardo relates th at , on the 25th ofJ une , before initiating hostilities, M ahmud Pasha sent to th e defenders a ce rta in D om enico D emunessi in orde r to p rop ose sur render in return for rich rewards: exemp tion from taxes for ten years, an extra man sion for th e noblem en and high offices in th e Ottoman court for th e V en etian officials. When th ey received a negative an swer , the Ottoman s started besieging the city.83 According to some Ottoman historians, the task of the Sancakbey of Gelibolu in th e battle was to besiege th e city by sea. "M ahmud Pasha with th e marines and many brave men went from th e side of the sea and sho t with cannons and guns, makin g breach es in th e walls" .84 It must have been at thi s tim e th at , acc or ding to Tursun Bey, the Ottom an Vezirs ad vised th e Sultan to withdra w, seeing the imp ossibility of conque ring thi s powerfull y fortified castle. M ehmed II disagr eed with the m, and was supporte d in this by M ahmud Pasha, who maintained th at th e conquest of th e cas tle was possible.P The siege went on for severa l days, un til th e appearan ce of the Ve ne tian fleet spe d up events and force d the O ttoman s to tak e decisive action . Acc ording to G ia n M a ri a Ang iolello, the Ve ne tian fleet appeare d on the I I th of July 1470 th ree miles from th e bridge of ships co n necting Negro po nte to the mainland. l''' An giolello, together with th e a no nymous ch ro nicle r of M arcianus Ita!. VI 277 , go on to say th at the arrival of th e Ve ne tian fleet caused pani c to the Ottom an army, including th e Sultan himself, who was 80 ibn K em al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 28 7-288 . Saad ed din , Tacii't-Tevarih, 5 14. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Oxford Anonymou s, "R uhi T ar ihi" , 462. M alipiero, "Annali Veneti", 56. Nesri, Cihanniima, 787. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanischeChronik, 164 . Tursun Bey, History, ff.128v-1 29r. 8 1 M alipiero , "Annali Ven eti", 56 . 82 Ibid. , 56. i bn K em al, Teoarih-i Al-i Osman, 288. Mu neccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. 83 R izzar do, La Presa, 9-10. 84 O xford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi", 46 3. Nesri, Cihanniima, 787 . Asrkpasazade , Die altosmanische Chronik, 164. 85 T ursun Bey, History, ff. 129r-v. 86 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 36. T he text, in fact , gives 'X I Giugno ', but the editor corrects it to 'Luio' . Rizzardo, La Presa, 18.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

171

only restrained by Mahmud Pasha from retreating.F The information that the appearance of the Venetian fleet caused fear in the ranks of the Ottomans is corroborated indirectly also by the Ottoman sources. Tursun Bey relates that upon the arrival of the Venetian fleet, the Vezirs who had argued for the withdrawal of the Ottoman army from Negroponte started slandering Mahmud Pasha out of jealousy. The latter, however, silenced his slanderers by demolishing his part of the fortress with cannon-fire and by asking permission from the Sultan for a final assault.f'' As is suggested by most Ottoman sources, the decision for the final assault on the city of Negroponte was taken precisely after the appearance of the Venetian fleet. 89 Gian-Maria Angiolello, who was among the defenders of Negroponte and was taken prisoner by the Ottomans, wrote that the city fell on the 12th ofJuly 1470.90 The important role played by Mahmud Pasha in the final assault on Negroponte is presented by all Ottoman historians, albeit in different ways . Asikpasazade and Nesri wrote that the general attack on the city was started from Mahmud Pasha's side."! ibn Kemal relates that the Ottoman army entered Negroponte through a breach made by Mahmud Pasha. 92 Oxford Anonymous tells us that Mahmud Pasha was the first Ottoman to enter Negroponte .F' Tursun Bey says that final victory was assured for the Ottomans when Mahmud Pasha emerged victorious on his side. 94 Giacomo Rizzardo also pointed to Mahmud Pasha's contribution to the final assault on Negroponte. According to his version, after the city was taken, some of the defenders continued resisting. Mahmud Pasha, together with Domenico Demunessi, met their leader and convinced him to surrender by 87 Marcianus Ital. VI 277, f.144v. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 36. Guillet de Saint Georges, Histoire, vo1.2, 174-175. 88 Tursun Bey, History, f.129v. 89 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAl-i Osman, 289-290 . Asikpasazade, Diealtosmanische Chronik, 165. Oxford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi", 463 . 90 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 36. 91 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 165. Nesri, Cihanniima, 787. Muneccimbasi , Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 385, credits Nesri with the story that Kizlar KaJesi, the castle in which the treasures of Negroponte were kept, was conquered by Mahmud Pasha , who took over the treasures of the Venetian administration on behalf of the Sultan. Nesri (Cihanniima, 787), however, does not connect Mahmud Pasha with the conquest of Kizlar Kalesi . 92 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 291. 93 Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 463 . 94 Tursun Bey, History, f.130r.

172

CHAPTER FOUR

threatening him and promising him safety for the lives of the remaining defenders.P'' We are not in a position to know which of these stories are true or accurate, but they all certainly indicate that the former Grand Vezir played a key role in the final Ottoman victory, a fact wh ich seems to have started for him a brief final period of return to favor with the Sultan. After the conquest, Mahmud Pasha returned to Gelibolu with the Ottoman fleet. According to Guillet de Saint Georges, the Venetian fleet, in a vain attempt to make up for its inactivity during the siege, pursued the Ottoman fleet in order to hinder it from returning to port. This was, however, to no avail, and the Venetians had to retire. "It is related that the Vezir, seeing the Christian fleet finally retiring peacefully, said laughing that the Venetians were treating him like one of their good friends, and that in order to keep exactly the rules of civility, they had escorted him from their place to his" .96

1471 There is no information regarding Mahmud Pasha's activity in the year 1471. Given his successful performance in the siege of N egroponte, it appears very probable that he held the office of Sancakbey of Gelibolu until his reappointment as Grand Vezir in 1472. This is also suggested by Ottoman historians like Asikpasazade, Saadeddin and Muneccimbasi, who say that in 1472 Mahmud Pasha was recalled from Gelibolu in order to be appointed Grand Vezir. 97 So, it seems that Mahmud Pasha held the Sancakbeylik of Gelibolu throughout the year 1471. In any case, he did not participate in any major campaigns in this year. Mehmed II also seems to have spent the year 147 1 in his capital and not to have led any campaigns. Meanwhile, the war against Venice went on and there were mounting tensions on the Anatolian front of Karaman, especially due to the increasing intervention of the Akkoyunlu leader 95 Rizzardo, La Presa, 19-20. The promise , however, was not kept and everyone , including the children, was massacred. 96 Guillet de Saint Georges , Histoire, vol.2, 179. 97 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 169. Saadeddin, Tacu't-Teoarih; 523. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 387.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

173

Uzun Hasan, who, at around this time, received Venetian ambassadors and became an ally of Venice.P"

1472: Mahmud Pasha recalled as Grand vezir In the summer of 1472, in Anatolia, events took place that would lead to the recall of Mahmud Pasha to the Grand Vezirate and to the final showdown between Mehmed II and U zun Hasan in the following year. At that time the combined Akkoyunlu and Karaman forces, under Yusufca Mirza and Pir Ahmed, and maybe also Karamanoglu Kasim Bey and Isfendiyaroglu KIZI1 Ahmed, attacked Ottoman possessions in Karaman and eastern Anatolia. The crowning achievement of this attack was the sack of the Ottoman city of T okat, which is described in the darkest colors by Ottoman historians. "Early in the morning, while the people were unaware, they fell on Tokat. Those cruel men destroyed Tokat. In summary, they demolished it and did things worthy of infidels, so that those cruel men did to Tokat five times more damage than Timur did to Sivas" .99 This action made Mehmed II decide to campaign in Anatolia, and for that reason he invited Mahmud Pasha, who had shown himself very successful in the last major Ottoman campaign, the siege of Negroponte, back to the position of Grand Vezir. IOO A letter from Pera from late October 1472 provides us with a dayby-day chronicle of the events in Istanbul in those months: On the 26th of August, the Sultan invited for consultation several Pashas and, on the next evening, he sent for Mahmud Pasha, "who was the most valiant and practical man that he had in his court", as a 98 For the year 1471 see Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 289-30 I. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 204-207. 99 Nesri, Cihanniima, 799-803. Tursun Bey, History, ff.133v-135r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAI-i Osman, 316-323. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi ", 463-464. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 169-170. Guillet de Saint Georges , Histoire, vol.2, 200-201. See also Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 309-311 . Imb er, Ottoman Empire, 208-209. Hammer, Geschichte, 105-106. Tansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 308-309. The choice of Tokat for the Akkoyunlu attack does not seem to have been random, since it was home to a new customs house , created there by the Ottomans in order to control smuggling on the silk trade route (Inalcik, Economic and Social History, 228). 100 Tursun Bey, History, f.l36r. Ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 325. Nesri, Cihanniima, 799. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 169. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 387. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 523. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 80 . Muali, "H unkarname", 150.

174

CHAPTER FOUR

counsellor.l"! The definite return of Mahmud Pasha to his former office occurred ten days later. On the 5th of September 1472, the Sultan dismissed Kemal Pasha and reappointed Mahmud Pasha, while at the same time summoning the Ottoman army of Rumeli to appear in Edirne by the 20th of September. 102 In preparation for the upcoming campaign, two days later, Mahmud Pasha raised the salary of the J anissaries from one to ten akce, according to each man's station, "because theJanissaries are the hope and the strength of this Turkish lord" .103 The final action that concerns us, recorded in this letter / mini chronicle is the crossing of Mehmed II and his Pashas to Uskiidar in Anatolia, which occurred on the morning of Monday the 12th of October. 104 When he was recalled to office, Mahmud Pasha realized that the Sultan was in a hurry to begin the campaign against Uzun Hasan in Anatolia. According to Saadeddin, the new Grand Vezir convinced Mehmed II to postpone the campaign until the next spring. He told the Sultan: The violent winter season of the land of Karaman is approaching. It would tire the soldiers to go now in order to punish the evil deeds of a few Turkmen thieves. It is not favorable to go against Uzun Hasan, who is the fountainhead of sedition and disorder, this winter. The victorious army is not prepared. What is fitting to do is to wait until spring and prepare the victorious army and the equipment for the campaign. And now , send to the Beylerbeyi of Anatolia an order to hurry for the annulment and extinguishing of the fire of the disorders of those villains . 105

So, the preparations began for a major campaign in Anatolia against Uzun Hasan in the following spring.

101 ASM, Archivio Sforeesco, Cart. 646, Letter from Pera, 27 October 1472. Also in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 240. 102 ASM, Archivio /ffiJrzesco, Cart. 646, Letter from Pera, 27 October 1472. Also in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 241. 103 ASM, Archivio Sforeesco, Cart. 646, Letter from Pera, 27 October 1472. Also in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 241. 104 ASM, Archivio Sforeesco, Cart. 646, n.15. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 242-243 . 105 Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 524. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'I-Ahbar, 387.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

175

1473: Campaign in Anatolia and Mahmud Pasha's Second Dismissal The Campaign against Uzun Hasan In the spring of 1473, the Ottoman army set out for eastern Anatolia, with the intention of confronting the forces of the Akkoyunlu and the Karamanids, which were combined under the leadership of Uzun Hasan. 106 A letter of 15 May 1473 describes the first movements of the Ottomans out of Istanbul: "T he Beylerbeyi of Rumeli [Hass Murad Pasha] crossed from Istanbul to Gelibolu with all the host ofthe Grand Turk; and on Palm Sunday, the Grand Turk with all his court crossed from Istanbul to a place called Anichvari" . 107 In the campaign, Mahmud Pasha was appointed to serve under the young Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, Hass Murad Pasha. 108 The Ottoman historians relate that the Sultan sent ahead Hass Murad Pasha and Mahmud Pasha for reconnaissance. The enemy feigned retreat in order to lure the Ottomans into an ambush. Mahmud Pasha understood the plans of the Akkoyunlu and tried to prevent Hass Murad Pasha from pursuing too impetuously and from crossing the Euphrates. He said: "Murad Bey, come, let's not cross this river. Let 's be cautious and not give ourselves to the hands of the enemy". When the Grand Vezir saw that the Beylerbeyi of Rumeli insisted on going on, he asked him to stay with his men and wait for him at a designated place, while he advanced cautiously with 106 For this campaign see th e following sourc es: Giese , Anonymen Chroniken, 114. ibn K emal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 335- 370 . Historia Politica, 13 . Ecthesis Chronica, 3 132. Marcianus Orient. 28 (= 8 7), D9v. Saadeddin , Tacii't- Tevarih, 525ff. "Fatih Sultan M ehmed'in Yarhgi" , ed. R .R.Arat, Tiakiyat Mecmuast 4 (1939): 285- 322 . Angiolel10, Historia Turchesca, 44-59. Marcianus Ital. VII 882 , £ I r. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'lAhbar, 388ff. Lutfi Pasa, Tarih, 188. Tursun Bey, History, ff.13 7v-145r. Asikpas azade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 170-172. Nesri, Cihanniima, 803-823. Muali, "H unkarname", 153-155. Oxford Anonymous, "R uhi Tarihi", 464-466. Cantemir, History, II J. Guillet de Saint Georges, Histoire, vol.2 , 206-235 . The Fetihname of this campaign is in Lugal and Erzi , "Fetihnameler" , jstanbul Enstitiisii Dergisi 3 (195 7): 177-192 . From among secondary literature see Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 313-316 . Imb er, Ottoman Empire, 213-218 . Hammer , Geschichte, 118-122 . Zinkeis en , Geschichte, 350ff. Jorga, Geschichte, 165ff. Tansel, Fatih Sultan Mehmed, 3 15-328. V. M inorsk y, "Uzun Hasan" , iA 13, 94. 107 Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5 , 246 , Letter from Castelnuovo, 15 May 1473. 108 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 46. Guill et de Saint G eorges, Histoire, vol.2, 208209 .

176

CHAPTER FOUR

his troops.109 Hass Murad Pasha and his men, however, still did not listen to Mahmud Pasha's advice and decided to move on, crossing the Euphrates. The reason, as is suggested by Tursun Bey, was that they feared that in case th e en emy was defeated, Mahmud Pasha would get all the glory. I 10 The other Ottoman historians blame this rush attack on Hass Murad Pasha's youth, impetuosity and inexperience. "The brave commander Murad Pasha, with the pride of youth, said: 'I defeated the en emy'. With the joy of victory he mounted his horse and plunged into the fire of battle". At the same time, however, Mahmud Pasha was aware of the enemy ambush. III Not heeding Mahmud Pasha's advice, Hass Murad Pasha and his men went forward in their pursuit of Uzun Hasan, but in this way they fell into the enemy's ambush. In the ensuing battle, the Beylerbeyi was killed and many important Ottoman commanders, like Turahanoglu Orner Bey and Fenarioglu Ahmed Pasha, were taken prisoners.l l'' The date of the battle is suggested by a report of the Venetian ambassador, Caterino Zeno. In this report, Zeno places the death of Hass Murad Pasha and the capture of Turahanoglu Orner Bey on th e l " of August 1473. He also gives 10 of August as the date of a second disastrous battle for the Ottomans, in which many great commanders were captured or killed, including Mahmud Pasha's brother. 113 Mehmed II 's Tarltk, that is, an official Ottoman proclamation in Uyghur concerning the victory over U zun Hasan, which is probably a more reliable source, gives a 109 Nesri, Cihanniima, 809. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 171. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 388. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 530. ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 342. Tursun Bey, History, f.140r. 110 Tursun Bey, History, f.140v. III ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 342. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 171-172. Nesri, Cihanniima, 809. Muneccimbasi, SahaifU'I-Ahbar, 388. Saadeddin, Tacii'tTevarih, 530-531. 112 Tursun Bey, History, ff.140v-14Iv. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 342-344. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 172. Nesri, Cihanniima, 811. Muneccimbast, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 388. Saadeddin, Tacu't-Tevarih, 531 . Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 53. Oxfo rd Anonymous, "R uhi T arihi ", 465 . "Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Yarhgi ", 303. Charles Grey, A Narrative qf Italian Travels in Persia in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (London, 1873), 25. Guillet de Saint Georges, Histoire, vol.2, 220-222 . ASM , Archivio Sforeesco, Cart.650, Report of Caterino Zeno to Doge Niccolo Marcello, 18 August 1473. The letter of Uzun Hasan to Doge Niccolo Tron, in Marcianus Ital. VII 882, f.l , ment ions that Hass Murad Pasha was captured alive. 113 ASM , Archivio Sforresco, Cart.650, Caterino Zeno , Report to Doge Niccolo Marcello, 18 August 1473. See Chapter 2.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

177

different date for this battle. According to the Tarltk, it occurred on Wednesday the 9th of Rebiu'l-evvel AH 878, which corresponds to Wednesday, 4th of August 1473. 114 This temporary Ottoman defeat, transmitted hastily and inaccurately to Venice, caused vain hopes and rejoicing. Two letters from October 1473, one from Ragusa and the other from Lepanto, give the atmosphere of the moment in Venice . The letter from Ragusa relates that the Ottomans were totally defeated by Uzun Hasan and that the Sultan himself was killed: "At this time came a man from Edirne, who secretly told me about the Grand Signor, how he was defeated and about his death. It is not known for certain about the Pasha, and very bad things are said about the Sancakbeys. I believe that maybe it would be worse for them than we think". 1I5 The message from Lepanto is not quite as exaggerated as this one, and includes a grain of truth; it exudes, however, an air of premature and undue optimism: "It is said that the son of the Turk was routed and several Sancakbeys, the Beylerbeyi of Rumeli and Orner Bey were killed, and fifty thousand men died, all the flower of the camp of the Turk. And all these bands of Turkey are in great terror, may God, in his mercy, confound them totally".116 Certain Ottoman historians evaluated Mahmud Pasha's participation in the battle of Tercan as a negative one. Nesri charges him with impetuosity, which caused the Ottoman defeat and the death of Hass Murad Pasha.'!? ibn Kemal indirectly blames Mahmud Pasha for not warning Hass Murad Pasha of the enemy ambush and accuses him of fleeing in the face of the enemy;'!" The accusation of the Ottoman historians has been indirect; however, a Greek and a Western source suggest that the suspicions expressed concerning Mahmud Pasha's performance in that battle were also shared by the Sultan. Both Ecthesis Chronica and Gian-Maria Angiolello say that the Sultan became angry with Mahmud Pasha because he did not help Hass Murad Pasha, for the reason that he was jealous of him. 119 "Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Yarhgi", 303. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 248, Letter from Ragusa to the Doge of Venice, 12 October 1473. Makusev, Monumenta Historica, 96-98. 116 ASM, Archivio !$fim:esco, Cart.647, Letter from Lepanto, 15 October 1473. 117 Nesri , Cihanniana, 811. liB ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 342, 345. 119 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 53-54. Ecthesis Chronica, 31-32. Historia Politica, 43. See Chapter 9. 114

115

178

CHAPTER FOUR

In both Angiolello and Caterino Zeno's report, however, the impression is also given that Mahmud Pasha put up a brave fight against the Akkoyunlu after the death of Hass Murad Pasha. According to both sources, the Akkoyunlu forces followed Mahmud Pasha's retreat and attacked him. Mahmud Pasha and his men managed to hold on until nightfall, and in this way the enemy impetus was stopped and they had to abandon their pursuit.F" Maybe this incident is to account for the strangely positive conclusion to the disastrous battle presented in Muali's long poem Hiinkdmame. In this poem, the poet mentions that, after the death of Hass Murad Pasha, Mahmud Pasha, in command of thirty thousand men, managed to defeat Uzun Hasan's son Ugurlu Mehmed, who was in command of sixty thousand men. According to Muali, after that battle Mahmud Pasha returned to the Sultan with much booty, and rose in his esteem.l '! It is possible that Mahmud Pasha made a successful stand against the Akkoyunlu after the death of Hass Murad Pasha, but it seems strange that he could have such a major success, if we take into consideration what is mentioned by all the other sources, without exception, as well as Mahmud Pasha's subsequent fate . Since Hiinkdmame is a work of praise for the Sultan, it is possible to assume that the incident related by Muali is either fictitious or an exaggeration, inserted in order to mitigate the impression of this defeat, which was one of the most serious miltary disasters of M ehmed II's reign. The Ottomans, however, lost just a battle, and not the war. The decisive battle, in which the full for ces of the Ottoman and the Akkoyunlu armies would confront each other, had yet to take place. It occurred at Otluk Beli exactly a week later, on Wednesday the 16th of Rebiu'l-evvel AH 878 (Wednesday lith of August 1473).122 The best presentation of the role of Mahmud Pasha in this battle is to be found in Tursun Bey and in Mehmed II 's Tarlik. According to both sources, Mahmud Pasha, together with the Beylerbeyi of Anatolia, Davud Pasha, was assigned the advance guard of the army.123 Tursun Bey says that the task of this section of the Ottoman force was to attack the center of Uzun Hasan's army.124 Ac120 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 53. Grey, A Narrative, 26. Guillet de Saint Georges, Histoire, vol.2, 221-222. 121 Muali, "Hunkarname", 153. 122 "Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Yarhgi", 304. 123 Ibid. 124 Tursun Bey, History, f 142v.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

