Mehmed (Mehmet). Turkish form of the name Muhammad.
Mehmet see Mehmed
Mehmed I (Mehmed I Celebi) (Mehmet I) (Muhammad I) (Celebi Sultan Mehmed) (Çelebi Mehmet) (1382/1386, Bursa – May 26, 1421, Edirne, Ottoman Empire). Sultan of Anatolia (1403-1413) and the Ottoman sultan (1413-1421).
Mehmed I was the Ottoman sultan who reunified the dismembered Ottoman territories following the defeat of Ankara (1402). He ruled in Anatolia and, after 1413, in the Balkans as well.
Timur (Tamerlane), victorious over the Ottoman sultan Bayezid I at the Battle of Ankara, restored to the Turkmen their principalities that had been annexed by the Ottomans and divided the remaining Ottoman territory among three of Bayezid’s sons. Thus, Mehmed ruled in Amasya, İsa in Bursa, and Süleyman in Rumelia (Balkan lands under Ottoman control). Mehmed defeated İsa and seized Bursa (1404–05) and then sent another brother, Mûsa, against Süleyman. Mûsa was victorious over Süleyman (1410) but then declared himself sultan in Edirne and undertook the reconquest of the Ottoman territories in Rumelia. Mehmed, assisted by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, defeated Mûsa in 1413 at Camurlu (in Serbia) and declared himself sultan in both Anatolia and Rumelia, with his capital at Edirne.
During his reign Mehmed pursued a policy of relative restraint in the Balkans, although he reduced Walachia to vassal status (1416), made territorial gains in Albania (1417), and conducted raids into Hungary. In Anatolia, he re-established Ottoman control over much of the western provinces and reduced the Karaman principality (in Konya) to submission. He was successful in crushing a socio-religious revolt (1416) inspired by Bedreddin, who had been chief judge under Mûsa. Mehmed also overcame a threat from a pretender, who claimed to be his brother, Mustafa.
On May 26, 1421, Mehmed died in Edirne.
The reign of Mehmed I, as Sultan of the re-united empire, had lasted only eight years. But he had been an independent prince for nearly the whole preceding period of eleven years that passed between his father's captivity at Ankara and his own final victory over his brother Musa at Chamurli.
Mehmed I was buried in Bursa, in a mausoleum erected by himself near the celebrated mosque which he built there, and which, from its decorations of green porcelain, is called the Green Mosque. This edifice is said to be the most beautiful specimen of Ottoman architecture and carving that is in existence. Mehmed I also completed the vast and magnificent mosque at Bursa, which his grandfather Murad I. had commenced, but which had been neglected during in reign of Bayezid. It is deserving of mention that Mehmed founded in the vicinity of his own mosque and mausoleum two characteristic institutions, one a school, and one a refectory for the poor both of which he endowed with royal munificence.
Mehmed I Celebi see Mehmed I
Mehmet I see Mehmed I
Muhammad I see Mehmed I
Celebi Sultan Mehmed see Mehmed I
Celebi Mehmet see Mehmed I
Mehmed II (Mehmed II Fatih) (Mehmet II) (Muhammad II) (Meḥmed-i s̠ānī) (el-Fātiḥ -- "the Conqueror") (Fatih Sultan Mehmet) (Mahomet II) (March 30, 1432, Edirne – May 3, 1481, Hünkârçayırı, near Gebze). Ottoman sultan (1444-1446 and 1451-1481). His byname (Fatih) means, in Turkish, “the Conqueror.”
Mehmed II was born on March 30, 1432, in Edirne as son of sultan Murad II and a slave girl. In 1444, according to the tradition of the sultan’s sons, he was sent to Manisa (near Izmir) for training. His father abdicated, and gave the throne to Mehmed when he was only 12 years old. The task proved to be very difficult for the boy, as there were many tensions inside the empire as well as serious threats along the border.
In May 1446, against Mehmed’s will, Murad returned to power, in order to bring stability to the empire.
On February 18, 1451, following his father’s death earlier in the month, Mehmed ascended the throne for the second time. His authority in the empire was, at this point, far from established. The first group he had to take control over were the Janissaries – a group that had been strong enough to play a crucial part in getting him removed from power five years earlier.
In 1452, Mehmed began the preparations for the conquering of Constantinople. He managed to sign favorable peace treaties with Venice and Hungary, in order to make them neutral. He started several important projects to prepare for war, like building the fortress of Bagazkesen in order to control the Strait of Bosphorus, and constructing thirty-one galleys and building canons and cast guns of a caliber yet unknown in Europe.
On April 6, 1453, the siege of Constantinople began, despite the heavy opposition of the grand vizier Candarli. On May 29, 1453, Constantinople gave in, and was sacked by the Ottoman troops. On May 30, 1453, Mehmed stopped the looting of Constantinople; converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, and began planning for the new city, which would be known as Istanbul. This day he also had his grand vizier Candarli arrested and later executed.
Later in 1453, a big effort was begun to repopulate Constantinople by encouraging Greek and Genoese traders to return, deporting Muslims and Christians to Istanbul, and promoting religious institutions for Jews, Armenians, and other Christian groups.
On August 11, 1473, Mehmed achieved what was arguably his most strategic victory when he defeated the Turmen leader Uzun Hasan at Bashkent. With this victory, Mehmed achieved full control over Anatolia.
Mehmed died on May 3, 1481, in Hunkarcayiri near Maltepe near Istanbul.
Mehmed was sultan twice. The first time was a very problematic period, as his court was weakened by the conflict between his grand vizier Candarli hall and the 2 viziers Zaganos and Sihabeddin. Along the borders, Christian Crusaders were attacking from the north (near Varna, in today’s Romania). It was his father, the abdicated sultan Murad I who first defeated the Crusaders, and later returned to office in order to bring stability back to the empire.
While Mehmed’s first period as sultan was a flop, his return was a great one. He is deemed to be one of the greatest of the Ottoman sultans. In addition to conquering Constantinople, Mehmed put great emphasis on culture, science and law. He brought some of the greatest European minds to his court, built libraries, colleges, and invited peoples of different races and religions to move to Istanbul (as Constantinople was named) – thereby creating the foundations for the greatness for this city in centuries to follow. His success and fame was for a time so strong that he assumed the title Kayser-i Rum (Roman Caesar).
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
| Mehmed II | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qaisar-e-Rum The Sultan of two lands and the Khan of two seas[1] | |||||
 | |||||
| Sultan of the Ottoman Empire (Padishah) | |||||
| 1st reign | August 1444 – September 1446 | ||||
| Predecessor | Murad II | ||||
| Successor | Murad II | ||||
| 2nd reign | 3 February 1451 – 3 May 1481 | ||||
| Predecessor | Murad II | ||||
| Successor | Bayezid II | ||||
| Born | 30 March 1432 Adrianople, Adrianople vilayet, Ottoman Empire (present-day Edirne, Edirne Province, Turkey) | ||||
| Died | 3 May 1481 (aged 49) Hünkârçayırı (, near Gebze), Ottoman Empire (present-day Kocaeli Province, Turkey) | ||||
| Burial | Fatih Mosque, Istanbul, Turkey | ||||
| Consorts | |||||
| Issue Among others | |||||
| |||||
| Dynasty | Ottoman | ||||
| Father | Murad II | ||||
| Mother | Hüma Hatun | ||||
| Religion | Sunni Islam[3][4] | ||||
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
The Ottoman Empire (known in Arabic as al-khilafah al-uthmaniyyah) was one of the most powerful and enduring dynasties to have emerged in Islamic history. Founded in 1300 by the Turkish chieftain Uthman Bey (who was also known as Osman or Ottoman), the Ottoman dynasty rapidly expanded under the stewardship of Uthman's successors. In all, thirty-six Sultans ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1300 to 1922. At its zenith, the Ottoman Empire stretched from Yemen in the Middle East, as far as Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Kosovo in the West. The rise of the Ottoman Empire, therefore, represented a truly fascinating event not only in the history of Islam, but also of Europe not least because Ottoman contributions in the field of arts, science and architecture were unusually advanced for their time. Not surprisingly, more than five centuries of Ottoman achievements and legacy is today admired by Muslims and Europeans alike. By contrast, modern Turkiye only comprises a fraction of the former Ottoman Empire. Caught between its glorious Islamic past and its future aspirations to be an integral part of the European Union, today Turkiye finds itself at the crossroads. If modern Turkiye is somewhat unsure about its future direction, then the reign of one of Turkiye's greatest sons, Sultan Mehmed II, represents the complete opposite, namely the Ottoman's (and Turkiye's) greatest triumph over its European adversaries -- the conquest of the capital of the Byzantine Empire -- the conquest of Constantinople.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Mehmed II (born March 30, 1432, Adrianople, Thrace, Ottoman Empire—died May 3, 1481, Hunkârçayırı, near Maltepe, near Constantinople) was an Ottoman sultan from 1444 to 1446 and from 1451 to 1481. A great military leader, he captured Constantinople and conquered the territories in Anatolia and the Balkans that constituted the Ottoman Empire’s heartland for the next four centuries.
Early years and first reign
Mehmed was the fourth son of Murad II by Hümâ Hâtûn, an enslaved girl in Murad’s harem. At the age of 12 he was sent, as tradition required, to Manisa (Magnesia) with his two tutors. The same year, his father set him on the throne at Edirne and abdicated. During his first reign (August 1444–May 1446), Mehmed had to face grave external and internal crises. The king of Hungary, the pope, the Byzantine Empire, and Venice—all eager to take advantage of the accession of a child to the Ottoman throne—succeeded in organizing a Crusade. Edirne was the scene of violent rivalry between the powerful grand vizier Çandarlı Halil, on the one hand, and the viziers Zaganos and Şihâbeddin, on the other, who claimed that they were protecting the rights of the child sultan. In September 1444 the army of the Crusaders crossed the Danube. In Edirne this news triggered a massacre of the Christian-influenced Ḥurūfī sect and conjured up an atmosphere of panic and arson. When the Crusaders laid siege to Varna, the reigning sultan’s father was urged to come back from retirement in Bursa and lead the army. The Ottoman victory at Varna under Murad II (November 10, 1444) put an end to the crises. Mehmed II, who had stayed in Edirne, maintained the throne, and after the battle his father retired to Manisa. Zaganos and Şihâbeddin then began to incite the child sultan to undertake the capture of Constantinople, but Çandarlı engineered a revolt of the Janissaries and called Murad II back to Edirne to resume the throne (May 1446). Mehmed was sent once more to Manisa with Zaganos and Şihâbeddin, newly appointed as his tutors. There Mehmed continued to consider himself the legal sultan.
Second accession in 1451
On his father’s death, Mehmed ascended the throne for the second time in Edirne (February 18, 1451). His mind was filled with the idea of the capture of Constantinople. Europe and Byzantium, remembering his former reign, were then not concerned much about his plans. Neither was his authority firmly established within the empire. But he was not long in showing his stature by severely punishing the Janissaries who had dared to threaten him over the delay of the customary gift of accession. Yet he reinforced this military organization, which was destined to be the instrument of his future conquests. He devoted the utmost care to all the necessary diplomatic and military preparations for the capture of Constantinople. To keep Venice and Hungary neutral, he signed peace treaties favourable to them. He spent the year 1452 mainly in building the fortress of Boğazkesen (later Rumeli Hisarı) for the control of the Bosporus, in building a fleet of 31 galleys, and in casting new cannon of large calibre. He made the Hungarian master gunsmith, Urban, cast guns of a size unknown as yet even in Europe. Meanwhile, the grand vizier Çandarlı argued against the enterprise and during the siege of Constantinople (April 6–May 29, 1453), the opposing views were voiced in two war councils convened at critical moments. Zaganos vehemently rejected the proposal to raise the siege. He was given the task of preparing the last great assault. The commander in chief, Mehmed II himself, on the day of the attack personally directed the operations against the breach opened in the city wall by his cannon. The day after the capture of the city, Çandarlı was arrested and soon afterward was executed in Edirne. He was replaced by Zaganos, who had become Mehmed’s father-in-law. Mehmed had had to consent to a three-day sack of the city, but, before the evening of the first day after its capture, he countermanded his order. Entering the city at the head of a procession, he went straight to Hagia Sophia and converted it into a mosque. Afterward he established charitable foundations and provided 14,000 gold ducats per annum for the upkeep and service of the mosque.
One of the tasks on which Mehmed II set his heart was the restoration of the city, now popularly called Istanbul, as a worthy capital of a worldwide empire. To encourage the return of the Greeks and the Genoese of Galata (the trading quarter of the city), who had fled, he returned their houses and provided them with guarantees of safety. In order to repopulate the city, he deported Muslim and Christian groups in Anatolia and the Balkans and forced them to settle in Constantinople. He restored the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (January 6, 1454) and established a Jewish grand rabbi and an Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) patriarch in the city. In addition, he founded, and encouraged his viziers to found, a number of Muslim institutions and commercial installations in the main districts of Constantinople. From these nuclei, the metropolis developed rapidly. According to a survey carried out in 1478, there were then in Constantinople and neighbouring Galata 16,324 households and 3,927 shops. Fifty years later, Constantinople had become the largest city in Europe.
Mehmed’s empire
The capture of Constantinople bestowed on Mehmed incomparable glory and prestige and immense authority in his own country, so that he began to look upon himself as the heir of the Roman Caesars and the champion of Islam in holy war. It is not true that he had preconceived plans for his conquests, but it is certain that he was intent upon resurrecting the Eastern Roman Empire and upon extending it to its widest historic limits. His victory over the Turkmen leader Uzun Ḥasan at the Battle of Bashkent in Erzincan (August 11, 1473) marked in Mehmed’s life a turning point as important as the capture of Constantinople, and it sealed his domination over Anatolia and the Balkans.
Mehmed had assumed the title of Kayser-i Rum (Roman Caesar) and, at the same time, described himself as “the lord of the two lands and the two seas” (i.e., Anatolia and the Balkans, the Aegean and Black seas), a designation that reflected his idea of the empire. During the quarter-century after the fall of Constantinople, he undertook a series of campaigns or expeditions in the Balkans, Hungary, Walachia, Moldavia, Anatolia, the island of Rhodes, and even as far as the Crimean Peninsula and Otranto in southern Italy. This last enterprise (1480) indicated that he intended to invade Italy in a new attempt at founding a world empire. The following spring, having just begun a new campaign in Anatolia, he died 15.5 miles (25 km) from Constantinople. Gout, from which he had suffered for some time, in his last days tortured him grievously, but there are indications that he was poisoned.
During the autocrat’s last years, his relations with his eldest son Bayezid became very strained, as Bayezid did not always obey his orders. Mehmed’s financial measures resulted, toward the end of his reign, in widespread discontent throughout the country, especially when he distributed as military fiefs about 20,000 villages and farms that had previously belonged to pious foundations or the landed gentry. Thus, at his death, the malcontents placed Bayezid on the throne, discarding the sultan’s favourite son, Cem (Jem), and initiated a reaction against Mehmed’s policies.
Achievements
The conqueror reorganized the Ottoman government and, for the first time, codified the criminal law and the laws relating to his subjects in one code, whereas the constitution was elaborated in another, the two codes forming the nucleus of all subsequent legislation. In the utterly autocratic personality of the conqueror, the classical image of an Ottoman padishah (emperor) was born. He punished with the utmost severity those who resisted his decrees and laws, and even his Ottoman contemporaries considered him excessively hard.
Nevertheless, Mehmed may be considered the most broad-minded and freethinking of the Ottoman sultans. After the fall of Constantinople, he gathered Italian humanists and Greek scholars at his court; he caused the patriarch Gennadius II Scholarios to write a credo of the Christian faith and had it translated into Turkish; he collected in his palace a library of works in Greek and Latin. He called Gentile Bellini from Venice to decorate the walls of his palace with frescoes as well as to paint his portrait (now in the National Gallery, London). Around the grand mosque that he constructed, he erected eight colleges, which, for nearly a century, kept their rank as the highest teaching institutions of the Islamic sciences in the empire. At times, he assembled the ʿulamāʾ, or learned Muslim teachers, and caused them to discuss theological problems in his presence. In his reign, mathematics, astronomy, and Muslim theology reached their highest level among the Ottomans. And Mehmed himself left a divan (a collection of poems in the traditional style of classical Ottoman literature).
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Mehmed II (Ottoman Turkish: محمد ثانى, romanized: Meḥemmed-i s̱ānī;[5] Turkish: II. Mehmed, pronounced [icinˈdʒi ˈmehmet]; 30 March 1432 – 3 May 1481), commonly known as Mehmed the Conqueror (Ottoman Turkish: ابو الفتح, romanized: Ebū'l-fetḥ, lit. 'the Father of Conquest'; Turkish: Fâtih Sultan Mehmed), was the sultan of the Ottoman Empire twice, from August 1444 to September 1446 and then later from February 1451 to May 1481.
During Mehmed II's first reign, he defeated the crusade led by John Hunyadi after Hungarian incursions into his lands violated the Treaty of Edirne and Szeged. When Mehmed II ascended the throne again in 1451, he strengthened the Ottoman Navy and made preparations to attack Constantinople. At the age of 21, he conquered Constantinople and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire. After the conquest, Mehmed claimed the title caesar of Rome (Ottoman Turkish: قیصر روم, romanized: qayṣar-i rūm), based on the fact that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the surviving Eastern Roman Empire since its consecration in 330 AD by Emperor Constantine I.[6] The claim was soon recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but rejected by most European monarchs.
Mehmed continued his conquests and reunified Anatolia, and campaigned as far west as Bosnia in Southeast Europe. At home, he implemented many political and social reforms. He was a patron of the arts and sciences, and by the end of his reign, Constantinople had been transformed into a thriving imperial capital. He is considered a hero in modern-day Turkey and parts of the wider Muslim world, with Istanbul's Fatih district, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge and Fatih Mosque being named after him.
Early life and first reign
Mehmed II was born on 30 March 1432, in Edirne, then the capital city of the Ottoman Empire. His father was Sultan Murad II (1404–1451) and his mother Hüma Hatun, a slave of uncertain origin.[7][8][9]
When Mehmed II was eleven years old, he was sent to Amasya with his two lalas (advisors) to govern and thus gain experience, per the custom of Ottoman rulers before his time.[9] Sultan Murad II also sent a number of teachers for him to study under. This Islamic education had a great impact in molding Mehmed's mindset and reinforcing his Muslim beliefs. He was influenced in his practice of Islamic epistemology by practitioners of science, particularly by his mentor, Molla Gürâni, and he followed their approach. The influence of Akshamsaddin in Mehmed's life became predominant from a young age, especially in the imperative of fulfilling his Islamic duty to overthrow the Byzantine Empire by conquering Constantinople.[10]
After Murad II made peace with Hungary on 12 June 1444,[11] he abdicated the throne in favour of his 12-year-old son Mehmed II in July[12]/August[11] 1444.
During Mehmed II's first reign, he defeated the crusade led by John Hunyadi after the Hungarian incursions into his country broke the conditions of the truce per the Treaties of Edirne and Szeged in September 1444.[11] Cardinal Julian Cesarini, the representative of the Pope, had convinced the king of Hungary that breaking the truce with Muslims was not a betrayal.[citation needed] At this time, Mehmed II asked his father Murad II to reclaim the throne, but Murad II refused. According to the 17th-century chronicles,[13] Mehmed II wrote, "If you are the sultan, come and lead your armies. If I am the sultan, I hereby order you to come and lead my armies." Then, Murad II led the Ottoman army and won the Battle of Varna on 10 November 1444.[11] Halil Inalcik states that Mehmed II did not ask for his father. Instead, it was Çandarlı Halil Pasha's effort to bring Murad II back to the throne.[12][13]
In 1446, while Murad II returned to the throne, Mehmed retained the title of sultan but only acted as a governor of Manisa. Following the death of Murad II in 1451, Mehmed II became sultan for the second time. Ibrahim II of Karaman invaded the disputed area and instigated various revolts against Ottoman rule. Mehmed II conducted his first campaign against İbrahim of Karaman; Byzantines threatened to release Ottoman claimant Orhan.[11]
Conquests
Conquest of Constantinople
When Mehmed II ascended the throne again in 1451, he devoted himself to strengthening the Ottoman navy and made preparations for an attack on Constantinople. In the narrow Bosphorus Straits, the fortress Anadoluhisarı had been built by his great-grandfather Bayezid I on the Asian side; Mehmed erected an even stronger fortress called Rumelihisarı on the European side, and thus gained complete control of the strait. Having completed his fortresses, Mehmed proceeded to levy a toll on ships passing within reach of their cannon. A Venetian vessel ignoring signals to stop was sunk with a single shot and all the surviving sailors beheaded,[14] except for the captain, who was impaled and mounted like a human scarecrow as a warning to other sailors on the strait.[15]
Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, the companion and standard bearer of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, had died during the first Siege of Constantinople (674–678). As Mehmed II's army approached Constantinople, Mehmed's sheikh Akshamsaddin[16] discovered the tomb of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. After the conquest, Mehmed built Eyüp Sultan Mosque at the site to emphasize the importance of the conquest to the Islamic world and highlight his role as ghazi.[16]
In 1453, Mehmed commenced the siege of Constantinople with an army between 80,000 and 200,000 troops, an artillery train of over seventy large field pieces,[17] and a navy of 320 vessels, the bulk of them transports and storeships. The city was surrounded by sea and land; the fleet at the entrance of the Bosphorus stretched from shore to shore in the form of a crescent, to intercept or repel any assistance for Constantinople from the sea.[14] In early April, the Siege of Constantinople began. At first, the city's walls held off the Turks, even though Mehmed's army used the new bombard designed by Orban, a giant cannon similar to the Dardanelles Gun. The harbor of the Golden Horn was blocked by a boom chain and defended by twenty-eight warships.
