Chapter 23

[622]Letters of Timur and Bayezid in Arabic and Persian in Feridun collection, MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, ancien fonds turc, pp. 65-91. Cf. Langlès, inNotices et Extraits, iv. 674, for list and dates of these. Sherefeddin, iii. 396-416.[623]Sherefeddin, iv. 1-6. For description of route from Sivas to Angora, Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, ii. fols. 1803-4. Timur’s own account of his march and the battle of Angora is very brief: ‘Je pris moi-même le chemin d’Ancouriah. Bayezid, suivi de 400,000 hommes, tant cavaliers que fantassins, vint à ma rencontre; on livra la bataille, et je la gagnai. Ce Prince vaincu fut pris par mes troupes, et amené en ma présence. Enfin ... je retournai victorieux à Samarcande’: Langlès trans., p. 264.[624]A great deal has been written about the date of Angora, but all authorities agree in putting it between July 20 and July 28, 1402. Cf.Art de vérifier les Dates, i. 193; Silvestre de Sacy, inMémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, vi. 488-95; Moranvillé, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, lv. 437-8. A few early western writers have given 1397 and 1403, while Petits de la Croix, in his French translation of Sherefeddin, is a decade too late in all his dates. The latter part of July 1402 is fixed by all contemporary authorities on this battle. Abu’l-Mahasin, in his history of the reign of the Egyptian sultan Barkok, states that the greater part of Bayezid’s army perished by thirst before his capture.[625]On the nationality of the Tartars who betrayed Bayezid at Angora, see the latter part of the note of Bruun on the ‘White Tartars’ in the Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, pp. 114-17.[626]From the account of the Dominican Friar, pp. 458-9, it seems clear that Bayezid was the aggressor until after Soleiman’s command had been cut to pieces.[627]Sherefeddin, iv. 8-12; Dominican Friar, p. 458.[628]Afterwards Mohammed I. Many western writers have confused him with his nickname of Kiritchelebi (Girigilibi in Rabbi Joseph, i. 257, and a variety of spellings in other early writers), and made him thus his own father, to account for the later Sultan Mohammed.[629]In this battle I have used Sherefeddin, Arabshah, Dominican Friar, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, lv. 437-68, Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the invaluable letters in Marino Sanuto, Muratori, xxii. 794-7. The authorities for Angora and Timur are classified in the bibliography below.[630]Sherefeddin, iv. 15, says the carnage in this battle was seven times greater than in any of Timur’s previous victories. The Dominican Friar, p. 459, puts the Ottoman losses at 40,000.[631]Schiltberger, p. 21, says that he retreated to this hill with 1,000 horsemen. Hammer is in error in saying that Bayezid ‘resisted like a hero at the head of histen thousandjanissaries with whom he had occupied the slope of a hill’: ii. 91. There were never as many as ten thousand janissaries enrolled in the Ottoman army until a century after Bayezid’s death. See above, p. 119. In oriental historians numbers are almost invariably exaggerated at least tenfold.[632]Solak-zadé, p. 63. Sherefeddin and Arabshah bear witness to Bayezid’s personal courage.[633]The Ottoman historians explain the capture of Bayezid by the fact that he was unhorsed. Some say that he was mounted on an inexperienced horse. A great deal was written about the battle of Angora at a much later date, but, as in describing the battles of Kossova and Nicopolis, I have limited myself to contemporary sources.[634]Mustafa’s fate was never cleared up. Mohammed and Isa fled naked, according to the Dominican Friar, p. 450.