BYZANTINE RENEGADE AND HOLY WARRIOR: REASSESSING THE CHARACTER OF KSE

MIHAL, A HERO OF THE BYZANTINO-OTTOMAN BORDERLAND

-

Mariya KIPROVSKA
--



With the latest contribution to the debate on the role of Holy War (gaza) in the formative
years of the Ottoman state, which underlined the highly syncretic character of the early
Ottoman society,
1
and his more recent interest in studying the role of the Evrenosolu
family in the shaping of the emerging Ottoman polity,
2
Heath Lowry presented a revisionist
account of the first Ottoman centuries which undoubtedly enriched our understanding of
the nascent stage of the rising empire. In regard to this latest research I thought it
appropriate and provocative to contribute to Prof. Lowrys Festschrift with a study on the
founder of yet another prominent family of raider commanders, who played a decisive role
during the first centuries of the Ottoman state formation, namely the Mihaloullar.
The figure of Kse (Beardless) Mihal, a Byzantine castellan on the Middle
Sangarios/Sakarya River, who came into Ottoman service and became loyal to the first
Ottoman ruler, was and still is a pivotal part of an ongoing scholarly discussion about the
nature of the Ottoman state foundation. The character of the Christian renegade was
naturally involved in the debate re-evaluating the gazi nature of the first Ottoman state, as
some voiced the Christian origin of the apostate to question the image of the first Ottomans
simply as zealous warriors for the faith (gazis).
3
Research over the past two decades has

-
Acknowledgement is due to the American Research Institute in Turkey for a doctoral research fellowship
funded by the Andrew Mellon Foundation in 2010, in the course of which I conducted a detailed field-
research in Bithynia, part of the results of which will be presented in the present article.
--
Bilkent University.
1
Heath Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003).
2
The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1500: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern
Greece (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2008); with smail Ernsal, The Evrenos dynasty of Yenice
Vardar. Notes and documents on Hac Evrenos and the Evrenosoullar: a newly discovered late-17
th

century ecere (genealogical tree), seven inscriptions on stone and family photographs, Osmanl
Aratrmalar 32 (2008), 9-192; with smail Ernsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: A Postscript,
Osmanl Aratrmalar 33 (2009), 131-208; with smail Ernsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes
& Documents (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2010); The Evrenos Family & the City of Selnik: Who Built
the Hamza Be Cmii & Why? (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2010); Fourteenth Century Ottoman
Realities: In Search of Hc-Gzi Evrenos (stanbul: Baheehir University Press, 2012).
3
For extensive historiographical overview of the literature discussing the gazi nature of the first
Ottoman centuries see Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1995), 29-59 and Lowry, The Nature, 5-13. The figure of
Kse Mihal was examined in the light of the gazi discussion by Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in
Medieval Anatolia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 5, who denied the gazi identity of the first
Ottomans on the grounds that they appear in close cooperation with Christians such as Kse Mihal and
Mariya KIPROVSKA
246
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
emphasized the diversity of the early Ottoman society, in which a latitudinarian character of
the early Ottoman beglik was accentuated. As a result, the case of Kse Mihal was repeatedly
explored to suggest that his partnership with Osman was only one example of the Ottoman-
Christian cooperation at the borderland and that such a relation was illustrative for the
specific method of Ottoman conquest.
4
In light of the discussion of the early Ottoman
centuries an extreme view was also expressed which totally denied the historicity of Kse
Mihal on the grounds that the Ottoman narrative sources were much later creations and
thus have purely fictitious character in the case of events and personages from the early
Ottoman period which they describe.
5

Focusing on the character of Kse Mihal, the aim of the present paper is to emphasise
once more the need of considering broader spectrum of sources while studying different

his retainers. See also Lowry, The Nature, 57, 66, where the author claims that clearly Kse Mihal and the
other petty Christian rulers of Bithynian towns and castles did not side with Osman due to their zealous
desire to be a part of the spread of Islam, but it was rather their pragmatism and the desire to share in the
spoils of the conquest that made them form an alliance with the ruler of the emerging Ottoman
principality.
4
In a fundamental study on the Ottoman methods of conquest Halil nalck has noted that there were two
distinct stages applied by the Ottomans alliance and then vassalage which could be traced back in time
to the emergence of the Bithynian state of Osman, where the Ottomans first established an alliance with
the local lords, Christian (the most notable example being that of Kse Mihal) or Muslim, and only then
they became their vassals. See his Ottoman Methods of Conquest, Studia Islamica 2 (1954), 103-129. The
figure of Kse Mihal as an example of the Ottoman-Christian cooperation was explored by Cemal Kafadar,
Between Two Worlds, 127, 144-145; Heath Lowry, The Nature, 57, 66, 89-90 and on numerous occasions by
Keith Hopwood, Low-Level Diplomacy between Byzantines and Ottoman Turks: the Case of Bithynia, in
Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-Forth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990 (Andershot: Variorum, 1992), 153-154; idem, Peoples,
Territories and States: The Formation of the Beliks of Pre-Ottoman Turkey, in C. E. Farah (ed.), Decision
Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire (Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1993), 134-135;
idem, Mudara, in Amy Singer and Amnon Cohen (eds.), Aspects of Ottoman History: Papers from CIEPO IX,
Jerusalem (=Scripta Hierosolymitana 35) (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1994), 157-
158; idem, Osman, Bithynia and the Sources, Archv Orientln, Supplementa VIII (1998), 159-160; idem,
Tales of Osman: Legend or History? in XIII. Trk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1999, vol. 3, part 3 (Ankara: Trk
Tarih Kurumu, 2002), 2049-2060; idem, Living on the Margin Byzantine Farmers and Turkish Herders,
Journal of Mediterranean Studies 10:1-2 (2000), 101-102.
5
In a number of studies Colin Imber has maintained that due the fictitious character of the traditional tales
surrounding the early Ottoman history from the time of Osman, the Ottoman narratives describing the
Ottoman origins should be simply neglected as being invented during the fifteenth century and thus
labeled as historically inaccurate. The strongest argument of Imber in support of his thesis are the
characters of Kse Mihal and Ali (Alaeddin) Paa whom the author regards as purely fictitious and
invented by the Ottoman chroniclers of later times. Colin Imber, The Legend of Osman Gazi, in
Elizabeth Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 1300-1389, Halcyon Days in Crete I, A symposium held in
Rethymnon 11-13 January 1991 (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1993), 67-75; idem, Canon and
Apocrypha in Early Ottoman History, in Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds), Studies in Ottoman History
in Honour of Professor V. L. Mnage (Istanbul, 1994), 117-137. Imbers argument for the fictitious character of
Kse Mihal was most recently adopted by Rudi Paul Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 2007), 13 and 50, note 70.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
247
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
aspects of the late Byzantine and early Ottoman period.
6
My aim is to show that although
limited in quantity and diverse in character, the source material concerning the emergence
of the Ottoman state in Bithynia, should be studied in its entirety. Thus, re-examining the
information from the Ottoman chronicles and Byzantine histories, and combining them with
the data from later administrative records and surviving architectural and archaeological
remains in the area, I will argue not only for the plausible historicity of Kse Mihals
character, but also for his figurativeness for the ethos of the Byzantino-Ottoman border.

Assessing the historical accuracy of the narrative sources:
To prove the historical accuracy of the Ottoman chronicles from the fifteenth century as to
the truthfulness of the described events from the time of the emerging Ottoman sate, a
method was successfully used by a number of scholars, who juxtaposed their content with
that of the contemporary Byzantine sources.
7
A careful reading of the menakb of Yahi
Fakh, interpolated in the text of Akpaazade,
8
a source chronologically closest to the times
it depicts, and its collating with the narrative of George Pachymeres, himself a
contemporary of the events he described, showed that the Ottoman text is quite accurate in
portraying not only the general political situation in Bithynia, but also that it is trustworthy
with regard to the military campaigns and initial conquests of the Ottomans.
9
Although on
many occasions the Byzantine and the Ottoman sources diverge, they definitely complement
one another, especially when one keeps in mind that they were written from a different