On 22 April, Mehmed transported his lighter warships overland, around the Genoese colony of Galata, and into the Golden Horn's northern shore; eighty galleys were transported from the Bosphorus after paving a route, little over one mile, with wood. Thus, the Byzantines stretched their troops over a longer portion of the walls. About a month later, Constantinople fell, on 29 May, following a fifty-seven-day siege.[14] After this conquest, Mehmed moved the Ottoman capital from Adrianople to Constantinople.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
With limited supplies and only around eight thousand soldiers, the Byzantine Emperor managed to put up a good fight: but without any external assistance from other European nations, the Byzantine Emperor knew he was fighting a losing battle. Despite his repeated appeals to his fellow Christians across Europe, the Byzantine Emperor received no help or support from any European nations. If the European nations had responded, it is doubtful whether Sultan Mehmed would have been able to take the city.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
When Sultan Mehmed II stepped into the ruins of the Boukoleon, known to the Ottomans and Persians as the Palace of the Caesars, probably built over a thousand years before by Theodosius II, he uttered the famous lines of Saadi:[18][19][20][21]
Some Muslim scholars claimed that a hadith in Musnad Ahmad referred specifically to Mehmed's conquest of Constantinople, seeing it as the fulfillment of a prophecy and a sign of the approaching apocalypse.[22]
After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed claimed the title of caesar of the Roman Empire (Qayser-i Rûm), based on the assertion that Constantinople had been the seat and capital of the Roman Empire since 330 AD and whoever possessed the Imperial capital was the ruler of the empire.[23] The contemporary scholar George of Trebizond supported his claim.[24][25] The claim was not recognized by the Catholic Church and most of, if not all, Western Europe, but was recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Mehmed had installed Gennadius Scholarius, a staunch antagonist of the West, as the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople with all the ceremonial elements, ethnarch (or milletbashi) status, and rights of property that made him the second largest landlord in the empire after the sultan himself in 1454, and in turn, Gennadius II recognized Mehmed the Conqueror as the successor to the throne.[26][27]
Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos died without producing an heir, and had Constantinople not fallen to the Ottomans, he likely would have been succeeded by the sons of his deceased elder brother. Those children were taken into the palace service of Mehmed after the fall of Constantinople. The oldest boy, renamed Hass Murad, became a personal favorite of Mehmed and served as beylerbey of the Balkans. The younger son, renamed Mesih Pasha, became admiral of the Ottoman fleet and sanjak-bey of the Gallipoli. He eventually served twice as Grand Vizier under Mehmed's son, Bayezid II.[28]
After the fall of Constantinople, Mehmed would also go on to conquer the Despotate of Morea in the Peloponnese in two campaigns in 1458 and 1460 and the Empire of Trebizond in northeastern Anatolia in 1461. The last two vestiges of Byzantine rule were thus absorbed by the Ottoman Empire. The conquest of Constantinople bestowed immense glory and prestige on the country. There is some historical evidence that, 10 years after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II visited the site of Troy and boasted that he had avenged the Trojans by conquering the Greeks (Byzantines).[29][30][31]
Conquest of Serbia (1454–1459)
,_Ottoman_miniature.jpg)
Mehmed II's first campaigns after Constantinople were in the direction of Serbia, which had been an Ottoman vassal state intermittently since the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. The Ottoman ruler had a connection with the Serbian Despotate – one of Murad II's wives was Mara Branković – and he used that fact to claim Serbian lands. Đurađ Branković's recently made alliance with the Hungarians, and his irregular payments of tribute, further served as justifications for the invasion. The Ottomans sent an ultimatum demanding the keys to some Serbian castles which formerly belonged to the Ottomans.[32] When Serbia refused these demands, the Ottoman army led by Mehmed set out from Edirne towards Serbia in 1454, sometime after the 18th of April.[33] Mehmed's forces quickly succeeded in capturing Sivricehisar (sometimes identified with the Ostrvica Fortress) and Omolhisar,[34] and repulsed a Serbian cavalry force of 9,000 cavalry sent against them by the despot.[35] Following these actions, the Serbian capital of Smederevo was put under siege by the Ottoman forces. Before the city could be taken, intelligence was received about an approaching Hungarian relief force led by Hunyadi, which caused Mehmed to lift the siege and start marching back to his domains.[36] By August the campaign was effectively over,[33] Mehmed left a part of his force under the command of Firuz Bey in Serbia in anticipation of a possible offensive on Ottoman territories by Hunyadi.[32] This force was defeated by a combined Hungarian-Serbian army led by Hunyadi and Nikola Skobaljić on the 2nd of October near Kruševac, after which Hunyadi went on to raid Ottoman controlled Nish and Pirot before returning back to Belgrade.[37] Roughly a month later, on the 16th of November, the Ottomans avenged their earlier defeat at Kruševac by defeating Skobaljić's army near Tripolje, where the Serbian voivode was captured and executed via impalement.[37] Following this a temporary treaty was signed with the Serbian despot, where Đurađ would formally recognize the recently captured Serbian forts as Ottoman land, send thirty thousand florins to the Porte as yearly tribute and provide troops for Ottoman campaigns.[32] The 1454 campaign had resulted in the capture of fifty thousand prisoners from Serbia, four thousand of whom were settled in various villages near Constantinople.[32] The following year, Mehmed received reports from one of his frontier commanders about Serbian weakness against a possible invasion, the reports in combination with the dissatisfactory results of the 1454 campaign convinced Mehmed to initiate another campaign against Serbia.[32] The Ottoman army marched on the important mining town of Novo Brdo, which Mehmed put under siege. The Serbians couldn't resist the Ottoman army out in the open, thus resorted to fortifying their various settlements and having their peasants flee to either various fortresses or forests.[35] After forty days of siege and intense cannon fire, Novo Brdo surrendered.[35] Following the conquest of the city, Mehmed captured various other Serbian settlements in the surrounding area,[34] after which he started his march back towards Edirne, visiting his ancestor Murad I's grave in Kosovo on the way.[33]
In 1456, Mehmed decided to continue his momentum towards the northwest and capture the city of Belgrade, which had been ceded to the Kingdom of Hungary by the Serbian despot Đurađ Branković in 1427. Significant preparations were made by the Sultan for the conquest of the city, including the casting of 22 large cannons alongside many smaller ones and the establishment of a navy which would sail up the Danube to aid the army during the siege.[38] The exact number of troops Mehmed commanded varies between sources,[39] but the rumours of its size were significant enough to cause panic in Italy.[40] Ottoman troops began arriving at Belgrade on the 13th of June.[38] After the necessary preparations were finished, Ottoman cannons started bombarding the city walls and Ottoman troops started filling the ditches in front of the walls with earth to advance forward.[38] As despair started to set in amongst the defenders, news started arriving of a relief force assembling across the Danube under the command of John Hunyadi.[38] Upon learning of this development, Mehmed held a war council with his commanders to determine the army's next actions.[38] Karaca Pasha recommended that a part of the army should cross the Danube to counter the approaching relief army.[41] This plan was rejected by the council, particularly due to the opposition by the Rumelian Begs.[38] Instead, the decision was made to prioritize capturing the fortress, a move seen as a tactical blunder by modern historians.[41][38] This allowed Hunyadi to set up camp with his army across the Danube uncontested.[41] Shortly after, the Ottoman navy was defeated in a five hour long battle by the newly arrived Christian Danubian navy.[41] Following this, Hunyadi's troops started entering the city to reinforce the besieged, which increased the morale of the defending forces.[39] Infuriated by the unfolding events, Mehmed ordered a final attack to capture the city on the 21st of July, after continuous cannon fire building up to the day of the attack.[39] Ottoman troops were initially successful in breaching the defences and entering the city, however were eventually repulsed by the defenders.[40] The Christians pressed their advantage by launching a counter attack, which started pushing back the Ottoman forces,[38] managing to advance as far as the Ottoman camp.[32] At this crucial point of the battle, one of the viziers advised Mehmed to abandon the camp for his safety, which he refused to do so on the grounds that it would be a "sign of cowardice".[32] After this, Mehmed personally joined the fighting, accompanied by two of his begs.[38] The Sultan managed to personally kill three[32] enemy soldiers before being injured, forcing him to abandon the battlefield.[39] The news of their Sultan fighting alongside them and the arrival of reinforcements caused a morale boost amongst the Ottoman troops, which allowed them to go on the offensive again and push the Christian forces out of the Ottoman camp.[42][32][38] The actions of the Sultan had prevented a complete rout of the Ottoman army,[43][32][38] however, the army had been far too weakened to attempt to take the city again, causing the Ottoman war council to decide on ending the siege.[38] The Sultan and his army began a retreat to Edirne during the night, without the Christian forces being able to pursue them.[44] Hunyadi died shortly after the siege, meanwhile Đurađ Branković regained possession of some parts of Serbia.
Shortly before the end of the year 1456, roughly 5 months after the Siege of Belgrade, the 79-year-old Branković died. Serbian independence survived after him for only around three years, when the Ottoman Empire formally annexed Serbian lands following dissension among his widow and three remaining sons. Lazar, the youngest, poisoned his mother and exiled his brothers, but he died soon afterwards. In the continuing turmoil the oldest brother Stefan Branković gained the throne. Observing the chaotic situation in Serbia, the Ottoman government decided to definitively conclude the Serbian issue.[45] The Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha was dispatched with an army to the region in 1458, where he initially conquered Resava and a number of other settlements before moving towards Smederevo.[46] After a battle outside the city walls, the defenders were forced to retreat inside the fortress.[46] In the ensuing siege, the outer walls were breached by Ottoman forces, however the Serbians continued to resist inside the inner walls of the fortress.[46] Not wanting to waste time capturing the inner citadel, Mahmud lifted the siege and diverted his army elsewhere, conquering Rudnik and its environs before attacking and capturing the fortress of Golubac.[46] Subsequently, Mehmed who had returned from his campaign in Morea met up with Mahmud Pasha in Skopje.[40][45] During this meeting, reports were received that a Hungarian army was assembling near the Danube to launch an offensive against the Ottoman positions in the region.[47] The Hungarians crossed the Danube near Belgrade, after which they marched south towards Užice.[47] While the Hungarian troops were engaged in plunder near Užice, they got ambushed by the Ottoman forces in the region, forcing them to retreat.[48][40][47] Despite this victory, for Serbia to be fully annexed into the empire, Smederevo still had to be taken.[47] The opportunity for its capture presented itself the following year. Stefan Branković was ousted from power in March 1459. After that the Serbian throne was offered to Stephen Tomašević, the future king of Bosnia, which infuriated Sultan Mehmed. After Mahmud Pasha suppressed an uprising near Pizren,[45] Mehmed personally led an army against the Serbian capital,[40] capturing Smederevo on the 20th of June 1459.[49] After the surrender of the capital, other Serbian castles which continued to resist were captured in the following months,[45] ending the existence of the Serbian Despotate.[50]
Conquest of the Morea (1458–1460)
The Despotate of the Morea bordered the southern Ottoman Balkans. The Ottomans had already invaded the region under Murad II, destroying the Byzantine defenses – the Hexamilion wall – at the Isthmus of Corinth in 1446. Before the final siege of Constantinople, Mehmed ordered Ottoman troops to attack the Morea. The despots, Demetrios Palaiologos and Thomas Palaiologos, brothers of the last emperor, failed to send any aid. The chronic instability and the tribute payment to the Turks, after the peace treaty of 1446 with Mehmed II, resulted in an Albanian-Greek revolt against them, during which the brothers invited Ottoman troops to help put down the revolt.[51] At this time, a number of influential Moreote Greeks and Albanians made private peace with Mehmed.[52] After more years of incompetent rule by the despots, their failure to pay their annual tribute to the Sultan, and finally their own revolt against Ottoman rule, Mehmed entered the Morea in May 1460. The capital Mistra fell exactly seven years after Constantinople, on 29 May 1460. Demetrios ended up a prisoner of the Ottomans and his younger brother Thomas fled. By the end of the summer, the Ottomans had achieved the submission of virtually all cities possessed by the Greeks.
A few holdouts remained for a time. The island of Monemvasia refused to surrender, and it was ruled for a brief time by a Catalan corsair. When the population drove him out they obtained the consent of Thomas to submit to the Pope's protection before the end of 1460.[53] The Mani Peninsula, on the Morea's south end, resisted under a loose coalition of local clans, and the area then came under the rule of Venice. The last holdout was Salmeniko, in the Morea's northwest. Graitzas Palaiologos was the military commander there, stationed at Salmeniko Castle (also known as Castle Orgia). While the town eventually surrendered, Graitzas and his garrison and some town residents held out in the castle until July 1461, when they escaped and reached Venetian territory.[54]
Conquest of Trebizond (1460–1461)
Emperors of Trebizond formed alliances through royal marriages with various Muslim rulers. Emperor John IV of Trebizond married his daughter to the son of his brother-in-law, Uzun Hasan, sultan of the Aq Qoyunlu (also known as White Sheep Turkomans), in return for his promise to defend Trebizond. He also secured promises of support from the Turkish beys of Sinope and Karamania, and from the king and princes of Georgia. The Ottomans were motivated to capture Trebizond or to get an annual tribute. In the time of Murad II, they first attempted to take the capital by sea in 1442, but bad weather made the landings difficult and the attempt was repulsed. While Mehmed II was away laying siege to Belgrade in 1456, the Ottoman governor of Amasya attacked Trebizond, and although he was defeated, he took many prisoners and extracted a heavy tribute.
After John's death in 1459, his brother David came to power and intrigued with various European powers for help against the Ottomans, speaking of wild schemes that included the conquest of Jerusalem. Mehmed II eventually heard of these intrigues and was further provoked to action by David's demand that Mehmed remit the tribute imposed on his brother.
Mehmed the Conqueror's response came in the summer of 1461. He led a sizable army from Bursa by land and the Ottoman navy by sea, first to Sinope, joining forces with Ismail's brother Ahmed (the Red). He captured Sinope and ended the official reign of the Jandarid dynasty, although he appointed Ahmed as the governor of Kastamonu and Sinope, only to revoke the appointment the same year. Various other members of the Jandarid dynasty were offered important functions throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire. During the march to Trebizond, Uzun Hasan sent his mother Sara Khatun as an ambassador; while they were climbing the steep heights of Zigana on foot, she asked Sultan Mehmed why he was undergoing such hardship for the sake of Trebizond. Mehmed replied:
Having isolated Trebizond, Mehmed quickly swept down upon it before the inhabitants knew he was coming, and he placed it under siege. The city held out for a month before the emperor David surrendered on 15 August 1461.
Submission of Wallachia (1459–1462)
_(died_1477).jpg)
The Ottomans, since the early 15th century, had tried to bring Wallachia (Ottoman Turkish: افلاق) under their control by putting their own candidate on the throne, but each attempt ended in failure. The Ottomans regarded Wallachia as a buffer zone between them and the Kingdom of Hungary and, in return for a yearly tribute, did not meddle in their internal affairs. The two primary Balkan powers, Hungary and the Ottomans, persisted in an enduring struggle to gain overlordship over Wallachia. To prevent Wallachia from falling into the Hungarian fold, the Ottomans freed young Vlad III (Dracula), who had spent four years as a prisoner of Murad, together with his brother Radu, so that Vlad could claim the throne of Wallachia. His rule was short-lived, however, as Hunyadi invaded Wallachia and restored his ally Vladislav II, of the Dănești clan, to the throne.
Vlad III Dracula fled to Moldavia, where he lived under the protection of his uncle, Bogdan II. In October 1451, Bogdan was assassinated and Vlad fled to Hungary. Impressed by Vlad's vast knowledge of the mindset and inner workings of the Ottoman Empire, as well as his hatred towards the Turks and the new Sultan, Mehmed II, Hunyadi reconciled with his former enemy and tried to make Vlad III his own advisor, but Vlad refused.
In 1456, three years after the Ottomans had conquered Constantinople, they threatened Hungary by besieging Belgrade. Hunyadi began a concerted counterattack in Serbia: While he himself moved into Serbia and relieved the siege (before dying of the plague), Vlad III Dracula led his own contingent into Wallachia, reconquered his native land, and killed Vladislav II.
In 1459, Mehmed II sent envoys to Vlad to urge him to pay a delayed tribute[56] of 10,000 ducats and 500 recruits into the Ottoman forces. Vlad III Dracula refused and had the Ottoman envoys killed by nailing their turbans to their heads, on the pretext that they had refused to raise their "hats" to him, as they only removed their headgear before Allah.
Meanwhile, the Sultan sent the Bey of Nicopolis, Hamza Pasha, to make peace and, if necessary, eliminate Vlad III.[57] Vlad III set an ambush; the Ottomans were surrounded and almost all of them caught and impaled, with Hamza Pasha impaled on the highest stake, as befit his rank.[57]
In the winter of 1462, Vlad III crossed the Danube and scorched the entire Bulgarian land in the area between Serbia and the Black Sea. Allegedly disguising himself as a Turkish Sipahi and utilizing his command of Turkish language and customs, Vlad III infiltrated Ottoman camps, ambushed, massacred or captured several Ottoman forces.[citation needed]
Mehmed II abandoned his siege of Corinth to launch a punitive attack against Vlad III in Wallachia[58] but suffered many casualties in a surprise night attack led by Vlad III Dracula, who was apparently bent on personally killing the Sultan.[59] However, Vlad's policy of staunch resistance against the Ottomans was not a popular one, and he was betrayed by the boyars's (local aristocracy) appeasing faction, most of them also pro-Dăneşti (a rival princely branch). His ally, Stephen III of Moldavia, who had promised to help him, seized the chance and instead attacked him trying to take back the Fortress of Chilia. Vlad III had to retreat to the mountains. After this, the Ottomans captured the Wallachian capital Târgoviște and Mehmed II withdrew, leaving Radu as ruler of Wallachia. Turahanoğlu Ömer Bey, who served with distinction and wiped out a force of 6,000 Wallachians and deposited 2,000 of their heads at the feet of Mehmed II, was also reinstated, as a reward, in his old gubernatorial post in Thessaly.[60] Vlad eventually escaped to Hungary, where he was imprisoned on a false accusation of treason against his overlord, Matthias Corvinus.
Conquest of Bosnia (1463)
The despot of Serbia, Lazar Branković, died in 1458, and a civil war broke out among his heirs that resulted in the Ottoman conquest of Serbia in 1459/1460. Stephen Tomašević, son of the king of Bosnia, tried to bring Serbia under his control, but Ottoman expeditions forced him to give up his plan and Stephen fled to Bosnia, seeking refuge at the court of his father.[61] After some battles, Bosnia became tributary kingdom to the Ottomans.
On 10 July 1461, Stephen Thomas died, and Stephen Tomašević succeeded him as King of Bosnia. In 1461, Stephen Tomašević made an alliance with the Hungarians and asked Pope Pius II for help in the face of an impending Ottoman invasion. In 1463, after a dispute over the tribute paid annually by the Bosnian Kingdom to the Ottomans, he sent for help from the Venetians. However, none ever reached Bosnia. In 1463, Sultan Mehmed II led an army into the country. The royal city of Bobovac soon fell, leaving Stephen Tomašević to retreat to Jajce and later to Ključ. Mehmed invaded Bosnia and conquered it very quickly, executing Stephen Tomašević and his uncle Radivoj. Bosnia officially fell in 1463 and became the westernmost province of the Ottoman Empire.