[635]I am unable to agree with Alberi,Rel. Ven. Ambasc., 3rd ser., vol. i, preface viii., ‘Secondo migliori testimonianze deve rigettarsi per falsa la tradizione’, and Bruun, Notes to Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, p. 21n., ‘We are forced to conclude, after Hammer’s searching inquiries, that there is no truth whatever in the story of Bayezid having been confined by Timur in an iron cage’. Hammer’s arguments, ii. 96-101, do not seem to me at all convincing. From the philological point of view, they have been refuted by Weil,Gesch. der Chalifen, ii. 92. From the historical point of view, there is just as strong evidence for as against the litter with bars, which could hardly have been any different from a cage. If one argues that Timur did not subject his prisoner to this indignity, and advances that the cage was really nothing more than a closed litter, such as was used for ladies of the imperial harem, he is merely substituting one indignity for another. From the character of Bayezid, one would infer that the humiliation of being shut up like a lion in a cage would have been less than that of being put into a harem litter like a woman, for whom the conqueror had contempt rather than fear. There is no mention of the iron cage in Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the Dominican Friar. But their silence signifies nothing. They are excellent witnesses for the battle of Angora itself, but knew little or nothing of what happened in Asia Minor after Angora. One might just as well argue from Schiltberger’s silence that Timur did not capture Smyrna! Nor does Sherefeddin mention the humiliation of Bayezid, and the iron cage. But the story is given in Arabshah, p. 210, who must be reckoned with as a contemporary source. If, as de Salaberry, iv. 200-1, claims, the iron cage story was inserted in Arabshah by his Ottoman editor and translator, Nazmi-zadé, it only goes to show that the careful Ottoman students of his time believed the story. The Ottoman historians, who arewithout exceptiontoo late to be regarded as sources, and who had reasons for making the degradation of the Ottoman sovereign as slight as possible, show their knowledge of the early and contemporary character of this record by trying to controvert it, and prove that Bayezid was carried on a litter rather than in a cage, e. g. Seaddedin, i. 230. That the common tradition among the Osmanlis, outside of the court chroniclers who were compelled to uphold at all costs the dignity of the house of Osman, was in favour of the cage story is proved conclusively by Ali Muhieddin, Migne ed., col. 597, who is earlier than Seadeddin, and by Evliya effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21-22, who gives the story just as we find it in Arabshah and the western writers. Sagredo, who follows Spandugino, vigorously defends the cage story as opposed to the litter of the Ottoman court chroniclers, and says that Bayezid died from striking his head against the bars of his cage, pp. 25-6. In Lonicerus, fol. 12 vº, is a picture of the cage. It is mentioned by Guazzo, fol. 275 vº; Donato da Lezze, p. 10; Paolo Giovio; Geuffry, p. 283; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Egnatius, p. 30; Rabbi Joseph, i. 256; Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791; Bonincontrius, col. 88; Formanti; and Timur’s early western biographer, Perondino, p. 31, who, fifty years before Seadeddin, wrote that Timur compelled Bayezid’s wife Despina to wait nude upon him and his guests at table. The story is also found in Ducas, chapter 26.[636]Perondino, p. 31; Sagredo, p. 26; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Raynaldus and Spandugino;Lettres d’un Solitaire turc, i. 106-7. Exposure of women was a common symbol of conquest among the Mongols. It was a formal ceremony at the sack of Pekin and Djenghiz Khan’s sack of Samarkand.