179

cording to Tursun Bey's description of the battle, the flanks of the Ottoman army, led by the Sultan's sons Mustafa and Bayezid, defeated the respective flanks of the Akkoyunlu army, led by Uzun Hasan's sons Zeynel and Ugurlu Mehmed. At the same time, the main body of the Ottoman forces, led by Mehmed II himself, joined Mahmud Pasha and Davud Pasha in attacking the center of the enemy formation.l/'' The Akkoyunlu army was completely defeated and Uzun Hasan himself fled, in order to save his life.126 The Sultan initially considered pursuing the fleeing enemy, but was convinced by Mahmud Pasha not to do so.127 The completion of the battle of Otluk Beli also provided the conclusion to a story that had begun fifteen years earlier: As we have seen above, in 1458 Mahmud Pasha managed to achieve the dismissal and execution of his rival in the court Ditrek Sinan. 128 Now, in 1473, the Ottomans found Ditrek Sinan's son among the numerous prisoners that they captured. The suspicions aroused by this are expressed by Nesri, who says that some thought that he may have been among the ones who incited Uzun Hasan to invade Anatolia in order to avenge his father. 129 In the end, Ditrek Sinan's son, like his father, became a victim of Mehmed II, who ordered his execution.P" His execution may also have been connected with Mahmud Pasha. Muali relates that, when Mehmed II asked his Grand Vezir what he should do with the prisoners, the latter replied that it would be fitting to kill them. 13l A final incident in this campaign linked to Mahmud Pasha's name is the conquest of Karahisar (Sebin Karahisar), which followed the victorious battle over the Akkoyunlu. According to the Yarlik, the Ottomans went to Karahisar and started besieging it . The commander of the castle Dara Bey came out and begged Mahmud Pasha for mercy. The Grand Vezir interceded with the Sultan, who forIbid., f[ I43r-v. Ibid., ff.143v-144r. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 56. Nesri, Cihanniima, 819. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 353-354. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 173. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 465. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 390. Muali, "Hunkarname", 153. 127 Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 542-543 . Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 392. See Chapter 9. 128 See Chapter 3, section on Serbian campaign of 1458. 129 Nesri , Cihanniima,819. 130 Ibid., 821. 131 Muali, "Hunkarname", 153. 125 126

180

CHAPTER FOUR

gave Dara Bey.132 Thus, this campaign was completed successfully and the Sultan returned to Istanbul.

Mahmud Pasha's Second Dismissal As we have seen, the role and contribution of Mahmud Pasha in this campaign was dubious. Muali in his Hiinkdrname makes Mehmed II say that the Ottomans owed their deliverance from Uzun Hasan to Mahmud Pasha: One day the Sultan said to the Vezirs: "Finally Islam found strength, and we were saved from Uzun Hasan's tyranny with Mahmud Pasha's planning" .133 However, the truth of this statement seems doubtful, especially considering the fact that Mahmud Pasha was dismiss ed for the second time shortly after the return of the Ottoman army from this campaign.P" The reasons given for this dismissal concern the Grand Vezir's failings in the Anatolian campaign, and will be presented in another chapter.P'' Summing up, we may say that the reason most frequently given is the death of Hass Murad Pasha, which was attributed to Mahmud Pasha's negligence, and even malice.l " Another reason for the dismissal could be the Grand Vezir's undue insistence on conquering Karahisar at the beginning of the Anatolian campaign.P? A final reason seems to be the fact that he convinced the Sultan not to pursue U zun Hasan, which was regretted by Mehmed II later and gave the opportunity to Mahmud Pasha's rivals to accuse him of being favorable to the enemy.P'' Concerning Mahmud Pasha's whereabouts and activity after his second dismissal, Saadeddin says that he retired to Haskoy, "which he made the envy of towns, having built a mosque and a medrese there" .139 This information is also confirmed by a document from "Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Yarhgi ", 305. Muali , "H unkarname" , 154. 134 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 174. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Teoarih, 543. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 376. Nesri, Cihanniima, 821. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'lAhbar, 391. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 62. 135 See Chapter 9. 136 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 54. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 345. Ecthesis Chronica, 31-32. Historia Politica, 43. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 392. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Teoarih, 543. 137 Saadeddin, Tacu't-Teoanh, 542. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 392. 138 Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 392. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 542-543. 139 Saadeddin, Tacu't-Teoarih; 543. On Mahmud Pasha and Haskoy, see Chapter 7. 132 133

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

181

the reign of Bayezid II. In this document, the children of Mahmud Pasha say that, after having divorced his second wife, he was forced by the Sultan to marry her a second time after his dismissal in 14-73, but that he did not take her with him to Haskoy.v'" From this we learn that shortly after his dismissal, Mahmud Pasha retired to his lands in Haskoy, where he probably remained until he heard the news of the death of Prince Mustafa, the beloved son of Mehmed II, in the following year.l"!

1474: The Death

if Mahmud Pasha

The news of Prince Mustafa's death found Mahmud Pasha in his retirement at Haskoy. According to Muali, who, together with Saadeddin, provides us with the most detailed account of the last days before Mahmud Pasha's arrest, after some hesitation, the Pasha decided to leave Haskoy and go to Istanbul in order to perform the duty of offering condolences to the Sultan. 142 The versions of Muali and Saadeddin diverge in terms of what happened in Istanbul after Mahmud Pasha's arrival there. Muali tends to see Mahmud Pasha's arrest as a result of Mehmed II's awareness of his enmity towards Mustafa, while Saadeddin regards it as a result of slander and of the fact that Mahmud Pasha did not hold the mourning properly. According to Muali, Mahmud Pasha's hoca, Kurt Hafiz, advised him not to go to Istanbul, but the Pasha did not heed his advice. At the entrance to the palace, he met his former slave, Teftin Aga, who confirmed Kurt Hafiz's advice, but Mahmud Pasha still did not listen and appeared before the Sultan, crying for the death of Prince Mustafa. Mehmed II did not pay any attention to this and imprisoned him saying: "It is impossible for an enemy of Mustafa to remain alive" .143 Saadeddin and ibn Kemal, on the other hand, say that the forthcoming audience ofMahmud Pasha with the Sultan created fears in his rivals that he would manage to rise back to power and acquire the Grand Vezirate again. For that reason they 140 Uzuncarsih, "Mahrnud Pasa ile Sehzade Mustafa", 728. Ulucay, "Fatih" , 1377. On this document see Chapter 9. 141 For the death of Prince Mustafa see Chapter 9. 142 Muali, "Hunkarname", 158. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Teuarih, 552. ibn Kcmal, Te-

varih-i Al-i Osman, 376 . 143

Muali, "H unkarname", 158.

182

C HAPT E R FO UR

sta rte d slande ring M ahmud Pash a an d th ey reminded the Sultan of the hatred between him and Prince Mustafa, and of the painful events that occurred between the two men. They also told the Sulta n that the death of th e Prince was a cause of happiness for Mahm ud Pasha, because of the enmity between the m . l' " In this way they incited Mehme d II to send a spy to chec k whethe r the acc usat ions against M ahmud Pasha were true. "The spy that th ey sent en te red sudde nly an d unexp ect edly in th e ga thering of the h onorable Pash a and he saw the Pash a dressed in white, seated in a cheerful gathe ring a nd pl ayin g chess . H e took off th e m ourning clothes before th e Sulta n and th e army did". 145 T hus, the acc usa tion s of Mahmud Pasha 's rival s we re co nfirme d and an im pe rial orde r was issue d for M ahmud Pasha 's imprisonment.l '? M ahmud Pash a was imprisoned in th e Yedi Kule in Istanbul. The duration of h is imprisonment is disputed. Saade ddin give s eighteen days, Muali gives fifty days an d Angiolello six m onths.l t ? T he D almatian wri ter Ludovico Crijeva , kn own as T ubero, gives an apocryphal story, according to which some frie nds of M ahmud Pasha ca me to him in p rison and invited him to run away in order to save his life. M ahmud Pasha, however, refused so as not to b etray hi s fath erland a nd cover himself with di sh on o r. 148 T he friends' offer and Mahm ud Pash a 's re p ly sound suspiciously sim ila r to the eve nts in Plat o's p hiloso p hical dialogue Crito, in which Soc rates rej ects, on similar grounds , an attempt by his disciples to co nvince him to flee and goes stoically to his dea th. T his sim ilarity mak es th e story appear more like a m oral tale rathe r than the recountin g of actual eve nts . According to Muali , after fifty days of im p risonme n t and uncertainty, Mahmud Pasha wro te a letter to M ehmed II asking him to eithe r p ardon him or kill him. H e was invited by th e Sultan to hi s presen ce and told h im: " I h ave served yo u for forty years . If m y crime is big, kill m e in a m anly m anner, otherwise, set m e

144 Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 552. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 376. Osmanzade Taib, Hadikatii'l- Viizera, I I. 145 Saade ddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 552. Osmanzade T aib, Hadikatu'l-Viizera, II . 146 Saad eddin , Tacii't-Tevarih, 552. 147 Ibid. Muali, "H unkam ame", 158. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 62. 148 T ubero (Ludovico Crijeva), Commentariorum de rebus quae temporibus eius in illa Europae parte, quam Pannonii et Turcae eorumquefinitimi incolunt, gestae sunt, Libri XI, in ed. ].G. Sachwandter, Scriptores Rerum Hungaricum 2 (Vindobonae, 1746), 151.

DECLINE OF POWER AND FINAL YEARS

183

free".149 Mehmed II told Mahmud Pasha that he was guilty particularly of four offences: 1) that he had set Eflaki free, 2) that he had made an enemy by sending back Sehsuvar Bey, 3) that he had betrayed him by preventing the pursuit of Uzun Hasan and 4) that there had been hatred between him and Prince Mustafa.P" Mahmud Pasha was executed by strangulation in the Yedi Kule in Istanbul on the 3rd of Rebiu'l-Evvel AH 879 (Monday, 18 July 1474). lSI Angiolello says that Mehmed II assigned the Subasi of Istanbul, 'Cargiarsina' (Angher Sinan) to execute him personally with a bowsrring.P" According to ibn Kemal: "In 879, in Rebiulevvel, the spring of his life ended, the garden of his existence faded. On the third night of that month, the sun of his life set in the horizon of death. His time came to an end. His permanent passing was drowned in a whirlpool of death. He was strangled".153 The use of a bowstring for the execution of Mahmud Pasha shows the great respect in which he was held in the Ottoman court. Strangulation by bowstring was considered to be the most honorable form of capital punishment among the Ottomans, since it did not involve the shedding of blood, and was reserved only for members of the royal family or very high officials.P" Mehmed II ordered his former Grand Vezir to be buried with honor in a tiirbe (mausoleum) near the mosque that he had built in Istanbul. ISS Muali relates that everyone held mourning after Mahmud Pasha's execution.P" In this way ended the life of Mahmud Pasha Angelovic, executed by order of Sultan Mehmed II , in whose service he was for over twenty years. ibn Kemal ends the chapter on Mahmud Pasha's execution with half a quatrain of Omar Khayyam, reflecting on the transitoriness of power: Muali, "Hunkarname", 158. Ibid. For a more detailed analysis of these accusations see Chapter 9. 151 The date is given by ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 376. Marcianus Orient. 28 (87), (8Ov. Giese, Anonymen Chroniken, 115. Lutfi Pasa, Tarih, 189. Saadeddin, Tacii'tTevarih, 553, gives the date of the execution as the 3rd of Rebiulahir AH 879 (17 August 1474). The following mention the execution without reference to the date : Muali, "Hunkarname", 158. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 62. Marcianus Ita/. VI 277, f.146v. Ne§ri, Cihanniima, 821. Oruc, Diefriihosmanischen Jahrbiicher, 129. 152 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 62. 153 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 376-377. 154 A.D. Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty (Oxford, 1956), 27. 155 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 62. 156 Muali, "Hunkarname", 158. 149 150

184

CHAPTER FOUR

Every brick that is on the battlement of a palace Is the finger of a Vezir or the head of a Sultan. 157 157 ibn Kemal, Teoarih-i Al-i Osman, 377. Omar Khayyam, The Rubd'fyat ofUmdr Khayyam, trans . Parichehr Kasra (New York, 1975), n.30 .

PART THREE CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEW EMPIRE

CHAPTER FIVE

CONQUEST

As we have seen, Mahmud Pasha held two very important military positions in his career, that of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli (1456-1468), which made him commander of the Ottoman army of the Balkans, and that of Sancakbey of Gelibolu (1469-1472), which made him admiral of the Ottoman fleet. Through these positions, Mahmud Pasha made a great contribution to the military expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

Mahmud Pasha and the Ottoman Army Beylerbeyi if Rumeli The office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli was the most important military office held by Mahmud Pasha. He held it for twelve years (1456-1468), simultaneously with his first tenure of the Grand Vezirate. As we have seen, since the earlier Islamic times it was one of the responsibilities of the Vezir to be competent in military matters and even to lead campaigns personally.' The Ottomans also continued this practice and from the end of the reign of Murad I onwards, beginning with the Grand Vezirate of Candarh Halil Hayreddin Pasha (d.1387), it was customary for the Grand Vezir to hold simultaneously the office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli.? This, however, was not followed absolutely at all times since in the reign of Murad II, while Candarh Halil Pasha was head of the administration as Grand Vezir, he had to contend with his enemy Sahabeddin Pasha, who, as Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, had under his command the greatest part of the Ottoman army.l The fact that Mahmud Pasha, besides being Grand Vezir, was also Brylerbryi

I Sourdel, Le vizirat abbaside 2, 715. Lambton, "The Internal Structure", 260-261. T.H., "Vezir", iA 13, 311. Taneri, Vezir-i Azambk, 19-20. See Chapter I. 2 Taneri, Vezir-i Azamhk, 45, 54-61. Uzuncarsih, Osmanli Devletinin Merke; ve Bahriye Teskilau, III, 158-163. Reindl, Manner um Bayezid, 26. See Chapter I . 3 Inalcik, "Mehmed II", iA 7, 512.

188

CHAPTER FIVE

of Rumcli, that he had both th e highest administrative and military powers of the stat e under his command, was an indication of his great pow er , but was not an innovation introduced during th at period. In order to analyze Mahmud Pasha's role as Beylerbeyi of Rumeli we should see first what contemporary observers of the Ottoman court had to say about that office. Jacopo de Promontorio, a Genoese who spent time in the Ottoman court during the reign ofMehmed II, wrote the following on the Beylerbeyi of Rumeli: The Beylerbeyi of Greece, captain general over all military commanders, subasts and kadis, has under him seventeen military commanders, ... and ... 1,500 soldiers whom he pays from his own money. He has as an income in Greece 32,000 ducats in various taxes, and beyond that useful bribes, and his income is 4,000 du cats greater than that of the other commanders. And similar a multitude of various offices, which he confers to whomever he likes. But , he is obliged in tim e of war to lead the aforem entioned soldiers, all on horseback, at his own expense ... He holds court and palace formall y, just like th e Grand Turk, according to his station . H e ha s th e right of death and j udges an y other affair over all those inh abiting Greece and its provin ces de jure and defa cto. And all that he does ... is approved by th e Sultan ... Upon entering in office, every house in Greece is obliged to give him on e akce ...4

The observations ofJacopo de Promontorio pres ent us an image of the Beylerbeyi of Rumeli as being a quasi-sultan in his domain , administering justice, collecting taxe s and distributing offices. They are also very important in giving us an idea about the opportunities for creating networks of patronage presented by the office of Beylerbeyi to Mahmud Pasha. The fact that the Beylerbeyi was entitled to support an army at his own expe nse and his prerogative to distribute offices must have attracted many men contending for the favor of Mahmud Pasha. By virtue of his position as Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, Mahmud Pasha

4 Promontorio, "D ie Aufzeichnungen", 48-49. According to J acopo de Promontorio (49-54), the seventeen captains und er the command of the Beylerbeyi of Rumeli were the following: the 'capitano' ofI stanbul, and those of Gelibolu, Edirn e, Nicopolis and Zagora, Vidin , Sofia, Vard ar ('Thessaloniki'), Skopje, the Morea and Monastir, the 'capitano' of Art a, Lamia ('Zituni') and Athens, and two commanders in Serbia ('Cervia Lazari ' and 'C ervia Despoti'), Albani a ('Albania Schand erb ei' and 'Albania Araniti') and Bosnia ('Boxina Regno' and 'l'a ltra Boxina che fu del conte Stephano').

CONQUEST

189

probably had the opportunity to create his own circle of loyal followers within the Ottoman army, a fact which may have also encouraged his personal ambitions, while at the same time making him appear a powerful ally, as well as a formidable potential threat in the eyes of the Sultan. Another observer of the Ottoman order, who visited the court of Bayezid II a few decades later, in the first years of the sixteenth century, Teodoro Spandugino, also left us with a description of the office of Beyletbeyi: "There are two Beylerbeys, one of Greece and the other of Anatolia. These are like our Capitano Generale. They are above all men of arms. Beylerbeyi, in our language, m eans commander of commanders. The one of Greece commands over his sancaks and commanders, which are thirty eight. The one of Anatolia thirty five and if the Sultan is in camp and all the Beylerbeys are together , the one of Greece has precedence to command the whole't.> The office of Beylerbeyi is also mentioned in Mehmed II 's Kanunname of the court." For our purposes, what th e Kanunname prescribes with respect to this office is not particularly important since in matters of protocol, Mahmud Pasha would have been considered on the basis of the highest office he held, namely that of Grand Vezir. In the Kanunname, the Beylerbeyi of Rumeli is treated separately from the Grand Vezir, since the latter did not necessarily occupy the governorship of Rumeli in addition to his other responsibilities. This is also apparent from th e fact that neither of the men who held the office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli before and after Mahmud Pasha, namely Dayi Karaca Bey and Hass Murad Pasha, ever reached the office of Grand Vezir, or even of simpl e Vezir for that matter . Although in previous reigns the Grand Vezir often received the office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli (see Chapter 1), it seems that Mahmud Pasha was the only Grand Vezir of Mehmed II's reign to hold both offices simultaneously. This highlights th e special position of Mahmud Pasha, as long as th e Sultan continued to trust him. According to]acopo de Promontorio, "The Beylerbeyi captain general, going into campaign, always precedes the Sultan by a day or more, with all his military commanders and army of Greece. And thus, he forms his own city of pavilions, ordered exactly like that of 5 Teodoro Spandugino, "La cronaca italiana di T eodoro Spandugino", ed. Christiane Villain-Gandossi, II Veltro 23 (1979): 167. 6 Ozcan, "Fatih' in Teskilat Kanunnamesi", 33-36.