Ottoman-Venetian War (1463–1479)
According to the Byzantine historian Michael Critobulus, hostilities broke out after an Albanian slave of the Ottoman commander of Athens fled to the Venetian fortress of Coron (Koroni) with 100,000 silver aspers from his master's treasure. The fugitive then converted to Christianity, so Ottoman demands for his rendition were refused by the Venetian authorities.[62] Using this as a pretext in November 1462, the Ottoman commander in central Greece, Turahanoğlu Ömer Bey, attacked and nearly succeeded in taking the strategically important Venetian fortress of Lepanto (Nafpaktos). On 3 April 1463, however, the governor of the Morea, Isa Beg, took the Venetian-held town of Argos by treason.[62]
The new alliance launched a two-pronged offensive against the Ottomans: a Venetian army, under the Captain General of the Sea Alvise Loredan, landed in the Morea, while Matthias Corvinus invaded Bosnia.[63] At the same time, Pius II began assembling an army at Ancona, hoping to lead it in person.[64] Negotiations were also begun with other rivals of the Ottomans, such as Karamanids, Uzun Hassan and the Crimean Khanate.[64]
In early August, the Venetians retook Argos and refortified the Isthmus of Corinth, restoring the Hexamilion wall and equipping it with many cannons.[65] They then proceeded to besiege the fortress of the Acrocorinth, which controlled the northwestern Peloponnese. The Venetians engaged in repeated clashes with the defenders and with Ömer Bey's forces, until they suffered a major defeat on 20 October and were then forced to lift the siege and retreat to the Hexamilion and to Nauplia (Nafplion).[65] In Bosnia, Matthias Corvinus seized over sixty fortified places and succeeded in taking its capital, Jajce, after a 3-month siege, on 16 December.[66]
Ottoman reaction was swift and decisive: Mehmed II dispatched his Grand Vizier, Mahmud Pasha Angelović, with an army against the Venetians. To confront the Venetian fleet, which had taken station outside the entrance of the Dardanelles Straits, the Sultan further ordered the creation of the new shipyard of Kadirga Limani in the Golden Horn (named after the "kadirga" type of galley), and of two forts to guard the Straits, Kilidulbahr and Sultaniye.[67] The Morean campaign was swiftly victorious for the Ottomans; they razed the Hexamilion, and advanced into the Morea. Argos fell, and several forts and localities that had recognized Venetian authority reverted to their Ottoman allegiance.
Sultan Mehmed II, who was following Mahmud Pasha with another army to reinforce him, had reached Zeitounion (Lamia) before being apprised of his Vizier's success. Immediately, he turned his men north, towards Bosnia.[67] However, the Sultan's attempt to retake Jajce in July and August 1464 failed, with the Ottomans retreating hastily in the face of Corvinus' approaching army. A new Ottoman army under Mahmud Pasha then forced Corvinus to withdraw, but Jajce was not retaken for many years after.[66] However, the death of Pope Pius II on 15 August in Ancona spelled the end of the Crusade.[64][68]
In the meantime, the Venetian Republic had appointed Sigismondo Malatesta for the upcoming campaign of 1464. He launched attacks against Ottoman forts and engaged in a failed siege of Mistra in August through October. Small-scale warfare continued on both sides, with raids and counter-raids, but a shortage of manpower and money meant that the Venetians remained largely confined to their fortified bases, while Ömer Bey's army roamed the countryside.
In the Aegean, the Venetians tried to take Lesbos in the spring of 1464, and besieged the capital Mytilene for six weeks, until the arrival of an Ottoman fleet under Mahmud Pasha on 18 May forced them to withdraw.[69] Another attempt to capture the island shortly after also failed. The Venetian navy spent the remainder of the year in ultimately fruitless demonstrations of force before the Dardanelles.[69] In early 1465, Mehmed II sent peace feelers to the Venetian Senate; distrusting the Sultan's motives, these were rejected.[70]
In April 1466, the Venetian war effort was reinvigorated under Vettore Cappello: the fleet took the northern Aegean islands of Imbros, Thasos, and Samothrace, and then sailed into the Saronic Gulf.[71] On 12 July, Cappello landed at Piraeus and marched against Athens, the Ottomans' major regional base. He failed to take the Acropolis and was forced to retreat to Patras, the capital of Peloponnese and the seat of the Ottoman bey, which was being besieged by a joint force of Venetians and Greeks.[72] Before Cappello could arrive, and as the city seemed on the verge of falling, Ömer Bey suddenly appeared with 12,000 cavalry and drove the outnumbered besiegers off. Six hundred Venetians and a hundred Greeks were taken prisoner out of a force of 2,000, while Barbarigo himself was killed.[73] Cappello, who arrived some days later, attacked the Ottomans but was heavily defeated. Demoralized, he returned to Negroponte with the remains of his army. There Cappello fell ill and died on 13 March 1467.[74] In 1470 Mehmed personally led an Ottoman army to besiege Negroponte. The Venetian relief navy was defeated, and Negroponte was captured.
In spring 1466, Sultan Mehmed marched with a large army against the Albanians. Under their leader, Skanderbeg, they had long resisted the Ottomans, and had repeatedly sought assistance from Italy.[63] Mehmed II responded by marching again against Albania but was unsuccessful. The winter brought an outbreak of plague, which would recur annually and sap the strength of the local resistance.[71] Skanderbeg himself died of malaria in the Venetian stronghold of Lissus (Lezhë), ending the ability of Venice to use the Albanian lords for its own advantage.[75] After Skanderbeg died, some Venetian-controlled northern Albanian garrisons continued to hold territories coveted by the Ottomans, such as Žabljak Crnojevića, Drisht, Lezhë, and Shkodra – the most significant. Mehmed II sent his armies to take Shkodra in 1474[76] but failed. Then he went personally to lead the siege of Shkodra of 1478–79. The Venetians and Shkodrans resisted the assaults and continued to hold the fortress until Venice ceded Shkodra to the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Constantinople as a condition of ending the war.
The agreement was established as a result of the Ottomans having reached the outskirts of Venice. Based on the terms of the treaty, the Venetians were allowed to keep Ulcinj, Antivan, and Durrës. However, they ceded Shkodra, which had been under Ottoman siege for many months, as well as other territories on the Dalmatian coastline, and they relinquished control of the Greek islands of Negroponte (Euboea) and Lemnos. Moreover, the Venetians were forced to pay 100,000 ducat indemnity[77] and agreed to a tribute of around 10,000 ducats per year in order to acquire trading privileges in the Black Sea. As a result of this treaty, Venice acquired a weakened position in the Levant.[78]
Anatolian conquests (1464–1473)
During the post-Seljuks era in the second half of the Middle Ages, numerous Turkmen principalities collectively known as Anatolian beyliks emerged in Anatolia. Karamanids initially centred around the modern provinces of Karaman and Konya, the most important power in Anatolia. But towards the end of the 14th century, Ottomans began to dominate on most of Anatolia, reducing the Karaman influence and prestige.
İbrahim II of Karaman was the ruler of Karaman, and during his last years, his sons began struggling for the throne. His heir apparent was İshak of Karaman, the governor of Silifke. But Pir Ahmet, a younger son, declared himself as the bey of Karaman in Konya. İbrahim escaped to a small city in western territories where he died in 1464. The competing claims to the throne resulted in an interregnum in the beylik. Nevertheless, with the help of Uzun Hasan, İshak was able to ascend to the throne. His reign was short, however, as Pir Ahmet appealed to Sultan Mehmed II for help, offering Mehmed some territory that İshak refused to cede. With Ottoman help, Pir Ahmet defeated İshak in the battle of Dağpazarı. İshak had to be content with Silifke up to an unknown date.[79] Pir Ahmet kept his promise and ceded a part of the beylik to the Ottomans, but he was uneasy about the loss. So, during the Ottoman campaign in the West, he recaptured his former territory. Mehmed returned, however, and captured both Karaman (Larende) and Konya in 1466. Pir Ahmet barely escaped to the East. A few years later, Ottoman vizier (later grand vizier) Gedik Ahmet Pasha captured the coastal region of the beylik.[80]
Pir Ahmet as well as his brother Kasım escaped to Uzun Hasan's territory. This gave Uzun Hasan a chance to interfere. In 1472, the Akkoyunlu army invaded and raided most of Anatolia (this was the reason behind the Battle of Otlukbeli in 1473). But then Mehmed led a successful campaign against Uzun Hasan in 1473 that resulted in the decisive victory of the Ottoman Empire in the Battle of Otlukbeli. Before that, Pir Ahmet with Akkoyunlu help had captured Karaman. However, Pir Ahmet could not enjoy another term. Because immediately after the capture of Karaman, the Akkoyunlu army was defeated by the Ottomans near Beyşehir and Pir Ahmet had to escape once more. Although he tried to continue his struggle, he learned that his family members had been transferred to Istanbul by Gedik Ahmet Pasha, so he finally gave up. Demoralized, he escaped to Akkoyunlu territory where he was given a tımar (fief) in Bayburt. He died in 1474.[81][better source needed]
Uniting the Anatolian beyliks was first accomplished by Sultan Bayezid I, more than fifty years before Mehmed II but after the destructive Battle of Ankara in 1402, the newly formed unification was gone. Mehmed II recovered Ottoman power over the other Turkish states, and these conquests allowed him to push further into Europe.
Another important political entity that shaped the Eastern policy of Mehmed II were the Aq Qoyunlu. Under the leadership of Uzun Hasan, this kingdom gained power in the East, but because of its strong relations with Christian powers like the Empire of Trebizond and the Republic of Venice and the alliance between the Turcomans and the Karamanid tribe, Mehmed saw them as a threat to his own power.
War with Moldavia (1475–1476)
_-_Sultan_Mohammed_II._(1451_-_1481)_-_2247_-_Bavarian_State_Painting_Collections.jpg)
In 1456, Peter III Aaron agreed to pay the Ottomans an annual tribute of 2,000 gold ducats to ensure his southern borders, thus becoming the first Moldavian ruler to accept the Turkish demands.[82] His successor Stephen the Great rejected Ottoman suzerainty and a series of fierce wars ensued.[83] Stephen tried to bring Wallachia under his sphere of influence and so supported his own choice for the Wallachian throne. This resulted in an enduring struggle between different Wallachian rulers backed by Hungarians, Ottomans, and Stephen. An Ottoman army under Hadim Pasha (governor of Rumelia) was sent in 1475 to punish Stephen for his meddling in Wallachia; however, the Ottomans suffered a great defeat at the Battle of Vaslui. Stephen inflicted a decisive defeat on the Ottomans, described as "the greatest ever secured by the Cross against Islam,"[by whom?] with casualties, according to Venetian and Polish records, reaching beyond 40,000 on the Ottoman side. Mara Brankovic (Mara Hatun), the former younger wife of Murad II, told a Venetian envoy that the invasion had been worst ever defeat for the Ottomans. Stephen was later awarded the title "Athleta Christi" (Champion of Christ) by Pope Sixtus IV, who referred to him as "verus christianae fidei athleta" ("the true defender of the Christian faith"). Mehmed II assembled a large army and entered Moldavia in June 1476. Meanwhile, groups of Tartars from the Crimean Khanate (the Ottomans' recent ally) were sent to attack Moldavia. Romanian sources may state that they were repelled.[84] Other sources state that joint Ottoman and Crimean Tartar forces "occupied Bessarabia and took Akkerman, gaining control of the southern mouth of the Danube. Stephan tried to avoid open battle with the Ottomans by following a scorched-earth policy".[85]
Finally, Stephen faced the Ottomans in battle. The Moldavians luring the main Ottoman forces into a forest that was set on fire, causing some casualties. According to another battle description, the defending Moldavian forces repelled several Ottoman attacks with steady fire from hand-guns.[86] The attacking Turkish Janissaries were forced to crouch on their stomachs instead of charging headlong into the defenders positions. Seeing the imminent defeat of his forces, Mehmed charged with his personal guard against the Moldavians, managing to rally the Janissaries, and turning the tide of the battle. Turkish Janissaries penetrated inside the forest and engaged the defenders in man-to-man fighting.
The Moldavian army was utterly defeated (casualties were very high on both sides), and the chronicles say that the entire battlefield was covered with the bones of the dead, a probable source for the toponym (Valea Albă is Romanian and Akdere Turkish for "The White Valley").
Stephen the Great retreated into the north-western part of Moldavia or even into the Polish Kingdom[87] and began forming another army. The Ottomans were unable to conquer any of the major Moldavian strongholds (Suceava, Neamț, and Hotin)[84] and were constantly harassed by small-scale Moldavian attacks. Soon they were also confronted with starvation, a situation made worse by an outbreak of the plague, and the Ottoman army returned to Ottoman lands. The threat of Stephen to Wallachia continued for decades. That very same year Stephen helped his cousin Vlad the Impaler return to the throne of Wallachia for the third and final time. Even after Vlad's untimely death several months later Stephen continued to support, with force of arms, a variety of contenders to the Wallachian throne succeeding after Mehmed's death to instate Vlad Călugărul, half brother to Vlad the Impaler, for a period of 13 years from 1482 to 1495.
Conquest of Albania (1466–1478)
Skanderbeg, a member of the Albanian nobility and a former member of the Ottoman ruling elite, led a rebellion against the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe. Skanderbeg, son of Gjon Kastrioti (who had joined the unsuccessful Albanian revolt of 1432–1436), united the Albanian principalities in a military and diplomatic alliance, the League of Lezhë, in 1444. Mehmed II was never successful in his efforts to subjugate Albania while Skanderbeg was alive, even though he twice (1466 and 1467) led the Ottoman armies himself against Krujë. After Skanderbeg died in 1468, the Albanians could not find a leader to replace him, and Mehmed II eventually conquered Krujë and Albania in 1478.
In spring 1466, Sultan Mehmed marched with a large army against Skanderbeg and the Albanians. Skanderbeg had repeatedly sought assistance from Italy,[63] and believed that the ongoing Ottoman–Venetian War (1463–1479) offered a golden opportunity to reassert Albanian independence; for the Venetians, the Albanians provided a useful cover to the Venetian coastal holdings of Durrës (Italian: Durazzo) and Shkodër (Italian: Scutari). The major result of this campaign was the construction of the fortress of Elbasan, allegedly within just 25 days. This strategically sited fortress, at the lowlands near the end of the old Via Egnatia, cut Albania effectively in half, isolating Skanderbeg's base in the northern highlands from the Venetian holdings in the south.[75] However, following the Sultan's withdrawal Skanderbeg himself spent the winter in Italy, seeking aid. On his return in early 1467, his forces sallied from the highlands, defeated Ballaban Pasha, and lifted the siege of the fortress of Croia (Krujë); they also attacked Elbasan but failed to capture it.[88][89] Mehmed II responded by marching again against Albania. He energetically pursued the attacks against the Albanian strongholds, while sending detachments to raid the Venetian possessions to keep them isolated.[88] The Ottomans failed again to take Croia, and they failed to subjugate the country. However, the winter brought an outbreak of plague, which would recur annually and sap the strength of the local resistance.[71] Skanderbeg himself died of malaria in the Venetian stronghold of Lissus (Lezhë), ending the ability of Venice to use the Albanian lords for its own advantage.[75] The Albanians were left to their own devices and were gradually subdued over the next decade.
After Skanderbeg died, Mehmed II personally led the siege of Shkodra in 1478–79, of which early Ottoman chronicler Aşıkpaşazade (1400–81) wrote, "All the conquests of Sultan Mehmed were fulfilled with the seizure of Shkodra."[90][better source needed][better source needed] The Venetians and Shkodrans resisted the assaults and continued to hold the fortress until Venice ceded Shkodra to the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Constantinople as a condition of ending the war.
Crimean policy (1475)
A number of Turkic peoples, collectively known as the Crimean Tatars, had been inhabiting the peninsula since the early Middle Ages. After the destruction of the Golden Horde by Timur earlier in the 15th century, the Crimean Tatars founded an independent Crimean Khanate under Hacı I Giray, a descendant of Genghis Khan.
The Crimean Tatars controlled the steppes that stretched from the Kuban to the Dniester River, but they were unable to take control over the commercial Genoese towns called Gazaria (Genoese colonies), which had been under Genoese control since 1357. After the conquest of Constantinople, Genoese communications were disrupted, and when the Crimean Tatars asked for help from the Ottomans, they responded with an invasion of the Genoese towns, led by Gedik Ahmed Pasha in 1475, bringing Kaffa and the other trading towns under their control.[91] After the capture of the Genoese towns, the Ottoman Sultan held Meñli I Giray captive,[92] later releasing him in return for accepting Ottoman suzerainty over the Crimean Khans and allowing them to rule as tributary princes of the Ottoman Empire.[91] However, the Crimean khans still had a large amount of autonomy from the Ottoman Empire, while the Ottomans directly controlled the southern coast.
Expedition to Italy (1480)
.jpg)
An Ottoman army under Gedik Ahmed Pasha invaded Italy in 1480, capturing Otranto. Because of lack of food, Gedik Ahmed Pasha returned with most of his troops to Albania, leaving a garrison of 800 infantry and 500 cavalry behind to defend Otranto in Italy. It was assumed he would return after the winter. Since it was only 28 years after the fall of Constantinople, there was some fear that Rome would suffer the same fate. Plans were made for the Pope and citizens of Rome to evacuate the city. Pope Sixtus IV repeated his 1481 call for a crusade. Several Italian city-states, Hungary, and France responded positively to the appeal. The Republic of Venice did not, however, as it had signed an expensive peace treaty with the Ottomans in 1479.
In 1481 king Ferdinand I of Naples raised an army to be led by his son Alphonso II of Naples. A contingent of troops was provided by king Matthias Corvinus of Hungary. The city was besieged starting 1 May 1481. After the death of Mehmed on 3 May, ensuing quarrels about his succession possibly prevented the Ottomans from sending reinforcements to Otranto. So, the Turkish occupation of Otranto ended by negotiation with the Christian forces, permitting the Turks to withdraw to Albania, and Otranto was retaken by Papal forces in 1481.
Administration and culture
He gathered Italian artists, humanists and Greek scholars at his court, allowed the Byzantine Church to continue functioning, ordered the patriarch Gennadius to translate Christian doctrine into Turkish, and called Gentile Bellini from Venice to paint his portrait[94] as well as Venetian frescoes that are vanished today.[95] He collected in his palace a library that included works in Greek, Persian, and Latin. Mehmed invited Muslim scientists and astronomers such as Ali Qushji and artists to his court in Constantinople, started a university, and built mosques (for example, the Fatih Mosque), waterways, and Istanbul's Topkapı Palace and the Tiled Kiosk. Around the grand mosque that he constructed, he erected eight madrasas, which, for nearly a century, kept their rank as the highest teaching institutions of the Islamic sciences in the empire.
Mehmed II allowed his subjects a considerable degree of religious freedom, provided they were obedient to his rule. After his conquest of Bosnia in 1463, he issued the Ahdname of Milodraž to the Bosnian Franciscans, granting them the freedom to move freely within the Empire, offer worship in their churches and monasteries, and practice their religion free from official and unofficial persecution, insult, or disturbance.[96][97] However, his standing army was recruited from the Devshirme, a group that took Christian subjects at a young age (8–20 yrs): they were converted to Islam, then schooled for administration or the military Janissaries. This was a meritocracy which "produced from among their alumni four out of five Grand Viziers from this time on".[98]
Within Constantinople, Mehmed established a millet, or an autonomous religious community, and appointed the former Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius as religious leader for the Orthodox Christians[99] of the city. His authority extended to all Ottoman Orthodox Christians, and this excluded the Genoese and Venetian settlements in the suburbs, and excluded Muslim and Jewish settlers entirely. This method allowed for an indirect rule of the Christian Byzantines and allowed the occupants to feel relatively autonomous even as Mehmed II began the Turkish remodeling of the city, turning it into the Turkish capital, which it remained until the 1920s.
Return to Constantinople (1453–1478)
After conquering Constantinople, when Mehmed II finally entered the city through what is now known as the Topkapi Gate, he immediately rode his horse to the Hagia Sophia, where he ordered the building to be protected. He ordered that an imam meet him there in order to chant the Muslim Creed: "I testify that there is no god but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."[100] The Orthodox cathedral was transformed into a Muslim mosque through a charitable trust, solidifying Islamic rule in Constantinople.
Mehmed's main concern with Constantinople was with rebuilding the city's defenses and repopulation. Building projects were commenced immediately after the conquest, which included the repair of the walls, construction of the citadel, a remarkable hospital with students and medical staff, a large cultural complex, two sets of barracks for the janissaries, a tophane gun foundry outside Galata, and a new palace.[101][102] To encourage the return of the Greeks and the Genoese who had fled from Galata, the trading quarter of the city, he returned their houses and provided them with guarantees of safety. Mehmed issued orders across his empire that Muslims, Christians, and Jews should resettle in the city, demanding that five thousand households needed to be transferred to Constantinople by September.[101] From all over the Islamic empire, prisoners of war and deported people were sent to the city; these people were called "Sürgün" in Turkish (Greek: σουργούνιδες sourgounides; "immigrants").[103]
Mehmed restored the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate (6 January 1454), appointing the monk Gennadios as the first Orthodox Patriarch.[104] He also appointed a grand rabbi (Hakham Bashi), Moses Capsali, but it is not clear whether the rabbi's authority extended over all the Jews of the empire or only those living in Constantinople. Mehmed was also reputed to have established the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, but this is merely a legend; the Armenian patriarchate was not created until sometime between 1526 and 1543.[105] Older scholarship credited Mehmed with the creation of the millet system, a framework by which non-Muslim religious groups were granted fiscal and legal autonomy through their respective religious institutions. More recent scholarship considers these claims to be exaggerated,[106] although a degree of autonomy was definitely granted to these communities in the 1400s and 1500s.[107] The more centralized form of the millets is now regarded as a product of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[108]
In addition, he founded, and encouraged his viziers to found, a number of Muslim institutions and commercial installations in the main districts of Constantinople, such as the Rum Mehmed Pasha Mosque built by the Grand Vizier Rum Mehmed Pasha. From these nuclei, the metropolis developed rapidly. According to a survey carried out in 1478, there were then in Constantinople and neighboring Galata 16,324 households, 3,927 shops, and an estimated population of 80,000.[109] The population was about 60% Muslim, 20% Christian, and 10% Jewish.[110]
By the end of his reign, Mehmed's ambitious rebuilding program had changed the city into a thriving imperial capital.[16] According to the contemporary Ottoman historian Neşri, "Sultan Mehmed created all of Istanbul".[16] Fifty years later, Constantinople had again become the largest city in Europe.