6
The extreme thesis of Imber concerning the historicity of Kse Mihal has been challenged by Orlin Sabev
who suggested that the information from the earliest Ottoman chronicles should be read alongside other
sources, particularly Ottoman documents and epigraphic inscriptions, pointing at the descent of some
Mihalolu family members, and suggests therefore that the Ottoman narrative sources should not be so
easily dismissed. The Legend of Kse Mihal Additional Notes, Turcica 34 (2002): 241-252. While I fully
comply with Sabevs view, I will attempt to bring forward some other sources not used by him to judge
the accuracy of the Ottoman chronicles.
7
Most notable are the works of Halil nalck, who outlined the Ottoman military campaigns from the time
of Osman in virtue of comparing the Ottoman and Byzantine narrative texts concerning that period and
on the basis of the historical geography of the area. See his Osmn Ghzs Siege of Nicaea and the Battle
of Bapheus, in Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi
and the Byzantines for Nicaea, in Il Akbaygil et al (eds.), znik Throughout History (Istanbul: Trkiye
Bankas, 2003), 59-83; idem, Osmanl Beyliinin Kurucusu Osman Beg, Belleten 71 (2007), 479-537. See
also Elizabeth Zachariadou, Histoires et lgendes des premiers ottomans, Turcica 27 (1995): 45-89; Irne
Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Linstallation des Ottomans, in Bernard Geyer and Jacques Lefort (eds.), La
Bithynie au Moyen ge (Paris: ditions P. Lethielleux, 2003), 351-374.
8
Victor Mnage, The Menqib of Yakhshi Faqh, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26:1
(1963): 50-54; Halil nalck, The Rise of Ottoman Historiography, in Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt (eds),
Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 152-167.
9
nalck, The Battle of Bapheus, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 59-
83; Albert Failler, Les mirs turcs la conqte de lAnatolie au dbut du 14
e
sicle, Revue des tudes
Byzantines 52 (1994), 108-112.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
248
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
perspective.
10
The Byzantine authors who wrote in the capital Constantinople were less
informed about the local-level interaction between the Byzantines and the invading
Turcomans, but were rather well-versed in the Byzantine policies of the time and give
invaluable details about the measures undertaken by the emperors to stop them and about
the military leaders sent to Bithynia to cope with the local emirs. The Ottoman narratives,
on the other hand, give rather detailed account of the events surrounding the emergence of
the Ottoman state and abound in details about the local Byzantine lords, with whom the first
Ottoman rulers interacted on a daily basis. The historical accuracy of Yahi Fakhs text,
interpolated most fully in Akpaazades history, was put to the test by the researches and a
consensus was lately reached that the topographical evidence as well as archaeological
remains from the region of Bithynia support the narrative of the chronicle.
11

While the narratives of Pachymeres and Yahi Fakh differ with regard to the figure of
Kse Mihal (the personage of the Christian renegade is missing altogether in the Byzantine
text, while he is attributed quite an essential role in the Ottoman state formation by the
Turkish narrator),
12
they in no way contradict one another. As there is no way of
substantiating the information from the Ottoman narratives by simply juxtaposing it to the
contemporary Byzantine sources concerning the historicity of Kse Mihals character, who,
unlike some other prominent figures from that period, was not mentioned by Pachymeres,
13

I suggest that we examine briefly the passages from the Ottoman text, in which Kse Mihal
is presented, and to try to test their historical accuracy based also on the information given
by the Byzantine contemporary George Pachymeres.

10
This was already pointed out by Zachariadou, Histoires et Lgends, 67-68. The biased character of the
Byzantine and oriental sources was emphasized by Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Linstallation des Ottomans,
352-353 and idem, Pachymre et les sources orientales, Turcica 32 (2000): 425-434.
11
nalck, Osman Beg, 479-537; Jacques Lefort, Tableau de la Bithynie au XIII
e
sicle, in Zachariadou
(ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 101-117; Zachariadou, Histoires et Lgends, 65-75; Hopwood, Tales of
Osman, 2049-2060.
12
This fact alone has prompted some authors to imply that Kse Mihal must have been an unimportant
governor of an unimportant fortress, to whom an enormous role is ascribed in the narrative of Yahi
Fakh, but indeed he did not play a decisive role in the Byzantino-Ottoman relations in Bithynia. See
Failler, Les mirs turcs la conqte de lAnatolie, 110. Demetrios Kyritses, who studied the late
Byzantine aristocracy, also shared the opinion that in view of the fact that the Byzantine sources are
completely silent of the figure of the apostate from Bithynia, his role and social status is highly
exaggerated in the later Turkish narratives. See his The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Thirteenth and Early
Fourteenth Centuries (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1997), 83. I express my gratitude
to Savvas Kyriakidis who brought this extremely interesting work to my attention.
13
The assertion made by Mahmut Ragp Gazimihal that Koutzimpaxis from the text of Pachymeres stands
for Kse Mihal is erroneous. See his article stanbul Muhasaralarnda Mihalolular ve Fatih Devrine it
bir Vakf Defterine gre Harmankaya Mliknesi, Vakflar Dergisi 4 (1957), 132-135. Indeed, Kout,itoi
stands for the Greek transcription of Kodjabakhshi, a chief magician in Nogays court, who finally entered
Byzantine service and after being baptized was appointed by Andronicus II hegemon in the region of
Nikomedia. For details of his career and etymology of the title, not a personal name, see Elizabeth
Zachariadou, Observations on some Turcica of Pachymeres, Revue des tudes Byzantines 36 (1978), 262-
264.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
249
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
In the oldest chronicle tradition Kse Mihals character is introduced quite early in the
reign of Osman Gazi. He is presented as the Christian lord of Harmankaya with whom Osman
was in friendly relations (annla dahi gayet dostluk iderdi/with him too he was in really good
amity).
14
Next Kse Mihal appears as a guide (Mihal nlerince klaguz oldu/Mihal became a
guide in the forefront)
15
in one of the first military campaigns of Osman toward Mudurnu,
Gynk and Tarak Yenicesi. Here Mihal is presented as a person quite knowledgeable of
the local geography, as he traced the route of the raid and suggested the safest passes in the
area north of the Sakarya River.
16
Kse Mihal then is presented in an episode, in which he
invites all neighbouring Christian lords to the wedding of his daughter with the Byzantine
castellan of Gl. The narrative conveys the relationship of Mihal and Osman in way of the
formers appeal to the other local chiefs, in which Mihal emphasizes that indeed the
wedding ceremony is a good chance for them to establish contacts with the Turkish leader
and thus set up future alliance with him.
17
Being a close confident of Osman, Kse Mihal was
then chosen from among the Christian castellans of the region to invite the Turk to the
wedding of the tekfur of Bilecik, where the Byzantines intended to kill Osman. Mihals loyalty
to Osman and his revealing of the initial plan of the other Christian lords to Osman resulted
in the Ottoman capture of Bilecik and the sacking of the area.
18
The next instance when Kse
Mihal is mentioned in the narrative is in the course of Osmans Sakarya campaign of 1304.
19

Here, Mihal is reported to have embraced Islam prior the Ottoman march toward the
fortresses in the Sakarya valley Geyve, Mekece, Absuyu, Akhisar and Lefke.
20
He then
appears on the next year
21
alongside Osmans son Orhan in his campaign against the
fortresses Kara Tigin and Kara ep.
22
Lastly, Kse Mihal shows himself in the episode
describing the capture of Bursa (1326). Here, yet again he is presented in the role of an
envoy who negotiated the surrender of the city.
23

On the whole, it appears that for the Ottoman chronicler Kse Mihal was one of the
local Christian chiefs, who controlled the environs of the Harmankaya rock. He became an
ally of Osman and being familiar with the local topography to the north of the
Sangarios/Sakarya River was utilised by the latter as a guide for the raiding Ottoman troops.

14
Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanische Chronik des kpaazde (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), 14-15; Ali
Bey (ed.), Tevrih-i l-i Osmandan Akpzde Trih (stanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1332 [1914]), 11-12.
15
Giese, kpaazde, 15-16; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 12-13; Nihal Atsz iftiolu (ed.), Osmanl Tarihleri
I: Osmanl Tarihinin Anakaynaklar olan Eserlerin, Mtehassslar Tarafndan Hazrlanan Metin, Tercme veya
Sadeletirilmi ekilleri Klliyat (Istanbul: Trkiye Basmevi, 1925-1949) (=kpaaolu Ahmed k), 99.
16
This particular part of Akpaazdes narrative was discussed by nalck, Osman Beg, 505-506.
17
Giese, kpaazde, 16-17; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 14-15; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 100-101.
18
Giese, kpaazde, 17-18; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 15-16; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 101-102.
19
nalck, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 71-74, idem, Osman Beg, 516-517.
20
Giese, kpaazde, 24-25; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 23-25; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 107-108.
21
nalck, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 74-77, idem, Osman Beg, 517-519.
22
Giese, kpaazde, 26-28; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 25-28; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 108-110.
23
Giese, kpaazde, 28-30; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 28-31; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 110-112.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
250
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
Indeed, the physical remains of a small fort are still clearly distinguishable at the foot
of the Harmankaya rock.
24
(illust. 1 and 2) This might well have been one of the small
fortresses which were enforced by the Byzantine emperors Michael VIII (12591282) in the
1280s and Andronicus II (1282-1328) between 1290 and 1293 to protect the eastern frontier
of Byzantium in Bithynia from the Turkish raids along the Sangarios/Sakarya River.
25
It
should be kept in mind that these fortifications had purely defensive features and were
mainly used to observe the enemy and assemble for raids against enemy territories.
26
A
valuable remark on the way the last Byzantine defensive line at the Sangarios/Sakarya River
was reinforced is left by Theodore Metochites. He emphasized that while repairing the
existing fortifications and building new ones, Andronicus II constructed fortresses making
vast use of the geographical features of Asia Minor, such as rivers, inaccessible places and
mountains.
27
The remains at the foot of the Harmankaya rock should be regarded precisely
as such a small defensive fortification which over watched the entire Sangarios/Sakarya
valley to the south.
Harmankaya was situated on a strategically important high place which controlled the
movement of people rather than protected the area, it was a communication site overseen
from St in a bee-line. Therefore, it wouldnt be surprising that Osman, already stationed
in the high plateau of St,
28
formed friendly relations both with the Byzantine lord of
Beloukome/Bilecik, who provided protection for the Ottomans valuables while they were
on route in their seasonal migration to their summer pastures,
29
and with the lord of
Harmankaya, who controlled the low lands of the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya valley. An
alliance with the castellan of Harmankaya was vital for Osman for Kse Mihal was not only
controlling the strategic route leading from the Marmara to Ankara along the basin of the
Sangarios/Sakarya River,
30
but for his dominance over the region between the Sakarya and
Gynk Rivers, where two more important communication arteries were traversing the area
the one linking Nicaea with Ankara via Glpazar and the other following the basin of the
Gynk River via Geyve-Tarakl-Gynk.
31