190

CHAPTER F IVE

th e Sulta n" .7 As indicated by th ese observations, in the campaigns Mahmud Pasha usually com mande d the advance -guard of the Ottoman army and preceded the main body of the a rmy commanded by the Sultan . This is also corroborated by the information of the historians and chroniclers who described the Ottom an campaigns of that period . This pattern is to be observed particularly in the great conquering campaigns of the period 1460-1463 and, more especially, in the campa ign in th e M orea in 1460,8 in W alachia in 1462,9 and in the campaign agai nst the Ven etian s in the M orea in 1463. 10 Often M ahmud Pasha was sent ahead of the rest of the Ottom an army in orde r to perform spec ial tasks. The task that is mention ed more often was to capture or to for ce the surre nde r of an ene my lead er. This may be seen in several instances, like in the M orea in 1460,11 in Sinop and Trebizond in 1461,12 in Bosnia in 1463 13 and in the K araman campaign of 1468. 14 Reconnaissance and the protection of the Sultan and the main body of the army were probably the reasons for sending the Beylerbeyi ahead in campaigns with a smaller continge nt. This is mad e manifest by the fact tha t M ahmud Pasha was sent ahead to confro nt enemy am-

Promontorio, "Die Aufzeichnungen", 49.. ib n Kcmal, Teuarih-iAl-i Osman, 163. ("oniince Mahmud Pasa ... yurudi"). Nesri, Cihanniima, 735. See C hap ter 3. 9 Oxford Ano nymus, "Ruhi T arihi" , 456. Saa deddin, Taai't-Teoarih, 63. See C hapter 3. 10 Giese, AnOlrymen Chroniken, 112. M une ccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 38 1. Oxford Anonymo us, "Ruhi Tarihi" , 458. ibn Kem al, Teuarih-i Al-i Osman, 244- 246. Tursun Bey, History, II 112v-113r. Asikpasazad e, Diealtosmanische Chronik, 143-144. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 50 I. Nesri, Cihanniima, 769. C ha lkokondyles, Historia, 559 -560. Kr itoboulos, Historiae, 179. Dei, Cronica, 162. See C ha pter 3. 11 C halkokondyles, Historia, 472 . Kritoboulos, Historiae, 143. Sphrantzes, Memoni, 116. ibn Kem al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 163-164. Tursun Bey, History, f.85v. Mihailovic (who claims to have participated in the campaign), M emoirs, 113. See C hapter 3. 12 Asrkpasazad e, Die altosmanische Chronik, 149 . ibn Kem al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 187, 196. Ne sri, Cihanniima, 745. Saa deddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 4 74. C ha lkokondyles, Historia, 486, 494. Tursun Bey, History, ff.89r, 9 1v-92r. Kri toboulos, Historiae, 162. See C ha pter 3. 13 Tursun Bey, History, ff.107v -108r. Ne sri, Cihanniima, 763. Saad eddin, Tacii'tTevarih, 493 . Asikpasazad e, Die altosmanische Chronik, 158. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 228 -229 . C ha lkokondyles, Historia, 53 6. M ihailovic, Memoirs, 139. Zoras, X QOVlXOV , 113. See C hapter 3. 14 ib n Kcm al, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 274-275 , 278 . Nesri, Cihanniima, 783. Asikpasazade , Die altosmanische Chronik, 163. Saadeddin, Tadi't-Teuarih, 5 11. M une ccimb asi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. See C hapter 4. 7

B

CONQUEST

191

bushes, as happened in th e 1462 Walachian campaign.l > The pursuit and capture of en emy leaders necessitated a sm all and flexible force in order to achieve th e ad vantages of rapidity and surp rise. The advantage of surprise was crucial in th e capture of D espot D emetrius Palaiologos of th e Morea in 1460 ,16 while rapidity was important in capturing the King of Bosnia, who was fleein g from fortress to fortress towards the north, in 1463. 17 The office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli must have ac quire d increased importance during th e reign of M ehmed II du e to th e significant changes introduced by that Sultan to the military structure of the Empire. As part of th e general centralization poli cy of M ehmed II, th e Sultan tri ed to control th e centrifugal tenden cies represented by th e frontier beys , who, until that tim e, were virtually indep endent of central Ottoman authority, and who controlled th e cavalry (sipahl) in the border sancaks.i" With th e great gaei prestige that he acquired from his conquests, and particularly th e conq uest of Constantinople, Mehmed II managed to bring under his contro l these frontier beys. 19 This was exemplified best by th e fact that th e Sultan started appointing th e frontier beys, th at is, he incorporated th em into the imperial army, contro lled th em and defin ed th eir role. 2o The raid s (' akm') into enemy territory, which were th e basic activities of th ese frontier lords, continue d, but now th ey were contro lled and used by th e Sultan for his own political and military ends.U It has been mention ed ea rlie r that in m edi eval Islamic sta tes, th e Vez ir was involved in military matters, yet he still had to contend with and was constricted by the po wer of th e emirs, th e military commanders.i? A similar situation must have also existed in the Ottoman 15

Tursun Bey, History, ff.96v-97r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 210. See Chapter

3. 16 Krit oboulos, Historiae, 143. Sphra ntzes, Memorii, 116. C halkokondyles, Historia, 472. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAl-i Osman, 163-164. Tursun Bey, History, f.85v. Mihailovic, Memoirs, 113. See Chapter 3. 17 See Chapter 3. 18 In alcik, Ottoman Empire, 105. 19 Inalcik, "Mehmed II", M 7, 5 12. 20 Kafadar , Between the Old and the New, 142, 147. 21 Kafadar , Between the Old and the New, 150. "Whereas a raid used to be a ma tter of local or regional proportions and of basically personal gain for a gazi in term s of its immediate conquests, it had by then become a matt er in the realm of intern ational Realpolitik". 22 Sourdel, Le uizirat abbaside 1, 53. Lambto n, "T he Intern al Struc ture ", 267-268. See Chapte r I.

192

CHAPTER FIVE

Empire before Mehmed II, when the frontier beys held significant independent power. The period of Mahmud Pasha's tenure of the office of Beylerbeyi of Rumeli coincided with the important transformation in the Ottoman army mentioned above . In describing the campaigns in the Balkans in which Mahmud Pasha participated, we saw that many of these frontier beys served in the Ottoman army under his command. For example, in the 1458 campaign in Serbia Mahmud Pasha sent ahead the akmas to raid the area of Smederevo before he appeared there himself. 23 When he arrived there, he sent Ishakoglu Isa Bey and Alioglu Ahmed Bey in order to demand the surrender of the city.24 Towards the end of the same campaign, he sent Minnetoglu Mehmed Bey and his raiders to attack the island between the Sava and the Danube.P Perhaps the most telling fact exemplifying the diversion of the activities of the frontier beys towards the goals of the Ottoman State was their use in battles against Muslims in Anatolia. In 1473 Turahanoglu Orner Bey and Mihaloglu Ali Bey participated in the campaign in Anatolia against Uzun Hasan. 26 Thus Mahmud Pasha was probably the first Beylerbeyi in an Ottoman army reformed and strenghtened by Mehmed II's centralizing policies . With the power of the military lords diminished, Mahmud Pasha as Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi did not have to contend with them as a significant limiting force, as many of his predecessors had needed to do. In the new Ottoman centralized state Mahmud Pasha was only answerable to the Sultan himself. However, he also had to contend with rivals and court intrigues, which probably cost him his position as Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi of Rumeli in 1468.

Sancakbey

if Gelibolu

Some time after Mahmud Pasha lost his position as Beylerbeyi, he received the office of Sanckabey of Gelibolu, which, at that time, also entailed the command of the Ottoman fleet.27 It seems that before Tursun Bey, History, D8v. Ibid., ff.79v-80r. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 465. 25 Tursun Bey, History, f.82r. ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 152. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 467. 26 Tursun Bey, History, ff.141v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 344. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 172. 27 Kivami, Fetihname, 199. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 164. Oxford 23

24

CONQ.UEST

193

the beginning of the 16th century the office of Captain General of the fleet (Kapudan-i Derya) did not exist in the Ottoman Empire and the Sancakbey of Gelibolu was considered the supreme naval commander. According to Marino Sanudo, who wrote in 1503, "The Sancakbey of Gelibolu is always understood to be the Captain General, so that when the Grand Signor prepares a fleet, the Sancakbey who is stationed in the said place of Gelibolu assumes its command as Captain General, who also has the charge of choosing the captains of the galleys, as well as those of the fu ste and other ships, as it seems best to him".28 Mahmud Pasha's appointment to the command of the Ottoman fleet must have taken place around 1469. 29 The particular moment is significant since it indicates the Sultan's decision to have Mahmud Pasha lead the fleet in the upcoming campaign against Negroponte, which was to give a decisive blow to Venetian power in the Aegean. But, in a wider perspective, Mahmud Pasha was appointed Sancakbey of Gelibolu at a significant turning point for the Ottoman navy . The possession of Istanbul forced the Ottomans to pay more attention to their naval power since, due to the possession of that city, they acquired a strategic point for the control of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. 30 At the same time, they needed to develop their naval defenses in order to protect their newly-acquired capital, and actions like the building of the fortresses at Canakkale (1463-1464) and the conquest of Aegean islands like Lesbos, Imbros and Samothraki reflect this concern of the Ottomans.t! This is also reflected by the fact that Mehmed II gave special privileges in Istanbul to Christians who

Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 462 . Nesri, Cihanniima, 785. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 513. Tursun Bey, History, f.128r. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 284. 28 Marino Sanudo, I Diarii, V, 460 , quoted in Reindl, Miinner um Bayeeid, 31-32, n.117 . 29 For a discussion of the dating of Mahmud Pasha's appointment as Sancakbey of Gelibolu , see Chapter 4. 30 A.C. Hess, "The evolution of the Ottoman seaborne empire in the age of th e oceanic discoveries" , American Historical Review 75 (1970): 1900. In alcik, "Mehmed II", u 7, 514 . 3\ Inalcik, "Mehmed II", u 7,514-515 . Halil Inal cik, "The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades, 1329-1451 ", in A History qf the Crusades, ed. Kenneth Setton, vo1.6: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, eds. H .W. Hazard and N.P. Zacour (Madison , 1989), 315-322, 326. VI. Mirmiroglu, Fatih'in donanmast ve deni; saoaslan (Istanbul, 1946), 102.

194

CHAPTER FIVE

were experienced in maritime affairs.V The war with Venice, which started in 1463, made the need for the development of a powerful navy, which would counter Venetian actions in the Aegean, even more pressing.P The building of the shipyard-Kadzrga Limam-in Istanbul after the outbreak of the war with Venice shows Mehmed II's interest in the navy.v' According to Halil Inalcik, Mehmed II was the true founder of Ottoman naval power.P Estimations concerning the size of the Ottoman fleet sent against Negroponte in 1470 may give us a measure of the progress made by the Ottomans by that time. A letter by Girolamo Longo to his brothers Lunardo and Francesco gives us an idea about this fleet and estimates that it must have been composed of 400 sails, 100 galleys, 150 Justas, etc. Longo concludes by saying that "the sea looked like a forest; it seems incredible to hear it said, but it is stupendous to see. Don't wonder that the Turk has done this much now, because it is seventeen years now that he does something every year ... I assure you that from head to tail, in a row all the galleys were six miles, a little more".36 This is indicative of the progress of the Ottomans in naval affairs, to the extent that they managed to impress the Venetians themselves. Longo's mention that Mehmed II had been working on the development of his fleet for seventeen years shows that even contemporaries regarded 1453 as the major turning point, which marked the beginning of the period of the greatest growth of the Ottoman fleet. It was in this context that Mahmud Pasha received the office of Sancakbey of Gelibolu. His only known activity in this capacity was the preparation of the fleet and participation in the campaign against Negroponte in the summer of 1470. However, Mahmud Pasha's involvement with the Ottoman fleet and naval affairs went much beyond that single campaign. As Beylerbeyi of Rumeli and Grand Vezir he led several Ottoman naval campaigns, like that of Amasra in 1460,37 the conquest of Lesbos in 1462,38 and the defence of the same island Kritoboulos, Historiae, 83. Also, Hess, "The Evolution", 1901. Inalcik , "Mehmed II", fA 7, 515. 34 Ibid . Inalcik , "The Ottoman Turks and the Crusades", 326. 35 Inalcik, "Mehmed II", fA 7, 515. "Osmanh deniz kuvvetinin hakiki kurucusu Fatih'tir". 36 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti" , 51-52 . 37 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 177-178. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 146. Nesri, Cihanniima, 739. See Chapter 3. 38 Tursun Bey, History, ff.lOlr-v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAI-i Osman, 219-220 . Saaded32 33

C ONQ.UEST

195

against a Ve ne tia n attack in 1464. 39 Besides his invo lveme nt in th ese campaigns, Mahm ud Pasha 's person al interest in naval affairs is app ar ent also fro m his literary pat ronage. O ne of th e two tex ts that he is known to have commissioned, th e Diistumame of Enve ri, was an epic dealing with th e exploits of the seafaring gazi U m ur Bey of Aydm. According to Andrew H ess, through thi s com mission Mahm ud Pasha "promo ted th e study of T urkish naval history within the terms of O ttoman culture" .40 The role ofMahm ud Pasha in Ottom an naval campaigns consisted of both th e prep arat ion and, at a lat er stage, th e command of th e fleet. An idea of M ahmud Pasha 's activity in prep aring the fleet for a naval expe dition ca n be ga ine d by analyzing th e sources cove ring th e cam paign against Negrop onte in 1470. Ottom an histori an s' accoun ts con cerning thi s m atter are not very detailed , and m ost of th em just relate th at M ahmud Pasha, carrying out his orde rs successfully, collected th e ships and th e capta ins and went to Negropo nte by sea. T he description presented by ibn K emal is probably the m ost detailed: "M ahm ud Pasha was orde red to take ca re of th e provisioning of the fleet; like a ship captain, he staye d on the ship day and night takin g care of affairs. Carryi ng out th e imperial or de r, he conce rned himself with the rapid conclusion of th e affair; before the arrival of spring he complete d the eq uipment a nd sup plies of a few hundreds of ships, of whic h the least rese m bled a mou ntain't.f Tursun Bey says th at the fleet p rep ared by Mahm ud Pasha was wo rt hy of that of gazi U m ur Bey of Aydm .t? T he lett er of the C hiot merch an t Pier o D olfin to Candiano Bollani , whic h is dat ed 14 February 14 70, gives a more precise idea of the activities ofMahm ud Pasha in preparing the fleet. First of all, Mahmud Pasha sent a com mand th rough all th e Ottom an State in orde r to collect men to provide the crew for th e ga lleys. T his command must din, Tacii't-Tevarih, 492. Asikpasazade, Diealtosmanische Chronik, 156. Nesri, Cihanniima, 759. Oxfo rd Ano nymo us, "Ruhi Tarihi", 45 7. Kritob oulos, Historiae, 169. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 5 18-5 19. Dou kas, Historia Turcobyrantina, 433 . Mihailovic, Memoirs, 133. Leonardus Chi ensis, De Lesbo, 9. See Chapter 3. 39 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 19 1. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 250. Saa deddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 504. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 458. Muneccirnbasi, SahaijU'lAhbar, 382. Nesri , Cihanniima, 769. T ursun Bey, History, ( 115v. See Chapter 4. 40 Hess, "T he Evolution", 1903. On Enveri 's Diistu mame, see Chapter 8. 41 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 285. 42 Tursun Bey, History, ff.128r-v .

196

CHAPTER FIVE

have been issued in Edirne around the end of December 1469 or the beginning ofJanuary 1470.43 At the same time, Mahmud Pasha made sure that tributary lands, like the island of Chios, would provide men and material for the campaign. For that reason, on the 29th ofJanuary 1470 a slave from Gelibolu arrived at Chios in order to demand from the Mahona obedience to all of Mahmud Pasha's commands. The slave demanded that sixty caulkers, and all the galleys to be found in that area, be sent to Gelibolu at the appointed time.r' In preparing the fleet, Mahmud Pasha had the task of gathering in Gelibolu all the available naval resources. Besides the ships and their crew, he was also responsible for provisioning the fleet with the necessary equipment. In his letter, Dolfin wrote that in the winter of 1469 there was a revolt in Istanbul due to a shortage of bread, because the mills were busy grinding flour for the provisioning of the army and that a great quantity of gunpowder was manufactured in Bursa.P As Sancakbey of Gelibolu and admiral, Mahmud Pasha must have been largely responsible for the provisioning of the fleet with victuals and ammunition. In this way, Mahmud Pasha managed to have the Ottoman fleet ready for the expedition against Negroponte by the spring of 1470. In three campaigns Mahmud Pasha participated as commander of the fleet, going to the target of the operation by sea, while the Sultan was proceeding there by land with the army. This happened in the campaign against Amasra in 1460 46 , Lesbos in 1462 47 and Negroponte in 1470. 48 In these cases, Mahmud Pasha seems to have preceded the Sultan and prepared the ground for the ensuing siege. Then,

Malip iero, "Annali Veneti" , 46. Ibid ., 45. 45 Ibid . 46 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAI-i Osman, 177-178. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 146. Nesri , Cihanniima, 739. See Chapter 3. 47 Tursun Bey, History, ff.lOlr-v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 219-220 . Saadeddin , Tacii't- Tevarih, 492 . Asikpasazade, Diealtosmanische Chronik, 156. Nesri, Cihanniima, 759. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 457. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 169. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 518-519. Doukas, Historia Turcobyzantina, 433 . Mihailovic, Memoirs, 133. Leonardus Chiensis, De Lesbo, 9. See Chapter 3. 48 Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 462. Tursun Bey, History, f.128v. Lutfi Pasa, Tarih, 187. Kivami, Fetihname, 200. Oruc, Diefriihosmanischen Jahrbiicher, 126. Giese, Anotrymen Chroniken, 113. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 164. Nesri, Cihanniima, 787. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 287 . See Chapter 4. 43 44

CONQUEST

197

the main task of Mahmud Pasha would be to bombard and besiege the city by sea as it happened in both Lesbos'? and Negroponte.t"

Strategies if Conquest So far we have seen Mahmud Pasha's institutional role as commander of the army and the navy. Now, we shall turn to an examination of the ways in which he managed to achieve conquests for the Ottomans.

Persistence andDetermination Many of the conquests and campaigns were accomplished only due to Mahmud Pasha's persistence and single-minded determination to carry them out completely. From his first independent campaign, the one in Serbia in 1458, we have signs of this determination. Ottoman historians relate that when the Ottoman army reached Sofia, they received the news that the Serbians refused to surrender their land to Mahmud Pasha as had been expected, on the pretext that Mehmed II had not gone there in person; and worse, they threatened to surrender their land to the Hungarians instead: "We made the surrender of the castle dependent upon the noble arrival of the Padishah. Since he has not come, there is no faith in the Turks. We will give the castles and the land to the Hungarians, who exchange them for a hundred thousand florins and ten castles beyond the Danube't.>' Upon receiving these news, the Ottoman commanders refused to advance further and advised Mahmud Pasha to stay there and defend that city, fearing that the Hungarians might cross the Danube and attack them. The commanders argued that the army was not prepared and the enemy was strong and believed that suffering defeat in Serbia would interfere with the Sultan's campaign in the Morea, 49 Doukas, Historia Turcobyzantina, 435. Kritoboulos, Histonae, I 71. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 524 . Leonardus Chiensis, De Lesbo, 10-11. Tursun Bey, History, ff.102r-v. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 221-222. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 492 . Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 156. Nesri, Cihanniima, 759. Mihailovic, Memoirs, 135. See Chapter 3. 50 Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 463 . Nesri, Cihanniima, 787. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 164. See Chapter 4. 51 Tursun Bey, History, f.77r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 144.