Two centuries later, the well-known Ottoman itinerant Evliya Çelebi gave a list of groups introduced into the city with their respective origins. Even today, many quarters of Istanbul, such as Aksaray and Çarşamba, bear the names of the places of origin of their inhabitants.[103] However, many people escaped again from the city, and there were several outbreaks of plague, so that in 1459 Mehmed allowed the deported Greeks to come back to the city.[103] This measure apparently had no great success, since French voyager Pierre Gilles wrote in the middle of the 16th century that the Greek population of Constantinople was unable to name any of the ancient Byzantine churches that had been transformed into mosques or abandoned. This shows that the population substitution had been total.[111]
Centralization of government
Mehmed the Conqueror consolidated power by building his imperial court, the divan, with officials who would be solely loyal to him and allow him greater autonomy and authority. Under previous sultans the divan had been filled with members of aristocratic families that sometimes had other interests and loyalties than that of the sultan. Mehmed the Conqueror transitioned the empire away from the Ghazi mentality that emphasizes ancient traditions and ceremonies in governance[112] and moved it towards a centralized bureaucracy largely made of officials of devşirme background.[112] Additionally, Mehmed the Conqueror took the step of converting the religious scholars who were part of the Ottoman madrasas into salaried employees of the Ottoman bureaucracy who were loyal to him.[112] This centralization was possible and formalized through a kanunname, issued during 1477–1481, which for the first time listed the chief officials in the Ottoman government, their roles and responsibilities, salaries, protocol and punishments, as well as how they related to each other and the sultan.[113]
Once Mehmed had created an Ottoman bureaucracy and transformed the empire from a frontier society to a centralized government, he took care to appoint officials who would help him implement his agenda. His first grand vizier was Zaganos Pasha, who was of devşirme background as opposed to an aristocrat,[114] and Zaganos Pasha's successor, Mahmud Pasha Angelović, was also of devşirme background.[115] Mehmed was the first sultan who was able to codify and implement kanunname solely based on his own independent authority.[114] Additionally, Mehmed was able to later implement kanunname that went against previous tradition or precedent.[112] This was monumental in an empire that was so steeped in tradition and could be slow to change or adapt. Having viziers and other officials who were loyal to Mehmed was an essential part of this government because he transferred more power to the viziers than previous sultans had. He delegated significant powers and functions of government to his viziers as part of his new policy of imperial seclusions.[116] A wall was built around the palace as an element of the more closed era, and unlike previous sultans Mehmed was no longer accessible to the public or even lower officials. His viziers directed the military and met foreign ambassadors, two essential parts of governing especially with his numerous military campaigns.[117] One such notable ambassador was Kinsman Karabœcu Pasha (Turkish: "Karaböcü Kuzen Paşa"), who came from a rooted family of spies, which enabled him to play a notable role in Mehmed's campaign of conquering Constantinople.[118][failed verification]
Interest in Western culture
Aside from his efforts to expand Ottoman dominion throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, Mehmed II also cultivated a large collection of Western art and literature, many of which were produced by Renaissance artists. From a young age, Mehmed had shown interest in Renaissance art and Classical literature and histories, with his school books having caricaturistic illustrations of ancient coins and portraiture sketched in distinctly European styles. Furthermore, he reportedly had two tutors, one trained in Greek and another in Latin, who read him Classical histories, including those of Laertius, Livy, and Herodotus, in the days leading up to the fall of Constantinople.[119]
From early on in his reign, Mehmed invested in the patronage of Italian Renaissance artists. His first documented request in 1461 was a commission from artist Matteo de' Pasti, who resided in the court of the lord of Rimini, Sigismondo Malatesta. This first attempt was unsuccessful, though, as Pasti was arrested in Crete by Venetian authorities accusing him of being an Ottoman spy. Later attempts would prove more fruitful, with some notable artists including Costanzo da Ferrara and Gentile Bellini both being invited to the Ottoman court.[119]
Aside from his patronage of Renaissance artists, Mehmed was also an avid scholar of contemporary and Classical literature and history. This interest culminated in Mehmed's work on building a massive multilingual library that contained over 8000 manuscripts in Persian, Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, Latin, and Greek, among other languages.[120] Of note in this large collection was Mehmed's Greek scriptorium, which included copies of Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander the Great and Homer's Iliad.[119] His interest in Classical works extended in many directions, including the patronage of the Greek writer Kritiboulos of Imbros, who produced the Greek manuscript History of Mehmed the Conqueror, alongside his efforts to salvage and rebind Greek manuscripts acquired after his conquest of Constantinople.[121]
Historians believe that Mehmed's widespread cultural and artistic tastes, especially those aimed towards the West, served various important diplomatic and administrative functions. His patronage of Renaissance artists have been interpreted as a method of diplomacy with other influential Mediterranean states, significantly many Italian states including the Kingdom of Naples and the Republic of Florence.[120] Furthermore, historians speculate that his Greek scriptorium was used to educate Greek chancellery officials in an attempt to reintegrate former Byzantine diplomatic channels with several Italian states that conducted their correspondences in Greek.[121] Importantly, historians also assert that Mehmed's vast collection of art and literature worked towards promoting his imperial authority and legitimacy, especially in his newly conquered lands. This was accomplished through various means, including the invocation of Mehmed's image as an Oriental neo-Alexandrian figure, which is seen through shared helmet ornaments in depictions of Mehmed and Alexander on medallion portraits produced during Mehmed's reign, as well as being a leitmotiv in Kritiboulous' work.[122][123] Additionally, his commissioning of Renaissance artwork was, itself, possibly an attempt to break down Western-Oriental cultural binaries in order for Mehmed to present himself as a Western-oriented ruler, among the ranks of contemporary European Christian monarchs.[121]
Collection of Christian art and relics
A significant part of Mehmed II's foray into Western culture was his collection of Christian artwork and relics. The sultan obtained the relics after his conquest of Constantinople, when he ordered that all the relics in the local churches be brought to him.[124] Among these relics were the putative skull and arm bone of St. John the Baptist and a stone on which, purportedly, Jesus was born.[125] The relics were indeed very dear to him, as evidenced in a few anecdotes. For example, the sultan became "greatly distressed" when the royal librarian stepped on the aforementioned stone to reach a book high on a shelf. Again, after the Venetians had offered to purchase the same stone for 30,000 ducats, Mehmed replied that he would not sell it for even 100,000 ducats. This is confirmed by Guillaume Caoursin, a contemporary of the sultan, who writes that he would not sell any of his relics, for they were "more precious than money." Sources even indicate that Mehmed lit candles in front of the relics of St. John the Baptist "as a sign of veneration."[124] In addition to Christian relics, Mehmed also maintained an interest in Christian artwork. The Hagia Sophia is a significant example, for, upon conquering Constantinople, Mehmed preserved the mosaics that it contained, which can still be seen today.[126] Mehmed also himself commissioned a painting of the Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus, as two independent Italian sources report.
Purpose of the collection
Franz Babinger, a German orientalist, writes that Mehmed used these relics "for purposes of bargaining with Christians."[127] However, Julian Raby, Oxford lecturer on Islamic art and director emeritus of the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, argues the purpose of the collection is more unclear, mentioning that Niccolò Sagundino, a contemporary, writes of two conflicting opinions, the first being Babinger's and the second being that it expressed Mehmed's "sincere devotion."[128]
Reaction to the collection
Mehmed's collection of Christian art and relics brought about various reactions from his contemporaries. Along with his general openness to Christianity, Mehmed's collection was a cause of an unfulfilled hope of some in the West that he would convert to Christianity. His son and successor, Bayezid II, suspected similarly, accusing Mehmed of "not believing in Muhammad." Although Mehmed's interest in Christianity and Christian culture caused concern among traditionalist factions, Gülru Necipoğlu writes, the sources written in Islamic languages do not support "such a perception of Mehmed's irreligiosity."[126] Upon his accession to the sultanate, Bayezid, who hated "figural images of any sort," sold his father's art collection and also offered the relics to the rulers of Rhodes, France, and Italy as ransom for his brother, Cem.[129]
Family
._Human_Physiognomy_Concerning_the_Personal_Dispositions_of_the_Ottomans,_1579_(TSMK_H.1563).jpg)
Mehmed II had at least eight known consorts, at least one of whom was his legal wife.
Consorts
Mehmed II's eight known consorts are:[130]
- Gülbahar Hatun[131] Mother of Bayezid II.
- Gülşah Hatun. Mother of Şehzade Mustafa.
- Sittişah Mukrime Hatun.[132] Also known as Sitti Hatun. She was the daughter of Dulkadiroğlu Süleyman Bey, the sixth ruler of Dulkadir. She was his legal wife, and it is believed that she had no children. Her niece Ayşe Hatun, her brother’s daughter, became a consort of Bayezid II.[130]
- Çiçek Hatun. Mother of Şehzade Cem.
- Anna Hatun. Daughter of the Greek emperor of Trebizond David II Komnenos and his wife Helena Kantakuzenos. The marriage was initially proposed by her father, but Mehmed refused.[130] However, after the conquest of Trebizond in 1461, Anna entered Mehmed's harem as a "noble tribute" or "noble guest" and stayed there for two years, after which Mehmed married her to Zaganos Mehmed Pasha.
- Helena Hatun (1442–1469). Daughter of the despot of Morea Demetrios Palaiologos, Mehmed asked her for himself after the Morea campaign, having heard of her beauty. However, the union was never consummated because Mehmed feared that she might poison him.
- Maria Hatun. Born Maria Gattilusio, she was the widow of Alexander Komnenos Asen, brother of Anna Hatun's father and by him she had a son, Alexios, executed by Mehmed II. She was judicated as the most beautiful woman of her age and entered in the harem after her capture in 1462.[133]
- Hatice Hatun. daughter of Zaganos Mehmed Pasha and his first wife, Sitti Nefise Hatun. She entered the harem in 1453 and Mehmed divorced her in 1456[130][134]
Sons
Mehmed II had at least four sons:[135][134]
- Bayezid II (3 December 1447 – 10 June 1512) – son of Gülbahar Hatun. He succeeded his father as the Ottoman Sultan.
- Şehzade Mustafa (1450, Manisa – 25 December 1474, Konya) – son of Gülşah Hatun. Governor of Konya until his death. He was the favorite son of his father.
- Şehzade Cem (22 December 1459, Constantinople – 25 February 1495; Capua, Kingdom of Naples, Italy) – son of Çiçek Hatun. Governor of Konya after the death of his brother Mustafa, he fought for the throne against his half-brother Bayezid. He died in exile.
- Şehzade Nureddin. Probably died as an infant.
Daughters
Mehmed II had at least four daughters:[136][134]
- Gevherhan Hatun (1446 – Constantinople, 1514) – daughter of Gülbahar Hatun. She was the mother of Sultan Ahmad Beg.
- Ayşe Hatun [134][137]
- Kamerhan Hatun. She married her cousin Hasan Bey, son of Candaroğlu Kemaleddin İsmail Bey and Hatice Hatun, full-sister of Mehmed II. They had a daughter, Hanzade Hatun.
- Fülane Hatun.
Policy regarding fratricide
His grandfather, Mehmed I, struggled over the throne with his brothers Süleyman, İsa, and Musa during the Ottoman Interregnum. This civil war lasted eight years and weakened the empire due to the casualties it inflicted and the division it sowed in Ottoman society. As a result, Mehmed II formally legalized the practice of fratricide in order to preserve the state and not further place strain on the unity as previous civil wars did. Mehmed II stated, "Of any of my sons that ascends the throne, it is acceptable for him to kill his brothers for the common benefit of the people (nizam-i alem). The majority of the ulama (Muslim scholars) have approved this; let action be taken accordingly". From that time, until the practice declined during the reigns of Ahmed I and Ibrahim I, each sultan, upon ascending the throne, ordered the execution of his brothers and all their male descendants.[138]
Personal life
Mehmed had a strong interest in ancient Greek and medieval Byzantine civilization. His heroes were Achilles and Alexander the Great and he could discuss Christian religion with some authority.[9] He was reputed to be fluent in several languages, including Turkish, Serbian, Arabic, Persian, Greek and Latin.[139][140][141]
At times, he assembled the ulama, or learned Muslim teachers, and caused them to discuss theological problems in his presence. During his reign, mathematics, astronomy, and theology reached their highest level among the Ottomans. His social circle included a number of humanists and sages such as Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli of Ancona, Benedetto Dei of Florence and Michael Critobulus of Imbros,[118] who mentions Mehmed as a Philhellene thanks to his interest in Grecian antiquities and relics. It was on his orders that the Parthenon and other Athenian monuments were spared destruction. Besides, Mehmed II himself was a poet writing under the name "Avni" (the helper, the helpful one) and he left a classical diwan poetry collection.
Some sources claim that Mehmed had a passion for his hostage and favourite, Radu the Fair.[142] Young men condemned to death were spared and added to Mehmed's seraglio if he found them attractive, and the Porte went to great lengths to procure young noblemen for him.[143]
Death and legacy
In 1481 Mehmed marched with the Ottoman army, but upon reaching Maltepe, Istanbul, he became ill. He was just beginning new campaigns to capture Rhodes and southern Italy, however according to some historians his next voyage was planned to overthrow the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and to capture Egypt and claim the caliphate.[144] But after some days he died, on 3 May 1481, at the age of forty-nine, and was buried in his türbe near the Fatih Mosque complex.[145] According to the historian Colin Heywood, "there is substantial circumstantial evidence that Mehmed was poisoned, possibly at the behest of his eldest son and successor, Bayezid."[146]
The news of Mehmed's death caused great rejoicing in Europe; church bells were rung, and celebrations held. The news was proclaimed in Venice thus: "La Grande Aquila è morta!" ('The Great Eagle is dead!')[147][148]
Mehmed II is recognized as the first sultan to codify criminal and constitutional law, long before Suleiman the Magnificent; he thus established the classical image of the autocratic Ottoman sultan. Mehmed's thirty-year rule and numerous wars expanded the Ottoman Empire to include Constantinople, the Turkish kingdoms and territories of Asia Minor, Bosnia, Serbia, and Albania. Mehmed left behind an imposing reputation in both the Islamic and Christian worlds. According to historian Franz Babinger, Mehmed was regarded as a bloodthirsty tyrant by the Christian world and by a part of his subjects.[149]
Istanbul's Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (completed 1988), which crosses the Bosporus Straits, is named after him, and his name and picture appeared on the Turkish 1000 lira note from 1986 to 1992.[150][better source needed][151]
Portrayal in popular culture
- Mehmed is the eponymous subject of Rossini's 1820 opera, Maometto II. Rossini and librettist Cesare della Valle offer a nuanced picture of Mehmed, portraying him as a fearless and magnanimous leader, even on the verge of conquering Negroponte.[152]
- Portrayed by Sami Ayanoğlu in the Turkish film The Conquest of Constantinople (1951)
- Portrayed by Devrim Evin the Turkish film Fetih 1453 (2012). His childhood is portrayed by Ege Uslu.
- Portrayed by Mehmet Akif Alakurt in the Turkish television series Fatih (2013).
- Portrayed by İsmail Hacıoğlu in the Turkish surreal comedy series Osmanlı Tokadı (2013).
- Portrayed by Dominic Cooper in Dracula Untold.
- Portrayed by Kenan İmirzalıoğlu in the Turkish television series Mehmed Bir Cihan Fatihi (2018).
- Portrayed by Cem Yiğit Üzümoğlu in the Netflix docuseries Rise of Empires: Ottoman (2020)
- His childhood is portrayed by Miraç Sözer in web series Kızılelma: Bir Fetih Öyküsü (2023).[153]
- Portrayed by Serkan Çayoğlu in the Turkish television series Mehmed: Sultan of Conquests (2024).[154][155]
- Portrayed by Ulaşcan Kutlu in the Hungarian–Austrian television series about John Hunyadi Rise of the Raven (2024).[156][157]
See also
- Classical Age of the Ottoman Empire
- Decline of the Byzantine Empire
- Kashifi (author of the Ḡazā-nāma-ye Rum)
References
Citations
- Cihan Yüksel Muslu (2014). The Ottomans and the Mamluks: Imperial Diplomacy and Warfare in the Islamic World. p. 118.
Mehmed presented himself to the world as The Sultan of two lands and the Khan of two seas
- Gustav Bayerle (1997). Pashas, Begs, and Effendis: A Historical Dictionary of Titles and Terms in the Ottoman Empire. Isis Press. p. 150.
- The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500. Archived 18 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine By William J. Duiker, Jackson J. Spielvogel
- The Rise of Turkey: The Twenty-First Century's First Muslim Power Archived 18 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine. By Soner Cagaptay
- Robert Dankoff; Robert Elsie (2023). Evliyā Çelebi in Albania and Adjacent Regions (Kosovo, Montenegro, Ohrid): The Relevant Sections of the Seyahatname. p. 46.
- Nicolle 2000, p. 85.
- Freely, John (2009). The Grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II – Conqueror of Constantinople, Master of an Empire and Lord of Two Seas. I.B. Tauris. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-84511-704-7. Archived from the original on 12 October 2020. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
- Babinger, Franz (1978). Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6. Archived from the original on 12 October 2020. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
- Nicolle 2000, p. 19.
- "Bosphorus (i.e. Bosporus), View from Kuleli, Constantinople, Turkey". World Digital Library. 1890–1900. Archived from the original on 20 October 2013. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
- Nicolle 2000, p. 91.
- Nicolle 2000, p. 9.
- Erhan Afyoncu, (2009), Truvanın İntikamı (ISBN 978-605-4052-11-0), p. 2, (In Turkish)
- Silburn, P. A. B. (1912).
- "Byzantium: A Tale of Three Cities". BBC Four. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- Stavrides 2001, p. 23.
- Arnold 2001, p. 111.
- The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Jim Bradbury, p. 68
- Stavrides 2001, p. 22.
- East and West in the Crusader States: Krijna Nelly Ciggaar, Adelbert Davids, Herman G. B. Teule, p. 51
- The Lord of the Panther-Skin, Shota Rustaveli, p. xiii
- Şahin, K. (2010), "Constantinople and the End Time: The Ottoman Conquest as a Portent of the Last Hour", Journal of Early Modern History, 14 (4): 317–354, doi:10.1163/157006510X512223
- "Milliyet İnternet – Pazar". Milliyet.com.tr. 19 December 2004. Archived from the original on 31 October 2007. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- "Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453–1924". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 24 July 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- Crowley, Roger (2009). Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453. Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0571250790.
- "Gennadios II Scholarios | patriarch of Constantinople". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 31 October 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- "List of Ecumenical Patriarchs – The Ecumenical Patriarchate". www.patriarchate.org. Archived from the original on 2 July 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- Lowry, Heath W. (2003). The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. pp. 115–116.
- Michael Wood (1985). In Search of the Trojan War. University of California Press. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-0-520-21599-3. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
- Kader Konuk (2010). East West Mimesis: Auerbach in Turkey. Stanford University Press. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-0-8047-7575-5. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
- John Freely (2009). The Grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II – Conqueror of Constantinople and Master of an Empire. Overlook. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-1-59020-449-8. Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
- Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı (2019). Osmanlı Tarihi Cilt II [History of the Ottomans Volume II] (in Turkish). Türk Tarih Kurumu. pp. 13–18. ISBN 9789751600127.
- Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, Romania and the Turks Pt. XIII p. 837-840, "First Serbian Campaigns of Mehemmed II (1454-1455)"
- Ibn Kemal, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, VII. Defter, ed. Ş. Turan, 1957, pp. 109-118
- Jorga, Nicolae (2018). Büyük Türk - Fatih Sultan Mehmed (in Turkish). Yeditepe Yayınevi. pp. 73–84. ISBN 9786052070383.
- Muresanu, Camil (2018). John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom. Center for Romanian Studies. p. 205. ISBN 9781592111152.