24
The existence of remains at the site of Harmankaya was already pointed out by Jacques Lefort, Tableau
de la Bithynie au XIII
e
sicle, 115 and Keith Hopwood, Osman, Bithynia and the Sources, 159.
25
Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymrs. Relations Historiques, II: Livres IV-VI (Paris: Socit ddition Les
Belles Lettres, 1984) (= Georges Pachymrs, II), 634, 656; Angeliki Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins: The
Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282-1328 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 23, 79; Mark Bartusis,
The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 1204-1453 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992),
25, 64; Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204-1453 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011), 25-26, 157-158.
26
Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 157.
27
Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 157-158.
28
For the strategic importance of St see Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory, 35-53.
29
Hopwood, Mudara, 154-161.
30
Lindner, Explorations in Ottoman Prehistory, 50.
31
Jacques Lefort, Les communication entre Constantinople et la Bithynie, in Cyril Mango and Gilbert
Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and Its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, Oxford, April 1993 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995), 207-218; idem, Les grandes routes mdivales, in
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
251
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
Thus, there are good reasons to assume that the alliance of Kse Mihal with Osman
was essential for both sides. On the one hand, it was the practical need for making an
agreement with the local Byzantine lords which secured the rearguard of Osman when he
was moving south to the summer pastures. On the other hand, Osmans friendship was a way
for the Byzantine lord of Harmankaya to secure his position as a governor of the region he
controlled. His familiarity with the local geography was later utilised by Osman when he
used him as a guide for his raiding troops north of the Sangarios/Sakarya River. Precisely as
such Kse Mihal could be recognised in Pachymeress account, when he states that after
falling disappointed and virtually abandoned by the Byzantine rulers, the local Byzantines in
Bithynia cooperated with the Ottomans by forming alliance with the latter and leading them
in their military campaigns.
32

Indeed, it suffices to cast a glance at the conditions in Asia Minor at the end of the
thirteenth century to understand the estrangement from the imperial Byzantine policies of
both the soldiers and the local population. After regaining Constantinople from the Latins in
1261, Byzantium became mainly occupied with the West and with the reconquest of the
Balkan territories of the empire, thus neglecting Asia Minor. Moreover, the overtaxation of
the Byzantine provinces in Asia, which aimed at collecting cash for the support of a growing
army needed in the West, as well as the dispatching of Anatolian military troops to the
European front, hardened the conditions and alienated the locals even more.
33
This state of
affairs of general despair in the Asian provinces worsened with the intensified Turkish
invasion, as the resentment of the locals and the military officials made them prone to
rebellion. It is no coincidence that at the turn of the thirteenth century the revolt of Alexios
Philanthropenos (1295) was greatly supported by the population and the local soldiers in
Asia Minor, who thus gave expression of their discontent with the central government.
34
On
the other hand, the abandonment of the East resulted in the absence of centralised control
and consistent imperial policy in Asia Minor. This on its turn created favourable conditions
for corruption among the local officials, who sought opportunity to enrich themselves. What
John Tarchaneiotes, sent to Asia Minor in 1298 to reform the military and fiscal
administration, found in the region, was that many of the soldiers have lost their pronoia
properties which deprived the local stratiotai from resources and thus made it difficult for
them to combat, while others have increased their holdings and were no longer serving as

Geyer-Lefort (eds.), La Bithynie au Moyen ge, 461-472; Raif Kaplanolu, Osmanl Devletinin Kuruluu
(stanbul: Avrasya Etnografya Vakf, 2000), 51-55.
32
Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymrs. Relations Historiques, I: Livres I-III (Paris: Socit ddition Les Belles
Lettres, 1984) (= Georges Pachymrs, I), 292.
33
Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 23-24; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 78-79.
34
Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymrs. Relations Historiques, III: Livres VII-IX (Paris: Institut Franais
dtudes Byzantines, 1999) (= Georges Pachymrs, III), 242-244; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 82-83;
Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, 74-75; Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy, 317-318; Kyriakidis, Warfare in
Late Byzantium, 28.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
252
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
soldiers.
35
This deteriorating situation in Anatolia was not solved and it was apparently still
prevailing in 1303 when the central government considered the confiscation of large
ecclesiastical properties, as well as of pronoiai held by wealthy individuals, and their
distribution amongst the dispossessed stratiotai, thus hoping that the new pronoia holders
would be encouraged to fight effectively while defending their own properties.
36

Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that the desolation of the Anatolian troops induced
many Byzantine soldiers to apostatize and side with the Ottomans, thus securing their
properties while continuing to perform their military service. Perhaps it is no coincidence
that after the round of ineffective governmental measures to provide for the local stratiotai
as well as to ensure the security of the population at the Anatolian borderland, we find the
frontier general Kse Mihal embracing Islam (in 1304/5 according to the Ottoman
narrative)
37
and becoming a subordinate to Osman, attesting on the other hand to a shift in
the nature of their relationship from one of partnership and alliance to one of vassalage and
full incorporation. Moreover, the recent territorial gains of the Ottomans, as well as their
increasing victories on the battlefield, most notable of which was the battle of
Bapheus/Koyun Hisar (1302),
38
made it easy for the local troops to decide to switch over to
the winning side, thus assuring their lives and properties, something that the Byzantine
governance proved unable to offer.
Kse Mihal, on the other hand, became an important associate of Osman, as he
benefited both from the profound knowledge of the Byzantine apostate in the local
geography and from his familiarity with the other Christian lords of the area. The lord of
Harmankaya was repeatedly used by the Ottomans as a mediator in the low level diplomacy
between the Ottomans and the Bithynian castellans, while transmitting the messages of
both sides. This reveals the pragmatism in the early Ottoman policies, pragmatism clearly
perceivable in the Byzantine rule in Bithynia as well. There is no doubt that it was precisely
the practicality that drove the decision of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus II in installing
two Christianized Turks as governors in Bithynia Koutzimpaxis in Nicomedia (zmit) and
Isaak Melek in Pegai (Kara Biga) hoping that their common origin would help them
establish peaceful relations with the invading Turks.
39


35
Georges Pachymrs, III, 284; Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, 87-88; Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, 75;
Kyritses, The Byzantine Aristocracy, 319; Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 78.
36
The project for the confiscation and redistribution of the pronoia holdings in Anatolia is discussed in
length by Albert Failler, Pachymeriana Alia, Revue des tudes Byzantines 51 (1993), 248-258. See also
Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 77.
37
Giese, kpaazde, 24-25; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 23-25; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 107-108.
38
nalck, The Battle of Bapheus, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines, 61-
68; idem, Osman Beg, 509-514.
39
Zachariadou, Histoires et Lgends, 73; idem, Some Turcica of Pachymeres, 262-264; Paul Wittek,
Yazijioghlu Al on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
14:3 (1952), 665.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
253
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
Taking into account the desolate conditions in which the Byzantine soldiers were left
in Asia Minor, described by the Byzantine contemporaries, there are good reasons to assume
that the information from the Ottoman chronicles regarding the figure of Kse Mihal and his
apostasy is accurate. He must have been one of the many discontent military leaders in the
area who sought shelter in cooperation and submission to the Ottomans, as the latter could
guarantee their military posts and protect their properties. The prospect of enrichment
through plunder must have been among the chief reasons which induced the local soldiers
to accept the supremacy of Osman, who at that time already proved to be one of the
successful military leaders in the area.