[637]Many authorities declare that Bayezid committed suicide by striking his head against the bars of his cage, being unable to support the sight of his wife’s disgrace. The humiliation to which Despina was subjected was often given in later times by the Osmanlis themselves as a reason why the house of Osman does not contract marriages. See above, p. 183, and note.[638]Sherefeddin, iv. 65-7; Chalc., III, pp. 162-5; Duc., 17, pp. 77-8; Phr., 1. 26, p. 85; and the Ottoman historians.[639]The Dominican Friar says that the Jews of Brusa sent a delegation of rabbis to inform Mohammed-Sultan that their religion was the same as his. He answered that their law was a good one, and that they should assemble all their people in the chief synagogue. He promised that no harm would come to them. When the Tartars entered the city, they sealed fast the doors of this synagogue, and set fire to it.[640]Sherefeddin, iv. 37-48; Duc., 16, pp. 66-7.[641]Seadeddin, i. 235.[642]Sherefeddin, iv. 47, 52.[643]Accounts of the capture of Smyrna: Sherefeddin, iv. 47-53; Chalc., III, p. 161; Duc., 18, p. 78; Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, fol. 1949; Arabshah, ii. 24. For date,seeM. de Ste. Croix, inAcad. des Inscriptions, 2esérie, ii. 566, 569.[644]Ali Muhieddin, Leuncl. trans., in Migne,Patr. Graec., clix., 596. Schiltberger, p. 27, relates a similar massacre of children after the capture of Ispahan.[645]Ducas, 18, p. 79.[646]‘Would that the day might dawn in which your Highness would profess the religion of Christ, and stand up in power as the champion of the Christian Church against the enemies of the cross.’ In the London archives, however, this passage, while legible, is cancelled. So it may not have gone in the copy of the letter sent to Timur. Cf. Wylie’sHenry IV, i. 316 andn.4.[647]Misti, xlvi. 47.[648]Ducas, 18, p. 78; Phr., I, 15, p. 62.[649]Phr., loc. cit.; Innocent VII,Epp., i. 212-13.[650]Wylie, i. 321, says Timur died February 19, 1405, on authority of Schiltberger. But this date is in Brunn’s note, p. 133, and not in Schiltberger’s narrative. According to Clavijo, fol. 57 rº, Timur died November 18, 1404, while Arabshah, p. 248, says ‘17 Saghan, 807’, which would be in February 1405. For his abandonment of Asia Minor, Chalc., III, p. 182; Duc., 17, p. 76; Sherefeddin, iv. 88-95.[651]Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1195.[652]Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791, quoting an eye-witness.[653]Gerardo Sagredo, quoted by Sanuto, ibid., p. 796. He admits that this action was foolish and ruinous.[654]‘El Emperador de Constantinopola e los Genoueses de la ciudad do Pera, en lugar do tener lo que con el Tamurbec auian puesto, dexaron passar los Turcos de la Grecia en la Turquia e desque fuera vencido aqueste Turco passauan ellos mismos a los Turcos con sus fustes de la Turquia en la Grecia de los que venian fuyendo, e por esta ocasion tenia mala voluntad el Tamurbec a los Christianos de que se fallaron mal los de sa tierra.’ Clavijo, fols. 26 vº-27 rº.[655]‘Qui s’ensuivra Dieu le sache. Témir Bey tout seul scet son propos et non aultre qui vive’: Dominican Friar, p. 459.[656]Epp., vii. 144-60.[657]The dates given under the Latin columns in Chalcocondylas are almost invariably wrong and are responsible for much of the confusion of European historians in the matter of chronology. Chalcocondylas himself is full of mistakes, and knew very little about the history of Byzantium and the Osmanlis in the fourteenth century. But he is not as bad as his Latin translator, whom the historians have followed. In order to trace some of the errors, I collated the Greek text of Chalcocondylas with the Latin translation through the first two books of his history, which cover the period 1300-1403. The glosses and the inexact translations are many. For example of glosses, in I. c. 4 B, ‘quos Tartaros nominant’ after Scythis; I. c. 7 C, ‘Orthogulus adhibitus in colloquium’, at beginning of third sentence; I. c. 10 C, ‘ex tribus, Orchanes nomine’, after ‘filius eius natu minimus’; I. c. 12 C, ‘circiter viginti duo’ in the sentence ‘Orchanes cum regnasset annos mortem obiit’. For a very unfaithful translation compare Latin with Greek original in I. c. 27, the end of A and beginning of B. In I. c. 28 C ἓξ καὶ τριάκοντα is translated ‘trigintaseptem’! The letters cited refer to column position in Migne edition.