- Babinger, Franz (2003). Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Zamanı [Mehmed the Conqueror and His Times] (in Turkish). Oğlak Yayıncılık. p. 109. ISBN 975-329-417-4.
- Türkmen, İlhan (5 January 2015). "The Campaigns Against Serbia During the Reign of Mehmed the Conqueror per Ottoman Chronicles". Asia Minor Studies - International Journal of Social Sciences. 3 (5): 115–132 – via Dergipark.
- Babinger, Franz (2003). Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Zamanı [Mehmed the Conqueror and His Times] (in Turkish). Oğlak Yayıncılık. pp. 132–137. ISBN 975-329-417-4.
- Setton, Kenneth M. (1989). A History of the Crusades Volume VI. University of Wisconsin Press. pp. 323–325. ISBN 0-299-10740-X.
- Tansel, Selahattin (1953). Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in Siyasi ve Askeri Faaliyeti [Mehmed the Conqueror's Political and Military Activity per Ottoman Sources] (in Turkish). Türk Tarih Kurumu. pp. 122–123. ISBN 9789751610812.
- Mureşanu, Camil (2021). John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom. Histria Books. pp. 221–224. ISBN 978-1-59211-115-2.
The janissaries, however, were still fighting vigorously. Mehmed II, although wounded by an arrow in his calf, stayed among them... Mehmed repelled the troops that had penetrated into his camp
- Mixson, James D. (2022). The Crusade of 1456: Texts and Documentation in Translation. University of Toronto Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-4875-3262-8.
- Jorga, Nicolae (2018). Büyük Türk - Fatih Sultan Mehmed (in Turkish). Yeditepe Yayınevi. pp. 93–97. ISBN 9786052070383.
- Uzunçarşılı 2019, p. 20.
- Tansel 1953, p. 130.
- Tansel 1953, p. 131.
- Aşıkpaşazade, Ahmed (2003). Yavuz, Kemal (ed.). Osmanoğulları'nın Tarihi [Aşıkpaşazade's History of the Ottomans] (in Turkish). K Kitaplığı. pp. 228–229. ISBN 975-296-043-X.
- "SEMENDİRE". TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (in Turkish). Retrieved 14 September 2024.
- Miller, William (1896). The Balkans: Roumania, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro. London: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 978-0836999655. Archived from the original on 29 April 2016. Retrieved 8 February 2011.
- Babinger 1992, pp. 125–126.
- "Contemporary Copy of the Letter of Mehmet II to the Greek Archons 26 December 1454 (ASV Documenti Turchi B.1/11)" (PDF). Angiolello.net. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 July 2013. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
- Babinger 1992, pp. 173–175.
- Babinger 1992, pp. 176–177.
- Babinger 1992, p. 193.
- Babinger 1992.
- "Vlad the Impaler second rule [3]". Exploringromania.com. Archived from the original on 8 June 2009. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
- Babinger 1992, pp. 204–205.
- Dracula: Prince of many faces – His life and his times p. 147
- Babinger 1992, p. 207.
- Fine 1994, pp. 575–581.
- Setton 1978, p. 241
- Finkel 2007, p. 63
- Shaw 1976, p. 65
- Setton 1978, p. 248
- Setton 1978, p. 250
- Setton, Hazard & Norman (1969), p. 326
- Setton 1978, p. 270
- Setton 1978, p. 251
- Setton 1978, p. 273
- Setton 1978, p. 283
- Spyridon Trikoupis, Istoria tis Ellinikis Epanastaseos (London, 1853–1857) Vol 2, pp. 84–85
- Setton 1978, p. 284
- Setton (1978), pp. 284–285
- Finkel 2007, p. 64
- "1474 | George Merula: The Siege of Shkodra". Albanianhistory.net. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
- Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: Alexander Mikaberidze, p. 917, 2011
- The Encyclopedia of World History (2001) – Venice Archived 5 July 2007 at the Wayback Machine "The great war against the Turks (See 1463–79). Negroponte was lost (1470). The Turks throughout maintained the upper hand and at times raided to the very outskirts of Venice. In the Treaty of Constantinople (1479), the Venetians gave up Scutari and other Albanian stations, as well as Negroponte and Lemnos. Thenceforth the Venetians paid an annual tribute for permission to trade in the Black Sea."
- Prof. Yaşar Yüce-Prof. Ali Sevim: Türkiye tarihi Cilt I, Akdtykttk Yayınları, İstanbul, 1991 pp. 256–257 ISBN 975-16-0258-0
- Prof. Yaşar Yüce-Prof. Ali Sevim: Türkiye tarihi Cilt I, Akdtyttk Yayınları, İstanbul, 1991 pp. 256–258. ISBN 975-16-0258-0
- "Karamanogullari Beyligi". Enfal.de. Archived from the original on 28 September 2013. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
- The A to Z of Moldova, Andrei Brezianu, Vlad Spânu, p. 273, 2010
- The A to Z of Moldova, Andrei Brezianu, Vlad Spânu, p. 242, 2010
- Mihai Bărbulescu, Dennis_Deletant, Keith_Hitchins, Șerban_Papacostea, Pompiliu Teodor, Istoria României (History of Romania), Ed. Corint, Bucharest, 2002, ISBN 973-653-215-1, p. 157 [dead link]
- Shaw, Stanford J (1976). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol. 1: Empire of Gazis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 68. ISBN 0-521-29163-1.
- (in Romanian) Akademia, Rolul distinctiv al artileriei în marile oști moldovenești Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine (The special role of artillery in the larger Moldavian armies), April 2000
- (in Romanian) Jurnalul Național, Calendar 26 iulie 2005.Moment istoric (Anniversaries on 26 July 2005. A historical moment)
- Setton, Hazard & Norman (1969), p. 327
- Setton 1978, p. 278
- Pulaha, Selami. Lufta shqiptaro-turke në shekullin XV. Burime osmane. Tirana: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë dhe Gjuhësisë, 1968, p. 72
- Subtelny, Orest (2000). Ukraine: A History. University of Toronto Press. p. 78. ISBN 0-8020-8390-0.
- "Soldier Khan". Avalanchepress.com. Archived from the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
- "Mehmed II | Bellini, Gentile | V&A Search the Collections". collections.vam.ac.uk. 1480. Archived from the original on 9 April 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- "Gentile Bellini | The Sultan Mehmet II | NG3099 | National Gallery, London". www.nationalgallery.org.uk. Archived from the original on 9 April 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- Brown, Patricia Fortini (1994). Venetian Narrative Painting in the Age of Carpaccio (3 ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0300047431. Archived from the original on 9 April 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- "Croatia and Ottoman Empire, Ahdnama, Sultan Mehmet II". Croatianhistory.net. Archived from the original on 18 March 2016. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
- "A Culture of Peaceful Coexistence: The Ottoman Turkish Example; by Prof. Dr. Ekmeleddin IHSANOGLU". Light Millennium. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
- The Ottoman Centuries Lord Kinross
- Renaissance and Reformation: James Patrick, p. 170, 2007
- Lewis, Bernard. Istanbul and the Civilization if the Ottoman Empire. 1, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. p. 6
- Inalcik, Halil. "The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City". Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23, (1969): 229–249. p. 236
- Nicolle 2000, p. 84.
- Müller-Wiener 1977, p. 28
- Nicolle 2000, p. 17.
- Veinstein 2012, p. 322.
- Braude 2014, pp. 15–16.
- Veinstein 2012, p. 323.
- Adanir & Faroqhi 2002, p. 28–29.
- The Ottomans and the Balkans: Fikret Adanır, Suraiya Faroqhi, p. 358, 2002
- A History of Islamic Societies, Ira M. Lapidus, p. 272, 2002
- Mamboury 1953, p. 99.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Architectural History Foundation. p. 21.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Architectural History Foundation. p. 16.
- İnalcık, Halil (1991). "Meḥemmed II". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. & Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume VI: Mahk–Mid. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-08112-3.
- Babinger 1992, p. 114.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Architectural History Foundation. p. 15.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth Centuries. Architectural History Foundation. p. 18.
- "Europe and the Turks: The Civilization of the Ottoman Empire | History Today". www.historytoday.com. Archived from the original on 12 May 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- Raby, J. (1 January 1982). "A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the Arts". Oxford Art Journal. 5 (1): 3–8. doi:10.1093/oxartj/5.1.3. ISSN 0142-6540.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1 January 2012). "Visual Cosmopolitanism and Creative Translation: Artistic Conversations with Renaissance Italy in Mehmed Ii's Constantinople". Muqarnas Online. 29 (1): 1–81. doi:10.1163/22118993-90000183. ISSN 0732-2992.
- Raby, Julian (1983). "Mehmed the Conqueror's Greek Scriptorium". Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 37: 15–34. doi:10.2307/1291474. JSTOR 1291474.
- Akkoc, Yunus; Gozuacik, Devrim (18 October 2018). "Autophagy and liver cancer". The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology. 29 (3): 270–282. doi:10.5152/tjg.2018.150318. ISSN 1300-4948. PMC 6284658. PMID 29755011.
- "Circular Definitions", Ladies Errant, Duke University Press, 1998, pp. 17–44, doi:10.1215/9780822399896-002, ISBN 978-0-8223-2155-2
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, ceremonial, and power: the Topkapi Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. New York, N.Y. : Cambridge, Mass: Architectural History Foundation; MIT Press. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-262-14050-8.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, ceremonial, and power: the Topkapi Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. New York, N.Y. : Cambridge, Mass: Architectural History Foundation; MIT Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-262-14050-8.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (2012). "Visual Cosmopolitanism and Creative Translation: Artistic Conversations with Renaissance Italy in Mehmed II's Constantinople". Muqarnas. 29: 15. JSTOR 23350362.
- Babinger, Franz (1978). Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Bollingen series (in English and German). Bollingen Foundation Collection (Library of Congress). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. p. 411. ISBN 978-0-691-09900-2.
- RABY, JULIAN (1 January 1982). "A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the Arts". Oxford Art Journal. 5 (1): 5. doi:10.1093/oxartj/5.1.3. ISSN 0142-6540.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, ceremonial, and power: the Topkapi Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. New York, N.Y. : Cambridge, Mass: Architectural History Foundation; MIT Press. p. 138. ISBN 978-0-262-14050-8.
- Necdet Sakaoğlu (2008). Bu mülkün kadın sultanları: Vâlide sultanlar, hâtunlar, hasekiler, kadınefendiler, sultanefendiler. Oğlak publications. pp. 151 ISBN 978-9-753-29623-6
- Babinger 1992, p. 51.
- Wedding portrait, Nauplion.net
- Babinger 1992, p. 230
- Alderson, The structure of the Ottoman Dynasty [page needed]
- Uluçay 2011, pp. 39, 42
- Leslie P. Peirce (1993). The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. Oxford University Press. pp. 303–304 n. 51. ISBN 978-0-195-08677-5.
- İnalcık, Halil. "Mehmed II". TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi.
- Ekinci, Ekrem (7 August 2015). "The history of fratricide in the Ottoman Empire – Part 1". Daily Sabah. Archived from the original on 27 October 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
- Norwich, John Julius (1995). Byzantium: The Decline and Fall. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 81–82. ISBN 0-679-41650-1.
- Runciman, Steven (1965). The Fall of Constantinople: 1453. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 56. ISBN 0-521-39832-0.
- sitesi, milliyet.com.tr Türkiye'nin lider haber. "Fatih, Hakan ve Roma Kayzeri | İlber Ortaylı | Milliyet.com.tr". Milliyet Haber – Türkiye'nin Haber Sitesi. Archived from the original on 23 April 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- Babinger 1992, p. 207
- Marios Philippides; Walter K. Hanak (2011). The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 255–256. ISBN 978-1-4094-1064-5.
- "Memlûkler". Güncel Kaynağın Merkezi (in Turkish). 6 January 2015. Archived from the original on 13 January 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- "Fatih Mosque". Islamic Landmarks. 26 June 2014. Archived from the original on 25 February 2020. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
- Heywood, Colin (2009). "Mehmed II". In Ágoston, Gábor; Bruce Masters (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. p. 368.
- The Grand Turk: John Freely, p. 180, 2009
- Minorities and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, Salâhi Ramadan Sonyel, p. 14, 1993
- Babinger 1992, p. 432.
- تاريخ الدولة العليّة العثمانية، تأليف: الأستاذ محمد فريد بك المحامي، تحقيق: الدكتور إحسان حقي، دار النفائس، الطبعة العاشرة: 1427 هـ – 2006 م، صفحة:178–177 ISBN 9953-18-084-9
- Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey Archived 15 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine. Banknote Museum: 7. Emission Group – One Thousand Turkish Lira – I. Series Archived 16 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine & II. Series Archived 16 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine. – Retrieved on 20 April 2009.
- Tommasini, Anthony (30 July 2012). "A Rossini Masterwork Ahead of Its Time". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
- "Kızılelma: Bir Fetih Öyküsü". 11 May 2023. Archived from the original on 3 December 2023. Retrieved 28 November 2023.
- "Mehmed: Fetihler Sultanı Mehmed kimdir? Serkan Çayoğlu kaç yaşında, hangi dizilerde oynadı?". Archived from the original on 7 March 2024. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
- "En çok 'Fatih'e duygulanıyor". 5 October 2013. Archived from the original on 7 March 2024. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
- "Rise of the Raven". Hunyadi - Rise of the Raven (in Hungarian). Retrieved 23 September 2025.
- "Rise of the Raven | Serendipity Point Films". My Site. Retrieved 23 September 2025.
Sources
- Adanir, Fikret; Faroqhi, Suraiya, eds. (2002). The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-11902-7.
- Arnold, Thomas (2001). The Renaissance at War. Cassell & Co. ISBN 0-304-35270-5.
- Braude, Benjamin (2014). Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (Abridged ed.). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58826-889-1.
- Nicolle, David (2000). Constantinople 1453: The End of Byzantium. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-091-9.
- Babinger, Franz (1992) [1978]. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Bollingen Series 96. Translated from the German by Ralph Manheim. Edited, with a preface, by William C. Hickman (1992 ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-09900-6.
- Fine, John V. A. Jr. (1994) [1987]. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10079-8.
- Finkel, Caroline (2005). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02396-7.
- Dyer, T. H.; Hassall, A. (1901). A History of Modern Europe From the Fall of Constantinople. London: G. Bell and Sons.
- Finkel, Caroline (2007). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02396-7.
- Fredet, Peter (1888). Modern History; From the Coming of Christ and Change of the Roman Republic into an Empire, to the Year of Our Lord. Baltimore: J. Murphy & Co.
- Harris, Jonathan (2010). The End of Byzantium. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11786-8.
- İnalcık, Halil (1960). "Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time". Speculum. 35 (3): 408–427. doi:10.2307/2849734. ISSN 0038-7134. JSTOR 2849734. Review of Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit, Weltenstürmer einer Zeitenwende by Franz Babinger (Munich, 1953).
- Imber, Colin (2009). The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: The Structure of Power (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-57451-9.
- Mamboury, Ernest (1953). The Tourists' Istanbul. Istanbul: Çituri Biraderler Basımevi.
- Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang (1977). Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17 Jh (in German). Tübingen: Wasmuth. ISBN 978-3-8030-1022-3.
- Necipoğlu, Gülru (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Architectural History Foundation.
- Philippides, Marios (1990). Emperors, Patriarchs, and Sultans of Constantinople, 1373–1513: An Anonymous Greek Chronicle of the Sixteenth Century. Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press. ISBN 0-917653-16-5.
- Setton, Kenneth M. (1978). The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Volume II: The Fifteenth Century. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-127-2.
- Silburn, P. A. B. (1912). The Evolution of Sea-Power. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
- Stavrides, Théoharis (2001). The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453–1474). Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12106-5.
- Veinstein, Gilles (2012). "Religious Institutions, Policies and Lives". In Faroqhi, Suraiya N.; Fleet, Kate (eds.). The Cambridge History of Turkey. Cambridge University Press. pp. 320–355. doi:10.1017/cho9781139049047.015. ISBN 978-0-521-62094-9.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
During the remaining twenty-eight years of Mehmed's reign after the Conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed helped to rebuild and repopulate the entire city, and in so doing transformed the former Constantinople -- transformed Istanbul into one of the world's most beautiful and attractive cities, thus reflecting its former glory again. As a generous patron of culture and the arts, the Sultan also commissioned the construction of mosques, schools, colleges, hospitals, and promoted art, architecture and education throughout the Ottoman Empire. At the height of his power, Sultan Mehmed was considered to be the undisputed leader of the Islamic world, and the Ottoman Empire became one of the great superpowers of its time.
Mehmed's large army, consisting of well-paid and professional troops, was feared more than any other military force of the time. And Mehmed's fleet of vessels, which roamed the seas without any opposition, was also considered to be the world's most advaned naval power of the time.
After annexing Greece and venturing as far as Italy, Mehmed effectively became the Muslim world's (and also Europe's) most powerful political and military leader. There is no doubt that Mehmed's thirty-year reign represented a glorious period in the history of Islam. However, it was as the conqueror of Constantinople that Sultan Mehmed II became famous both in the East and the West.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Notable Quotes on Conquest and Ambition
- 2 Sources
Quotes on Leadership and Governance
- 1 Source
Personal and Strategic Reflections
- "To turn away from the enemy is cowardice. Misfortune is the fate of the enemy." Expressing his martial philosophy and courage in battle.
These quotes collectively illustrate Mehmed II’s strategic brilliance, ambition, and vision as a ruler who combined military prowess with cultural and administrative foresight, leaving a lasting legacy in both the Ottoman Empire and world history.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Mehmed II Fatih see Mehmed II
Mehmed the Conqueror see Mehmed II
Mehmet II see Mehmed II
Muhammad II see Mehmed II
Mehmed-i sani see Mehmed II
Fatih Sultan Mehmet see Mehmed II
Mehmed III (b. 1566, Manisa, Ottoman Empire — d. December 22, 1603, Constantinople). Ottoman sultan (r.1595-1603). He was born in Manisa. In 1595, he became sultan after Murad III and inherited a difficult war against Austria that had been started two years earlier. In 1596, Mehmed became directly active in the war, securing victories at Erlau and Hachova. In 1601, the Ottomans seized control over the fortress of Kaniza (today’s Croatia). In 1603, war broke with Persia. However, Mehmed died on December 22 in Istanbul before the war reached a conclusion.
Mehmed’s few years in power did not produce much that would last. Most of his powers went into years of war against Austria – where the Ottomans saw more victories than losses, but little of substance. Tensions inside the empire, especially in Anatolia, did not make things easier for Mehmed. Ottoman institutions declined, and there were many revolts among the many, both peasants and land owners, who were affected by the weakened land tenure system. The sultan was never able to suppress these widespread revolts before his death in 1603.
At the outset of Mehmed’s reign, the war against Austria, already in progress for two years, was accelerated by an alliance between Austria and the Danubian principalities of Moldavia, Transylvania, and Walachia. Following the Ottoman loss of Gran (Esztergom, Hungary) in 1595 to the Christian allies, Mehmed himself participated in the campaign of 1596, which saw the Ottoman conquest of Erlau (Eger) and victory at Hachova (Mező-Kersztes). In 1601, following a continuous war of sieges, the Ottomans took the fortress of Kanizsa.
Meanwhile, in Anatolia, the decline of Ottoman institutions, particularly the land-tenure system, resulted in extensive revolts by the sipahiyan (cavalry based on quasi-feudal land units) and by the peasants, who were oppressed by taxes. While the Ottoman government struggled to suppress these revolts, war with Iran broke out in 1603.
Mehmed ‘Akif (Mehmet Akif Ersoy) (1873, Constantinople - December 27, 1936, Istanbul). Turkish poet, patriot and proponent of Pan-Islamism.
Mehmet Âkif Ersoy (1873, Constantinople - 27 December 1936, Istanbul) was a Turkish poet of Albanian origin from Peć, Kosovo, author, academic, member of parliament, and the poet of the Turkish National Anthem.
Widely regarded as one of the premiere literary minds of his time, Ersoy was further noted for his command of the Turkish language, as well as his patriotism and piousness and his support for the Turkish War of Independence.
As a gesture of gratitude, a framed version of the national anthem typically occupies the wall above the blackboard in the classrooms of every public, as well as most private, schools around Turkey, along with a Turkish flag, a photograph of the country's founding father Atatürk, and a copy of Atatürk's famous inspirational speech to the nation's youth.
Ersoy was born as Mehmet Ragif in Constantinople, Ottoman Empire in 1873 to a conservative family, the son of İpekli Tahir Efendi, an Albanian tutor at Fatih Madrasah, at a time when all institutions of the state were in terminal decline, and major crises and regime changes were underway. His mother, Emine Şerife Hanım, was of mixed Uzbek and Turkish descent. As he was about to complete his education at the Fatih Merkez Rüştiyesi, his father’s death and a fire that destroyed his home, forced Ersoy to interrupt his education and to start working to support his family. He wanted to start a professional career as soon as possible, and he entered the Mülkiye Baytar Mektebi (Veterinary School), and graduated with honors in 1893.