Vindicating the accuracy of the chronicles with the help of the Ottoman defters of later
times:
A crushing mass of Ottoman administrative records was produced by the central imperial
administration since the fifteenth century, which became the core instrument of
generations of scholars in elucidating different aspects of Ottoman history from the
fifteenth century onwards. The accuracy of the Ottoman defters incited numerous studies on
the social and economic history of the Ottoman Empire, thus unveiling important details,
lacking in the narrative sources. The chronological limitation of these sources, however,
makes it difficult to apply their information to earlier periods. Despite these restraints of the
records, though, noteworthy attempts have been recently made to read the information
from these documents back into the period of the emerging Ottoman state, especially with
regard to the verification of the accuracy of the chronicles concerning the toponymy in the
birthplace of the Ottoman Empire, thus vindicating the stories of the narratives.
40
Moreover,
recent studies have shown that putting together the results from archaeological and
numismatic research, the topographical evidence and data from later administrative
documents, lends to the critical reading of the Ottoman chroniclers narrative. In light of this
general trend and using the information from a number of Ottoman administrative records
of the region with which Kse Mihals exploits were associated, I will attempt to test the
accuracy of the chronicles and propose that the data from the defters also gives credence to
the narratives.
Strangely enough, Colin Imbers assertion that the figure of the founder of the
Mihalolu family of raider commanders was a mere invention of the Ottoman chroniclers

40
A number of authors have used the information of the Ottoman registers to vindicate stories from the
narrative Ottoman sources and to prove that the toponymy in the chronicles is not fictitious. Most
notable among these are the studies of Halil nalck, How to Read Ashk Pasha-zades History, in Colin
Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Mnage (Istanbul: sis
Press, 1994), 139-156; idem, The Battle of Bapheus, 77-99; idem, The Struggle between Osman Gazi and
the Byzantines, 59-83; idem, Osman Beg, 479-537; Lefort, Tableau de la Bithynie au XIII
e
sicle, 101-
117; Irne Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Osmanl Devletinin Kuruluunun ncelemesinden Tahrir Defterlerinin
nemi, in XIII. Trk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 1999, vol. 3, part 3 (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 2002), 1315-
1319; idem, Linstallation des Ottomans, 351-374.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
254
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
and that his initial place of origin in Byzantine Bithynia, namely the fortress of Harmankaya
north of the Sangarios/Sakarya, should be regarded as pure fiction, rest on information
from a sixteenth-century Ottoman survey of the region.
41
According to the British historian
the purchase of the Harmankaya village (mod. Harmanky) by a Mihalolu family member
in the second half of the fifteenth century as recorded in the administrative records
triggered the Ottoman chroniclers imagination in inventing the eponymous founder of the
house of Mihal. The fabrication of the figure of the Byzantine lord of Harmankaya, in Imbers
view, should be regarded as a simple celebration of this land acquisition on the part of the
Ottoman writer Akpaazade, who might well have known personally Mihalolu Ali Beg
who purchased Harmankaya as a freeholding.
42
This assumption, however, is in itself highly
unconvincing and extremely dubious. Suffice it to say that half a century prior to the
purchase of the freehold in question Akpaazade met another member of this warlords
family from whom most probably he had heard about the family traditions in Harmankaya,
traditions which he was already familiar with while reading the Menakb of Yahi Fakh,
which the chronicler has acquired in 1413 by the latter in his own house in Geyve.
43
In 1422,
when Mihalolu Mehmed Beg was released by Murad II from imprisonment in Tokat to
receive his support in the rivalry with the pretender for the throne and his uncle Mustafa,
the former has passed through the convent of Elvan elebi, where the then young
Akpaazade has joined him on his way to the sultans camp.
44
Hence, the relationship
between the Ottoman chronicler and the Mihalolu family certainly predates the purchase
of Harmankaya by Ali Beg, which was used by Imber as his chief argument to suggest the
late connection of the family to that particular place. It is therefore credible to assert that
the information from the Ottoman sixteenth-century survey of Hdavedigr province, on
the grounds of which Imber dismisses the historicity of Kse Mihal out of hand, was a mere
recording of an alteration in land proprietorship, rather than a stimulus for the invention of
a Christian Lord of Harmankaya and a fictitious ancestor of a fifteenth-century prominent
raider commander.
Yet, the sixteenth-century surveys of Hdavedigr province published by mer Ltfi
Barkan and Enver Merili and used by Imber to support his thesis, reveal a whole long
ownership story prior and after the purchase of the Harmankaya village by Mihalolu Ali
Beg,
45
a fact neglected by Imber.
46
Indeed, the defters reveal that the village of Harmankaya

41
Imber, The Legend of Osman Gazi, 324; idem, Canon and Apocrypha, 131-132.
42
Imber, The Legend of Osman Gazi, 325; idem, Canon and Apocrypha, 131-132.
43
Mnage, The Menqib of Yakhshi Faqh, 50.
44
Giese, kpaazde, 86; Ali Bey, Akpzde Trih, 97; Atsz, kpaaolu Ahmed k, 157-158; nalck,
How to Read Ashk Pasha-zade, 140-141.
45
Mihalolu Ali Beg was a famous raider commander in the reigns of Mehmed II and Bayezid II. He created
a large pious foundation in the region of Plevne (mod. Pleven) in modern northern Bulgaria not far from
the Danube, which was in the hands of the family well until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. For
his military exploits see Agh Srr Levend, Gazavt-nmeler ve Mihalolu Ali Beyin Gazavt-nmesi (Ankara:
Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1956), 187-195; Olga Zirojevi, Smederevski sandjakbeg Ali beg Mihaloglu, [The
sancakbegi of Smederevo Ali Beg Mihalolu] Zbornik za istoriju Matitsa Srpska (Novi Sad, 1971): 9-27.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
255
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
was previously held as a freehold by Mahmudolu Bali Beg. Later its proprietorship was
handed over to Musa, most likely a son of Bali Beg. Ali Beg has only purchased it from the
heirs of Bali Beg and hereafter, probably after Ali Begs death, the mlk was handed over to
his son Mehmed Beg. This was the situation reflected in a register of the pious foundations
in the sancak of Hdavedigr from 1520.
47
Later on, in 1573, as revealed by the other sources
used by Barkan and Merili for this year, the mlk of Harmankaya has been purchased by the
nianc and beglerbegi of Haleb Boyal Mehmed Paa (d. 1593), who endowed its incomes to his
muallimhane in Tosya with an endowment deed from the very same year.
48

Although the registers used by Barkan and Merili did not explicitly mention the
lineage of none of the mentioned individuals who hold Harmankaya as a mlk prior to its
purchase by Boyal Mehmed Paa, their Mihalolu descent is undoubtedly acknowledged by
a number of vakf documents from the second half of the sixteenth century, which reveal the
property transfer from one Mihalolu family member to another prior to the lands
endowing to the newly formed pious foundation of Boyal Mehmed Paa in 1573.
49
Thus, it
becomes clear that close to 20 villages, mezraas and iftliks in the districts of Glbazar,
Gynk and Bilecik, among which the village of Harmankaya itself, forming the mlk of the
Mihaloullar, were held on a hereditary basis by the family members. Hence, it was
recorded that previously the freeholding was in the hands of Mahmud Beg olu Bali Beg, one
of the sons of Gazi Mihal Beg. Later the freeholding was purchased by Mihalolu Ali Beg
from the offspring of Bali Beg. When Ali Beg died, the mlk was inherited by his two sons,
Ahmed Beg and Mehmed Beg, children of Mahitab Hatun and Selimah Hatun respectively.
When the two brothers died, the land was inherited by their mothers (both former
Christians and wives of Ali Beg). After the death of Selimah Hatun, her share of the land
came into an inheritance of her sister Hrrem Hatun. Thereupon, the family mlk was

46
mer L. Barkan Enver Merili, Hdavendigr Livs Tahrir Defterleri (Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1988),
313, no. 539.
47
The exact register used by Barkan and Merili for this particular region under their heading B could be
safely identified with the detailed vakf defteri from the Babakanlk Osmanl Arivi in stanbul (=BOA),
namely the Tapu Tahrir (=TT) 453 from 926 H./1520, fol. 275
a
.
48
Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, p. 313, no. 539. The information derives from some of the defters
housed in Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Mdrl, Kuyud-u Kadime Arivi (=KuK) in Ankara from the year 981
H./1573 combined by Barkan and Merili under the heading C, i.e. KuK 67, 68, 75, 80, 570, 580, or 585. I
was unable to identify which particular register was used by the authors for their Harmankaya entry.
49
The content of these documents was first revealed by the amateur historian Mahmut Ragp Gazimihal,
himself a descendent of the Mihalolu family, in his short articles Harmankaya nerededir, Uluda: Bursa
Halkevi Dergisi 72-73 (1945): 1-4 and Rumeli Mihaloullar ve Harmankaya, Uluda: Bursa Halkevi Dergisi 81
(1947): 21-26. It was most comprehensively published in his later and more elaborate work Harmankaya
Mliknesi, 128-130. These conveyance documents were bound together in a small defter comprising of
20 pages, the first 4 of which appeared to be blank. The small booklet was kept in the mosque of the then
Harmankaya nahiye centre Akky and was brought to the attention of Mahmut Gazimihal by the then
administrative head of the district Mustafa Karabuda. The information from these documents as
presented by Gazimihal was used by Orlin Sabev as a counterargument of Imbers thesis to show the
patrimony of the Mihalolu family over the mlk of Harmankaya. See his The Legend of Kse Mihal, 244.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
256
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
bought by Boyal Mehmed Paa from the then proprietors, most likely Mahitab Hatun and
Hrrem Hatun themselves.
50