198

CHAPTER FIVE

which was taking place simultaneously.52 To these fears, however, Mahmud Pasha answered with the following speech: "Let us not show signs of weakness. Hey, my commanders! I am not weak because of the resistance of the enemy. If he comes, with the help of God, you will give an answer. My Padishah did not say to me : 'Go to Sofia and stay there and control my country'. If the infidel did not give up the castle voluntarily, with the help of God, we trust and hope that it is to be captured by force. That is the reason for which I set out for the land of Serbia".53 Besides mere words, Mahmud Pasha also used other means in order to convince his army commanders: "To the beys and the men of the Porte, and the J anissaries, and the rest of the army, he made gifts of robes and cash and other kinds of things, to each one according to his status. He won over the hearts of the greatest with beneficence."54 After this, the commanders were convinced and the Ottoman army entered Serbia.55 Mahmud Pasha's persistence did not encourage only the Ottoman commanders. If we are to believe the reports of Angiolello and the anonymous chronicler of Marcianus Ita!. VI 277 , his determination for conquest occasionally exeeded that of the Sultan. According to these authors, during the siege of Negroponte in 1470, the Venetian navy arrived at the city a day before the final Ottoman attack. This caused panic to the Sultan who, fearing that the Venetians would destroy the bridge and surround him on the island, mounted his horse and started towards the mainland. Mahmud Pasha, however, restrained him by saying "you will be the cause of confusion for all this army and the destruction of all your fleet" ("... sarai causa dela corfusione de tuto questa exercito e fa perdicion de tuta fa tua armada ..."). In order to convince the Sultan, Mahmud Pasha reassured him that they would be masters of Negroponte by dawn, before the Venetian fleet was able to react.56 The Sultan was convinced by Mahmud Pasha and indeed by dawn the Ottomans managed to conquer the city while the Venetian fleet watched from a distance. 57

Tursun Bey, History, fT.77r-v. ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 146. Tursun bey, History, f.77v. 54 Ibid ., f.77v-78r. 55 For this campaign see Chapter 3. 56 Anonymous, Cronica, f.144v. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 36. 57 For this campaign see Chapter 4. 52

53

CONQUEST

199

Stratagems and Trickery Besides persistence and determination, Mahmud Pasha also showed his intelligence in certain campaigns by devising stratagems that proved to be critical for Ottoman success. In the Serbian campaign of 1458, after the conquest of Golubac, some of its defenders fortified themselves in the citadel and continued resisting, being supplied with water through a bucket hung from a chain over the Danube. Mahmud Pasha countered this problem by bringing ships from Vidin which hid in ambush, and when the defenders threw the bucket into the water, they cut the chain. Being left without water, the defenders were forced to surrender, and so Mahmud Pasha managed to complete the conquest of Golubac for the Ottomans. 58 In 1464, Mahmud Pasha also saved Zvornik from a Hungarian siege by spreading the false rumor that the Sultan was approaching the city, a fact which gave hope to the defenders, while at the same time causing fear in the enemies, who fled in panic at the sight of Mahmud Pasha's advance guard.59

The Use

if Agents

Another effective strategy used by Mahmud Pasha for facilitating the Ottoman conquests was the use of agents from within the ranks of the enemy, and particularly the use of his own relatives. As we saw in Chapter 2, the choice of Mahmud Pasha by Mehmed II for the position of Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi of Rumeli was an extremely shrewd one since, leaving aside his own personal worth and abilities, due to his Christian aristocratic descent, the Grand Vezir also possessed a vast network of relatives covering a great part of the Orthodox Christian states of the area. The use of Mahmud Pasha's relatives certainly facilitated the Ottoman conquest of Serbia in 1458-1459, when, through the mediation of the brother of Mahmud Pasha-a high-standing Serbian official-an important pro-Ottoman party was established in the Despotate. This strategy probably also played a part in the 1461 conquest 58 Tursun Bey, History, f.81v. ibn Kemal , Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, lSI. Saadeddin, Tacii't- Tevarih, 467-468. 59 ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 258-260. Nesri, Cihanniima, 771. Saadeddin , Tacii't-Tevarih, 507-508. Oxford Anonymous , "Ruhi Tarihi", 459. Tursun Bey, History, ff.119v-120v. For more information on this campaign see Chapter 4.

200

CHAPTER FIVE

of Trebizond, and might have also been at play in the conquest of the Morea in the previous year.60 But the Ottoman agents within the enemy ranks did not have to be relatives of Mahmud Pasha. In other cases, men with various personal or political motives came out on their own volition in order to help the Ottomans. According to the continuator of Doukas, during the siege of Lesbos in 1462, Mahmud Pasha's task was facilitated by the treason of Luchino Gattilusio. "Luchino Gattilusio came out, in the company of the vicar of the land, who started to negotiate the betrayal of the city with Mahmud Pasha, showing him all the weakest spots, which he had to bombard, fight and scale. And having given him the knowledge of the weak spots of the land, they returned inside the city and started to convince the Signore to surrender, with false arguments, in order to save their heads and possessions't.v' There were several similar stories, like those of Girolamo Valaresso and Thommaso Schiavo, who betrayed the Venetians in the war in the Morea and the siege of Negroponte respectively.v?

istimale For the Ottomans the word 'istimale' denoted 'gaining goodwill', 'coaxing'.63 This was a strategy used frequently by the Ottomans in order to undermine the existing leadership in a city or region and to facilitate its conquest, and it was manifested in several different ways like gift-giving, incitement to revolt, support of rival factions within a city, etc. The use of Mahmud Pasha's relatives and agents partly belongs to this category. This strategy was used by Mahmud Pasha in several campaigns. The first instance where we encounter this was in the conquest of the fortress of Golubac in the Serbian campaign of 1458. After completing the first part of the campaign, Mahmud Pasha and the army 60 See Chapter 2 for Mahmud Pasha 's family connections in the Orthodox Christian states of the area . 61 Doukas, Historia Turcobyzantina, 435. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 528, also suggests that Luchino Gattilusio was a traitor. On the same person see also Leonardus Chiensis, De Lesbo, 11-12. 62 For Girolamo Valaresso see Sanudo, Vite dei Duchi, 1172-1174. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 14-17. Dei, Cronica, 162. See also Chapter 6. For Thommaso Schiavo see Rizzardo, La Presa, 11-15. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti ", 57. 63 Sir James Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon (Beirut, 1974), 104.

C ONQ.UE ST

201

spe nt th e month of R amazan in Yellu Yurd restin g and praying. According to Tursun Bey, "During this month, although the Exalted Pa sha appeared outwardly to take care of the affairs of the soul, he was secretly dealing with the affairs of the infidels; that is, with a brave plan he attracted the hearts of the commander of the castle of Golubac and othe r infid els, by p romising th em timars and sending to th em secre tly rob es and by his goo d words". 64 At the end of the festivities, the Ottoman army moved on to Golubac, which surre ndered easily as a result of Mahmud Pasha's actions. In this case, M ahmud Pasha man aged to attract the commande rs of Golubac by gifts and promises, by exploiting the ambition s and greed of his enem ies. H owever , this strat egy was also used to exploit th e patriotic or religiou s sentime nts of the people to be conquered. Shortly after th e incident in Golubac, in 1459-1460 , the Ottoman s became masters of th e Aegean islands of Lemnos and Imbros, through the mediation of Kritob oulo s the Imbriot. The story relat ed by Kritoboulos himself is very revealing about this Ottom an practice. Acco rding to this story, Kritoboulos convinced the powerful men of the island of Lemnos to surrender th eir island to th e Sulta n in orde r to achieve a double objective: "because they wanted to rid them selves of the heavy administration of the Italian s and (most imp ortantly) bei ng afr aid that the fleet of the Sultan would arrive sudde nly an d harm the m" .65 After this, Kritoboulos went to Edirne and sent letters to D espot D em etrius Palaiologos in M istra telling him th at "it was tim e to request the islands of Im bros and Lemnos from the Sulta n since he [the Sultan] was ready to grant th em to him, and had told him that he was powerful enough to capture Lemnos and expel the Italian s" .66 In fact, the Despot D em etrius sent Dem etrius Asan es as an ambassado r and received the islands from the Sulta n . Then Kritob oulos returned to the islands and went secre tly to Lemnos, where he incited a revolt amo ng the inhabitants of the town of Kotzinon , who arrested and expelled their Italian m asters.s? The story is revealing of th e kinds of conce rns of th e local population , on which the Ottom an s capitalized in expa nding their empire. As it appears from the story of Kritoboulo s, the inh abitants of Lemnos 64

65 66 67

32 1.

Tursun Bey, History, IT.80v-8 1r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 150-151. Kritoboulos, Histonae, 133. Ibid. , 134. Ibid., 134-135. See also Inalcik, "T he Ottoman Turks and the Crusades", 320-

202

CHAPTER FIVE

had two main conce rns in acce p ting his proposals. The first one was to rid th em selves of the Italian occupation, which is describ ed in the text as 'heavy' « ([ft~ BaQ{,.tTJ'to~ nov 'h a A,wv»). This may indicate heavy taxation on the part of the ir Italian masters, but may also be a reference to the anti-Cath olic sentime nt, which was widespread in the area during this period. T he second conce rn was fear of the gro wing Ottom an power, which posed a dir ect threat especi ally to those areas which were near Istanbul. It is significant th at K ritob oulos mad e arran gements for th e islands to pass under th e authority of D espot Dem etrius Palaiologos. In this way they would pass from an It alian C ath olic to a Greek Orthod ox administration, albeit under Ottoman suzera inty. Although M ahmud Pasha is not mentioned at all as playing any role in this incident it is not inconceivable that he did. Also, this story is an example of the kinds of similar activities in which M ahmud Pasha mu st have engage d in order to achi eve his objec tives.

Threats and Promises Besides this strategy of istimale, which was addressed primarily to the population of the area which was to be conque red, Mahmud Pasha, by makin g proposals of sur re nder and negotiat ions with th eir leaders often attempte d to ac hieve his objectives peacefully. T her e are severa l exa mples of th is, parti cularly in th e conquering campaigns of the ea rly 1460's. In th e Morea in 1460, whe n Mahmud Pasha arrived before M istra, he sent to the D espot Dem etrius Palaiologos th e Gree k secretary T ho mas Kat avolen os, offering "peaceful and friendly words about the surre nde r of him and th e city, telling him and those with him that it would be for their own goo d, and they sho uld not try to resist th e Sultan , becau se this would not turn out for th eir own goo d" .68 In addition to these threats, M ahmud Pasha must have also used promises since when the D espot surrendered , he received from the Sultan rich gifts and the inco me of th e islands of Imbros, Lemnos, Thasos and Sam othraki, as well as th e city of Ain os.s? D em etrius Palaiologos was convince d by M ahmud Pa sha's proposal and surre ndered to the Grand Vezir. ?? In th e following year, Mahmud Pasha man aged to conquer both 68 69 70

Kr itoboulos, Historiae, 14 3. Ibid., 144, 150. See Chapter 3.

CONQUEST

203

Sinop and Trebizond through his proposals. When he arrived at Sinop with the Ottoman army, the Grand Vezir proposed peace to Ismail Bey. According to Asikpasazade and Nesri, Mahmud Pasha mounted a horse, went to the foot of the castle, called Ismail Bey and made a speech to him proposing his surrender."! Saadeddin and Chalkokondyles also give a direct speech given by Mahmud Pasha to Ismail Bey to the same end.i? A less romanticized, and more believable version is the one presented by Tursun Bey and ibn Kemal, who say that Mahmud Pasha sent a letter to Ismail Bey proposing surrender. Tursun Bey claims that the Grand Vezir assigned to him the task of composing the letter, so his version seems to be more convincing.P Anyhow, the contents ofMahmud Pasha's message are essentially the same in all historians. The Grand Vezir invited Ismail Bey to surrender by using a combination of threats and promises. According to Tursun Bey's text: "The victorious army has surrounded you by sea and land. The leisure of salvation is not intended. Preserve your honor and the honor of your people. And take pity on the people of the land-who are truly the household of God ... Come out with glory and respect, surrender the castle and the land. In return, a land equal to your land will be assigned to you from the kindness of the Sultan, and in the shadow of prosperity you will be tranquil and happy. And otherwise ... the fortifications will not prevent this powerful army't .?" Ismail Bey was finally convinced by Mahmud Pasha's arguments and surrendered the city to the Ottomans." Some sources report that the Isfendiyaroglu Bey expressed fears about his life from the wrath of Mehmed II, which were allayed by Mahmud Pasha, who even procured an imperial hera! (patent) of pardon for him, in order to convince him to surrender. 76 In return for Sinop, ismail Bey received from the Sultan the sancak of Plovdiv in the Balkans. 77 Exactly the same story occurred shortly thereafter at Trebizond. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 149. Nesri , Cihanniima, 745. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 475 . Chalkokondyles, Historia, 486-487. 73 Tursun Bey, History, f.89r . ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 187-189. 74 Tursun Bey, History, ff.89v-90r. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAI-i Osman, 187-189. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 486-487 . Nesri, Cihanniima, 745. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 149-150. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 474-475. 75 Tursun Bey, History, f.90r . Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 475 . Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 150. Nesri, Cihanniima, 745. ibn Kemal, Tevarih-iAI-i Osman, 189. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 487-488 . Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 455 . 76 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 150. Nesri , Cihanniima, 745. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih,475. 77 Chalkokondyles, Historia, 488. 71

72

204

CHAPTER FIVE

Mahmud Pasha arrived there before the rest of the army and proposed surrender to the Emperor David Komnenos. Kritoboulos relates that Mahmud Pasha sent Thomas Katavolenos to propose surrender to the defenders ofTrebizond, while Chalkokondyles presents us with a direct speech of Mahmud Pasha addressed to his cousin George Amiroutzes.?" Whichever of the two is true, the arguments used in both cases are the same as those used on ismail Bey: threat of death and destruction and enticing with the promise of rich lands elsewhere: "... If you immediately surrender the city to the Sultan, you will receive another land, just like the Greek ruler of Peloponnesos Demetrius received an income, and islands and the prosperous city of Ainos, where he is settled in safety and prospers. But if you do not listen and you decide to resist, know that the city will be enslaved not long afterwards; because the Sultan will not leave until he has driven you out and put you to death shamefully". 79 Emperor David Komnenos was convinced to surrender and the city was fmally handed over to Mahmud Pasha with the consent of its defenders. According to Tursun Bey, "the King, asking for mercy for his life and his family, surrendered the castle and the land".8o The Emperor David received land near the Strymon river, which provided him with an income of 300,000 akce annually, however, he was finally executed by the Sultan, together with his sons.s! The King of Bosnia, Stjepan Tornasevic, also surrendered to Mahmud Pasha after having received his threats and promises. According to Asikpasazade and Nesri, after having surrounded the King at Kljuc, Mahmud Pasha sent him a messenger asking him to send out one of his men for negotiations. The King sent an envoy and Mahmud Pasha asked him : "Don't you know who is the King coming against you?". The envoy replied that he was one of the Turkish Beys. Mahmud said to him: "Hey! You did not understand well. The Padishah who is coming is the Padishah who conquered Istanbul, Trebizond, Lesbos, Serbia, the Morea and many other royal states and gave them Kritoboulos, Historiae, 162. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 494. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 494-495. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 162-163. 80 Tursun Bey, History, £92v. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, 395. Kritoboulos, Histonae, 163. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 495. Ecthesis Chronica, 26. Historia Patriarchica, 97. Historia Politica, 37. Mihailovic, Memoirs, 119. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 153. Nesri, Cihanniima, 753. ibn Kemal, Teoarih-i Al-i Osman, 197. 81 Kritoboulos , Historiae, 165. Ecthesis Chronica, 27, says that the land received by Emperor David was near Serres. See Chapter 3. 78 79

CONQUEST

205

to his slaves. Change your mind now. Take my advice so that you will be left in peace". 82 Mahmud Pasha finally convinced the King of Bosnia to surrender by promising him safety . He also promised that if the King would "come and kiss the Padishah's hand and accept to pay the tribute and give a few of his castles to the Padishah, and the Padishah, putting his slaves into those castles, will return to his own lands". 83 This promise was sealed with an oath on the part of Mahmud Pasha and in this way, the King came out of Kljuc and surrendered the city to the Ottomans.v' Although he received the promise of safety from the Grand Vezir, the King of Bosnia was finally executed by the Sultan.s" In these proposals two elements become clear, designed to induce the enemy leaders to surrender. One is the threat of destruction, based on the might of the Ottoman army, which had been proven in previous conquests. Mahmud Pasha tells the envoy of the Bosnian King that his Sultan is not merely "one of the Turkish Beys", but the Padishah who conquered Istanbul, Trebizond, Serbia, Lesbos and the Morea. The power of Mehmed II is seen as too great for any local lord to resist, thus putting in danger his own life and that of his subjects. The second element are the promises of riches and prosperity in another land under the protective shadow of the Sultan. This is presented as the better alternative to the grim fate awaiting the enemy prince if he chose to resist the Sultan. The lands offered were always safely distant from the prince's power-base: Demetrius Palaiologos of the Morea received lands in the northern Aegean and Thrace, Isfendiyaroglu Ismail Bey was sent from Sinop to Plovdiv in the Balkans, and David Komnenos was moved from Trebizond in eastern Anatolia to the Strymon in the Balkans. Through this strategy of threats and promises, Mahmud Pasha managed to procure some relatively easy victories for the Sultan, thus avoiding unnecessary fighting, with

Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 158. Nesri, Cihanniima, 763. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 158. Nesri, Cihanniima, 763. 84 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 158. Saadeddin, Tacu't-Teoarih, 494 . Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 458 . ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 231. Nesri, Cihanniima, 765. Tursun Bey, History, f.llOr. Chalkokondyles, Historia, 539. Zoras, XQOVlXOV, 113. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 29. Mihailovic, Memoirs, 139. 85 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 159. Nesri, Cihanniima, 767. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 380. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Tevarih, 495. Oxford Anonymous, "Ruhi Tarihi", 458 . Chalkokondyles, Historia, 544. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 29. Mihailovic, Memoirs, 141. See Chapter 3. 82

83

206

CHAPTER FIVE

all the bloodshed and local discontent that would necessarily accompany it. Having described Mahmud Pasha's participation in the Ottoman conquests, we should now attempt to make a general assessment of his contribution to these conquests. First of all, his most obvious contribution, the one that comes out in all histories and chronicles, was his military one. As commander of the army of Rumeli or of the navy, Mahmud Pasha led the Ottomans to important conquests like those of Serbia, the Morea, Sinop, Trebizond, Lesbos, Bosnia, Karaman, Negroponte, etc. Both the land army and the navy were undergoing important transformations during that period. The Ottoman army was becoming increasingly centralized, since Mehmed II managed to bring under his control the frontier beys who were hitherto largely independent. The reign of Mehmed II also saw the development of a strong Ottoman navy, because one of its main military focuses was the Aegean Sea. The improved army and navy were led by Mahmud Pasha to several conquests for the Ottomans. Mahmud Pasha, however, was not merely an ordinary military commander. In the course of the Ottoman campaigns, he showed great determination and initiative, abilities which were fundamental in accomplishing Ottoman success. He managed to convince reluctant generals and even the Sultan himself to persist in the campaign, even when hope was lost, and in difficult situations he came up with ideas and stratagems that provided solutions for the Ottomans. His use of relatives and other agents, who acted as a kind of fifth column among the ranks of the enemy, facilitated the Ottoman conquests. Through the strategy of istimale, he managed to exploit either the vanity and personal ambitions of some of his enemies, or the discontent with the rulers in some other areas. By proposing surrender to enemy leaders, Mahmud Pasha tried on the one hand to frighten them, while, on the other hand, he attempted to seduce them with promises of the favor of the Sultan and the granting of rich lands. Considering all the information presented here, we can appreciate to some extent Mahmud Pasha's great contribution to the Ottoman conquests of the first half of the reign of Mehmed II, which was a great turning-point, transforming the Ottoman State from a gazi emirate to a world empire. In terms of conquests and expansion it was also one of the greatest periods in Ottoman history, with the

CONQ.UEST

207

Empire expanding both in the Balkans (Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, the Morea), in Anatolia (Sinop, Amasra, Trebizond, Karaman) and the Aegean (Lesbos, Imbros, Lemnos, etc.). The contribution of Mahmud Pasha to those conquests was paramount and by studying this contribution we may get a better insight into the question of Ottoman expansion during this crucial period.

CHAPTER SIX

DIPLOMACY

Besides his military activity as Beylerbeyi of Rumeli and Sancakbey of Gelibolu, Mahmud Pasha, in his capacity as Grand Vezir, also engaged in diplomatic activity, meeting with foreign emissaries and dealing with them in negotiations concerning various affairs like war, peace, trade, etc .

A.

VENICE

Due to the importance of the Ottoman war with Venice (1463-1479) and the richness of the Venetian archives, the record of Mahmud Pasha's diplomatic dealings with Venice is abundant and well documented.