In the same year, Mehmet Akif Ersoy joined the civil service and conducted research on contagious diseases in various locations in Anatolia. During these assignments, in line with his religious inclination, he gave sermons in mosques, and tried to educate the people and to raise their awareness. Along with fellow men-of-letters Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem, Abdülhak Hamit Tarhan and Cenap Şahabettin, which he had met in 1913, he worked for the publication branch of the Müdafaa-i Milliye Heyeti. He soon resigned from his government position and other occupations, and wrote poems and articles for the publication Sırat-ı Müstakim.
During the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmet Akif Ersoy was a fervent patriot. He made important contributions to the struggle for the declaration of the Turkish Republic, and advocated patriotism though speeches that he delivered in many mosques in Anatolia. On November 19, 1920, during a famous speech he gave in Kastamonu’s Nasrullah Mosque, he condemned the Treaty of Sevres, and invited the people to use their faith and guns to fight against Western colonialists. When the publication Sebilürreşat, which was then operating out of Ankara, published this speech, it spread all over the country and was even made into a pamphlet distributed to Turkish soldiers.
However, Mehmet Akif Ersoy earned himself a significant place in the history of the Republic of Turkey as the composer of the lyrics of the Turkish National Anthem. During the session of March 12, 1921, the Turkish Grand National Assembly officially designated his ten-quatrain poem as the lyrics of the national anthem.
During the republican period, Mehmet Akif Ersoy taught history and literature at various universities.
Ersoy temporarily relocated to Cairo due to a family-related matter in 1925, and taught the Turkish language at the University there during his 11-year stay. He caught malaria during a visit to Lebanon and returned to Turkey shortly before his death in 1936.
He was interred in the Edirnekapı Martyr's Cemetery in Istanbul. Mehmet Akif Ersoy is the first person in the history of the Republic of Turkey to have the national anthem performed at his funeral ceremony.
Mehmet Akif Ersoy had abundant knowledge concerning traditional eastern literature. In addition, during the years he was studying at Veterinary school, he enjoyed reading the works of authors such as Victor Hugo, Alphonse de Lamartine, Emile Zola, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Ersoy is best known for his 1911 work entitled Safahat. This volume is a collection of 44 poems of various lengths. The earliest work that appears in this book is dated 1904, but this is unattested, and it is highly likely that the poet, who was 32 on that particular date, composed poems prior to that date.
Ersoy is further noted for writing the lyrics of the Turkish National Anthem, İstiklâl Marşı (The March of Independence in English) – which was adopted in 1921, and is accepted by many Turks as their "National Poet". The lyrics were originally written as a poem in a collection of his writings. Paradoxically, one of his most famous works, a book called Safahat, was not widely read or published until recently. He studied veterinary science at the university.
In addition to his literary merits and his patriotic personality, Ersoy was a deeply pious man who was known on occasion to engage in Tafsir and for the few but particularly well-written poetic translations from the Qur'an that he penned. Ataturk, who admired Ersoy and was deeply impressed with the samples of Tafsir Ersoy provided, asked the poet if he could translate the entire Qur'an into Turkish, as well as provide a commentary on its contents. Although he first accepted the offer, Ersoy soon realized that his command of Islamic theology and his knowledge of classical Arabic was insufficient to provide a thorough, proper and deserving translation of the exquisite Arabic in The Qur'an. To avoid the possible public circulation of a transliteration which might be faulty, he burned the few pages that he worked on, and the job of creating the Turkish Tafsir of the Qur'an was given to one of the greatest theologians and academics of the day, Elmalılı Muhammed Hamdi Yazır, whose work is still regarded as the Tafsir of record in Turkey.
Other works of Ersoy are Süleymaniye Kürsüsünde (At the Chair of Süleymaniye, 1912), Hakkın Sesleri (Voices of God, 1913), Fatih Kürsüsünde (At the Chair of Fatih, 1914), Hatıralar (Memoirs, 1917), Asım (Asım, 1924), Gölgeler (Shadow, 1933), Kastamonu Nasrullah Kürsüsü'nde (At the Kastamonu Nasrullah Chair, 1921), Kur'an'dan Ayet ve Hadisler (Ayat and Hadith from the Koran, 1944).
'Akif, Mehmed see Mehmed ‘Akif
Mehmet Akif Ersoy see Mehmed ‘Akif
Ersoy, Mehmet Akif see Mehmed ‘Akif
Mehmed Emin (Yurdakul) (Mehmet Emin Yurdakul) (1869, Istanbul – January 14, 1944, Istanbul). Turkish poet and patriot. He was the pioneer of modern Turkish poetry in spoken Turkish and syllabic metre.
The notable works of Mehmet Emin Yurdakul are:
* Türkçe Şiirler (1889)
* Fazilet ve Adalet (1890)
* Türk Sazı (Turkish Instrument, 1914)
* Ey Türk Uyan (O Turk Wake Up, 1914)
* Tan Sesleri (Voices of the Dawn, 1915)
* Ordunun Destanı (The Legend of the Army, 1915)
* Dicle Önünde (In Front of Tigris, 1916)
* İsyan ve Dua (The Uprising and the Prayers, 1918)
* Zafer Yolunda (On the Way of Victory, 1918)
* Turan'a Doğru (Towards Turan, 1918)
* Aydın Kızları (Girls of Aydın, 1919)
* Türk'ün Hukuku (The Law of Turk, 1919)
* Dante'ye (To Dante, 1928)
* Kıral Corc'a (To King George, 1928)
* Mustafa Kemal (Mustafa Kemal, 1928)
* Ankara (Ankara, 1939)
Yurdakul see Mehmed Emin
Mehmet Emin Yurdakul see Mehmed Emin
Yurdakul, Mehmet Emin see Mehmed Emin
Mehmed Giray, Derwish (Derwish Mehmed Giray). Member of the Crimean Giray dynasty and historian of the seventeenth century. His chronicle deals with Ottoman and Crimean history from 1682 to 1703.
Derwish Mehmed Giray see Mehmed Giray, Derwish
Giray, Derwish Mehmed see Mehmed Giray, Derwish
Mehmed Hakim Efendi (d. 1770). Ottoman literary personality, statesman and official court chronicler.
Mehmed IV (Mehmed IV Avci) (Mehmed the Hunter) (January 2, 1642, Istanbul - January 6, 1693, Edirne, Ottoman Empire). Ottoman sultan (r.1648-1687), however, for much of this period Murad was a minor.
Mehmed IV, byname Avcı (“The Hunter”), was the Ottoman sultan whose reign (1648–87) was marked first by administrative and financial decay and later by a period of revival under the able Köprülü viziers. Mehmed IV, however, devoted himself to hunting rather than to affairs of state.
Mehmed succeeded his mentally ill father, İbrahim, at the age of six. Power was exercised by factions led by his grandmother and mother while the chiefs of the Janissary corps dominated the state administration. During this period revolts broke out in Constantinople and Anatolia, and a series of grand viziers sought in vain to solve the empire’s financial crisis. The emergence of the Köprülüs as grand viziers offered temporary domestic relief and ushered in a period of victories against Venice in the Mediterranean and against Austria and Poland in the Balkans.
Mehmed IV participated in the military campaigns against Austria (1663) and Poland (1672). His primary interest, however, remained the pursuit of new hunting grounds. He opposed his grand vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa’s grandiose scheme to conquer Vienna but was unable to prevent him from entering into a disastrous war with Austria. The subsequent Ottoman defeats led to Mehmed’s deposition (on November 7, 1687). He spent the last three years of his life in retirement in Edirne.
Mehmed's reign is notable for a brief revival of Ottoman fortunes led by the infamous Grand Vizier, Mehmed Köprülü and his son Fazıl Ahmet . They regained the Aegean islands from Venice and fought successful campaigns against Transylvania (1664) and Poland (1670–1674). At one point, when Mehmed IV allied himself with Petro Doroshenko, Ottoman rule was close to extending into Podolia and Ukraine.
A later vizier, Kara Mustafa was less able. Supporting the 1683 Hungarian uprising of Imre Thököly against Austrian rule, Kara Mustafa marched a vast army through Hungary and besieged Vienna at the Battle of Vienna. On the Kahlenberg Heights, the Ottomans were utterly routed by the vengeful Poles led by their King, John III Sobieski and the Imperial army.
Mehmed's favorite harem girl was Emetullah Rabia Gülnûş Sultan, who was a slave girl taken prisoner at Rethymnon (Turkish Resmo) in the island of Crete. Their two sons, Mustafa II (r. 1695-1703) and Ahmed III (r.1703-1730), became Ottoman Sultans.
Mehmed IV Avci see Mehmed IV
Mehmed the Hunter see Mehmed IV
Mehmed Pasha. Name carried by many Ottoman Great Viziers. They are distinguished by their surname, e. g. Cerkes “the Circassian,” Gurju “the Georgian,” etc.
Mehmed Pasha, Qaramani Nishanji (Qaramani Nishanji Mehmed Pasha) (d. 1481). Ottoman Grand Vizier and historian from Konya. He became the main author of Sultan Muhammad II’s legislative policy.
Qaramani Nishanji Mehmed Pasha see Mehmed Pasha, Qaramani Nishanji
Mehmed Re’is, Ibn Menemenli (Ibn Menemenli Mehmed Re’is). Turkish ship’s captain and cartographer from the sixteenth century. He is the author of a chart of the Aegean Sea.
Ibn Menemenli Mehmed Re’is see Mehmed Re’is, Ibn Menemenli
Re'is, Ibn Menemenli Mehmed see Mehmed Re’is, Ibn Menemenli
Mehmed Yirmisekiz Celebi Efendi (Mehmed Efendi) (Mehemet Effendi) (Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi Efendi) (c. 1670-1732). Ottoman statesman. He is renowned for his diplomatic mission to France in 1720 and for the account of the mission which he left behind. It is a major contribution to the westernizing movement in the Ottoman Empire in its early manifestations.
Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi Efendi was an Ottoman statesman who was delegated as ambassador by the Sultan Ahmed III to Louis XV's France in 1720. He is remembered for his account of his embassy mission ("Sefaretname").
Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi was born in Edirne. His date of birth is unknown. He is the son of an officer in the Janissary corps, Süleyman Ağa, who died during a campaign to Pécs. Mehmed Çelebi himself was enrolled in the Janissary corps, and since he had served in the 28th battalion ("orta" in Janissary terminology) of the corps, he came to be known with the nickname "Yirmisekiz" ("twenty-eight" in Turkish) for his entire life. His descendants, including a son who became a grand vizier, also carried the name in the form of "Yirmisekizzade" (son of twenty-eight).
Mehmed Celebi rose through the military hierarchy and then oriented his career to the service of the finances of the state, as superintendent for the Ottoman mint first, and as chief imperial accountant by the reign of Ahmed III. In 1720, while in that position, he was assigned as Ottoman ambassador to Louis XV's France and sent to Paris. His embassy of eleven months was notable for being the first ever foreign representation of a permanent nature for the Ottoman Empire. On his return to the Ottoman capital, Mehmed Çelebi presented his contacts, experiences and observations to the Sultan in the form of a book.
Mehmed Celebi's sefaretname is one of the most important examples of the homonymous genre, both for its literary merits and in terms of the insights it provides on his time and environment. He describes his journey to France, the 40-days quarantine in Toulon for fear of plague, his journey through Bordeaux towards Paris, his reception by Louis XV, the ceremonies and the social events to which he participated, notably a night at the theater, places of interest in Paris, the curiosity with which he examined the Western culture and the curiosity he aroused among his Western interlocutors, for instance his days of fasting during Ramadan becoming a reason for a public gathering for curious Parisian women.
Aside from setting the pace and nature of the long-term trend of Westernization in the Ottoman Empire, his embassy also had immediate repercussions in the Ottoman Empire, notably in the form of the first printing house managed by İbrahim Müteferrika, a Hungarian convert, which published books in Turkish, having been opened in the same year of 1720 as a direct consequence of Mehmed Çelebi's mission in Paris, and under the personal protection and auspices of his son Yirmisekizzade Mehmed Said Pasha, later grand vizier. İstanbul's renowned Sadabad Gardens, one of the symbols of the Tulip Era were also largely inspired by the gardening techniques used in Tuileries Palace, described in length by the author/ambassador. His book was translated into French in 1757 and also into other Western languages afterwards.
After another embassy mission this time in Egypt, Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi who was deeply associated with the Tulip Era, was exiled to Cyprus after the Patrona Halil uprising which put an end to that era and to Ahmed III's reign. He died in Magosa in 1732 and was buried in the courtyard of Buğday Mosque in that city.
His son Yirmisekizzade Mehmed Said Paşa regained imperial favor shortly afterwards and was dispatched himself for an embassy in Paris in 1742, as well as another more historically significant one in Sweden and Poland, which led to his writing another sefaretname.
Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi Efendi see Mehmed Yirmisekiz Celebi Efendi
Mehmed Efendi see Mehmed Yirmisekiz Celebi Efendi
Mehemet Effendi see Mehmed Yirmisekiz Celebi Efendi
Mehmed Za‘im (b.1532). Ottoman Turkish historian. His only known historical book is valuable for the period, for he describes from his own experience events from 1543 to 1578, in which year the work was completed.
Za'im, Mehmed see Mehmed Za‘im
Mehrjui, Dariush
Dariush Mehrjui (b. December 8, 1939, Tehran, Iran – d. October 14, 2023, Karaj, Iran) was an Iranian filmmaker.
Mehrjui was a member of the Iranian Academy of the Arts.
Mehrjui was a founding member of the Iranian New Wave movement of the early 1970s, which also included directors Masoud Kimiai and Nasser Taqvai. His second film, The Cow, is considered to be the first film of this movement. Most of his films are inspired by literature and adapted from Iranian and foreign novels and plays.
On October 14, 2023, Mehrjui and his wife were found stabbed to death in their home in the city of Karaj, near Tehran.
Meidob. Five hundred miles west of the confluence of the Blue and White Niles, across a monotonous landscape, broken only by random granite outcrops, rise the Meidob hills of western Sudan in Darfur Province. Comprising an area of 240,000 square miles, including the surrounding plains to the south and east, these volcanic peaks and the pleasant upland plateaus between them is Dar Meidob, the home of the Meidob people. They are spread evenly with a concentration in the administrative center of Malha. They call themselves Tiddi in their own language.
Islam first effectively entered Darfur with the conversion of the Fur Sultan Suleiman Solong (1660-1680). Traditions state that the Meidob malik was one of 20 chiefs subordinate to the Fur. While several prominent Meidobi individuals held important posts at court, it seems that Meidob isolation allowed them to retain a great measure of independence. They do not appear to have become effectively Islamized until well into the nineteenth century. The Mahdiyya was not welcomed among the Meidob, though various temporary alliances were made with Mahdist forces, largely to further local rivalries. Active conversion to Islam spread when the last Fur sultan, Ali Dinar (1898-1916), incorporated the Meidob effectively under his political control. The incorporation of Darfur into the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium in 1916 was followed by the British administrators recognizing the Shalkota malik as overall leader. The Urrti malikdom was abolished in 1923, that of the Torti in 1944, and that of the Shalkota technically in 1971, when the Sudan government abolished the vestiges of the “native administration” with the Peoples Local Government Act. In reality, the power of the maliks had been considerably reduced since the time of Ali Dinar, and the territorial sections which became tax-collecting areas had an omda appointed as their head. These omdas formed a group of political leaders who exercised effective power, and a similar situation persists at the present time, when political and moral leadership rests more on individual prestige and wealth than on hereditary status.
Melanau. The coastal area of northwestern Sarawak in Borneo is a low lying swampy plain extending from 3 to 20 miles inland, often below sea level. Its poor peat soil, covered with dense rain forest, does not easily allow the inhabitants to grow rice by shifting cultivation, the characteristic mode of farming in the interior districts. The area is transversed by meandering rivers, all flowing roughly northwest into the South China Sea. These rivers are tidal for long distances upstream; and during the monsoon, from November to March, they are likely to overflow their banks and flood the surrounding land. Swamp rice, a strain of hill rice that tolerates wet soil but not flooding, can be grown on the raised river banks. Rice grown in such conditions is an uncertain crop and is frequently ruined before it can be harvested.
For at least four centuries, the Melanau have been under the influence and, at one time, nominal jurisdiction of the Muslim sultans of Brunei. Representatives of the sultans lived at the mouths of the more important sago-producing rivers to control trade revenues. These representatives and their families were assimilated by the local population and came to speak Melanau instead of Malay as their first language. They lived as hereditary elders in longhouse fortresses; and though the one selected as the sultan’s representative at any one time carried prestige and could sometimes successfully claim to be ruler of the river, he was, as much as were the elders in the wholly pagan villages upriver, merely primus inter pares.
The Muslim settlers from Brunei almost completely adopted Melanau values, especially those concerning rank. They imposed themselves on local society as a superior rank and regarded the pagan upper ranks as second class aristocrats. Even more than religion, it was rank in all sections of society that counted most. At birth, a Melanau acquired not only a place in a village and a circle of kinsmen; he was also placed in his rank category. Muslims from Brunei brought with them the titles pengiren, awing and dayang. In many respects these titles marked them off more significantly than their religion, since the preferred Melanau marriage, among pagans as much as Muslims, was with a second cousin of any kind, provided marriage was not across any of the three main rank barriers – aristocrats, middle ranks and slaves.
The establishment of Singapore as an international market in 1819 introduced fundamental changes in the trade of the whole region of the Indonesian archipelago and in particular in the trade of the Melanau sago. Until then, most sago had been exported as a high starch food in the form of a baked biscuit prepared in the villages. When European textile industries demanded industrial starch, the market for sago flour biscuits decreased in favor of sago flour. Malay traders from Kuching in Sarawak began competing with the established merchants from Brunei in supplying the new flour in Singapore. Piracy was part of the game.
In 1839, James Brooke, an Englishman, arrived in Kuching on the river Sarawak, where a section of the local Malay aristocracy was in revolt against the representative of the Sultan of Brunei. Brooke helped suppress the revolt and in 1841 had himself appointed Raja of Sarawak on the understanding that the state would remain Muslim in perpetuity and that the Muslim Malay-speaking inhabitants were to provide most of the civil service. For the next 20 years, Brooke and his successor, his nephew, were engaged in war. By the late 1850s, the Raja found himself short of money and still at war. To save himself and the solvency of Sarawak, Brooke annexed the sago-producing districts and in 1861 forced the sultan to grant him title to the whole area. Brooke’s family ruled Sarawak until World War II. In 1946, Sarawak was ceded to Great Britain, and in 1963, Sarawak joined the Republic of Malaysia.
As the coastal district settled down after Brooke’s conquest, production increased, as did trade with Singapore. The reasons for living in longhouses disappeared with the advent of peace and security, and Melanau began moving to villages with separate houses. Under Brooke, the Malay community was privileged and the Muslim religion protected, if not actively pushed. For the Melanau, many of whom could speak Malay, to become Muslim was masok melayu – to become Malay, with all its privileges.
After the turn of the century, the situation changed. It had been the policy of the Raja never to allow Christian missionaries to threaten the interests of his Muslim subjects. But around 1900, he permitted the Roman Catholics to set up schools and churches. One particular aristocrat in Brooke’s administration, on returning home from the pilgrimage to Mecca, was disturbed to find a Roman Catholic mission on his river. His father, one of the Raja’s most influential administrators, joined with his son, and for the next 40 years they and other Muslims recruited by them conducted a steady and covert campaign of proselytization, supported by the governmental benefits accruing to Muslims. The results were dramatic. In 1900, it is estimated that only one-third of the Melanau were Muslims. In 1964, three-fourths of them were.
Like most Muslims in the Indonesian area, the Melanau are Sunni and follow Shafi law, although rather loosely. When Sarawak acceded to the Malaysian federation in 1963, Islam did not, as in other parts of Malaysia, become the official religion, although it was allotted a highly privileged position with a state department and official funds to manage its interests. Money was supplied for building mosques and salaries of religious officials. Less money was contributed to other religions, and many inducements were made to persuade pagans and others to become Muslim.
Melkite Greek Catholics (Melkites) (Melchites). Members of the Melkite Church which is affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church through the regime of Eastern Rite Churches, allowing it a great deal of autonomy and the right to preserve its original character. The Melkite Church is centered in Syria and has about 1.5 million adherents worldwide. The patriarch of the church is in Damascus, and there is only one above him in the hierarchy: the pope in the Vatican State. Below are 7 archdioceses: In Syria, Aleppo, Homs and Latakia; in Lebanon, Beirut and Tyre; in Iraq, Basra; and in Jordan, Amman. There are also six dioceses: In Israel, Acre; and in Lebanon, Baalbek, Banyias, Sayda, Tripoli and Zahle.