What can be deduced from the above mentioned information is that the mlk north of
the Middle Sangarios/Sakarya valley was held on a hereditary basis by the Mihalolu family
prior its purchase by Mehmed Paa in the second half of the sixteenth century. Moreover, it
could be safely affirmed that the freeholding was in the hands of Mihalolu Bali Beg, son of
Mahmud Beg, before his offspring sold it to their famous relative Ali Beg of Plevne. Bali Beg
was a son of Mihalolu Mahmud Beg,
51
who established a pious foundation in the Balkan
town of htiman (southeast of Sofia),
52
where a branch of the family has settled and whose
members were subsequently referred to in the Ottoman sources with the epithet
htiman/htimanlu/htimanolu.
53
Hence, it appears that Mihalolu Ali Beg has purchased
the Mihaloullars hereditary freeholding from one of his own relatives most probably after
Bali Begs death sometime during the second half of the fifteenth century.
Yet, the family inheritance story appears to be far more complicated than the one
presented in the documents of Boyal Mehmed Paas pious foundation, published in
summary by Mahmut Ragp Gazimihal. Coming back to the Ottoman administrative records

50
Gazimihal, Harmankaya nerededir, 2-3; idem, Rumeli Mihaloullar ve Harmankaya, 21-23; idem,
Harmankaya Mliknesi, 129-130.
51
Mahmud Beg was mentioned by Enver in his Dstr-nme as still living in htiman. Enver, Dstr-nme,
ed. by Mkrimin Halil Ynan (stanbul: Devlet Matbaas, 1928), 90-91. According to Enver, Mahmud Beg
was the son of lyas Beg, a su-ba and close companion of Bayezid I (1389-1402) in his Ankara battle
against Timur (1402), where he lost his life heroically. lyas Beg was, as Enver puts it, a son of Balta Beg,
with whom Mihal Beg (supposedly Kse Mihal) has come from am (Damascus). This passage in Envers
text was first interpreted by Yaar Gkek and became a basis of the established by Gkbilgin genealogy
of the first generations family members and the htiman branch in particular. See Yaar Gkek, Kse
Mihal Oullar (stanbul niversitesi Edebiyat Fakltesi Mezuniyet Tezi, 1950), 33-34 and idem, Trk
mparatorluk Tarihinde Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar (Konya: Alagz yay., 1998), 48, 76; M. Tayyib
Gkbilgin, Mihal-oullar, slm Ansiklopedisi, vol. VIII (1960), 286, 290-291. Machiel Kiel and Orlin Sabev
misunderstood Envers text and suggested that it was not his father lyas Beg, but Mahmud Beg himself
who lost his life in the battle of Ankara. Sabev, The Legend of Kse Mihal, 245; Machiel Kiel, htiman,
Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slm Ansiklopedisi, vol. 21 (2000), 571.
52
Semavi Eyice, Sofya Yaknnda htimanda Gazi Mihalolu Mahmud Bey mret-Camii, Kubbealt Akademi
Mecmuas 2 (1975): 49-61; idem, Gazi Mihalolu Mahmud Bey Camii, Trkiye Diyanet Vakf slm
Ansiklopedisi, vol. 13 (1996), 462-463; Kiel, htiman, 571-572.
53
In a synoptic register of the sancak of Nibolu from 884 H. (1479/80) it was recorded that the zeamet of
Gigen was in the hands of sa Bali, son of Bali Beg htiman (the same Bali Beg who held Harmankaya as a
freeholding). See National Library Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Sofia, Oriental Department, OAK 45/29, fol.
41
a
. htimanoullar Kasm and Mehmed Beg were among the supporters of the prospective sultan Selim I
in his struggle for the throne in 1511. The two brothers have joined the troops of Selim at Akkirman on
his way to the capital. See Hakk Erdem pa, The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I, 1487-
1512 (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 258, 260. It was in all probability the very
same htimanlu Kasm Beg, one of prince Selims supporters, who in 1521/22 held the sancakbeglik of
Humus. See mer Ltfi Barkan, H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Mal Ylna Ait Bir Bte rnei, stanbul
niversitesi ktisat Fakltesi Mecmuas, 15:1-4 (1953-1954), 306.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
257
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
of the Hdavendigr province from the sixteenth century, it becomes apparent that indeed
it was only the village of Harmankaya, which was previously held as a freeholding by
Mihalolu Bali Beg. Almost all other villages, mezraas and iftliks mentioned in Boyal
Mehmed Paas vakf documents appear to have been mlk of Mihalolu Ali Beg or were in
the hands of his two sons Ahmed Beg and Mehmed Beg, with only two notable exceptions
the village of Dutman
54
and the mezraa of Seid/Sel-Bk
55
in the vicinity of Harmankaya,
which were bought by Mihalolu Ali Beg from the offspring of their previous owner Paa
Yiit Beg. Hence, it is logical to suppose that the large mlk was apportioned and was held
simultaneously until the second half of the fifteenth century by the two cousins Mihalolu
Ali Beg and Mahmud Beg olu Bali Beg. It has subsequently been brought together under
the ownership of one person after Ali Beg purchased part of it from the offspring of Bali
Beg, to be yet again distributed amongst his own sons after his death.
If the so presented information on the landholdings of the Mihaloullar in the area
undoubtedly showed that at least from the second half of the fifteenth century the family
members were inevitably linked with Harmankaya and the region, the data from the
sixteenth-century registers could be hardly read back into the period of the emerging
Ottoman state. Such an opportunity is given, however, by the first preserved registers of the
Ottoman foot (yaya/piyade) troops in the sancak of Sultann.
The sancak of Sultann, among the first administratively organized units of the
Ottoman realm, was initially associated with the yaya (foot) regiments, the primary military
troops of the Ottoman soldiery.
56
Unsurprisingly, the oldest preserved administrative
records of the province are the yaya defterleri of Sultann district, the first going back in
time to H. 871 (1466/7).
57
At that time the foot soldiers district (piyade sanca) of Sultann
was divided into 17 smaller yaya nahiyeleri. 8 of them were under the direct control of the
sancakbegi and 9 nahiyes were under the leadership of his subordinate serpiyade leaders.
58

What is of interest for the present research is the presence of two serpiyade nahiyes with the
name Harmankaya Harmankaya an liva-yi Sultann (Harmankaya from the district/liva of
Sultann) and Harmankaya tabi Gl an liva-yi Sultann (Harmankaya, [subordinate] to Gl
from the district/liva of Sultann), providing 60 and 70 active infantrymen accordingly.
59


54
Wrongly read by Barkan and Merili as Doan. See BOA, TT 453, fol. 275b; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr
Livs, 313, no. 540.
55
The previous ownership of Paa Yiit Beg becomes apparent only in one synoptic yaya register from 927
H./1520. See BOA, Maliyyeden Mdevver Defteri (=MAD) 64, fol. 113
b
; Halime Doru, Osmanl
mparatorluunda Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilat (XV. ve XVI. Yzylda Sultann Sanca) (stanbul: Eren
Yaynevi, 1990), 172-173. This information is omitted in the vakf registers of the province, where the
mezraa of Sil-bk is said to be purchased by Ali Beg from certain lyas Beg, most probably a descendent
of Paa Yiit Beg himself. BOA, TT 453, fol. 276
a
; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 314, no. 542.
56
Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt and idem, XVI. Yzylda Eskiehir ve Sultann Sanca (Odunpazar
Belediyesi, 2005).
57
BOA, Maliyeden Mdevver (=MAD), No. 8. See also Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, XV, 55.
58
Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 55-58; 73-95.
59
BOA, MAD 8, fol. 56
b
and fol. 69
b
. Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 88, 91.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
258
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
Moreover, as it becomes apparent from the defter, the two subdistricts were under the
leadership of two Mihalolu family members Mihalolu Ali Beg and Mahmud Beg olu Bali
Beg, the very same ones who held portions of the hereditary mlk of the family in the area. It
appears that not only the freeholding of the family was held on a hereditary basis but it was
the leadership of the yaya/infantry regiments of Harmankaya nahiyeleri as well that was
handed over to the after Mihaloullar generations. Hence, in 1520 the piyade chief of both
Harmankaya districts was the son of Mihalolu Ali Beg, Mehmed Beg, as the hereditary
leadership of the Harmankaya infantrymen was preserved in the family as late as 1579,
attested by the last yaya registers.
60

What makes the first yaya register of Sultann from 1466/7 extremely valuable in
regard to the Mihaloullar leadership over the Harmankaya infantry is the fact that it refers
to an earlier period, indicating that part of the piyade/infantry forces in the region was
under the command of yet another member of the family. Thus, the district of Harmankaya,
whose leader in 1466/7 appears to be Mihalolu Ali Beg, begins with the following heading:
Piyadegn-i Harman Kaya an liva-yi Sultan n, kadimden Mihal Beg tasarruf idermi, imdi Hzr
Beg olu Ali Beg mutassarfdr [Harmankaya foot soldiers from the Sultann district,
previously at the disposition of Mihal Beg, now in possession of Hzr Beg olu Ali Beg].
61