1461-1462: Fugitive Slaves Before the outbreak of the war with Venice in 1463, Mahmud Pasha had to deal several tim es with Venetian envoys. The earliest mention that we have of Mahmud Pasha in the registers of the Venetian Senate was on 2 March 1461, in th e instructions to Niccolo Sagundino who was to be sent as an envoy to Mehmed II. The Senate provided Sagundino with two hundred ducats to be given as presents to Mahmud Pasha, the Sultan and others. 1 In these instructions we see the great importance accorded to Mahmud Pasha by the Venetians. Sagundino was instructed to present his credentials to Mahmud Pasha "who, as we have heard, holds the first position next to the Sultan". 2 The importance of Mahmud Pasha was also recognized by the Venetian Senate in the following year, when they referred to him as 'the right hand' of the Sultan.I 1 2 3

ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.36r, 2 March 1461. ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.35v, 2 March 1461. ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.83v, 29 March 1462.

DIPLOMACY

209

Perhaps the most important issue of Ottoman-Venetian diplomatic relations in the period 1461-1463 was that of Ottoman slaves who fled to the Venetian possessions in the Morea , which formed one of the main pretexts for the outbreak of the war. In the instructions to Niccolo Sagundino, in March 1461, this was one of the main issues. The Venetian Senate seems to have expected that Mahmud Pasha would complain to Sagundino about certain of his slaves who fled to Nauplion (Neapolis Romanie) during the Ottoman campaign in the Morea in the summer of 1460, were received there by the local authorities and sold ." The Senate, giving Sagundino the liberty to use the best arguments according to his judgement, instructed him to justify their position by saying that this happened without their knowledge and that they would pay indemnity to the Grand Vezir. 5 Niccolo Sagundino returned to Venice in September 1461 with the news that Mehmed II did not show a conciliatory attitude but, on the contrary, harbored evil int entions against the Republic.v In response to Sagundino's reports, the Senate decided to send a letter to the Sultan. In the draft of a letter, which they eventually refrained from sending, the Venetian senators planned to ask Mehmed II to reassure Mahmud Pasha about Venetian intentions concerning his slaves who fled to Coron; to tell him that all had happened without their knowledge and that they would send an indemnity through the new Bailo, whom they had appointed to Istanbul. 7 However, in the letter that was actually sent to Mehmed II, dated 28 September 1461, the Senate merely told the Sultan, in a vague manner, that they would "show their customary just dealing".8 The mention of Coron instead ofNauplion here may mean one of several things: a) that some slaves fled to Nauplion and others to Coron, b) that the fugitive slaves to Nauplion were sold to Coron or c) that there is a mistake in the first record and the slaves fled actually to Coron and not to Nauplion. The third option seems to be the most plausible since there is no mention of Nauplion in the records of the subsequent negotiations. 4 ASV, Senato, Secreta , 21, f.35v, 2 March 1461. A. Andr ews, "T he Turkish Threat", 268. 5 ASV, Senato, Secreta , 21, f.35v, 2 March 1461. A. Andr ews, "T he Turkish Threat" , 268. 6 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, ff.58r-59r, 21-28 Septemb er 1461. A. Andrews, "T he Turkish Threat", 269. 7 ASV, Senato, Secreta , 21, f. 59v, 28 September 1461. 8 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.59r, 28 September 1461. A. Andrews, "T he Turkish Threat", 270.

210

CHAPTER SIX

In the record of 29 March 1462, we are informed that the three fugitive slaves had carried with them a sum of 30,000 akce ." On that date, the Senate voted to indemnify Mahmud Pasha for that sum. The new Bailo about to travel to Istanbul, Paolo Barbarigo, was entrusted with 23,000 akce and told to stop at Coron and collect the remaining 7,000 akce from Girolamo Valaresso, who was councillor in that city.!" It is noteworthy that Paolo Barbarigo was instructed to hand over the sum in question to Mahmud Pasha, declaring that it had been extracted from the people responsible for the affair, and avoiding to mention that most of the sum had been given by the Republic. II Six months later, in September 1462, the Senate asked Paolo Barbarigo to give Mahmud Pasha an extra fifteen ducats as compensation for items that had been carried off by the slaves and were lost, as well as all the items that could be recovered.l" Also, Barbarigo was to tell Mahmud Pasha that the Signoria had used 'every harshness' against the people who were involved in the affair and recovered the money and items because of the great esteem and high opinion that they had for his person.l ' The mention of Girolamo Valaresso in the records of the Senate as being responsible for providing a good part of the sum of the indemnity, as well as his implication in the affair by contemporary chroniclers, like Malipiero and Sanudo, as we will see below, indicates that he was probably the man responsible for the reception of the slaves and their sale.l" Although the Venetian Senate attempted initially to downplay the affair, it seems that Mahmud Pasha and Mehmed II used it as a powerful diplomatic weapon and insisted on it. According to the ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.83v, 29 March 1462. ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, ff.83v-84r, 29 March 1462. ASV, Senato, Mar, 7, f.56v, 30 March 1462. A. Andrews, "T he Turkish Threat", 274-275. II ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.83v, 29 March 1462. A. Andrews, "T he Turkish Threat", 275. 12 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, ff.109v-1IOr, 22 September 1462. A. Andrews , "T he Turkish Threat", 276. 13 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, f.l l Or, 22 September 1462. A. Andrews, "The Turkish Threat", 276. 14 The subsequent story of Girolamo Va1aresso, as presented by Malipiero and Sanudo , is interesting and merits a brief recounting: According to these authors , during the hostilities in the Morea, Va1aresso fled to the Ottomans and appeared in front of the Sultan giving him information on the Venetian forces in the area . Later, he was exchanged with an Ottoman prisoner and fell back into the hands of the Venetians. He was taken to Venice, where he was hanged as a traitor in front of the Palazzo Ducale, in November 1463 (Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 14-17. Sanudo, Vile dei Duchi, 1172-1174. Dei, Cronica, 162). 9

10

DIPLOMACY

211

Sen ate, th e embassy of Niccolo Sagundino to Istanbul in 1461 failed becau se of the intransigen ce of M ahmud Pasha and the Sultan caused by this issue. "T his past year we sent to the presen ce of the above mention ed Lord our prudent secretary Niccolo Sagu ndino who, since M ahmud Pasha was hostile because of that reason [the fugitive slaves], could not obtain anything from th at lord conce rn ing our affairs. On the contrary, from wha t he said and from lett ers of th e aforeme ntion ed Turk [Mehmed II], we understood how mu ch he estimated and dem anded for the dam age caused to the above -me ntioned Mahmud, becau se of th e flight of his three slaves to our city of C oro n whe n that Signor was in campaign in the M orea".l s By ind emnifying M ahmud Pasha, Paolo Barbarigo was expec ted to find a more favorabl e response to matters that were pressing for Veni ce and con cerned the Ottoman occupation of Ven etian lands in the Morea and th e area of Lepanto. 16 The close connec tion of th e affair of th e fugitive slaves with th e gradual escalation of Ottom an- Ven etian ho stilities in the M or ea was not iced by Ven eti an ch ro nicle rs. Both D om enico M alipier o and M arin o Sanudo, the latt er proba bly followin g the former , present the same story conce rni ng th e fugitive slaves . Acco rding to this story, in 1462 (Malipiero) or 1463 (Sanudo) a Christian slave of the subast of Athe ns (Setines) fled to Coron with 100,000 akce and went to the house of the councillor Girolam o V alaresso, who received him , in order to sha re in the m on ey. When Valaresso was asked to return the slave, he refused because the slave was a Christian. M alipi ero and Sanudo say th at "because of this the Sancakbey of the M orea went under the castle of Ar gos and took it with the coope ra tion of some of th ose who wer e inside". 17 K enneth Setton seems to believe th at this story was prob ably a distorted version of the affair that we examined above, conce rn ing the fugitive slaves of M ahmud Pash a.l '' The way this affair is tr eated by M alipier o and Sanudo, as well as the imp ortance that it seem s to have acquired for the Ven etian Senate indi cat es that it was a major issue at the tim e and was later seen as one of the events that led to the outbreak of the war in 1463. From being a minor incident, the qu estion of th e fugitive slaves was exASV, Senato, Secreta , 21, [ I09v, 22 September 1462. ASV, Senato, Secreta, 21, ff.l l Or-v, 22 September 1462. A. Andrews, "T he T urkish Threat", 276-278. 17 Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 12. Sanudo, Vile dei Duchi, 1172a. 18 Setton, The Papcuy and the Leuant, 24 1 n.36. A. Andrews, "The Turkish Threat" , 446-448. 15

16

212

CHAPTER SIX

ploited to the utmost by Mahmud Pasha in order to put diplomatic pressure on the Signoria, and provided a pretext for the growing Ottoman aggressions against Venetian possessions in the Morea.

The Ottoman-Venetian War of 1463-1479: Peace Negotiations 1465 The first mention of Mahmud Pasha in the Venetian registers after the outbreak of the Ottoman-Venetian war in 1463 was in a letter to the Venetian Bailo in Istanbul, Paolo Barbarigo, dated 13 February 1465. From this letter, we learn that Barbarigo was held in prison by the Ottomans, apparently because of the war, but was released earlier in the year by imperial order, through the mediation of Mahmud Pasha. According to the response of the Senate to Barbarigo's letter: "We learnt ... of your liberation, which followed an order of the Sultan, and the words exchanged between you and Mahmud Pasha about this matter. This liberation has been good news to us, and it is our inclination, that you should thank the aforementioned Mahmud Pasha for his humane words and good works". 19 From this same letter we learn that Mahmud Pasha expressed his amazement to Barbarigo, concerning the fact that the Venetians had undertaken this war with no reason at all, and made mention of a conclusion of peace. In response to this, Barbarigo was instructed to say that the Venetians were provoked in this war by the Ottoman attack on Argos and other aggressions against Venetian possessions and subjects in the Morea. He was also instructed to say that they would be favorably disposed towards peace, provided that it annulled the causes of the war and did not go against the Venetian alliance with the King of Hungary. 20 Following his overtures to Paolo Barbarigo, in the early summer of 1465, Mahmud Pasha sent the RagusanJacobo de Bon to Venice with peace proposals. The content of the proposals sent through de Bon cannot be extracted from the record in the register of the Senate. We only learn that Mahmud Pasha invited the Venetians to conMonumenta Hungariae Historica, vo1.4, 327, 10 May 1465. Monumenta Hungariae Histonca, vol.d, 328, 10 May 1465. According to Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 274 n.l l , this letter was probably never sent to Barbarigo since it lacks the upright cross in the left margin, which would indicate that the decision was put into effect. 19

20

DIPLOMACY

213

elude peace with the Ottomans, "offering secure and honorable [peace], and requested that we send to the Porte someone from our noblernen't.I! The Venetians showed themselves favorable towards this initiative and said that they wanted peace with the Ottomans for all time. 22 The Senate expressed the will to learn more about Mahmud Pasha's conditions for the conclusion of peace by sending an envoy to Istanbul, together with Jacobo de Bon.23 However, it does not seem that there was any immediate sequel to these proposals.

1466 In the following year Mahmud Pasha proceeded with further peace proposals to Venice by sending to the Signoria a Cretan Jew named David. According to a letter of the Senate to Francesco Venier, Venetian ambassador to Hungary, dated 16 May 1466, David the Jew left Istanbul on the 20th of February and Plovdiv on the 9th of March 1466, with Venice as his destination, carrying peace proposals in the name of Mahmud Pasha. David also carried a safe-conduct issued by the Grand Vezir, allowing a Venetian envoy to go to Istanbul for negotiations. Probably being disappointed by the failure of similar attempts in the past, the Senate considered these proposals as false and doubted that the Sultan's real intentions were to conclude peace with Venice.i" Despite their doubts, two months later, in July 1466, the Senate decided to send "a companion of the Chancellor of the ex-Venetian Bailo in Istanbul", together with David the Jew, to Mahmud Pasha in Istanbul in order to discuss the question of peace, for both Venice and for the Hungarian King. These envoys were instructed to propose to Mahmud Pasha that the Sultan should designate a place where ambassadors from both sides should meet to negotiate peace. If the Sultan did not accept this, the Senate instructed its envoys to attempt 21 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 22, f.106v, 16July 1465, Letter to Francesco Venier, Ambassador in Hungary. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, volA, 347. Serafettin Turan , "Fatih Mehmet-Uzun Hasan Mucadelesi ve Venedik", Tarih Arastumalan Dergisi 3 (1965): 84. The Bishop of Crete informed the Senate that around the same time Mahmud Pasha made similar proposals to the King of Hungary (ASV, Senato, Secreta , 22, f.107r, 16July 1465, Venetian Senate to Francesco Venier. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vo1.4, 348). 22 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 22, [103r, 3 July 1465. 23 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 22, ff.1 02v-103r , 3 July 1465. 24 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 22, [l60r, Venetian Senate to Francesco Venier, Ambassador in Hungary, 16 May 1466. Monumenta Hungariae Historica , vo1.5, 18.

214

CHAPTER SIX

to understand his intentions and to report them to the Signoria. In addition, the Senate decided to send through these two envoys to Yakub Pasha, the Sultan's doctor, two medical books that he had requested.P Apart from a resolution of the Council ofTen and a letter to Tommaso Ficardo, asking him to inform them if he had heard anything about peace from Mahmud Pasha or any other Ottoman official,26 there were no more Venetian actions between July and October. In October, the Venetian Senate decided to ask David the Jew to meet Mahmud Pasha and ask him for a new safe-conduct for a Venetian envoy to Istanbul, since the safe-conduct that had been sent by Mahmud Pasha was judged to be insufficient because of the time that had elapsed since its issue, and "for other reasons" .27 In case Mahmud Pasha was away from the capital, David would try to procure this safe-conduct from Yakub Pasha. According to the Senate's instructions to David and to the Capitano del Golfo, Jacopo Venier, after obtaining the safe-conduct, David the Jew had to go to Ainos and from there to Lemnos and hand it over to J acopo Venier. Venier was instructed to go to Istanbul and present his credentials and presents to the Sultan. He was expected to discuss with him the question of the conclusion of peace. Also, Jacopo Venier was instructed to visit each Pasha and give him, in the name of the Signoria, presents, which would be sixteen ells (' braza') of crimson velvet for each one, "with the usual salutations and offers". 28 The reason given by the Senate for this visit was to gain the favor of these Pashas for the forthcoming peace negotiations.I" The Venetian registers do not provide us with much information concerning the fate of this embassy. More information on the discussions between Mahmud Pasha and the Venetian ambassador can be ASV, Senato, Secreta, 22, f.l77r, 25 July 1466. ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti, 16, (24Ir, 27 August 1466. Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti, 16, f.243v, 10 September 1466. 27 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, (J3r, Letter toJacopo Venier , Capitano del Golfo, 25 October 1466. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 38. ASV, Senato, Secreta , 23, f.IOr, II October 1466. Monumenta Hungariae Historica, vol.5, 36. Franz Babinger, 'Johannes Darius (1414-1494), Sachwalter Venedigs im Morgenland, und sein griechischer Umkreis", Sitmngsberichte der bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafien, philos.hist. Klasse (Munich, 1951), 56-57. 28 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, f.IOr, II October 1466. Senato, Secreta, 23, ff.13r14r, 25 October 1466. Monumenta Hungariae Historica , vol.5, 36-40. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 257. 29 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, (14r, 25 October 1466. 25 26

DIPLOMACY

215

deduced from other sources: Domenico Malipiero gives an account that is quite detailed, Marino Sanudo gives a less detailed account, and Kritoboulos gives briefly the Ottoman version of the reasons why this embassy failed . According to the dating suggested by Kritoboulos, and by what appears reasonable in the records of the Venetian Senate, the Venetian envoy Zuane Capello must have arrived at the Porte in the winter of 1466-1467. A letter from the Sultan to the Signoria, signifying the failure of the negotiations, is dated 25 March 1466,30 however, according to what we know of this embassy, the date should be moved a year later, probably March 1467. According to Malipiero, the Capitano,jacopo Venier, sent Zuane Capello, together with David the jew, as ambassador to the Porte. Malipiero indicates that the embassy failed because the Florentine Consul predisposed Mahmud Pasha negatively even before the arrival of the Venetian envoy. First, the Florentine Consul told Mahmud Pasha that the Venetians would not send an envoy for peace, and later, when they asked for a safe-conduct, he said that the Venetians were asking for peace because they were in danger since the Pope, Florence and other Italian powers were about to start a war against Venice. Thus, Mahmud Pasha became more intransigent visa-vis the Venetians. Malipiero also says that there were people who informed the Florentine Consul in Istanbul about Venetian affairs, and the latter reported his information to Mahmud Pasha, adding to it in order to spoil the reputation of the Signoria. I' Marino Sanudo, based on letters of Zuane Capello to be found in the Cronica of Dolfin, also puts the blame for the failure of the negotiations on the Florentines and the Genoese.F In the negotiations, Mahmud Pasha tried to put the blame of the war squarely on Venice and threatened that the Ottomans would soon proceed to an escalation of the hostilities , by using their full powers against the Venetians. The words of Domenico Malipiero give a vivid presentation of Mahmud Pasha's speech: "He said that his Lord has not yet started waging war against the Signoria, neither has he sent until now his soldiers to attack their possessions. But the Signoria has done everything in their power against his lands and possessions, and had not achieved, nor will achieve anything: on the contrary, it is as Sanudo, Vite dei Duchi, 1184. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 41. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 196. Babinger, 'J ohannes Darius ", 57. Turan, "Fatih Mehmed-Uzun Hasan", 84-85. 32 Sanudo, Vite dei Duchi, 1183-1184. 30

31

s.