In the name “melkite” quite a bit of the church’s history is found. The word comes from the Semitic word for king, pointing at the fact that Melkites took the position of the emperor (which is a powerful king) of Byzantine in the fifth century on the greatest theological issue of early Christianity: the nature of Jesus. The term “melkite” was at first used by the non-Melkites, but was soon adapted, as it was and is a fairly positive term.
The Melkite Church of Southwest Asia grew from Greek immigrants. The brought with them the Byzantine rite. The liturgy of the church is performed in vernacular Arabic. The priests of the Melkite Church are allowed to marry.
Melkites, also spelled Melchites, are any of the Christians of Syria and Egypt who accepted the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon (451) affirming the two natures—divine and human—of Christ. Because they shared the theological position of the Byzantine emperor, they were derisively termed Melchites—that is, Royalists or Emperor’s Men (from Syriac malkā: “king”)—by those who rejected the Chalcedonian definition and believed in only one nature in Christ (the Monophysite belief). While the term originally referred only to Egyptian Christians, it came to be used for all Chalcedonians in the Middle East and finally, losing its pejorative tone, came to designate the faithful of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and especially Antioch.
The Melchite community generally consisted of Greek colonists and the Arabicized populations of Egypt and Syria. They adopted the Byzantine rite and thus followed Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, into schism with Rome in 1054. For several centuries afterward, the patriarch of Antioch attempted reunification with Rome, and a small number of Melchite Catholics emerged. Final union came in 1724, when Cyril VI, a Catholic, was elected patriarch of Antioch. He was followed by several bishops and a third of the faithful. The Orthodox who opposed union elected their own patriarch, Silvester, and obtained the legal recognition from the Ottoman government that assured them autonomy. About 100 years later, after much persecution and religious difficulties with Jesuits and Lebanese Maronites, the Catholics also received autonomous status from the Ottoman Turks, which allowed for normal activity and growth.
While there had been some few conversions to Catholicism in the patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem, there is only one Catholic Melchite “patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East.” In each patriarchate he has his own diocese (Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria) and is helped by a patriarchal vicar. There are seven archdioceses—Aleppo, Homs, and Latakia (all in Syria), Beirut and Tyre (both in Lebanon), Basra (in Iraq), and Petra-Philadelphia (Jordan). There are six dioceses, in Acre (Israel) and Baalbek, Baniyas, Saïda, Tripolis, and Zahleh-Furzol (all in Lebanon). The number of Catholic Melchites, who observe the Byzantine liturgy in their vernacular Arabic, totals about 250,000 with an additional 150,000 abroad, mainly in Brazil, Argentina, the United States, and Canada.
Melkites see Melkite Greek Catholics
Melchites see Melkite Greek Catholics
Mende. One of the two largest ethnic groups in Sierra Leone is the Mende, who comprise some 31 percent of the population. The other is the Temne, who are perhaps 35 percent. Less than one-third of the Mende are Muslim. Mende inhabit roughly 12,000 square miles of coastal bush and central forest country in southern Sierra Leone, where they are grouped into more than sixty chiefdoms. A few thousand live in Liberia, most in Guma Mendi chiefdom.
The Mende, like most Sierra Leone peoples, welcomed itinerant Muslims, often traders, who settled among them. Known as mori men, they provided a valued service such as in making charms and divining for the Mende, especially chiefs and warriors. These traders were Sunni Muslims of the Maliki rite, but prior to the twentieth century there seem to have been few converts. In this century, the spread of Islam among the Mende and other Sierra Leone peoples is probably related to anti-colonial feelings.
The Ahmadiya sect of Islam was introduced to Sierra Leone in 1937 and into the Mende area in 1939 at Baomabun, then a gold-mining center. By 1945, the Ahmadis moved to Bo, which remains their base. A 1960 estimate indicated about 3,000 Ahmadis in Sierra Leone, the majority being Mende.
Mende are the people of Sierra Leone, including also a small group in Liberia. They speak a language of the Mande branch of the Niger-Congo family. The Mende grow rice as their staple crop, as well as yams and cassava. Cash crops include cocoa, ginger, peanuts (groundnuts), and palm oil and kernels. They practice shifting agriculture, with the heads of kin groups allocating land to individual households, which perform most of the work. Men fell trees and clear the fields, and women weed.
The Mende occupy small towns and villages. Groups of towns and villages form sections, and several sections make up the modern chiefdom. Each section is headed by a subchief, who is the eldest suitable descendant in the male line of the founder of the area. The chiefdom is headed by a paramount chief chosen on the same basis.
The chief is a secular leader only; ritual power is in the hands of the secret poro society. Membership in the poro is necessary for anyone in a position of authority. In addition to enforcing Mende law, the poro and other secret societies educate boys and girls, regulate sexual conduct, and concern themselves with agricultural fertility and military training. Men masked as spirits are prominent in these activities. The women’s secret society is the sande.
The traditional religion of the Mende includes belief in a supreme creator god, ancestral spirits, and nature deities. Diviners are consulted in times of illness or ominous experience, and the Mende believe in the power of witches. Many Mende are now Muslims or Christians, however.
Menderes, Adnan (Adnan Menderes) (b. 1899, Aydın, Ottoman Empire — d. September 17, 1961, İmralı). Turkish statesman from Izmir who was the prime minister of Turkey from 1950 to 1960. He joined Ali Fethi Okyar’s Freedom Party in 1930 and, when this was closed down, the People’s Party, later called Republican People’s Party. Ousted with others from the party in 1945, he founded the Democratic Party in 1946, which won the elections in 1950, 1954 and 1957, Menderes being Prime Minister from 1950 until 1960. On May 27, 1960, a military coup was staged and the government of Menderes was overthrown. On October 17, 1960, Menderes was arrested by the military on charges of embezzling state funds, extravagance and corruption. He was sentenced to death and executed, by hanging, in 1961. His name was rehabilitated in the late 1980s.
Menderes was more tolerant towards traditional lifestyles and the different forms of practice of Islam than Ataturk and his party had been. While remaining pro-Western, he was more active than his predecessors in building relations with Muslim states. Menderes had a more liberal economic policy than earlier prime ministers, and allowed more private enterprise. In general, Menderes’ economic politics made him popular among the poor half of the population, but it also brought the country insolvency due to an enormous increase in imports of goods and technology.
Menderes was most intolerant towards criticism, and instituted press censorship and had journalists arrested. Menderes became increasingly unpopular among both the intellectuals and the military, which feared that the ideals of Ataturk were in danger. This eventually led to Menderes’ fall.
Adnan Menderes was the son of a wealthy landowner. He was educated at the American College in İzmir and the Faculty of Law at Ankara. Later in life he sold or distributed most of his estates to small shareholders, maintaining only one farm, which became a model of modern agricultural methods. In 1930, he entered parliament as a member of Kemal Atatürk’s Republican People’s Party (RPP). The RPP was at that time the only legal party in Turkey and was firmly pro-Western. It had broken drastically with many social and cultural traditions of the past and had introduced a rigidly controlled state economy.
In 1945, Menderes was expelled from the RPP, and he and three others founded (in 1946) the Democrat Party (DP), which became Turkey’s first opposition party. The 1950 elections, which were the first free elections held in Turkey in more than 25 years, resulted in a landslide victory for Menderes and his party. Menderes was more tolerant than the RPP of traditional ways of life. While still pro-Western in foreign policy, he tried to establish closer ties with Muslim states. Recognizing the deep-seated religious fervor of the populace, Menderes relaxed much of the official antipathy of Atatürk and the RPP towards some of the more conservative manifestations of Islāmic religious feeling.
The DP encouraged private enterprise as opposed to a planned economy, but it eventually brought the country to insolvency by a policy of heedless importation of foreign goods and technology. While the lot of the average villager did improve, it was done at the sacrifice of national economic integrity.
In spite of Turkey’s crushing economic problems, Menderes maintained his popularity with the peasantry, and in the 1954 elections the DP again won by a substantial majority, returning Menderes to office. Always intolerant of criticism, Menderes then set out to silence his opposition. Press censorship was instituted, journalists were jailed at whim, and local elections were rigged. These policies not only angered the intellectuals but alienated the military, a group that saw itself as the guardians of Kemalist ideals and felt that the Atatürk reforms were being directly challenged.
Although the national economy continued to decline, Menderes still had popular support and won the 1957 elections. But the opposition to him was intensifying, and on May 27, 1960, a military coup overthrew his government. Menderes and hundreds of Democrat Party leaders were arrested. During a trial lasting 11 months, Menderes was accused of embezzling state funds, extravagance, and corruption, among other charges. He was sentenced to death and, following a suicide attempt, was hanged.
Adnan Menderes see Menderes, Adnan
Mengli Giray I
Mengli Giray I (Menli I Giray) (I Menli Geray) (Mengli I Giray) (1445-1515). Khan of Crimea (1466; 1469-1475; 1478-1515). Founder of the Crimean state and a patron of the arts. No longer an Ottoman vassal, he generally sought to stay on good terms with Muscovy.
Meñli I Giray was a khan of the Crimean Khanate and the sixth son of the khanate founder Haci I Giray.
He ascended the throne in 1466 for some months, then was deposed by his brother Nur Devlet. He was restored to the throne in January 1469, but lost power again in March 1475 as a result of a rebellion of rival brothers and nobility. In 1475, he was captured by the Ottomans in Caffa and delivered to Istanbul. After being forced to recognize Ottoman suzerainty over the Crimean Khanate, he was returned to the throne of Crimea in 1478. He made a great contribution to the development of Crimean Tatar statehood. He founded the fortress of Özü. In 1502, Meñli I defeated the last khan of the Golden Horde and took control over its capital Saray. He proclaimed himself Khagan (Emperor), claiming to be the successor of the Golden Horde's authority over the Turkic khanates of Caspian-Volga region.
Meñli I Giray was buried in the Dürbe.
Menli I Giray see Mengli Giray I
Giray, Mengli see Mengli Giray I
Giray, Menli I see Mengli Giray I
Menli Geray see Mengli Giray I
Geray, Menli see Mengli Giray I
Mengli I
Menteshe-oghullari. Turkish dynasty in southwestern Anatolia, founded by the Turkmen in the thirteenth century. It lasted until 1421 when the Ottoman Sultan Murad II captured the territory.
Meos (Mayos) (Mewatis) . Muslims of the north Indian state of Rajasthan are concentrated with one exception in urban centers. They can be divided into four major categories: traders, the service class, the Rajputs and the rural community of the Meos. Each is distinct in regard to its origin, occupation, social position and relationship with the wider Muslim culture. Nearly one-half are immigrants who came to Rajasthan at different times and for different reasons.
The Meos were originally Hindus. When and how they were converted is still unclear. It seems probable on the basis of popular belief that they were converted in stages: fiirst by Salar Masud in the eleventh century, by Balban in the thirteenth century and again during Aurangzeb’s reign in the seventeenth century. Being close to Delhi, the Meos apparently took an active interest in politics, sometimes by giving refuge to dissidents, occasionally by raiding the capital for material gain and at other times by getting involved in intrigues for succession. More often than not they backed the wrong group and as a consequence suffered severe reprisals. At times conversion to Islam was part of the settlement after defeat. One clearly recorded incident of conversion occurred about the turn of the fifteenth century when Bahadur Nahar, a Hindu Rajput ruler of Mewat, embraced Islam. Other Rajput families followed his lead, and the clan of the Khanzadas was established. This probably stimulated conversion of other Hindu castes in Mewat.
Until 1947, the Meos were even more dominant in Mewat than they are today. About that time they suffered the trauma of dislocation, forced conversion and violence. A number of Meos migrated to Pakistan, but by the early 1950s the ones who remained were resettled, and their land and property were restored to them.
After 1947, a strong move towards Islamization was begun in Mewat. A religious revival movement initiated in Delhi a few years prior to independence suddenly became popular, and under its influence many of the Hindu rituals, ceremonies and festivals were abandoned by the Meos and substitutes from Muslim tradition adopted in their place.
There appear to be three reasons for Islamic revival in Mewat. First, when India was partitioned in 1947 to give the Muslims a separate state, antipathy between the Hindus and the Muslims was heightened to the point of violence. In Mewat, this led to attempts on the part of the Hindus to reconvert the Meos. For the Meos, this produced an identity crisis, and they felt that the very existence of the community was threatened. As soon as normal conditions returned, the Meos began to reassert their identity as Muslims.
Second, under the old system the Meos were the dominant caste and enjoyed high social prestige as well as economic and political power. In other words, the prevailing system of stratification favored the Meos so much that they did not like to disturb it even after conversion to Islam. The local Hindu casts, in their own interest, overlooked the change in religion of the Meos as long as their own economic and social life remained undisturbed. They continued to serve the Meos as a high caste in exchange for their fixed due in agricultural produce and gifts of various kinds. Even the Brahman continued to serve the Meos as priest. But following Independence, a variety of social, political and economic changes began to take place in India. The traditional caste system began to weaken as a result. Due to certain circumstances, such as emigration of some Meos to Pakistan, the impact of social change was more intense in Mewat. The untouchable castes were given representation in the village council as well as land abandoned by the Meos, which of course raised their status and changed their attitude towards the high castes. Furthermore, as agriculture became more market oriented, the traditional relationship among various castes and their independence broke down. These and many other changes eroded the caste system to such an extent that the privileges of the Meos as the dominant caste were severely curtailed.
Third, with the improvement of communication and other developments, the Meos began to feel that they could no longer remain isolated from the outside world. They were drawn into the emerging nation through the electoral process, participation in the newly formed village panchayats, increased links with the wider market, higher education of their children, etc. The Meos discovered that the first natural step for them in this process of widening integration was to forge links with the Muslim community outside Mewat. To do this, it was essential for them to adopt the culture of the Muslims on the one hand and abandon Hindu customs on the other. Hence, the Meos began to Islamize rapidly.
Mayos see Meos Mewatis see Meos
Merah-Benida, Nouria (Nouria Merah-Benida) (b. October 19, 1970, Algiers). Algerian runner who won the 1500 meters at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia.
At the 1999 All-Africa Games in Johannesburg, Mérah-Benida won silver medals in both 800 meters and 1500 meters. At the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney she won a somewhat surprising gold medal ahead of Romanians Violeta Szekely (silver) and Gabriela Szabo (bronze). The same year she won a silver medal in the 800 meters and a gold medal in the 1500 meters at the African Championships.
Nouria Merah-Benida see Merah-Benida, Nouria
Merinids. See Marinids.
Merjumek, Ahmed ibn Ilyas (Ahmed ibn Ilyas Merjumek) (Mercimek Ahmed). Author of a translation into Old Ottoman of a “Mirror for Princes” composed in Persian prose and occasional verse by Kay Ka’us ibn Iskandar (of the eleventh century).
Ahmed ibn Ilyas Merjumek see Merjumek, Ahmed ibn Ilyas Mercimek Ahmed see Merjumek, Ahmed ibn Ilyas Ahmed, Mercimek see Merjumek, Ahmed ibn Ilyas
Mernissi, Fatima (Fatima Mernissi) (Fatema Mernissi) (b. 1940). Moroccan sociologist and writer. Born in Fez to a middle class family, Mernissi studied at the Mohammed V University in Rabat and later went to Paris, where she worked briefly as a journalist. She pursued her graduate education in the United States and in 1973 obtained a doctorate in sociology from Brandeis University. Returning to Morocco, she joined the sociology department at Mohammed V University. Mernissi currently holds a research appointment at the Moroccan Institut Universitaire de Recherche Scientifique.
As one of the best known Arab-Muslim femininsts, Mernissi’s influence extended beyond a narrow circle of intellectuals. She was a recognized public figue in her own country and abroad, especially in France, where she is well known in feminist circles. Her major books have been translated into several languages, including English, German, Dutch, and Japanese. She wrote regularly on women’s issues in the popular press, participated in public debates promoting the cause of Muslim women internationally, and had supervised the publication of a series of books on the legal status of women in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
Mernissi’s work explores the relationship between sexual ideology, gender identity, sociopolitical organization, and the status of women in Islam. Her special focus, however, was Moroccan society and culture. As a feminist, her work represents an attempt to undermine the ideological and political systems that silence and oppress Muslim women. She did this in two ways, first, by challenging the dominant Muslim male discourse concerning women and their sexuality, and second, by providing the “silent” woman with a “voice” to tell her own story. Her book Doing Daily Battle (1989) is a collection of annotated interviews with Moroccan women who present a lucid account of the painful reality of their lives as they struggle agains poverty, illiteracy, and sexual oppression.
From the writing of her first book, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society (1975) Mernissi had sought to reclaim the ideological discourse on women and sexuality from the strangehold of patriarchy. She critically examined the classical corpus of religious-juristic texts, including the hadith, and reinterprets them from a feminist perspective. In her view, the Muslim ideal of the “silent, passive, obedient woman” had nothing to do with the authentic message of Islam. Rather, it is a construction of the ‘ulama’, the male jurists-theologians who manipulated and distorted the religious texts in order to preserve the patriarchal system.
For Mernissi, Islamic sexual ideology was predicated on a belief in women’s inherent sexual power which, if left uncontrolled, would wreak havoc on the male-defined social order, thus, the necessity to control women’s sexuality and to safeguard Muslim society through veiling, segregation, and the legal subordination of women. Mernissi’s work explores the impact of this historically constituted ideological system on the construction of gender and the organization of domestic and political life in Muslim society today.
Mernissi’s recent work continued to challenge the traditional Muslim discourse on gender and the status of women. In her book The Veil and the Male Elite (first published in French in 1987), she critically examined the historical context of Muslim law and tradition and argued that the original message of the Prophet Muhammad, which called for equality between the sexes, had been misrepresented by later political leaders and religious scholars. Turning her attention to the Arab world today, Mernissi situated the “woman question” within a more inclusive framework that linked it to problems of political legitimacy, social stagnation, and the absence of democracy. Her most recent book, Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World (1992), is an impassioned plea for Muslims to reclaim the best of their tradition and to cast off their fear of the West. This could only be accomplished, she maintained, through a radical overhaul of the political, ideological, and social structures that had for generations conspired to deny the majority of Muslims, men and women alike, the modern benefits of equality, democracy, literacy, and economic security.
Other works of Mernissi include
* Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World (1992)
* Forgotten Queens of Islam
* Scheherazade Goes West
* Islam, Gender and Social Change
* Women's rebellion & Islamic memory (1996)
Fatima Mernissi see Mernissi, Fatima Fetima Mernissi see Mernissi, Fatima
Mesihi (Mesihi of Prishtina) (Pristineli Mesihi) (c. 1470-1512). Ottoman poet from Pristina, Kosovo. His most original work is a humorous description of the handsome youths of Edirne.
Mesihi of Prishtina was one of the most original among the early Ottoman poets. He stemmed from Prishtina and, although we do not know for certain whether he was an Albanian or a Turk, we assume he must have lived in Turkey proper from an early age. Mesihi, or Messiah in English, was not only an exceptionally gifted poet but also a talented calligrapher and held a position as secretary to Khadim Ali Pasha during the reign of Sultan Bayazid II (r. 1481-1512). A pleasure-loving sehr oglani (city boy), as the biographer Ashik Çelebi called him, Mesihi could more readily be found in the taverns and pleasure gardens with his friends and lovers than at work. Though his hedonistic lifestyle may have impeded a career advancement, it produced what is generally regarded as some of the best Ottoman verse of the period. Much quoted is his Murabba'-i bahâr (Ode to Spring) which, after publication with a Latin translation in 1774 by William Jones (1746-1794), was to become the best known Turkish poem in Europe for a long time.
Less known than the 'Ode to Spring' was Messiah's Sehr-engîz (roughly: The Terror of the Town), which soon became a prototype for a new literary genre in Ottoman verse. In 186 witty couplets he pays tribute to the charms and beauty of forty-six young men of Edirne (Adrianople). With its puns and ironic humor, it is considered a masterpiece of early sixteenth-century Turkish verse. Messiah confesses light-heartedly that the poem itself is a sin but he is confident that God will pardon him: "My wandering heart has broken into so many pieces, each of which is attached to one of those handsome lads."
Mesihi of Prishtina see Mesihi Pristineli Mesihi see Mesihi Mesihi, Pristineli see Mesihi
Mesih Pasha (d. 1501). Ottoman Grand Vizier. He was a nephew of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaeologus (d. 1453), apparently captured during the conquest of Constantinople.
Messali al-Hajj (Ahmed Messali al-Hajj) (Messali Hadj) (1898-1974). First Algerian nationalist leader in the twentieth century to call for the complete independence of Algeria from France. Born in Tlemcen, to a lower middle class Turkish Algerian family, Messali attended a Qur’anic school before being sent to a French school where he earned an elementary school diploma. After joining the French army and serving three years in the Bordeaux region, Messali decided, in 1923, to live in France. He married a French woman, joined the French Communist Party, and became a leading member of the Etoile Nord Africaine (founded in 1926). In 1927, he set the agenda for the Etoile that included demands for Algeria’s complete independence from France and the withdrawal of French troops of occupation; freedom of association and the press; and the election of an Algerian parliament and municipal councils through universal suffrage.