The mention that the leadership of the yaya/foot soldiers in the Harmankaya region was in
the hands of Mihal Beg before it was transmitted to Mihalolu Ali Beg, undoubtedly sets a
terminus post quem for the hereditary leadership of the Mihalolu family over the infantry
troops of the region, i.e. the first quarter of the fifteenth century when Mihal Beg was active.
This Mihal Beg could be safely identified with Mihalolu Mehmed Beg who was one of
the most vigorous military leaders during the dynastic struggles after the battle of Ankara
(1402). He was elevated to the post of beglerbegi during Musa elebis reign
62
and was
subsequently imprisoned by the victorious sultan Mehmed I (1413-1421).
63
He then rose to
prominence once more in the reign of Murad II (142144 and 144651) who released him
from the Tokad prison to use him in his struggle for the throne against the claimant Dzme
Mustafa,
64
which according to the chronicles cost the life of the Mihalolu. Mihal Beg was

60
Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 89, 91.
61
BOA, MAD 8, fol. 56
b
. Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 88.
62
Halil nalck, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire, in M. A. Cook (ed.), A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 33-34; Dimitris Kastritsis, Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building
and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402-1413 (Leiden Boston: Brill, 2007), 137-142, 161-162;
Rhoads Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty: Tradition, Image and Practice in the Ottoman Imperial
Household, 1400-1800 (London: Continuum, 2008), 46-47; Friedrich Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen
Chroniken Tevrih-i l-i Osmn. Teil I: Text und Variantenverzeichnis (Breslau: Selbstverlag, 1922), 49; idem,
kpaazde, 73-74; Faik Reit Unat and Mehmed Kymen (eds.), Kitb- Cihan-Nm. Ner Tarihi, vol. 2
(Ankara: Trk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 487-491; Franz Babinger, Die Frhosmanischen Yahrbcher des Urudsch
(Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire, 1925), 39, 107.
63
Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, 52; Babinger, Urudsch, 40, 108.
64
Giese, Die Altosmanischen Anonymen Chroniken, 57; idem, kpaazde, 86-87; Unat Kymen, Ner Tarihi,
vol. 2, 559-561; Babinger, Urudsch, 46-47, 112-113.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
259
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
buried in Edirne
65
next to the monumental complex (zaviye/imaret, hamam and a bridge)
commissioned by himself in H. 825 (1421/22) shortly before his death.
66
(illust. 3 and 4)
Mihal Begs close relation to the region north of the river Sangarios/Sakarya is also
attested by his architectural patronage in the centre of the nahiye of Gl, where in the town
of Glpazar itself he commissioned a zaviye and a hamam, as the latter was endowed for the
upkeep of the zaviye.
67
To these one should also add a menzil han (inn), which being built not
for profit, was included neither in the Ottoman defters nor was it endowed to the zaviye. The
dedicatory inscription over its entrance, however, allows a firm dating of the so-formed

65
The tombstone of the founder is a subject of controversial readings. It was initially Ahmed Bad Efend at
the turn of the nineteenth century who suggested that the tomb of the founder of Gazi Mihal mosque in
Edirne refers to him as Mihal bin Aziz bin Firenk bin Cavund. Hereafter, this assertion was reiterated
by Mahmud Ragb Gazimihal, avunt olu Ksemihl Bahi, Trk Folklor Aratrmalar 113:5 (1958), 1801-
1804, who even put forward the hypothesis that Kse Mihal was of Turkic descent. The erroneous reading
was most recently adopted by Orlin Sabev, who went on to suggest that behind Frenk bin Cnd/Frank son of
a warrior (in his interpretation) may well be hidden Kse Mihal, who would then have been one of the
Catalan mercenaries of Roger de Flors expedition of 1308, who entered the service of the recently
established emirate of Karasi, and from there moved on to serve the Ottomans. Sabev, The Legend of
Kse Mihal, 244. Indeed, the matter in hand is that Bad Efend misread both stones at the head and at
the foot of the tomb. Actually, the tombstone to which Bad Efend refers is no other but the grave of Aziz
bin Mihal Beg, who died in H. 850 (1446/47), and not of Mihal bin Aziz. In fact, a closer look at the
inscription shows that the tombstone of this Aziz Beg is comprised of only one stone, engraved on both
sides, which gives both the name of the deceased and the date of his death. The tombstone at the foot-site
of the grave, which in all probability reads the erroneously spelled name of certain Firuz bin Cneyd and
not Firenk bin Cavund, is wrongly placed on top of this grave and has no connection to the gravestone of
Aziz bin Mihal Beg. This mistake has been already pointed out by Gkek, Kse Mihal Oullar, 53, idem,
Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar, 10-11 and Ekrem Hakk Ayverdi, Osmanl Mimrsinin lk Devri: Erturul,
Osman, Orhan Gazler Hdavendigr ve Yldrm Byezd 630-805 (1230-1402) (stanbul: Baha Matbaas, 1966), 150-
151, idem, Osmanl Mimrsinde elebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806-855 (1403-1451) (stanbul: Damla Ofset,
1989), 392-393. The grave of the founder of the Edirne complex is different from the one just discussed,
has two legible head- and footstones, which contain both the name of the deceased El-emirl-kebir
Mihal bin Aziz Paa and the date of his death H. 839 (1435/36). Gkek, Kse Mihal Oullar, 50 and idem,
Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar, 14; Ayverdi, Osmanl Mimrsinin lk Devri, 151, idem, elebi ve II. Sultan
Murad Devri, 390; Mustafa zer, Edirnede Mihaloullarnn mar Faaliyetleri ve bu Aileye Ait Mezar
Talarnn Deerlendirilmesi, in I. Edirne Kltr Aratrmalar Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 23-25 Ekim 2003 (Edirne:
Edirne Valilii, n.d.), 317-325; Hikmet Turhan Dalolu, Edirne Mezarlar (stanbul: Devlet Basmevi, 1936),
24 who misread the date of Mihal Begs death. For Mihal Begs vakf in Edirne see M. Tayyib Gkbilgin, XV-
XVI. Asrlarda Edirne ve Paa Livs. Vakflar Mlkler Mukataalar (stanbul: ler Basmevi, 1952), 246 ff.
66
The dedicatory inscription of the complex was published and analyzed in detail by Fokke Theodoor
Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 17-18.
67
Nefs-i Glde merhum Mihal Beg bir zaviye bina idb, mezkr zaviye in bir hamam bina idb vakf
etmi. See Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 320. The authors have wrongly supposed that the Mihal
Beg mentioned in the defter is indeed Kse Mihal and have thus supposed that the vakf was established in
the reign of sultan Orhan.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
260
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
complex its construction started in H. 818 (1415/16) and was completed in H. 821
(1418/19).
68
(illust. 5 and 6)
All this said, it is apparent that the piyade defteri of 1466 refers to the first half of the
fifteenth century, when the leader of the Harmankaya infantry troops was Mihal Beg. This,
on the other hand, suggests that in the time between the leadership of Mihal Beg and his
grandson Ali Beg, the head of this particular military unit was yet another member of the
Mihalolu family in all probability this was the father of Ali Beg, Hzr Beg, who was
subsequently inherited by his son. Be it as it may, Mihal Begs command of the yaya infantry
definitely supports the assertion that the leadership of the Harmankaya foot soldiers was
traditionally in the hands of the Mihaloullar who held the post of yaya leaders on a
hereditary basis, similarly to the hereditary leadership of the family members over the
aknc/raiders corps.
69

On the other hand, what is brought to ones attention is the toponymy of the region in
1466/67, when Harmankaya is mentioned as a piyade nahiye under the simultaneous
leadership of two distinct commanders. This fact implies that Harmankaya should in all
probability be rather regarded as a landmark, most notably envisaging the imposing rock of
Harmankaya itself, than as a denomination of a single village. The geographical setting of
the two yaya districts with the same name supports this hypothesis. It appears that one of
the Harmankaya nahiyes lay south of the rock, while the other seems to encompass
territories northeast of it.
70
Furthermore, the very village of Harmankaya was not mentioned
in the yaya defteri of 1466/7. It is plausible to suggest, therefore, that in 1466/7 a village of
this name did not exist on that particular place, but it might well have been established only
later on by Mahmud Beg olu Bali Beg, who possessed the village of Harmankaya. According
to the registers from 1520 Bali Begs houses (evler) and pieces of land (yerler) in his own mlk
were listed with the explicit note that they were previously excluded from registration
(haric ez-defter).
71
Evidently, the modern village of Harmanky was a site of a Roman and