216

CHAPTER SIX

if they had given a punch on the wall and pull ed back their hand in pain. He said that in the five years that he has been fighting the Signoria he has come to know their power; that until now his lord has allowed the Signoria to do whatever they wanted in order to see what they could achieve, but from now on he would start trying his own ventures, and if he did not succeed in one thing, he would try another".33 Mahmud Pasha continued his speech by alluding to the Venetian insistence on including the King of Hungary in any eventual peace with the Ottomans. As is related by Malipiero, Mahmud Pa sha said : "Ambassador, whoever wants to eat with the spoon of another man remains hungry: you have spent your money, you have sent them to the King of Hungary, and he did not help you . I have said one thing to your Bailo who died here in Istanbul, which did not become known to the Signoria because he died too soon ; I want you to know it, so that you can transmit it. The Despot of Serbia sent all his tr easure to the Hungarians, and the fruit that he achieved was that he was blown out like a candle. You are making dealings with the Hungarians, and the Hungarians have made it known that they do not want the merchants to make peace for them".34 A similar idea is also conveyed by Sanudo, who says that Mahmud Pasha told Zuane Capello: "Your Signoria has given so much money to th e King of Hungary and he has not done anything". 35 So, according to Malipiero and Sanudo, the breakdown of the peace negotiations was caused both by the negative image of Venic e created by the Consul of Florence, and by the Ven etian insistence on including Hungary in these negotiations. In the Venetian registers there are only two mentions of this conversation. In a letter to Niccolo da Canal in Negroponte, from the end of August 1467, the Senate mentioned that Mahmud Pasha made demands on Capello on the issue of debts.i'" There is another piece of information on that conversation in a record of the Senate from the beginning of October of the same year. According to this, Mahmud Pasha had told Zuane Capello that th e Venetians should not

Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 41. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 196. Malipiero, "Annali Veneti", 41-42. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 196. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 257. 35 Sanudo , Vite dei Duchi, 1183. 36 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, f. 67r, Senate to Niccolo da Canal in Negroponte, 27 August 1467. 33 34

DIPLOMACY

217

send any more ambassadors or envoys to the Porte unless they changed their minds on certain conditions and clauses.V In his brief account of this embassy, Kritoboulos gives a different reason for the breakdown of the negotiations. According to his account, the Venetian ambassadors insisted that with the conclusion of peace the two parties would keep the lands that they already held. The Sultan, on the other hand, wanted the return of the islands of Imbros and Lemnos, as well as the payment of an annual tribute from the Republic to him. When the Venetian ambassadors refused this, the Sultan sent them away, telling them: "Go and think better about it, if you want peace and a pact with me" .38 These last words seem to confirm the information that Mahmud Pasha sent away Capello telling him that the Venetians should not send any more envoys until they would decide to accept the Ottoman conditions. We do not know the source of Malipiero's report of the words of Mahmud Pasha to Zuane Capello, and we cannot be sure whether it is authentic or not. This report is quite detailed and, if we accept it as authentic, it would be very important in understanding the Grand Vezir's manner of conducting diplomacy. The first thing to be noted is Mahmud Pasha's attitude, which is presented as combative and intransigent. This attitude seems to be in tune with that of Mehmed II and of the growing Ottoman Empire in general. Feeling their superiority over their enemies, the Ottomans did not show any inclination toward compromise or a willingness to accept a peace that would put them on an equal footing with the Venetians. This is reflected both in the attitude of Mahmud Pasha and in Kritoboulos' report of the Ottoman rejection of the Venetian proposal: the Ottomans were not willing to accept a peace that would leave lands that previously had belonged to them, like Imbros and Lemnos, in the hands of the Venetians and, moreover, they had to receive tribute in order to show their enemies that they were the victors in the war. Franz Babinger thinks that Mehmed II had no intention of concluding peace with the Venetians at that time and included the demand for annual tribute on purpose, knowing in advance that the Venetians would reject it and the negotiations would fail. 39 Another element that comes out of Malipiero's report is the use ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, f.78r, 4 October 1467. Kritobou1os, Historiae, 202. Imber, Ottoman Empire, 196. Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 257. 39 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 257. 37

38

218

CHAPTER SIX

of threats by Mahmud Pasha. In order to emphasize Ottoman superiority and to intimidate the Venetians, Mahmud Pasha tried to give Capello the impression that the Ottomans had not really used their true force yet and that they were about to escalate the war. He insinuated that the Venetians had not been particularly successful in the war up to that time and such a statement and threat, that things would go even worse for them in the future, must have had an effect on the Venetian ambassador. A final important point is Mahmud Pasha's mention of the Hungarians and their alliance with the Venetians . By mentioning the Hungarian inability or unwillingness to help the Venetians, and by mentioning the example of the Despot of Serbia, who relied on the Hungarians but was defeated without receiving any help from them, Mahmud Pasha probably hoped to achieve a double objective: on the one hand, by continuing his policy of threats, he aimed at making the Venetians feel alone and, therefore, more vulnerable, in the war against the Ottomans. On the other hand, this was probably also designed to sow discord in the Venetian-Hungarian alliance. With his mention of the Hungarians and the story of the plight of the Serbian Despot, Mahmud Pasha shrewdly attempted to imply to the Venetian ambassador that the Hungarians were merely interested in receiving the Venetian money without having any intention of helping the Signoria in its war against the Sultan. By this strategy, Mahmud Pasha hoped to make the Venetian Signoria suspicious vis-a-vis her Hungarian allies, to make the Venetians feel betrayed and helpless in their fight against the Sultan.

1467-1468 In 1467 Mahmud Pasha sent another envoy to the Venetians. Sometime in the late summer or early fall of that year, the Albanian nobleman Alessio Span arrived at the Venetian possessions in Albania with orders from Mahmud Pasha to sound out the Signoria concerning her intentions for peace. The Rectors of Scutari and Drivasto wrote to the Senate informing it of this development.t? The Senate immediately declared its willingness to negotiate peace, expressing at the same time its great confidence in the sincerity and fidelity of the intentions of Alessio Span. The Senate asked Alessio Span to go to the Porte and procure a safe-conduct that would enable a formal Vene40 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, [.77v, 4 October 1467. Malipiero , "Annali Veneti", 42. Babinger, 'Johannes Darius" , 58-59.

DIPLOMA CY

2 19

tian ambassador to go to th e Porte for the negotiation s.f In addition, the Senate, rem embering the fact that M ahmud Pasha had told Zu an e C ap ello th at th e Venetians sho uld not send an ambassado r to the Por te unless they changed their minds on certain conditions, asked Span to make sure that the safe-conduct th at he would procure included a spec ific clause annulling this declaration of the Gra nd Vezi r and guar anteeing full safety for the Ve ne tian am bassado r.t/ This tim e the Signo ria chose Leon ardo Boldu to represent them to th e Porte. Once again, however, th e embassy came to nou ght. According to a letter of ] oannes Fr. Mapheu s to th e M arquis of M antova, written sho rtly after Boldu 's meeting with the Sultan , which must have taken place in the early spring of 1468: "... first th e abovemention ed envoys mad e him [Mehmed II] a rich present, and when the Sultan heard from th e envoy th at th e Signoria wanted to conclude peace, the Sultan told him finally, that he wanted to conclude peace willingly with the following condition: th at he wanted all Albani a and th e M or ea, which was held by the Signoria". 43 The Signo ria could not agree to such conditions and the attempt to achieve peace failed on ce more. According to th e Mil an ese ambassado r to Ve nice, Gerardus de Co llis, the Sulta n had extended peace feelers in order to delay Ve netian military act ivities.44 These rep eated overtures for peace on the part of Mahmud Pasha in the period 1465- 1467 may seem strange, since the O ttom an s apparently had no wish to conclude peace at the time, particularly knowing th at the Ve netians held land, which they would not cede peacefully, and which the Ottom an s wante d at any cost. T he refore, it seems probabl e th at these peace overtures had othe r objectives. On the one hand, we have seen the opinion of Ger ardus de Co llis, who tho ught th at such overt ures were mainly dir ected at delaying Venetian military prep aration s and at inducin g the Signo ria to hesitat e before undertakin g any maj or military ope ra tion against th e Ottoman s, by keeping the hop e of peace alive. On the othe r hand, such overtures may have had ano the r, more subtl e goal. They may have been designed to sound out Ven etian opinion abo ut peace. By test41 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, ff. 77v-78r, 4 O ctober 1467. Malipiero, "Anna li Veneti", 42. 42 ASV, Senato, Secreta, 23, D8r, 4 October 1467. 43 Makusev, Monumenta Historica, 33, J oann es Fr. Ma pheus to the Marquis of Mantua, 20 April 1468. Babinger, 'Johannes Darius", 58-59. 44 Monumenta Hungariae His torica, vol.5, 80, Gerardus de Collis to the Duke of Milan, 27 Mar ch 1468. Babinger, M ehmed the Conqueror, 26 1, 265-266.

220

CHAPTER SIX

ing Venetian willingness to conclude peace and the extent to which the Signoria would be ready to concede part of its prestige in order to achieve it, the Ottomans were simultaneously testing the Signoria's perception of its own power. The extent of the Signoria's willingness and readiness to conclude peace could give the Ottomans a measure of how the Venetians judged their power and their performance in the war. It is possible that the Venetian readiness to respond to all of these overtures for peace, even after repeated failures , may have created in the Ottomans the impression that their enemies, because they appeared to be too eager for peace, did not consider themselves to be powerful enough. This, in turn, may have induced the Ottomans to continue the war relentlessly, being confident that they would achieve their goals in the end. The negotiations of 1467-1468 were probably the last ones in which Mahmud Pasha participated as Grand Vezir before his dismissal in the summer of 1468. From a later period, however, we have a set of documents posing serious problems, which seem to have been initiated by Mahmud Pasha.

1470-1474: The 'MautBossa'Affair The First Period if Proposals: 1470-1471 On the 22nd of December 1470, the Council of Ten convened in order to discuss a proposal made by a certain "Maut bassa" or "Maumut bassa", with the mediation of the Albanian nobleman Alessio Span. The proposal was conveyed to the Council by the Venetian nobleman Paolo de Priolis and in it the 'bassa' offered to hand over to the Signoria the Black Castle of the Dardanelles and the Ottoman fleet, in return for an annual salary of 40,000 ducats to be given to him by Venice until he succeeded in becoming master of the Morea.P The Council of Ten accepted the Pasha's proposal and gave him the freedom to proceed with his plans whenever he saw fit. 46 The Council also promised to pay salaries to several persons involved in the negotiations: The Pasha was promised the 40,000 ducats that he had asked for. They also promised an annual salary of 4,000 ducats to John Kantakouzenos ('Ianutio'), through whose mediation the ne45 46

ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.155r. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , 164. ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.l55r. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 164-165.

DIPLOMACY

221

gotiations were taking place ('per cuius medium hac pratica ducitur'), in case the Pasha's promise materialized, even partially ('aut pars eorum'). Similarly, an annual salary of 1,000 ducats was promised to Alessio Span, who had sent the messenger with the proposals ('qui misit presentem nuntium'). The Pasha's brother ('.frata dicti Mautbasse') was also promised 10,000 ducats annually, but his contribution to the negotiations is not mentioned.t? On the 3rd ofJanuary 1471, the Council ofTen convened again and extended its earlier offer. They said that "this time it seems to us that he can acquire by God and the world the greatest crown that a lord ever acquired or could possibly acquire, by rising against the Turk and capturing some important province or provinces, the more important and the bigger, the better,,48 In order to help him achieve this goal, the Venetians offered their favor and financial assistance. They also promised to procure the aid of their allies, the Pope and King Ferrante of Naples, as well as of other Christian princes. The Venetians also offered to notify their Captain General of the Sea or any other of their officials if the Pasha would consider that necessary . In a decision of the same date, the Council of Ten promised Alessio Span that if he were to be expelled from the dominions of the Sultan because of the current affair he would receive an annual income of 4,000 ducats a year.49 On the 18th ofJanuary 1471, the Council ofTen wrote to the Despot of Santa Maura, Leonardo III Tocco, in order to thank him for bringing them into contact with 'Maut bassa' and to ask him to advocate their cause with him: "... Your Magnificence, with your usual prudence and astuteness and by any means that would appear to you the most fitting, mention to the Pasha that he should rise against the ignominious and dangerous servitude, showing to him that his condition with the Turk would become worse and more dangerous every day, both because of the bad nature of that lord, and of the enemies of the Pasha, who would never stop from laying traps for him until he loses his life, considering too great his excellent virtues, because of which he is slandered. However, this time he wants to rise ... against such danger and to take up the opportunity sent to him by God" . The Council of Ten also asked Leonardo Tocco to reiterate to the Pasha the willingness of the Signoria to help him in any way 47 48 49

ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.155r. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 164-165. ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.155v. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 165. ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.155v. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , 165.

222

CHAPTER SIX

possible. 50 Whether 'Maut bassa' received the message of the Venetians or not, he did not react to it. It took him two years to communicate again with the Council of Ten.

The Second Period if Proposals: 1473-1474 After two years had passed without any news from 'Maut bassa', at the end of 1472 Alessio Span and John Kantakouzenos arrived at the port of Medoa in Albania. There they met with the Sopracomes Niccolo da Molin and conveyed proposals for peace with the Sultan, as well as renewed proposals from the Pasha. All this was described in two letters dated 2 January 1473 and written by da Molin. In the first letter the proposals for peace were described in detail, whereas in the second da Molin talked about a conversation between John Kantakouzenos and the Provveditore of Albania and Comes of Scutari Leonardo Boldu, in which Kantakouzenos presented to the Venetian official new proposals from the Pasha.P! The content of these letters is not known, but we can surmise their essence from the instructions of the Council ofTen to Leonardo Boldu . This time the proposals of the Pasha were even more ambitious than the first. "We say that since he aspires to a higher and more glorious undertaking and wants to take over the city and empire of Constantinople, and the domain of the Turk from here to the Straits, we want to help him with our fleet and all our favors and financial assistance, in order to maintain and conserve him in that state. And the Morea, N egroponte, Lesbos and all the islands out of the Straits will remain with us. And when he occupies the castles of the Dardanelles, so that our fleet may be able to pass, we will send it to him in his favor and assistance up to where he will need it". 52 The Venetians informed 'Maut bassa' that they had given the necessary secret orders to the Captain General of the Sea to that effect. They also asked for rapid action in order to exploit the fact that the Sultan's attention was diverted to Anatolia, since Uzun Hasan had attacked his lands there. 53 In the discussion of 26 January 1473, which led to the taking of this decision, however, the members of the Council ofTen expressed 50 51

52

53

ASV, ASV, ASV, ASV,

Consiglio Consiglio Consiglio Consiglio

dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti

17, f.157v. 17, f.222r. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 166. 17, f.222r. Bozic, "Ko1ebanja" , 167. 17, f.222r. Bozic, "Ko1ebanja", 167.

223

DIPLOMACY

some doubts concern ing th e genuineness of th e Pasha 's motives, whe the r he acted since rely or he was trying to deceive the Ven etians in order to achi eve an obscure goal, which th ey wer e not able to discern .54 The Council of T en decided that they should also take into acco unt other conside ra tions like thos e of tim e and th e station and condition of an individual, and particularly the fact th at the same person may regard the same matter in differ ent ways at differ ent times.55 The Council of Ten also showed th emselves aware of a change in th e Pasha's authority and power since th e last tim e that he communicat ed with them , whe n they promised him a salary of 40,000 ducats annually or th e domination of the Morea.P'' It seems that when they mad e the promise to him, at the end of 1470, 'Maut Bassa' held a lower office than he did at th e beginning of 1473 by which time he had probably been promoted. Finally, the Council of Ten repeated its promise of a salary of 4,000 du cats per year to J ohn K antakouzeno s, his sons and heirs, in perpetuum. They also pledged 1,000 du cats to Alessio Span, his sons and heirs, in perpetuum. They finally promised M arino Hungaro, brotherin-law of Alessio Span ('genera ... suprascrip ti domini A/exii' ), who acted as int erpreter , the sum of 200 gold ducats per yea r to him and his sons, for as long as he lived Y Despite their reservation s, on th e 5th of April 1473 the Co uncil of T en proceeded to send instructions to the C aptain Gen eral of the Sea and the two Provveditori of the Ship s to the effect that they should act on the Ven etian promises to 'Maut bassa' and pursue the Ven etian goals in case he decided to put his plan s int o action . "We orde r you th at in th e case th at the above -name d M aumut bassa moves or wants to mov e again st the Turk, may God conce de this in Hi s infinite justice, and asks us to put into effect what we hav e promised him, you, with your prudence and virtue, and with our force, should attempt to realize what we desire" .58 In th e same letter , they instructed the three men to keep these orders most secret and to reveal them neither to their inferiors nor to anyone else.59 On 19 March 1473 th e C apitano of Scutari and Pr ovveditore of ASV, ASV, 56 ASV, 57 ASV, 58 ASV, 59 ASV, 54 55

Consiglio deiDieci, Misti 17, f.222r. Bozic, "Kolebanja", Consiglio deiDieci, Misti 17, f.222r. Bozic, "Kolebanja", Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.222r. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 17, f.222v. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , Capi del Consiglio dei Dieci, Lettere, Filza I, doc.17. Capi del Consiglio dei Dieci, Lettere, Filza I, doc.l7.

166. 166. 166. 167.

224

CHAPTER SIX

Albania Leonardo Boldu , wrote to the Council of T en that he had agreed with Kantakouzenos that both Kantakouzenos and Span should go to th e Porte and th at at least one of th em should return to Albania within seven weeks. The Council of T en responded on th e 12th of April that they would send to him four official lett ers (' !ettere nostre patente') containing its promises to each of th e four persons involved in the negotiations: 'M aut bassa',John Kantakouz en os, Alessio Span and Marino Hungaro, They did this so that Boldu would possess tangible evidence of the C ouncil's good int entions towards the four men and would be abl e to produce it in case he was asked, and only in th at case. 60 The Council rem embered that the Pasha had complained that he did not receive any official Venetian guarantees, and that was one of the reasons why the proj ect had come to naught. I'! The letter to Leonardo Boldu was completed with some additional instructions from the Council: to keep everything in absolute secr ecy, du e to the importance of the matter , and not to leave Albania without th eir orders, even if his successo r should arrive. 62 The letter of th e Council of Ten to Leonardo Boldu also included the four patent lett ers, which contained th e Ven etian promises to the four men involved in the negotation s. Each lett er was dat ed 13 April 147 3 and was signe d by the D oge Niccolo Tron. The first lett er was addressed to th e Pasha himself. In it th e V en etian s reiterat ed their earlier promise to help him achieve his goals of the conquest of Rumeli and Istanbul. They promised to help him with the fleet and with money and stated that Veni ce would keep th e M or ea, Negropo nte, Lesbos and all th e islands out of the Straits. They said that whe n he occupied the castles of th e D ardan elles, th ey would send him th e fleet to help him. They would also pro cure the help of King Ferrante and othe r allies.63 The C ouncil of T en also reiter ated and reconfirmed their promises to the othe r three men involved in the negoti ations: T o John Kantakouzeno s th ey promised 4,000 du cats to himself and his heirs 'in perpetuum'; to Alessio Span 1,000 du cat s to him and his heirs 'in perpetuum'; and to Marino Hungaro, who acted as int erpreter, 200 du cat s per year for the duration of his lifetime and that of his sons ('in vita soa e de soijigluoli').64 60 61

62 63 64

ASV, ASV, ASV, ASV, ASV,

Consiglio Consiglio Consiglio Consiglio Consiglio

dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti dei Dieci, Misti

18, f.60r. Bozic, "Kolebanj a" , 167-168. 18, f.60r. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 167-168. 18, f.60r. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , 167-168. 18, f.60r-v. 18, ff.60v-61r.

DIPLOMACY

225

On 26 March 1473 Leonardo Boldu wrote another letter to the Council of Ten informing them that he had received a detailed report from Marino Hungaro. The Council ordered John Kantakouzenos to proceed with the task and promised him that in case the affair was successful, he would receive satisfactory rewards from Venice.65 The Council also informed Boldu that it was sending him 32 ells ('brachia') of damascene crimson cloth ('damaschini cremesini') and 12 ells of scarlet cloth ('scarlati rosati'), to be divided equally between Kantakouzenos and Span. To Marino Hungaro were sent 300 gold ducats.P'' On l2July 1473 Antonio Loredan was appointed new captain of Scutari and Provveditore of Albania and he received all the necessary information about the ongoing negotiations with the Pasha and his three representatives.P/ At the same time, Leonardo Boldu, Loredan's predecessor, was ordered to hand over to him all the documents and information concerning the affair. He was also ordered to disregard the orders sent to him in April 1473 and to return to Venice within ten days of the arrival there of his successor. 68 These were the last orders that reflected the Council's sincere belief in the successful completion of the affair, which, subsequently, remained dormant for ten months. On the 4th of May 1474, Antonio Loredan informed the Council ofTen that Marino Hungaro had asked for the patent letters, in the name of Alessio Span, but that he refused to hand them over. The Council of Ten responded on the 23 of May that they were pleased with Loredan's action, mostly because the Pasha was no longer in the position that he was when the promises had been made to him. 69 Loredan was ordered not to hand over the letters as long as the Pasha was out of favor with the Sultan, "but in case Sir 'M aum uth' wanted to leave the land of the Turk, in order to flee the dangers, and come to us, in order to place himself under the authority of our Signoria, we say that we will accept him willingly and honor him, and we will give him provisions appropriate to his dignity and we ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 18, f.6Ir-v. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 168. ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 18, f.6Ir-v. Bozic, "Kolebanja", 168. 67 ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 18, DOv. ASV, Capi del Consiglio dei Dieci, Lettere, Filza I, doc.59. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , 168. 68 ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 18, f.70v. ASV, Capi del Consiglio dei Dieci, Lettere, Filza I, doc. 59. Bozic, "Kolebanja" , 168. 69 ASV, Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti 18, f.124r-v. 65 66

226

CHAPTER SIX

will see to it that he will always have reason to praise our Signoria". 70 The Council ofTen, however, showed itself still interested in an eventual cooperation with the Pasha under changed circumstances. Therefore , it asked Loredan to inform them of any changes in his position, and whether he would receive any new Sancak, especially that of Gelibolu or Albania."! On the 9th of February 1475, the Council elected new members to its zonta in order to replace those who had died or could not fulfill their functions, with the express intention of continuing the dealings with Alessio Span.7 2 A week later, on the 16th of February, the Council met again and decided to award 200 ducats per year to Alessio Span for his fidelity and good services to the Venetian Signoria.P From this decision we also learn that Span's services to the Signoria were not limited merely to his mediation in the above-mentioned affair. He had apparently also turned over to the Venetians his castle named 'Chiro'.74 This was the Council's last act concerning the 'Maut bassa' affair. The facts that the money given to Alessio Span was much less than the 1,000 ducats originally promised and that the Pasha's name was not mentioned at all, show that for the Council ofTen the affair had been concluded.