In the mid-1930s, Messali al-Hajj left the French Communist Party, which had condemned the demands of the Etoile Nord Africaine, and returned to Algeria to mobilize peasants and workers to create new chapters of Etoile Nord Africaine. In March 1937, two months after the French government dissolved the Etoile, he formed the Party of the Algerian People (PPA). When three thousand of his PPA supporters demonstrated in Algiers in July 1937, he was arrested and imprisoned for two years, until the outbreak of World War II. Messali al-Hajj was arrested again, however, and he spent most of the war in prison, and in 1945 his PPA was outlawed.
When released in 1946, he immediately created the Movement for the Triumph of Democratic Freedoms (MTLD) to replace the banned PPA. The MTLD’s members won electoral seats in the Algerian National Assembly in 1946, but when they tried again in 1948 and in 1951, the elections were rigged by the colonial administration. By 1950, the MTLD had an estimated twenty thousand members and had become the largest opposition party in Algeria.
In 1947, Hocine Ait Ahmed, a member of the MTLD, built a paramilitary group, the Organization Speciale (OS), within the MTLD. In 1950, when the MTLD leaders and many OS members were arrested by the French, Messali al-Hajj’s fortunes within the MTLD began to decline. He and his supporters were ousted from the MTLD in 1954 for personal and ideological reasons, and the nationalist movement was permanently split. Attempts by a newly created Revolutionary Committee for Unity and Action (CRUA) of ex-OS members to mediate the conflict failed. On October 31, 1954, the CRUA announced the formation of the Front for National Liberation (FLN) and launched the war of independence the very next day. Messali al-Hajj, however, did not support the FLN. He renamed the branch of the MTLD still under his control the National Algerian Movement (MNA) and created a militia that fought the FLN in France until 1957. The movement was finally wrecked by deaths and defections, and although it continued to exist until independence it was no longer a political force.
Messali al-Hajj, who had fought so hard for Algeria’s independence, found himself out in the cold politically when his dream was realized. He spent the last years of his life in Lamorlaye, France, writing his memoirs, surrounded by his family and a few loyal supporters. He died of cancer in 1974, and his body was carried back to Algeria for burial in Tlemcen, the city of his birth.
Ahmed Messali al-Hajj see Messali al-Hajj Messali Hadj see Messali al-Hajj Hajj, Ahmed Messali al- see Messali al-Hajj Hadj, Messali see Messali al-Hajj
Messiah (in Arabic, al-Masih). According to the Bible, the expected deliverer of the Jewish people and, according to Christians, Jesus Christ. One can assume with reasonable certainty that al-Masih in the Qur’an is a title of Jesus, but not a messianic one.
Messiah, (from Hebrew mashiaḥ, “anointed”), in Judaism, was the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age. The Greek New Testament’s translation of the term, christos, became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth, indicative of the principal character and function of his ministry. More loosely, the term messiah denotes any redeemer figure; and the adjective messianic is used in a broad sense to refer to beliefs or theories about an eschatological improvement of the state of humanity or the world.
The biblical Old Testament never speaks of an eschatological messiah, and even the “messianic” passages that contain prophecies of a future golden age under an ideal king never use the term messiah. Nevertheless, many modern scholars believe that Israelite messianism grew out of beliefs that were connected with their nation’s kingship. When actual reality and the careers of particular historical Israelite kings proved more and more disappointing, the “messianic” kingship ideology was projected on the future.
After the Babylonian Exile, Jews’ prophetic vision of a future national restoration and the universal establishment of God’s kingdom became firmly associated with their return to Israel under a scion of David’s house who would be “the Lord’s anointed.” In the period of Roman rule and oppression, the Jews’ expectation of a personal messiah acquired increasing prominence and became the center of other eschatological concepts held by various Jewish sects in different combinations and with varying emphases. In some sects, the “son of David” messianism, with its political implications, was overshadowed by apocalyptic notions of a more mystical character. Thus some believed that a heavenly being called the “Son of Man” (the term is derived from the Book of Daniel) would descend to save his people. The messianic ferment of this period, attested by contemporary Jewish-Hellenistic literature, is also vividly reflected in the New Testament. With the adoption of the Greek word Christ by the church of the Gentiles, the Jewish nationalist implications of the term messiah (implications that Jesus had explicitly rejected) vanished altogether, and the “Son of David” and “Son of Man” motifs could merge in a politically neutral and religiously highly original messianic conception that is central to Christianity.
The Roman destruction of Jerusalem’s Second Temple and the Jews’ subsequent exile, persecution, and suffering, however, only intensified their messianism, which continued to develop theologically and to express itself in messianic movements. Almost every generation had its messianic precursors and pretenders—the best-known case being that of the 17th-century pseudo-messiah Shabbetai Tzevi. Belief in and fervent expectation of the messiah became firmly established tenets of Judaism and are included among Maimonides’ 13 Articles of Faith. Modernist movements in Judaism have attempted to maintain the traditional faith in an ultimately redeemed world and a messianic future without insisting on a personal messiah figure.
Islām, too, though it has no room for a saviour-messiah, developed the idea of an eschatological restorer of the faith, usually called the Mahdi (Arabic: “Rightly Guided One”). The doctrine of the Mahdi is an essential part of the Shīʾite creed.
Eschatological figures of a messianic character are known also in religions that are uninfluenced by biblical traditions. Even as unmessianic a religion as Buddhism has produced a belief, among Mahāyāna groups, in the future Buddha Maitreya, who would descend from his heavenly abode and bring the faithful to paradise. In Zoroastrianism, with its thoroughly eschatological orientation, a posthumous son of Zoroaster is expected to effect the final rehabilitation of the world and the resurrection of the dead.
Many modern movements of a millenarian character, particularly among primitive peoples (e.g., the cargo cults of Melanesia), have been called messianic; but as the expectation of a personal saviour sent or “anointed” by a god is not always central to them, other designations (millenarian, prophetic, nativistic, etc.) may be more appropriate.
The ideology of the mahdi in Islam has many similarities with the Jewish/Christian Messiah. The ideology is central in Shi‘a Islam but has a certain presence in Sunni Islam as well.
While Christian and Jewish thinkers would say that this ideology is strongly influenced by their two religions, Muslim thinkers would say that Mahdi represent the true form of savior figure, and that Messiah in Judaism and Christ in Christianity represent deviations from the original doctrines.
Mahdi is a character that belongs to the last period of mankind, and his purpose is to restore the faith, and bring Islam back to its pure origins and provide for the believers a society where they can perform their religious duties in a correct manner.
The Mahdi is not mentioned in the Qur’an, but belongs to theological developments starting from the ninth and tenth centuries of the Christian calendar.
In the sense of divine intervention in human history -- through the appointment of a mahdi (rightly guided person) to deliver the people from tyranny and oppression at the End of Time -- messianism is a salient feature of Islamic soteriology. Messianic expectations were part of the early Muslim belief in the prophet Muhammad as the akhir al-zaman (“apostle of the End of Time”). In that eschatological position the Prophet was expected to usher humanity toward an ideal community with a universal mission. Such expectations were also part of the reformist and revivalist tendencies among the Judeo-Christian communities of Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries. The Qur’anic preoccupation with the impending Day of Judgment and the Signs of the Hour, which announced cosmic disorder and a period of terror and fear preceding the Final Days, can be understood within the cultural and ideological setting of the messianic prophecy in Abrahamic soteriology and eschatology.
The major this-worldly expression of Islam was its self-implementation in a religio-political community, the ummah, with a worldwide membership of all those who believe in God and the divine revelation through Muhammad. Consequently, Muslim belief in the divinely guided messianic leader, the Mahdi, is rooted in the acknowledgment that Muhammad’s position and function as the divinely guided prophet was to create the ideal ummah. Islamic revelation sees itself actively engaged in assessing human conditions that obstruct the fulfillment of the ultimate divine purposes for humanity. Human civilization, as the Qur’an maintains, is the record of the perpetual jihad (struggle) against human self-centeredness and self-cultivated pettiness, the two main sources of conflict and the attendant destruction of humanity. It is the enemy within that needs to be conquered, through jihad akbar (“greater struggle”) before one can truly undertake to overcome the external enemy through jihad asghar (“lesser struggle”) that impedes the creation of the just and peaceful human society. Islamic soteriology is an expression of the desperate human situation, and it provides the critically needed sense of common human destiny -- the human saga of the search for justice and peace. This is the essence of Islamic messianism.
At different times in history God intervenes and provides living examples, the prophets, who can remind humanity of its true nature and its perfectibility through faith in God. Toward the End of Time, after having failed time and again, when humanity finds itself in need of spiritual-moral revival to assume its historical responsibility of creating the divine order on earth, God will send Jesus and the Mahdi to restore the pure faith and redress the wrongs committed against the righteous servants of God. In the meantime, human beings must continue to strive in order to recognize their primordial nature through islam (“submission”). This is the spiritual-moral expression of Islamic messianism.
The responsibility to create an independent political community, the ummah, which carried within itself the revolutionary challenge to any inimical order which might hamper its realization, was historically assumed by the Prophet himself when he established the first Muslim policy in Medina in 622 C.C. The decisive connection between the divine investiture to the prophetic mission and the creation of an Islamic world order is the integral facet of Islamic messianism. Hence, the Mahdi, through his investiture as the Prophet’s successor and God’s caliph, is awaited to implement the transcendental ideal on earth.
Historical and sociological factors in the first century, following the Prophet’s death in 632, were instrumental in heightening the messianic expectations in the Muslim community, especially among those who were persecuted as Shi‘a -- partisans of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and sympathizers of his claim to the caliphate. The hopes of Banu Hashim, the Prophet’s clan, who had supported the claims of the descendants of ‘Ali, and who looked forward to the return of the prophetic “golden age,” were greatly frustrated when the caliphate slipped out of their hands in 661. Thereafter, the idea of a perfect leader, the divinely appointed imam, continued to be emphasized more specifically among the religiously oriented Muslims in general, and among Shi‘as in particular. Although both ‘Ali and his son Husayn were regarded as mahdi, perhaps in a non-eschatological sense, it was ‘Ali’s son Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyah, who was declared to be the promised Mahdi. He was believed to have possessed the esoteric knowledge necessary to deliver his followers from oppression and to establish a just society.
The outbreak of the civil wars and the perturbed condition that followed greatly contributed to the notion of messianic savior whose function, in the first place, was to redress the wrongs committed against the downtrodden and establish justice, by which the Shi‘as meant abolition of the caliphate of the oppressors and the return to a pure Islam; and, in the second place, to achieve the conversion of the world to Islam. Among the various factions of the Shi‘as disagreement on the identification of the Mahdi was one of the chief factors separating sect from sect. Shi‘a hope for justice, in their oft-quoted phrase, “the world would be filled with justice as it is now filled with injustice” when the Mahdi emerges from the divinely imposed occultation, expressed radical social protest. The expectation meant not merely a hope for the future, but a revaluation of present social and historical life. Every generation found reason to believe that it was likely that the Mahdi would appear in their own time and test the faithful by summoning them to launch the great social transformation themselves under his command, with the promise of divine help when it would be needed. Hence, messianic tendencies became the source of heretical and even combative attitudes among the Shi‘a. These revolutionary insurrections were feared and severely crushed by the ruling authorities for their potential destructive and choatic repercussions.
Several adventurous individuals, of Shi‘a sympathies, organized and led revolutions from the last decades of the Umayyad rule. The most important of which was the ‘Abbasid revolution, which carried on a very effective propaganda against the Umayyads on a largely Shi‘a basis, keyed to the messianic expectation. The ‘Abbasids were able to overthrow the Umayyads and establish their own dynasty in the eighth century. The Fatimid revolution in the tenth century was another uprising with considerable popular support. It won a large number of adherents to its cause and established a Shi‘a state in North Africa. In this case also the emphasis was on the messianic anticipation for an ideal social order, and in it too the leader manipulated the Shi‘a ideology and even adopted the Shi‘a messianic title of al-mansur (the victorious) and al-mahdi.
However, all Shi‘a attempts were not successful, and once its adherents met with repeated failures and persecutions, they ceased to attempt revolutionary transformation. With this change in fortunes, the Shi‘a ideology became the chief vehicle for any Muslim who entertained radical change, and it was perpetuated in terms of esoteric messianic teaching. The title Mahdi ceased to connote immediate and direct political action. The frustration of the adherents of messianic prophecies gradually caused the shift in the emphasis of the Mahdi from political power to religious reform, which also touched the social and communal life of Muslims. It continued to express the idealism of the ummah, the hope that one day Islam, with all its political and social implications, will return to its pristine purity. The original historical mission of Islam, namely, the establishment of the ideal society under divine guidance, was believed to attain fulfillment under the Mahdi in the future. In indepedent books of esoteric erudition about future events (al-balayah wa-al-mandyah), in which narratives reported on the authority of the Prophet and the Imams were related, dark events to come were foretold in such a way that every new generation of Muslims could see its trials and hopes mirrored in them.
By the end of the eighth century, a majority of Muslims regarded the historical caliphate as the continuation of the Prophet’s temporal position divested of any eschatological anticipation. The eschatological function was transferred to the future “caliph of God,” the Mahdi. This formed the main thrust of the Sunni conviction about the Prophet’s messianic legacy. However, different subdivisions of the Shi‘as maintained the necessity for the continuation of the Prophet’s temporal and spiritual authority in the person of a divinely appointed imam to guide the community to its ultimate deliverance. This was the cardinal doctrine of the Shi‘a who rejected the historical caliphate as a human interference in the procurement of the divine plan, and awaited the appearance of the Mahdi, as the restorer of ideal Muslim order.
In the fifteenth century, owing to the approach of the first millennium after the advent of the Prophet, various groups began to revive their hopes for a better future. In the holy cities of Mecca and Medina a number of religious scholars wrote their opinions confirming the popular belief in the appearance of a mujaddid (reformer) at the turn of the century. A prominent Sunni jurist, Ibn al-Hajar al-Makki, declared that the advent of the Mahdi was to be expected in the millennium, and that such a messianic person would be a descendant of Fatimah, daughter of the Prophet, and that his name would conform to the Prophet’s name and the names of his parents to those of his parents. The recognition of the true Mahdi was not going to be an easy task because of the manner in which the traditions predicting the emergence of the eschatological personage were multiplying. The problem of the identity of the Mahdi was too intricate for any religious authority or political ruler to solve.
The idea of the Mahdi was popular among the Sunnis in India in the fifteenth century where the rise of the idea that Sayyid Muhammad of Jaunpur was the Mahdi opens an entirely new chapter in the history of Islamic messianism. The sayyid opened his mission with the claim to be the Mahdi in 1495 at Mecca while performing the circumambulation of the Ka‘bah. On his return to India he reasserted his claim in the major mosque of Taj Khan Salar at Ahmedabad, followed by a reiteration of the claim with renewed vigor and force in 1499 in a village called Barhli in Gujarat. In the hagiographical sources on him the names of his parents have been given as thoseof the parents of the Prophet, ‘Abd Allah and Aminah, in order to justify his claim to be Mahdi. The Hanafi jurists of Gujarat challenged him to prove his claim and took effective steps to put a stop in his growing popularity. A fatwa was consequently drawn up in which he was denounced as a heretic and condemned to death. The reason for this extreme denunciation was due to the fact that his revolutionary socialistic-moral interpretation of Islam, which redressed the corruption in Indian Muslim society, was contrary to the orthodox Sunni understanding of the faith.
A further example of the intensity and impact of the messianic ideology among the Sunnis is found in the Mahdiyah movement of the Mahdi of Sudan, Muhammad Ahmad ibn ‘Abd Allah, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. The Mahdiyah have been regared as the last eruption in the series of religiously inspired movements in the Sunni world that led to the establishment of the shari‘a based states of the Wahhabiyah in Arabia, the Fulbe of Usman dan Fodio in Sokoto, and the Sanusiyah in Cyrenaica. The Mahdi of Sudan consciously tried to establish the ideal rule of God on earth based on the paradigm of the Prophet’s ideal community, engaging in jihad against the British and Ottoman-Egyptian forces. The movement was also inspired by the Sufi philosophy of moral life and was based on Shi‘a messianic lore.
In Twelver Shi‘ism, where the twelfth imam is believed to be the awaited Mahdi and to live in occultation, belief in messianism has served a complex, seemingly paradoxical function. It has been the guiding doctrine behind both an activist political posture, calling on believers to remain alert and prepared at all times to launch the revolution with the Mahdi who might appear at any time, and behind a quietist waiting for God’s decree, in almost fatalistic resignation, in the matter of return of this imam at the End of Time. In both cases the main problem was to determine the right course of action at a given social and political setting. The adoption of the activist or quietist solution depended on the interpretation of conflicting traditions attributed to the Shi‘a imams about circumstances that justified radical action. Resolution of the contradiction in these traditions in turn was contingent on acknowledgment of and the existence of an authority who could undertake to make the imam’s will known to the community. Without such a learned authority among the Shi ‘a, it was practically impossible to acquire knowledge about whether a radical solution was an appropriate form of struggle against an unjust government.
It was in this Shi‘a messianic context that in Iran ‘Ali Muhammad of Shiraz who called himself the Bab (“gateway”), at the turn of the millennium since the disappearnce of the twelfth Imam in 874, proclaimed himself to be the “gateway” to esoteric knowledge and a reformer in 1844. He preached a new and quite unconventional shari ‘a and promised a new prophetic dispensation of social justice. His followers, the Babis, came into open conflict with the Shi‘a religious establishment and then with the Qajar government. ‘Ali Muhammad was arrested and imprisoned. There followed riots and finally extensive revolt. ‘Ali Muhammad was executed and the Babi movement was suppressed with much bloodshed in 1852.
The Baha’i faith proclaimed by Baha’ Allah in 1863 retained the social mission of the Babis and the cultural symbols of Shi‘a Iran, but abandoned it chiliastic overtones in favor of a more general conversion of the people around the globe by the followers of the new order. Late in the nineteenth century, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, who claimed to be the Mahdi, undertook to reform traditional Sunni Islam and succeeded in building an effective social organization, with economic cooperatives and other exemplary establishments, restricted to benefit his followers. Whereas the Babis and the Baha’is were seen as heretical movements by the Twelver Shi‘a religious establishment, the Ahmadiyah sect represented a breach in the sense of unity among the Sunni Muslims and their activities, with claims of a sort of prophethood for its founder, were regarded by the Sunni religious establishment as divisive and sectarian. Thus, as evinced in both the Baha’i and Ahmadiyah movements, heretical ideas were ostensibly and inherently part of the esoteric nature of messianic lore. Moreover, this esoteric lore tended to be potentially catastrophic as foretold in numerous traditions about the Signs of the Hour.
Both during the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979 and the Gulf Crisis of 1990-1991, messianic traditions foretelling the apocalyptic events and describing the cataclysmic outcome of the world were in wide circulation in the Middle East, feeing on the hopes and fears of Muslims. Several attempts were made to fit Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s return from Paris on February 1, 1979, to the chiliastic tradition that foretold the “rise of a sayyid from Qom, as a precursor to the Mahdi, among the descendants of Musa al-Kazim (the seventh Shi‘a imam to whom Khomeini is lineally related) and will summon people to the right path” at the time of political and social turmoil in Iran. On November 20, 1979, the holiest shrine of Islam in Mecca experience the rise of the Saudi Mahdi, Jahaymin al-‘Utaybi, fulfilling the prophecy foretold in many traditions about the rise of the messianic leader in the grand mosque of Mecca. The insurrection that was crushed mercilessly by the authorities posed the most formidable challenge to the worldly and corrupt rulers of the Saudi royal family. Similarly, a tradition predicting the rise of a man as strong as a sadim (rock) in the month of Rajab (February 1991), was mysteriously circulating among the Muslim masses in Jordan and the Occupied West Bank in support of Saddam Hussein as a promised victor of that month.
A book that was published symbolically in 1979, and which found eager readers in Lebanon, Iraq, and many other places in the Muslim world, deals with the relevance of the Islamic messianism as preserved in the Shi‘a tradition. Its title Yawm al-khalas fi zill al-Qa’im al-Mahdi (The Day of Deliverance under the Protection of the Twelfth Imam) serves as a reminder to many Muslim governments in the world today that the Muslim public still awaits the ideal Islamic order to be established where oppression and tyranny will be replaced, through apocalyptic divine intervention, by justice and equity. In other words, chiliastic hope in the return of the Mahdi among Muslim masses reflects their heightened sense of expectation and remains a latent source of challenge to moral complacency and political tyranny in Muslim governments.
Masih, al- see Messiah
Metsu, Bruno
Mevlevi. See Mawlawiyah.
No comments:
Post a Comment