68
Mahmud Ragb Gazimihal, Harmankaya Nerededir III: Kitabe, Trbe ve Rivayetler, Uluda: Bursa Halkevi
Dergisi 77 (1946): 1-7; Gkek, Aknc Tekilt ve Gazi Mihal Oullar, 18; Ayverdi, elebi ve II. Sultan Murad
Devri, 169-171; Abdlhamit Tfekiolu, Erken Dnem Osmanl Mimarsinde Yaz (Ankara: T. C. Kltr
Bakanl, 2001), 133-134; H. etin Arslan, Trk Aknc Beyleri ve Balkanlarn marna Katklar (1300-1451)
(Ankara, 2001), 67-79.
69
The right wing (sa kol) of the aknc corps was traditionally known as the Mihallu- wing, whose leaders
were members of the Mihalolu family. See Mariya Kiprovska, The Military Organization of the Akncs in
Ottoman Rumelia (unpublished M.A. thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, 2004).
70
See Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 182-184 and the map at the back of the book.
71
BOA, TT 453 (detailed vakf register of Hdavendigr province) from H. 926/1520, fol. 275
a
: karye-i
Harmankayada Mahmud Beg olu Bali Beg mlk iinde olan evler, haric ez-defter and Barkan Merili,
Hdavendigr Livs, 313, no. 539; BOA, MAD 64 (icmal yaya defteri) from H. 927/1529, fol. 113
b
:
Harmankayada Mahmud Beg olu Bali Begin mlk iinde kendnn evleri ve yerleri varm and
Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 172-173.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
261
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
early Byzantine settlement,
72
but it appears to have been abandoned during the late
Byzantine era, since no material of this period is noticeable at the present. In all likelihood
the village of Harmankaya inherited an ancient settlement tradition but came into being and
developed precisely around the housing built by Bali Beg, in which he most probably resided
while summoning the infantry troops of the region under his direct control.
In support of such a hypothesis bespeaks the fact that the actual centre of the
Mihaloullars mlk in the Harmankaya region seems to have been not at the foot of the
great rock where the village of Harmankaya is situated but several kilometres southeast of it
in the joint village of Ak ve Alnca. Thus, the data of the yaya defteri from 1466/7 testifies that
the personal freeholding of Mihal Beg, which was later inherited by his grandson Ali Beg,
was located on that particular spot:

Karye-i Ak ve Alnca, kadimden Mihal Begin mlkymi, elinde hkm-i
hmayunlar vardr, suret-i defter-i khne dahi budur. imdiki halde Hzr
Beg olu Ali Beg mutasarrfdr, mlkiyet zere hkm-i hmayunlar var
ve dahi avarz-i divaniyeden muaf ve msellem ola deyu mektublar var
ve reaya bunlardr ki zikr olunur...
73


The village of Ak and Alnca, since olden times it was a freeholding (mlk)
of Mihal Beg, [who] possesses imperial decrees, this is [according to] a
copy of the old registration. Now it is held by Hzr Beg olu Ali Beg, he
has imperial decrees attesting his ownership, as well as letters approving
the exemption from extraordinary levies; the subject population (reaya) is
listed [as follows]...

Thereafter the defter enlists name by name the heads of 59 households, all of them
Muslim. Apart from them, the register records the presence of 10 small farms (iftlik), a
garden (ba) of the size of 10 mud and 10 Christian households, all private property of Ali
Beg, which inevitably indicates that the latter were obtained by Ali Beg himself, as the
above-cited reaya should be regarded as inhabiting the place from earlier times.

72
I am indebted to Kaan Harmankaya, a descendent of the Mihalolu family from Vienna, who first pointed
out to me the existence of some early Byzantine stone material in Harmanky. A subsequent
correspondence with Klaus Belke, who currently prepares for publication vol. 13 from the series Tabula
Imperii Byzantini, dedicated to Bithynia and the Hellespont, made it clear that the evidence from
Harmanky helps define the existence of an ancient necropolis and an early Byzantine church at the site.
I am extremely grateful to Prof. Belke for sharing with me his unpublished entry on Harmankaya.

73
BOA, MAD 8 (icmal yaya defteri) from H. 871 (1466/7), fols. 68
a
-69
b
; Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 171-
172.
Mariya KIPROVSKA
262
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
Hence, it appears that it is precisely at the place of the joint village of Ak ve Alnca
where one should locate the centre of the Mihaloullar hereditary holding in the region.
Moreover, later Ottoman administrative records reveal that exactly this village the raider
commanders transformed into their family residence. It was in this very settlement where
they erected their palace (saray) with numerous housings (mteaddid evler), have built a
bathhouse and a stable for the horses and sheep bred in the country residence.
74
It seems
that the family mansion was quite ostentatious. The presence of a reception hall (divanhane),
where the official meetings were held, suggests that it once had the appearance of quite a
stately residence, which was used not only as a country dwelling, but was the seat of the
Mihaloullar when they were performing their administrative and military duties in their
capacity of the Harmankaya infantry leaders. In all likelihood the reception room was part
of the mens quarters in the palace, and was one of the most notable living spaces in the
large abode. On the other hand, the recording of several female slaves
75
suggests that there
must well have been a harem section in the female quarters of the seraglio. Some of the other
living spaces must have been reserved for the personal gulms
76
(in origin prisoners of war
or purchased slaves) of the begs, which were most probably trained in various duties in the
family mansion, itself a microcosm of the imperial palace.
77

The exact location of the one-time residence of the Mihaloullar is easily identifiable
in the topography of the area. Nonetheless, one of the names of the joint village was
previously read wrongly both by Barkan and Merili, and by Halime Doru, and thus the site
of the settlement was not presently established. Barkan and Merili read it as Aln,
supposing that it well may be the village of Al.
78
Halime Doru proposed the reading Ilca
and thus left it unidentified.
79
What should be kept in mind is that the two villages of Ak and
Alnca were always put together under one heading in the Ottoman administrative records,
suggesting therefore their very close proximity. Indeed, the village survived in the present

74
In 1520 the family mansion comprised of the following: bir divan-hane; Saray iinde mteaddid evler;
bir ahur; bir hamam; koyun: 500; yund: 80 aded; aygr: 4. See BOA, TT 453 (from 1520), fol. 277
b
; Barkan
Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315, no. 546 and 547. This information was copied in the summary register of
1530 with no alteration in the number of households living in the village and in its revenues. 166 Numaral
Muhsebe-i Vilyet-i Anadolu Defteri (937/1530): Hdvendigr, Biga, Karesi, Saruhn, Aydn, Mentee, Teke, Aliye
livlar (Ankara: Babakanlk Basmevi, 1995), 63. In 1539/40 the same parts of the residence were enlisted,
as were also 500 sheep (koyun) registered. There is no mention of the 80 mares (yund) and 4 stallions
(aygr). BOA, TT 531 (detailed vakf defteri from H. 946), 272.
75
Altogether 9 concubines were registered amongst the 27 gulms residing in the village, as 3 of them were
registered with the patronymic Abdullah, pointing to their Christian origin. BOA, TT 453 (from 1520),
fol. 277
b
; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315, note 30.
76
Besides the female slaves, there were additionally 18 male slaves (gulm) registered. BOA, TT 453 (from
1520), fol. 277
b
; Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315, who give a wrong number. In 1539/40 the male
slaves numbered 30 (BOA, TT 531, 272), and in 1573 they were 18 (See Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr
Livs, 315).
77
Halil nalck, Ghulm, IV: Ottoman Empire, Encyclopedia of Islam
2
(Leiden: E.J. Brill), Vol. 2: 1085-1091.
78
Barkan Merili, Hdavendigr Livs, 315.
79
Doru, Yaya-Msellem-Tayc Tekilt, 89, 171, 172.
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
263
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
toponymy with only one of its names Akky, situated only a few kilometres southeast of
the village of Harmankaya and the great rock of the same name. The village of Alnca
continued to exist well until the nineteenth century when it was depopulated and thus
ceased to exist. Its location, though, could be established with a great degree of certainty
thanks to the ruin field to the northeast of the modern village of Akky. (illust. 7) It seems
that the two villages were once located on two neighbouring hills, separated by a small
gulch. The more flatly terrain of the hill where once the village of Alnca was located
suggests that it was precisely there where the family residence of the Mihaloullar was
situated, the only sign of its presence being the abundant stone material scattered all over
the place. The availability of better water resources in the neighbouring Ak village, on the
other hand, must have been the chief reason for the choice of the family to build precisely
there their bathhouse. The remains of the hamam are still clearly observable in Akky.
(illust. 8) It is in a much ruinous condition and is covered with exuberant vegetation, as it is
presently used as a sheepfold by the local villagers. Now much of it appears to be under the
ground level, but two domes are still clearly discernible. It was most probably a single bath
used consecutively by the male and female residents, as well as by the family of its
benefactors. Although it is difficult to say something more definite about the physical
appearance of the bathhouse due to its ruinous condition, its presence in the village of
Akky undoubtedly sets the location of the centre of the Mihalolu family base in the region
of Harmankaya.