Who was The document also mentions a vegetable garden (bostan) in the island of Lesbos (Midillu) without, however, mentioning its income.l'' The total income from these villages amounts to 305,727 akce per year. Concerning expenses, the 1546 document gives itemized accounts for Mahmud Pasha's pious foundations. For the school of Istanbul the expenses consisted of the salaries of the employees of the institution-the lion's share of which, 50 akce per day, was given to the professor (miiderris)17- as well as of stipends for students, all adding up to a daily expense of 92 akce, and therefore, the annual expense of 33,120 akce. The maintenance of Mahmud Pasha's mosque in Istanbul cost one hundred and one akce daily, 36,360 18 akce annually, most of which went to salaries for the preachers (hitabet) and prayer-leaders (imamet), as well as other employees. The imaret (soup kitchen for the poor and students) in Istanbul cost fifty-six and a half akce daily, which made the annual cost 20,340 akce .'? The expenses for the school and mosque in Haskoy (Kariye-i Has) rose to 94 akce daily, which meant that the annual expenses were 33,840 akce . For the mosque in Sofia the daily expenses rose to thirty-two akce and 14 For the use of villages in providing income for the endowment see Mitchell , "Institution and Destitution", 163-170, who discusses the problem of the ownership of the land assigned as vakif, namely, the fact that usually the land assigned for an endowment was state land and was not the private property of the endower. According to Mitchell (166-167), "the rationale was tied to the concept of the good of the community". In fact, as we saw in Chapter 1, the state encouraged the creation of pious foundations, especially in newly-conquered cities, in order to develop economic and social life. 15 Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vakflan, 43. Unver, "M ahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 68. 16 Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vakiflan, 43. Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 69. 17 According to Barkan and Ayverdi (istanbul Vakiflan, 43 n.7), this salary was very high and indicated the wealth of the pious foundation of Mahmud Pasha. 18 Barkan and Ayverdi (istanbul Vakflan; 43) give 56,500 akce as the yearly expenses of the mosque of Istanbul. 19 Unver, "Mahrnud Pasa Vakiflan", 70. Barkan and Ayverdi , istanbul Vakiflan, 43-44 .

262

CHAPTER SEVEN

the annual ones to 11,520 ak The only Ottoman author who mentions Mahmud Pasha's mausoleum is Latifi, who says that it was inscribed with distichs and poetic phrases, without giving any examples.w In the years following the Grand Vezir's death, the tiirbe became a kind of shrine for the posthumous cult of Mahmud Pasha.f?

60 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Deori, 497, 500. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 172-173. 61 Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 172-173. 62 Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vakiflan, 44. Unver, "Mahmud Pap Vakiflan", 72-73. Kafescioglu, "The Ottoman Capital", 172. 63 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 451. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 183185. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimari Eserleri, II. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 110. M. Ayashoglu, "Istanbul'da Mahmud Pasa Turbesi", Gaze! Sanatlar 6 (1949): 148-154. 64 Mahmud Pasha's mausoleum is described in Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 451. Ayverdi, Fatih Deori Mimarisi, 182-187. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimari Eserleri, II. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, II O. Ayashoglu, "Mahmud Pasa Turbesi", 148154. Kafescioglu, "The Ottoman Capital", 169-171. 65 Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 170 n.124. Necipoglu, Architecture, Ceremonial andPower, 213-217. 66 Latifi, Teekire (Istanbul, AH 1314 / 1896-97), 240. 67 For the cult ofMahmud Pasha, which developed after his execution, see Chapter 10. See also Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 170 n.125.

PIOUS FOUNDATION AND ARCHITECTURAL PATRONAGE

271

School (M edrese) In the same complex as the mosque Mahmud Pash a also built a school. According to a verse by T acizade, this medrese mu st have been built in AH 877 (1472- 1473), that is, ten years after th e mosque.s'' The only remaining part of the school now is the dershane (classroornj.v? Saadeddin described this school as "a high medrese with pillars" .70 It is also mentioned by Asikpasazade , idris-i Bitlisi, Muneccimbasi and Ata.7 1 The 1546 document describes the books given to this school, as well as its daily expe nses, which went on stipe nds to the stude nts (30 akce daily) as well as on th e salaries of four employees: the professor (miiderris)- who received 50 akc;e- , the tutor (muid), the gate keeper (bevvab) and the librarian (hafiz-i kiitiib).72 The mekteb (Koran school) of Mahmud Pasha's Istanbul complex is also mentioned but does not survive, nor is its exact location known. i" The same applies to th e law court, which also does not survive.74 Soup Kit chen (imaret) Mahmud Pasha's soup kitchen for the students and the poor, which form ed part of the same complex, also do es not survive." According to the Miinseat of T acizade Sadi Celebi, it must ha ve been completed in AH 867 (1462- 1463).76 En veri wrote verses about this soup kitchen , empha sizing the Vezir 's generosity, his provision of food to the people and his Friday feasts for th e int ellectu als and stude nts." The imaret is also mentioned by Asikpasazade, Kritoboulos (3nWX01:g0-

68

T acizade, Miinseat, 57. Also, Ayverdi, Osmanli M imarisinde FaM Devri, 443. Balta ci,

Osmanli M edreseleri, 289. 69 Ayverdi, Osmanlz Mimarisinde FatihDevri, 450. Ayverdi , Fatih DevriMimarisi, 180. Ayverdi , Fatih Devri Mimari Eserleri, 12. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 109. 70 Saadeddin, Tacii't-Teoarih, 553 . 71 Asrkpasazade, Die altosmanischeChronik, 198. Kafescioglu, "T he Ott oman Capital", 175-176. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 400. Ata, Tarih , 8. 12 Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 69-70. Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vakzjlan, 43. Balta ci, Osmanlz Medreseleri, 289. For the library of the school see Chapter 8. 73 Ayverdi, OsmanlzM imarisinde FatihDevri, 450. Ayverdi , Fatih DevriMimarisi, 174. Ayverdi , Fatih DevriMimari Eserleri, 10. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 109. Ata, Tarih , 8. 74 Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 174. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri M imari Eserleri, 10. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 109. O zkocak, "Urban Developm ent", 30. 75 Ayverdi, Osmanlz Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 450. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 174. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 109. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Ca pital", 171 n.126. 76 T acizade, Munseai, 56. 77 Enveri, Diistumame, 107. For Mahmud Pasha's generosity, see Chapter 10.

272

CHAPTER SEVEN

elov), Muali and idris-i Bitlisi.?" The 1546 document describes the salaries of the seventeen men who worked in the imaret, as well as the expenses of its kitchen. The following officials were employed in the soup kitchen: a sheyh imesihat-i imaret), who was probably the administrator of this institution since he received the highest salaryten akce, a man responsible for the storeroom (kilarz) , a steward (vekilharc), two assistants (naktyban), three cooks (tabbahin) , two administrators (tevlryet), a dishwasher (kdsefz?y) , two bakers (habbazeyn) , a carrier of meat (hammal-i giift), a man responsible for the stable (ahurz), a wheat-grinder (gendiim kub), and a sweeper, who was also probably responsible for the cleanliness of the school, since he is referred to as ferras-i medrese.l'' The expenses of the kitchen of the imaret were directed towards the acquisition of foodstuffs such as rice, flour, salt, chickpeas , almonds, starch (nifasta), raisins, plums, apricots, saffron, meat, jam, pickles, etc., as well as items like bowls, mats, oil, candles, etc., and they also provided for feasts for guests.s" Suraiya Faroqhi, comparing the amounts of wheat prepared in the kitchen of this imaret (88,047 tons in 1546) to those of similar institutions endowed by Sultans, like Bayezid II in Edirne (63,922 tons in 1488-1489), Suleyman I in Istanbul (330,629 tons in 1585-1586) and Selim II in Konya (48,907 tons in 1597-1598), arrives at the conclusion that "during the sixteenth century, the imaret of Mahmud Pasha could be counted among the major foundations of the Ottoman Empire, and capable of surpassing all but the largest Sultans' imarets".81 Fountains Mahmud Pasha was credited with bringing water to the part of the city where his complex was to be found and his foundation was the only one in the Conqueror's capital not to use water from the Kirkcesme waterways, built by the Sultan.P According to Kritoboulos, "he introduced abundance of waters" .83 He also built two fountains 78 Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 198. Kritoboulos, Historiae, 132-133. Muali, "H unkarname", 149. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital" , 175. 79 Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan ", 70, 73. Barkan and Ayverdi, jstanbul Vaksflan, 44-45. 80 Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 73. Barkan and Ayverdi, jstanbul Vakiflan, 44-45 . 8 1 Faroqhi, "A Great Foundation in Difficulties", 116. 82 Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 171-172 . 83 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 133. «... xcl Uba:twv &8ovLav daayeL ... ». Ayverdi, Osmanlt Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 615. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 42. Kazim Cecen,

PIOUS FOUNDATION AND ARCHITECTURAL PATRONAGE

27 3

in Istanbul. The first is situa ted by th e north entra nce of his mosque and it is a four- sided fountain , probably th e oldest free-standing fountain still extant in th e city.84 The othe r was near the Bedestan of Istanbul, at th e int er section of two main stree ts, and represents th e Grand Vezir's contribution to the Sultan's commer cial projects in th e capital.85 The fact th at M ahmud Pasha bu ilt fountains in Istanbul has also been mentioned by idris-i Bitlisi, as well as by the later histori an , Ata. 86 Public baths Mahmud Pasha 's public baths (hamam) in Istanbul is on e of the most impressive buildings of his architectural project. Built on on e of the mo st important streets of the city, the one connecting the Bedestan with the harbor, the hamam had monumental dim ensions and a large dome, possibly the largest one in th e city before the completion of the Conqu eror's mosque." Ayverd i wr ites th at th ese baths were probably amo ng the largest and most orn ate baths of the period ,88 and Goodwin says th at the y are the oldest in Istanbul.s? According to the inscription, th e building was completed in AH 8 7 1 (1466- 1467), tha t is, four years after the completion of the mosqu e.P" It was originally a double bath (fifle hamam), meaning th at it comp rised two sections, one for men and one for wome n . The first room of the baths was a large sogukluk (cold room) under a dome larger than that of the mosque. The second room was th e ihkhk (lukewarm room) which contained a ribb ed half-dome, the first in Istanbul. The third room was the sicakhk (hot room ), which was an octago nal room, light ed by colored glass on its dom e, producing an impressive starry-night effect.f H amidi praised these public baths in a riddl e and mention ed particularly this Istanbul'un Vakif Sulanndan Halkali Sulan (Istanbul, 1991), 70-72. Kafescioglu, "T he O ttoman Ca pital", 171-172. 84 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatilt Devri, 6 15. Ayverdi, Fatih DevriMimarisi, 42. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Ca pital", 171. 85 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 615. Ayverdi , Fatih DevriMimarisi, 42. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Ca pital", 171. 86 Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Ca pital", 174. Ata, Tanh, 8. 87 Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 178-179. 88 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 602. 89 Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 11 3. 90 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatin Devri, 606. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimansi, 385. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 11 3. 9 \ Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 602-606. Ayverdi, Fatilt DevriMimarisi, 383-385. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 113-114. Oktay Aslanapa , "Fatih Zamanmdaki Mimari Eserler", in istanbul Armagam, I, ed. Mustafa Arrnagan (Istanbul, 1995), 146.

274

CHAPTER SEVEN

dome: "The reflection of its colored glass is ornamented on the nine heavens't.P" This hamam has also been mentioned by Kritoboulos, Asikpasazade and Ata .93 The 1546 document mentions that the public baths formed part of Mahmud Pasha's endowment for his descendants (vakif-i evlad) and that they brought an annual income of 63,000 akc;e. 94 Kurkcu Han, Markets and Shops The Kurkcu Han (Inn of the Fur-Merchants) must have been built by Mahmud Pasha around 1466-1467 95 and it is the only extant han in Istanbul, which dates from the fifteenth century.w It was built around two courtyards. The first one was large and rectangular, while the second was smaller and of a somewhat irregular shape. This was probably in order to accommodate the exigencies of the site, since it was built on the intersection of two important arteries, one leading to the Bedestan and the other to the eastern gate of Mehmed II's old palace. The street side of the inn was considerably long and extended for 113 meters along the main road to the Bedestani" The inn consisted of two storeys, although Ayverdi believes that the building around the smaller courtyard originally had only one floor. 98 It contained about 127 rooms and several shops on the street side.P? As its name suggests, the "Inn of the Fur-Merchants", was used by furriers, who found there accommodation and storage for their goods. 100 The Kiirkyii Han was mentioned by Asikpasazade (' bir ali karban-saray') and Kritoboulos (JtUVOOXELOV), as well as by idris-i Bitlisi.l?' After

92

309.

Hamidi, Kidliyat-i Divan-i Mevlana Hamidi, ed.

tH. Ertaylan (Istanbul , 1949),

93 Kritoboulos, Historiae, 133. Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 198. Ata, Tarih,8. 94 Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 67. Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vakiflan; 42. 95 Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 396. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 109. 96 Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 178. 97 Ibid ., 179. 98 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 584-585. 99 For descriptions of the Kurkcu Han see Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 580-589 . Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 396. Goodwin, Ottoman Architecture, 109-110. Kafescioglu, "The Ottoman Capital", 179-180. In his earlier work (Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 396), Ayverdi estimated 167 rooms. 100 Ozkocak , "Urban Development", 117-118. 101 Asrkpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 198. Kritoboulos , Historiae, 133. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 175.

PIOUS FOUNDATION AND ARCHITECTURAL PATRONAGE

275

the death of Mahmud Pasha, it was incorporated into the endowment of Avasofya.U'? Besides the shops around the Kurkcu Han, Mahmud Pasha also built shops and rental rooms (Meerat) in the commercial district of Istanbul, around the bazaars and the Bedestan. 103 According to Halil Inalcik, Mahmud Pasha built a marketplace of 265 shops, the income of which went towards the maintenance of the mosque complex.w' The 1546 document describes the income of those shops in that year.U" According to a ei::ye register at the end of the l6 1h century, in the Mahmud Pasa Diikkiinlan there were shops of broad-cloth merchants (sUkacl), perfumers (atlann), needle-sellers (ignecz) and bead-sellers (boneukfl).106 Palace Belonging to the same building project, was Mahmud Pasha's palace in Istanbul. This palace does not exist anymore, nor is its exact location known, but it was probably situated east of the Grand Vezir's building complex, close to the Ayasofya and the Topkapi palace. Apparently the only standing part of it today is the building known as Sengul Hamam, which later became a public bath and was included into the vakif,107 as well as the Servi meseid, mentioned above .U" Judging from the position of the hamam and the meseid, Qigdem Kafescioglu suggests that the grounds of the palace, including the buildings and the gardens, were very extensive, encompassing a sizeable part of the city. 109 Although there are no direct indications as to the plan of the palace, Kafescioglu indicates that, judging from similar structures of other grandees of the period, as described in endowment deeds, it may have been an imitation of the imperial palace, arranged around inner and outer courtyards.U" 102 103

Aslanapa, "M imari Eserler", 146. Ayverdi, Osmanlz Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 552. Ozkocak, "Urban Development",

116. Halil Inalcik, "The Formation of Nahiyes and Mahalles in the 9 th/15 th Century ", in "Istanbul", EI2 3, 230. Kafescioglu, "T he Ottoman Capital", 79, 105 Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 65-67. Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vokflan, 42-43 . 106 Ozkocak, "Urban Development", 110. 107 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 608-609. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 34-35. 108 Ayverdi , Osmanlz Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 681. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 32. Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 193. Kafescioglu , "T he Ottoman Capital", 176. 109 Kafescioglu , "T he Ottoman Capital", 176. 110 Ibid. , 176-177. 104

276

CHAPTER SEVEN

Kafescioglu also points to the significance of the location ofMahmud Pasha's palace: It was situated outside the Topkapi Palace, across from the Alay Kosku (the Pavilion of Processions), which was a tower located on the outer walls of the imperial palace. The location of the Grand Vezir's palace next to that tower, representing the link between the Sultan and the city, may have been symbolical of the Grand Vezir's role as the intermediary between the people and the sovereign. The proximity of the residence ofMahmud Pasha to Topkapi palace symbolizes his connection to the Sultan, but also, his being in the shadow of the Alay Kosku may also be suggestive of his inferior position with regard to his master. Moreover, the location of the palace at the site of present-day Bab-i Ali, the nineteenth-century Prime Ministry, as well as its possible passing into the hands of the sixteenth-century Grand Vezir Rustem Pasha, may suggest "a continuity in the location of the prime ministry throughout the Ottoman history of the city" .111 The only mention of this palace in the sources is in Kritoboulos, who wrote that Mahmud Pasha "constructed brilliant and luxurious mansions for himself and planted gardens around them, adorning them with all kinds of plants, sufficient for beauty, pleasure and enjoyment" . 112 A mention to 'haneha-i vakif-i mezbur' under Mahmud Pasha's oakf-i evlad in the 1546 register of pious endowments in the city, possibly alludes to this palace, which yielded a high annual income (6,900 ak In the map by the Venetian cartographer Giovanni Andrea di Vavassore, printed in 1520, but probably based on a print of the 1480's, the only vezirial structure to be shown is the complex ofMahmud Pasha. 116 The Grand Vezir's mosque also appears in the Ottoman map of Istanbul, created by Matrakci Nasuh in the late l530'S.117

Edirne The Tashk Camii mosque was built by Mahmud Pasha in Edirne around 1473. It must have been completed by his son after his death, and had a three-bay porch and a single dome. It was demolished in 1939. 118 In addition to the mosque, in Edirne, in AH 865 (1460-1461), Mahmud Pasha also built public baths, with sections for both men and women. They were destroyed towards the end of the sixteenth century and the exact location of the building is not known today.'!" Enveri mentions these baths in his Diisturname: "He also built an incomparable hamam / in the city of Edirne, that man of auspicious fortune / / similar to the eternal waters, and its air is soul-reviving / the girls and boys of paradise are suitable to enter it" .120 The 1546 Ibid ., 230-231. Ibid ., 256-257. 117 Ibid., 381-382. liB Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 222-223. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 67. By the mosque there existed also a medrese, which was built by Mahmud Pasha's son, Ali Bey. The vakifof the school provided for its maintenance the income from the village of Hatun (Voulgarohori) at Uskudar , as well as the income of two other villages (Baltaci , Osmanli Medreseleri, 446). 119 Ayverdi, Osmanli Mimarisinde Fatih Devri, 233. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Mimarisi, 69. Unver, "Mahmud Pasa Vakiflan", 67. Gokbilgin, Edime ve Pasa Lioasi, 322. Barkan and Ayverdi, istanbul Vakflan, 43. 120 Enveri, Diistumame, 107. 115

116

278

CHAPTER SEVEN

do cument informs us that the income of the baths in that year was 20,000 ak Since his capacity as a poet was not his main one in the court, Mahmud Pasha, unlike most other poets of his age, was 122 Adni, Divan, £30r/lO. Professor Gonul T ekin suggested that this distich would make more sense if the word zu!f (curl) would be replaced with the word hat (light facial hair of a youth). 123 Necat i, Necati Bey Divam, ed. Mehmed Qavu§oglu (Istanbul, n.d.), 126. 124 See Meisami, Medieval Persian Court Poetry, 21-28. W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 89-108. Ahmed Hamdi Tanpmar, Ondokuruncu Am Turk Edebiyati Tarihi (Istanbul, 1985), 5-10. 125 W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 90-91. Tanpmar, TurkEdebiyati Tarihi, 6. Meisami, MedievalPersian Court Poetry, 21-22. According to Meisami (Medieval Persian Court Poetry, 6), the analogy between lover-poet and beloved -patron "was so clearly und erstood that overt articulation ... was, simply, unnec essary. This unspoken parallel becomes an informing prin ciple of both the qasidah and the courtly ghazal" .