[658]Chalcocondylas (in Migne), I. 6, p. 22.[659]Trans. Petits de la Croix, ii. 287-9.[660]Annales Turcici, in Migne,Patr. Graec., clix. 579.[661]Bratutti trans., i. 4.[662]Chronological Tables, Italian trans. of Carli Rinaldo.[663]Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xiii. 188-9.[664]For editions, translators and dates of publication, see Bibliography.[665]Egnatius, cited by Cuspianus, 12, says: ‘Ottomannus obscuro loco et parentibus agrariis natus’. Nicolaus Euboicus, Saguntinus Episcopus, Sylvius Aeneas, and Andreas a Lacuna say that Osman, of obscure beginnings, arose through oppressing neighbours, Moslem as well as Christian. Ab. Ortellius says, ‘Tam Graecis quam Turcis repugnantibus cited by Leunclavius,Pandectes, 99. Bosio, ii. 37, declares, ‘Osman first came out of Persia’. Similar vagueness in Haeniger; Geuffroi, 266; Sagredo; Manutio, 3; Cuspianus, 11, 42; Barletius, in Lonicerus, iii. folios 231-2; Vanell, 356; Cervarius; Richer, 11.[666]De Sacy, inNotices et Extraits, xi. 56, foot-note 1, in his discussion of the text of a treaty between Genoese of Kaffa and Janko, Lord of Solkat, where this word also occurs, suggests that it is an altered form of ‘sheik’.[667]Formanti: Donado da Lezze, 4; Paulo Giovio, Ven. ed. of 1541, 3; Vertot, ii. 97; Rabbi Joseph, ii. 503; Guazzo, 257 vº; Ortellius in Leunclavius,Pandectes, 99; Lonicerus, 10 Spandugino, 182-4. Also Evliya effendi, i. 27.[668]‘Il Pazzo Delis, pecoraio’, Spandugino, 184. Leunclavius,Pandectes, 103, says that Alaeddin poisoned Delis.[669]Formanti; Donado da Lezze, 4; Cuspianus, 48; ibid., Ant. ed., 6; Spandugino, in Sansovino (ed. 1654), 243; Egnatius, 28. Also travels of Busbecq, Eng. ed., i. 137, and the Ottoman Evliya, ii. 95.[670]This story in full in Formanti, 2-3; Vertot, ii. 97-8; Spandugino, 183. Leunclavius, inPandectes, 103, says that Nicetas Choniates mentions such a renegade Comnenus, but calls him Isaac.[671]The author ofTractatus de rilibus, who was a slave captured by Murad II, for example. Also Spandugino, a native of Constantinople, and relative of the Cantacuzenos and Notaras families. Also Donado da Lezze. See the prefaces of editions of Charles Schéfer, of Spandugino; and of Professor Ursu, of Donado da Lezze.[672]Evliya effendi, a learned member of the Moslem Ulema of Constantinople, who travelled widely in the seventeenth century in the Ottoman Empire, is continually making statements which show that he had a very hazy notion of early Ottoman history. This is true also of Hadji Khalfa, the famous bibliographer, in hisDjihannuma, a work which I have tested and found incomplete and unreliable both in its geographical and historical information about the region which gave birth to Osman and his tribe.[673]Houdas, p. 374, foot-note 1.[674]Mohammed en Nesawi, p. 374.[675]Ibid., 394.[676]Ibid., 209, 328.[677]Shehabeddin, 230-9, 263-72, 289-91, in describing Khorussan, Armenia, and the strife between Djelaleddin and Alaeddin, makes no mention of Soleiman Shah or Ertogrul, or of a formidable invasion such as 50,000 families, under one ruler, would certainly have been regarded. Nor is there mention of the 50,000 and their leader in Ibn-Bibi, Seljuk chronicler of this period.[678]Hadji Khalfa, in index of his Bibliography, iii. folios 133-5, speaks of more than sixty Arabic genealogies known to him, but in his chronological tables he cites none of them for early Ottoman genealogy.