Conclusion
The location of the family residence of the Mihaloullar in the region north of the Middle
Sangarios/Sakarya in the joint village of Ak ve Alnca shows that the family was undoubtedly
bound to the area, but not necessarily to the very village of Harmankaya. It is highly
probable that the initial landholding of the family was at the place of the modern village of
Akky and not at the foot of the gorgeous rock Harmankaya. Furthermore, it is safe to state
that the Mihalolu family was traditionally linked to the leadership of the infantry troops
from the Harmankaya district and not with the very village of the same name. The extant
archival documents establish that since the first decades of the fifteenth century several
generations of Mihalolus held the post of Harmankaya piyade leaders. It is difficult to take
any statement on the preceding years beyond the realm of conjecture, but the explicit
evidence for the familys hereditary command of the infantry troops of the area strongly
implies that this situation originates in the nascent years of the Ottoman state with the
forefather of the family Kse Mihal.
Moreover, it appears that the above statement is in full corroboration with the
information from the Ottoman chronicles, which present the founder of the family, Kse
Mihal, as a military leader of the Christian troops of the Harmankaya region. Being stationed
to the north of the Sangarios/Sakarya valley, the Christian lord of Harmankaya became an
immediate neighbour of the newly settled to the south of the valley Ottoman leader and was
among the first Byzantines to form an alliance with Osman. The so established mutually
Mariya KIPROVSKA
264
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
beneficial relations between the two sides guaranteed the life and property of the Byzantine
lord in the unstable conditions of the Byzantine border zone. The general situation of
despair in the Asian frontiers of the Empire, on the other hand, and the impossibility of the
central Byzantine authorities to secure the payments and properties of the soldiers, made it
easy for the local leaders such as the Beardless Mihal to ally with the emerging masters of
the region. This alliance proved to be more prosperous for not only keeping intact the
properties of the apostate, but his military post as well. It is credible to affirm that Osman
assured the position of his Christian companion and he continued to lead a small contingent
of soldiers from the Harmankaya region under the Ottoman flag. In all likelihood, the
leadership of Kse Mihal over these forces was handed over to his successors as it was
transmitted well into the sixteenth century a period in which different branches of the
family have already firmly established themselves in the European provinces of the Ottoman
empire and have hereditarily been leading much larger military formation the aknc corps.




















Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
265
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
List of illustrations:





illust. 1: The rock of Harmankaya
Mariya KIPROVSKA
266
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 2: Ruins of the Byzantine fortification at the foot of the Harmankaya rock


illust. 3: Gazi Mihals complex in Edirne, 1422 (the bridge and the zaviye/imaret at its rear)
Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
267
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 4: Gazi Mihal hamam in Edirne (part of the complex)


illust. 5: Mihal Begs han in Glpazar (1415/6-1418/9)
Mariya KIPROVSKA
268
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013

illust. 6: Mihal Begs zaviye in Glpazar


illust. 7: The site of the Alnca village

Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Kse Mihal
269
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013


illust. 8: Remains of the Mihaloullars hamam in the village of Akky



JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES
TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI
VOLUME 40
December 2013

Edited by - Yaynlayanlar
Cemal KAFADAR Gnl A. TEKN



DEFTEROLOGY
FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF HEATH LOWRY




Guest Editors
Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN


Editorial Board - Tahrir Heyeti
Cemal KAFADAR Sel i m S. KURU Gnay KUT Gnl A. TEK N



Consulting Editors - Yardmc Yaz Kurulu
N. AI KGZ mul a E. BI RNBAUM toronto M. CANPOLAT ankara R. DANKOFF chi cago
C. D L N ankara P. FODOR budapest E. HARMANCI kocael i H. NALCI K ankara C. KAFADAR
cambri dge, mass M. KALPAKLI ankara C. KURNAZ ankara A. T. KUT i stanbul G. KUT
i st anbul G. NEC POLU cambri dge, mass M. LMEZ i st anbul Z. NLER anakkal e
K. RHRBORN gtt i ngen W. THACKSTON, J r. cambri dge, mass T. TEK N ankara S. TEZCAN
ankara Z. TOSKA i st anbul E. TRYJ ARSKI warsaw P. ZI EME berl i n

JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES
TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI
VOLUME 40
December 2013

Edited by
Cemal KAFADAR Gnl A. TEKN





DEFTEROLOGY
FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF HEATH LOWRY




Guest Editors
Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN






Published at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
Harvard University
2013



TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI
JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES
CLT 40
Aralk 2013

Yaynlayanlar
Cemal KAFADAR Gnl A. TEKN





DEFTEROLOJ
HEATH LOWRY ARMAANI




Yayna Hazrlayanlar
Selim S. KURU Baki TEZCAN






Harvard niversitesi
Yakndou Dilleri ve Medeniyetleri Blmnde yaynlanmtr
2013


Copyright 2013 by the editors
All rights reserved

Btn telif haklar yaynlayanlara aittir


Managing Editor of
JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES
Gnay KUT




Composer of the JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES
brahim Tekin


Bask:
KTAP MATBAACILIK


Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 70-131003
ISSN: 0743-0019



Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in
HISTORICAL ABSTRACTS
and
AMERICA: HISTORY AND LIFE


Cover design and background Kapak dzeni
By Sinan AKTA
Tughra, Mehemmed II (1481)
Ak Paa : Garib-nme (. Koyunolu Ktp., Konya)


[Cover background]

IK P (d. 1333): arb-Nme (. Koyunolu Ktp., Konya)

[ve m erseln min resl
in
ill bilisni kavmihi liybeyyine lehm]
(K 14:4 "Onlara apak anlatabilsin diye
her peygamberi kendi halknn diliyle gnderdik!")

KAMU DLDE VARD ZABT U USL
BUNLARA DMD CMLE UKL
TRK DLNE KMSENE BAKMAZIDI
TRKLERE HERGZ GL AKMAZIDI
TRK DAKI BLMEZD OL DLLER
NCE YOLI OL ULU MENZLLER
BU GARB-NME ANIN GELD DLE
KM BU DL EHL DAKI MAN BLE
TRK DLNDE YAN MAN BULALAR
TRK TCK CMLE YOLDA OLALAR
YOL NDE BR BRN YRMEYE
DLE BAKUP MANY HOR GRMEYE
T K MAHRM OLMAYA TRKLER DAKI
TRK DLNDE ALAYALAR OL HAK[K]I

Btn dillerde ifde ekilleri vard
Herkes bunlara rabet ederdi
Trk diline kimsecikler bakmazd
Trkleri kimseler sevmezdi
Trk ise zten bilmezdi bu dilleri
nce ifde usllerini, ifde biimlerini
te Garb-Nme bunun iin yazld
Yalnz Trke bilenler de gerei anlasnlar diye
Yani Trk dilinde gerei bulsunlar
Trklerle ranllar hep yolda olsunlar diye
fde hususunda birbirlerini ktlemesinler
Dile bakp many hor grmesinler diye
Bu suretle Trkler de mahrum olmasnlar
Hakk' dillerinde anlasnlar diye





HEATH LOWRY



NDEKLER CONTENTS
TRKLK BLGS ARATIRMALARI 40 2013
JOURNAL OF TURKISH STUDIES 40 2013



Norman ITZKOWITZ,
Farewell ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Selim S. KURU, Baki TEZCAN
A Life in Ottoman Studies: An Interview with Prof. Heath Lowry ............................................. 5
Heath LOWRY, Publications ............................................................................................................. 53

ARTICLES

Fatma ERKMAN-AKERSON, On the Story of Varqa and Glah ............................................................. 67
Caroline FINKEL, With Evliya elebi from Alanya to Ermenek: An Initial
Exploration of the Central Taurus Stages of His 1671 Pilgrimage
Itinerary (October 2012) ................................................................................................................... 97
Haim GERBER, An Early Eighteenth-Century Theory of the Ottoman Caliphate .................... 119
Jane HATHAWAY, Households in the Administration of the Ottoman Empire ....................... 127
Evanghelos HEKIMOGLOU, Some Notes on the Muslim vakfs in Ottoman
Thessaloniki (Selnik) ....................................................................................................................... 151
Colin IMBER, Khyir Beg: a Bad Man but a Good Thing ............................................................... 169
Raif KAPLANOLU,1830 Yl Nfus Saymna Gre Bursa'da Sosyal Yap
ve Klelik Kurumu ............................................................................................................................. 189
Mustafa KARA, Msr Dergh Son eyhi: emseddin Efendinin Baz Tahmisleri ................... 207
Machiel KIEL, Founding new towns as means of conflict solving:
The case of Eridere Palanka (Kriva Palanka, Rep. of Macedonia) ............................................. 225
Mariya KIPROVSKA, Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing
the Character of Kse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland........................... 245

X
TUBA / JTS 40, 2013
Elias KOLOVOS,The Monks and the Sultan outside the Newly Conquered
Ottoman Salonica in 1430 ................................................................................................................. 271
Selim S. KURU, Glehr, the Seventh Sheikh of the Universe:
Authorly Passions in Fourteenth-Century Anatolia ..................................................................... 281
Jacob M. LANDAU, German Academics in Turkish Universities, 1933-1946 ............................. 291
Rena MOLHO, Problems of Incorporating the Holocaust into the Greek
Collective Memory: The Case of Thessaloniki ............................................................................... 301
Hedda REINDL-KIEL, Some Notes on Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha,
his Family, and his Books .................................................................................................................. 315
Henry R. SHAPIRO, Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate in Early Modern Greek ................... 327
Hlya TA, Erken Modern Osmanlda Salk Hizmetleri ............................................................ 353
Gnl TEKN, Gne ve Kl ............................................................................................................. 373
Baki TEZCAN, Erken Osmanl Tarih Yazmnda Mool Hatralar .............................................. 385
Nuran TEZCAN, 18. Yzylda Klasik Mesnevide Deiim ve Srerlik Balamnda
eyh Glibin Hsn Aknn knme Olarak Kurgusu............................................................ 401
Fikret YILMAZ, Barkann Tarihiliinde Fiyat Meselesi ve Sleymaniye naat ................... 425