LITERARY PATRONAGE AND DIVAN

319

obviously not expecting to find favor through his poetry and, therefore, praise of a potential patron may not be sought in his Divan. H owever , since he was composing his po etry at the cour t of the Ottoman Sultan , it ma y be possible to look for expressions of the social situa tion the re in his poetry. In fact, in th e D ivan of Adni one of th e most usual metaphors is that of the Sulta n and kul. (ex.14) If you would be satisfied th at I sacrifice my life for your sake You sho uld say it, like a king, and I will perform it, like a slave. 126

H ere, the beloved is identified with the Sultan, while the lover/poet with the kul, the beloved 's slave . This image is further reinforced by a host of other royal images like th e imperial signature (' tugra'), the thron e ('taht'), the petition ('arz'), the palace ('sarqy') and the threshold ('eIik'), all of which were symbols of the power of the Ottoman Sultan. 127 (ex. 15) In order to submit the adventure of my heart to your threshold Wh at interpreter do I need othe r th an the tear s of my eyes. 128

Con versely, in some metaphors which do not use vocabulary dir ectly related to royal images, and which refer dir ectly to the beloved, there are po ssible references to the person of th e Sulta n : (ex.16) When I look at the mirror of your face, my eyes becom e br ight Just as th ey say tha t looking at the sun does harm to the eyes. 129

H ere, although there is no apparent reference to relationships of power and the poet seems simply to be talking of the beloved , it may also be possible to apply the social/po litical int erpretati on and see this distich as referring to th e awe inspi red in th e poet/ slave by th e magnificent presence of the sovereign, especially since the metaphor of the sun was amo ng th e most dominant ones for the Sultan. P" In

126 127

2, etc.

Adni, Divan, f.22r/9. See for example Adni, Divan, ff.4r/ l l, 5r/ 12, 8r/ 2, IOv/7, 17v/8, 2Ir/3, 26v/

128 Adni, Divan, f.26v/2. We may also remember example no.5, wher e the poet/ lover is presented as lying on the threshold of the beloved. 129 Adni, Divan, f.16v/4. 130 See Ahmed Pasha's "G unes Kasidesi" and commentary in Ahmet Attila Sent urk, Ahmed Pasa'nin Giinq Kasidesi iizerine Diis iinceler (Istanbul, 1994). It may be interesting to note that a similar distich also appears in Ahmed Pasha's kaside, which

320

CHAPTER EIGHT

the cosmological conce ption of the times , the seven planets that wer e considered to exist were seen as forming a court hierarchy of the ir own with the Sun ('CuneI') as the Sultan, the Moon ('Kamer') as th e Grand Vezir, M er cury (' Utand' ) as the Scribe ('Kiitib'), M ars ('M erih') as the commander of the army ('serasker'),j upiter ('M iifteri') as the Kadi, Saturn ('Zuhal') as the Treasur er ('Hazinedar') and Venus ('Zuhre') as the musician ('f alglcl').131 The rel ation between lover/poet and belo ved may be seen as a met aphor of th e relation betw een kul and Sultan in th e court of Mehmed II and the abasem ent and selflessness of the slave vis-a-vis the Sultan is d early illustrated in the poems of Mahmud Pasha. The po et/lover is willing to suffer any po ssible humiliation in order to approach even distantly the maj esty of the beloved . (ex.17) H ow can Adn i not rub his face in the dust of your footprints Since 't utiya' is needed for th e health of his bloodied eyes. 132

Rubbing the face in th e dust of the beloved's feet is a recurrent them e in Divan literature indicating the extreme voluntary humiliation of the lover. 133 The mention of th e ther ap eutic capacities of the du st of the feet of th e b elov ed - 'tutrya' being a ca rbonate of zinc, whi ch wa s tho ught to stre ngthe n eyesight-carries religiou s overto nes and is suggestive of a qu asi deification of the beloved and assigns to the lover the role of a worshipp er. 134 It is also important in suggesting the poet' s expec tation of some kind of reward in return for his submission and humiliation. R eward, however , was theoretically not necessarily dem anded by the slave in orde r to present his un conditional devotion to the Sultan:

is explicitly referring to Sultan Mehm ed II as the sun: "K im ki nezzare krla hu rside haddun var iken / Naz irun ccsmine hismmd an sokar han cer gunes" , (Senturk, CuneI Kasidesi, 5 1). 131 Senrurk, Cune; Kasidesi, 27. For a brief exposition of the cosmological conceptions of the time see Senturk, Cune; Kasidesi, 4, 24. 132 Adni , Divan, f.25v/1. 133 See also Adni , Divan, f.13v/ 11 and f.24r/8 for other examples of Adni's use of this imagery. This image is also used by other poets, like Avni, who is Mehm ed II himself. See example no.22 below. 134 According to Meisam i, Medieual Persian Court Poetry, 254, the thera pe utic capacity of the dust of the beloved's feet was also a theme used in med ieval Persian court poetry.

LITERARY PATRONAGE AND DIVAN

321

(ex . 18) Every time she sees m e she ge ts angry and speaks to m e bitter wo rds Le t m e b e sacrifice d for her; what a sweet langu a ge she h as! 135

This sacrifice of the self is very significant in the mystical dim en sion of Divan poetry, denoting the annihilation of th e self in orde r to be able to approach th e higher world and ultimately achieve union with the divine. However , it may also be int erpreted in the plan e of power relationship s with the willingness of the slave to sacrifice himself for the Sultan without any ulterior m otives. 136 Example no.18 is a clear expression of this: altho ugh the beloved uses bitter words aga inst the lover , he is still prep ar ed to sacrifice himself for her. Divan poetry expresses the personal character of power relationships in the Ottoman State, where absolute authority was personally vested in th e Sultan. The person of the Sultan becomes the object of loyalty for the subjects and particularly for th e kuls, while at th e same tim e remaining distant and aloof. In Divan poetry, the Sultan, as the beloved, is the 'unm oved mo ver ' of the relationship, he is the recipient of love but does not love in return. H e mayor may not bestow his favor in return for the devotion of the poet/lover acco rding to his will, but may also tyrannize and torm en t him, possessing power of life and death over him. l''? The person al character of autho rity had as its corollary th e fact th at the for tunes of th e cour tiers dep ended to the greatest exte nt on the person al atte nt ion and favor of the Sulta n.l'" T he cha rac ter of the rela tions between lover and beloved in Divan poetry may be connec ted to this. D espite th eir passion at e cha rac ter, the poem s of Adni do not display any physical contac t between lover and beloved. On the contrary, comm unication from the part of the belove d seems to be restricted to the glance and the word, acts which may indi cat e the sovereign's attention and favor. P? Adni, Divan, f.19v/6. W. Andr ews, Poetry's Voice, 95-96. T anpm ar , Turk Edebiyati Tarihi, 6. 137 W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 92. T anpmar , Turk Edebiyati Tarihi, 6. H owever , according to Meisami, Medieval Persian Court Poetry, 258-259, "altho ugh the lover is willing to sacrifice himself without the expectation of reward... the beloved, however exalted, is still a partn er in a relationship tha t confers both rights and obligations on each memb er. Love is a contrac t (ahd, payman) that bind s both parti es, and the contrac tual natur e of the love relationship is stressed by the metaph ors drawn from its analogues to describe it. Just as the object of worship has an obligation toward the adori ng believer, as the master has to the slave and the feud al lord to his subject, so the beloved has the obligation to conduct herself according to the protocols tha t govern such relationships; more specifically, it is the beloved who, precisely becau se of her exalted stat us, must observe in her cond uct the prin ciples of ju stice". 138 W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 93. 139 Ibid. According to Tanpmar , Turk Edebiyati Tarihi, 7, the weapon vocabulary 135

136

322

CHAPTER EIGlIT

(ex.19) Oh heart, since the arrow of her gaze has aimed at you Be happy for prosperity and luck have turned th eir face towards you. 140

In the context of court life, the atte ntion of the rul er meant everything for th e courtier. Access to th e p erson of th e Sultan was sign ificant for maintaining favor and usually loss of favor also result ed in th e subject's removal from th e proxim ity of th e Sultan and his separation from him, as happen ed to Mahm ud Pash a at th e time of his first dismissal in 1468. This was also an idea expressed in M ahmud Pasha's

Divan. (ex.20) Ah , frie nd, at th e tim e of your sep aration my blood y eye could see nothing but my tear s H owever mu ch it looked to th e left and to the right. U!

The idea of separa tion (hier) may take seve ra l meanings in th e context of different interpret ati on s. On th e em otional level it wo uld mean separation from th e beloved , while it is a key conce pt on th e mystical level, den oting the grie f caused by th e separation from the divin e and man 's desire to achieve union (vas~ with it once more. 142 In the context of power rela tionship s, however , this reflects rather th e fear of separation from th e m on arch , an eve nt which wo uld have signalled th e ultim ate end of th e ca ree r or even of life itself for every court ier. 143 W hat appea rs surprising, if we see these p oems as co nsciously refe rri ng to the power relations of the court, is the ultimat ely negat ive picture of the Sulta n that emerges from th em. Exam ples nos.3 and 11 above present th e beloved as bein g tyra nn ical and cruel (' eevr ii eifa'). K eeping in mind th e discu ssion on th e p ower relatio nships interpret ation that preced ed , th ese disti ch s m ay n ow be read as refer rin g to the oppression of Mehme d II , whi ch seems incon ceivabl e, at least if we conside r th at th e refer en ce to th e Sultan m ay have been a conscious on e. associated with the beloved: gaze-arrows, eyelashes- hanfer (curved dagge r), etc., must also be related to the Sultan and is reminiscent of hun ting or war rior kings in eastern miniatures. The importan ce of the sovereign's glance is also illustrated in a distich from Ahmed Pasha 's "Gunes K asidesi" : "Bir nazar kil Ah med 'e ey nur-i cesm-i kainat / Ki ab-i lutfundan olupd ur ebr gibi ter gunes" (Senturk, Cunej Kasidesi, 58). 140 Adni, Divan, f.24v/7. 141 Adni, Divan, f.30r/9. H 2 W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 136-137. H3 W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 99-100 . Tanpmar, Turk Edebiyati Tarihi, 5.

LITERARY PATRONAGE AND DIVAN

323

C ould this mean th at we have here veiled att acks on the arbitrary power of the Sultan ? W . Andrews says th at the royal tyra nny in the poems is ultimately see n as positive sinc e, like the tyr anny of th e beloved , it lead s to the loss of interest in the affairs of the tempora l wo rld and conse que ntly to th e per ception of the high er celestial world.U! This, however , explains the problem posed on the level of power relations with a solution coming from th e mystical level of interpretation. The different levels of in terpretation of Divan po etry should not be seen as water -tight compa rtme nts and irrel evant among them selves. The explana tion of W . Andrews may be valid to a certain extent, yet, it does not resolve the problem in a satisfactory way. It would definitely be exagge ra ted to int erpret this as outright criticism of th e arbitrary power of th e Sultan , but it may be possible to detect th ere a tension, whi ch was not unique to M ahmud Pasha but was shared by all Divan po ets, and wh ich may have been expressed very subtly through highly stylized language and expressions. A brief study of some ve rses containe d in th e Divan of Sultan M ehmed II, who used the pseudonym Avni, may help to avoid the trap of reading too mu ch social and political context int o the po etry of Adni. The first point that we ma y observe is that the poetic persona of the Sultan suffers almost just as much as Adni from the cruelty and oppression of the beloved: (ex.21) Oh cruel-nat ure d, yo u m ade m y mind sorrowful wi th pa in From the injury of m y breast, yo u m ade th e tears of my eyes turn th e co lor of blood. 145

T he mention of cruelty and oppression ('cifG.') here indicates the extent to which such expressions were current in th e literary lan guage of the period and points to the fact that 'ceor' and 'cifG.' mu st have probably been considered more value-free and inno cuous in the fifteenth century than their counterparts 'tyra nny' and 'oppression' seem to our contemporary conception. In fact, in contrast to the word eulm, which has more politial connotati ons, cevr and cefa are words used rather at the interp ersonal level. The fact that the Sultan himself used such expression s in his poems indicates that they wer e not (or not necessarily) meant to target the arbitrary nature of Sultani c a utho rity in that period. It ma y also be revealing to remark that the word zulm, although W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 94. Avni, "Fatih' in Siirlerinden Secmeler", ed. iskender Pala, in istanbulArmaganz, ed, Mustafa Armaga n, Istan bul (1995), 3041 I. 144 145

324

CHAPTER EIGHT

it appears regularly in Divan po etry. U" does not occur at all in th e Divan of Adni, a fact , which may indi cate the poet's caution not to be misunderstood or misinterpreted by th e Sultan. Another point in M ehmed II 's po etry that may serve to plac e som e of the above analysis in per spective is th e issue of humiliation and un conditional devotion to the belo ved , tr aits which are also present in Avni 's Divan: (ex.22) The dust of the feet of the beloved is my crown and her neighborhood my residence C ernsid and C ern ar c j ealou s of my throne and crown .!"?

The mention of placing th e dust of the feet of the beloved over his head as a crown expresses ultimate humility. The fact that these verses come from the pen of the Sultan himself highlights th e idea that such vers es should not onl y not be taken literally, but also that their interpretation in terms of pow er relationships as discussed above may some times be arbitrary and colored by our knowl edge of the identity of the poet. Ifexample no.22 had been signed by Adni instead of Avni its int erpretation would have been radically differ ent and it would have probably been regarded as an expression of extreme humiliation vis-a-vis the Sultan . The same distich , however , apart from its expression of humiliation, is also noteworthy for its hint of arrogan ce. Even th ough Avni 's thron e and crown are humble, th ey are still worthy eno ugh to make C ernsid and C ern, legendary Persian kings, j ealous. H er e ag ain our knowled ge of th e identity of th e poet colors our int erpretation. Turning back to the Divan ofMahmud Pasha , a final point concern ing poetry and court society should be mentioned. The troubled relation with the Sultan/beloved is not the only on e that the poet/ lover has to endure. As was also the case in the relations among those striving for sultanic favor in the cour t, the poet/lover also has to strive against the machinations of unspecified enemies, usually referred to as 'agyar', 'rakib' or with the imp ersonal third per son plural '-Ler'.

146 147

W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 45-46. Avni, "Siirlerinden Secmeler ",3 13/4.

LITERARY PATRONAGE AND DNAN

325

(ex.23) They say about me, that since the beloved has abandoned me, what can I do? In the world there is no safety for no one from the slander of the people.l'f

As we will see in the next chapter, the slanders or purported slanders of court rivals were one of the main obstacles against which Mahmud Pasha had to struggle in his efforts to maintain the favor of the Sultan, and may have been one of the causes of his downfall. Although the mention of 'others', who are working against the poet/lover in his effort to approach the beloved, is a stereotype in Divan literature representing rivals in Iove.Jt? it is very tempting to consider it as Mahmud Pasha's direct reference to the actual situation in the court. Through his literary production and patronage, Mahmud Pasha made a significant contribution to the cultural life of the Ottoman State. As a new empire with universalist pretensions and claims to the heritages of the great empires of the past, the Ottoman State urgently needed the creation of a high-brow cultural tradition, which would go hand in hand with its grandiose political aspirations. Here, as in many other aspects oflife, the reign ofMehmed II marked the decisive turning point. The emphasis on education, exemplified by the Sultan's construction of the Sohn-i Semanrye-the 'Eight Colleges' in Istanbul, the reorganization of the learned hierarchy, as well as the importance accorded to literature by a Sultan who was not only a patron of poetry but a poet himself, and who was in fact the first Ottoman Sultan to use a pseudonym.P'' all point to the great change in the cultural life of the state effected during the Conqueror's reign. In this crucial period of the creation of a high Ottoman culture, the contribution of Mahmud Pasha was significant, probably second only to that of the Sultan himself. The Grand Vezir promoted learning, through the building of schools and libraries and the protection of scholars and students. In the realm of literature, he not only helped the creation of a high Ottoman literature through his patronage of poets, but also made his personal contribution to the cultural life of his times by composing his own Divan. The use of many Persian words in the Turkish Divan, as well as the composition of a Persian Divan and letters, indicate a Adni, Divan, f.20r/4. See W. Andrews, Poetry's Voice, 71, 162-164. Tanpmar, Turk Edebiyati Tarihi, 6. Meisami , Medieval Persian Court Poetry, 265-266. 150 Gibb , A History qf Ottoman Poetry, 28. 148 149

326

CHAPTER EIGHT

conscious attempt to create a new high-brow Ottoman literature modelled on the sophisticated court literatures of the Iranian-Islamic empires of the past. Through their conscious promotion of a new Ottoman culture, Mehmed II and Mahmud Pasha probably dreamt of emulating, if not surpassing, the cultural achievements of those great empires.

PART FOUR TENSIONS

CHAPTER NINE

DISMISSAL AND EXECUTION

The limitations of Mahmud Pasha's position were manifested in his two dismissals and eventual execution. The reasons for the downfall of Mahmud Pasha are still disputed, and what reaches us is a melange of rumors and speculations.

A. 1468 :

MAHMUD PASHA'S FIRST DISMISSAL

The Ceremony qf Dismissal Upon the successful completion of the 1468 campaign in Karaman, the Sultan returned to Istanbul, leaving behind Mahmud Pasha to take care of the business of th e deportation of part of the population of the cities of Larende (Karaman) and Konya, in order to be settled in Istanbul. While Mahmud Pasha was carrying out his orders, an imperial edict arrived, which relieved him of this duty, replacing him with Rum Mehmed Pasha, and ordering him to return to Istanbul. On the way back to the capital, when Mahmud Pasha arrived at Karahisar, he received the news that he was also dismissed from both the offices of Grand Vezir and Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, which he had held for the previous twelve years. According to som e Ottoman historians, the announcement of this news was accompanied by a strange ceremony: "W hen they arrived at Karahisar, the Sultan ordered Mahmud Pasha's tent ... to be collapsed on his head and his arsenal to be loaded on camels and added to the Sultan's own arsenal";' Some scholars saw in this ceremony a survival of an older Turkish or Tatar custom .f The tent (sadlr), together with th e seal and robe, were among the most ch aracteristic I Asikpasazade, Die altosmanische Chronik, 164. Nesri, Cihanniima, 785. Muneccimbasi, Sahaifii'l-Ahbar, 384. Saadeddin, Tacii't-Teoarih, 512. ibn Kemal, Teoarih-i Al-i Osman, 278. Tursun Bey, History, f.127v, does not mention the ceremony, but gives the Sultan's message: "I dismissed him. Let him not come to my court" . 2 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 272. Dimirtekin, "Sadr-i Azam Adni ", 180.

330

CHAPTER NINE

symbols of a Vezir at least since the time of the Great Seljuks, as well as in the times of the Seljuks of Rum," In Ottoman times, during travels and campaigns, the Grand Vezir had his own tent and a Sipahi and aJanissary were charged with keeping guard on the ropes which held it together." At the time of a Vezir's dismissal, his symbols of power were taken away from him. Such was the case with the collapse of the tent, which symbolized the dismissal of a Grand Vezir. This symbolic ceremony also took place in pre-Ottoman Turkish states.P According to Taneri, this is the first time that such a ceremony is recorded in Ottoman sources, although it may have been a regular practice before Mahmud Pasha's time.P

The Causes

if Dismissal

Rum Mehmed Pasha and other Slanderers The most frequently-cited cause given by the Ottoman historians for Mahmud Pasha's dismissal was the purported calumny of Rum Mehmed Pasha concerning the Grand Vezir's handling of the Karaman deportations. As we have seen, Mahmud Pasha was charged with deporting a part of the population of the cities of Larende and Konya. All Ottoman historians, except Tursun Bey, relate that Mahmud Pasha was relieved of this duty because he was accused by Rum Mehmed Pasha, who told Mehmed II: "My prosperous Sultan, I examined the households that Mahmud deported and saw that most of them are poor ones, and they are also few; and he did not deport any of the rich ones" .7 This accusation may have had a grain of truth in it since, according to ibn Kemal, Mahmud Pasha carried out his order to deport the people somehow half-heartedly and apologetically: "He had no choice but to follow the imperialfirman. He said: 'the official is excused' and told those that were forced to abandon their land: 'The choice is not in my hands. I am excused"'.8 While some histoTaneri, Ve