[679]Dourar-al-Othman, ‘the precious pearls touching the original source of the Ottoman house’, by Ibn Ali Mohammed-al-Biwy. No date or indication of contents. Hadji Khalfa inDictionnaire bibliographique, Paris MS., i. folio 867.[680]Introduction à l’histoire d’Asie: Turcs et Mongols,passim.[681]There is a letter of this sort to Bayezid, quoted in Timur’sInstitutes. Also a letter, given by Sherefeddin, iii. 259-63, near the beginning of which he says: ‘But you whose true origin ends in a Turcoman sailor,as all the world knows.’[682]‘L’empire des Seljucides s’écroula, et sur ses ruines surgit celui d’Osman,’ Hammer, i. 83.[683]i. 7-13.[684]In the Story of the Nations Series. This book does not do credit to the name of the great scholar whom Orientalists and numismatists universally honour.[685]In theAllgemeine Staatengeschichte, Werk 15 (1840-63) and Werk 37 (1908-13).[686]Leunclavius,Pandectes. This work will be found in all large libraries, because it is reprinted in volume 159 of Migne’sPatrologia Graeca Latine, 715-922.[687]For translations of Cantemir, see Bibliography. The Rumanian translator, Dr. Hodosiu, has reprinted the notes of the various editors of Cantemir, which makes his edition the most valuable.[688]Youssouf Fehmi,Histoire de la Turquie, Paris, 1908, p. 11.[689]Halil Ganem,Les Sultans ottomans, Paris, 1901, i. 24.[690]‘Osman verband sich mit der Leibwache in Bagdad, eroberte die Stadt, setzte sich auf den Thron, wodurch er der Beherrscher aller Muhammedaner wurde, und liess dem Chalifen nur die nichts bedeutende geistliche Oberhoheit in Bagdad; er nannte sich Sultan, d. h. Herrscher, und starb 729 (1328 n. Chr.).’ Prof. F. Wüstenfeld,Geschichte der Türken, &c., Leipzig, 1899, pp. 15-16.[691]Reineccius thought that this name must be common to all the Sultans of Konia. It does not appear for others than Kaï Kobad II in the Arabic genealogies. Leunclavius is so confused by the discrepancy here that he concludes that the Ottoman historians must have given the name indiscriminately to all the Sultans! (Pandectes, 106). Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, folio 1790, speaking of Amassia, says that its fortress was repaired by ‘Sultan Alaeddin the Seljucide’. It is typically Ottoman to be vague about names as well as about dates. Hadji Khalfa frequently speaks of an Ottoman Sultan, whose name is duplicated, without any following ordinal. There is often no clue in the context to identify the Sultan to whom he refers.[692]As the year of the Hegira began in June in 1240, there is the alternative of reckoning the Christian era a year later during the middle period of this century. But I have not thought necessary to indicate this alternative each time.[693]Villani, book VI, c. 32, in Muratori, xiii, col. 175, describes this battle; alsoVie de Saint Louis, by Le Nain de Tillemont (ed. Gaulle), iii. 4.[694]Abulfeda; Howorth, iii. 47.[695]This is the opinion of two of the ablest modern scholars, Heyd, i. 534, and Sarre, p. 41.[696]I can find no record of coins to controvert this statement. Lane-Poole,Mohammedan Coins in the Bodleian Library, 41, gives only one coin of the Bodleian collection after 641 of the Hegira, and to this he assigns the dateA.H.663 with a question mark.[697]MS. Bib. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, 583, folio 144 rº and vº.[698]The lists of coins in I. Ghalib Edhem’sMonnaies turcomanesalso bear eloquent testimony to the disappearance of Seljuk vassal dynasties during this period.[699]I have not heard of such a coin existing to-day, but make the statement on the strength of Abulfaradj,Chronicon Syr., 527-8.[700]Abulfaradj, ibid., 542-3; Howorth, iii. 69.[701]Abulfeda, v. 15-16, under date ofA.H.662. Villani (in Muratori, xiii), VII. c. 40, column 261-2, describes how Abaka Khan chased the Saracens (sic) from ‘Turchia’, and also the ‘Re d’Erminia’, who ‘lasciò a’ Tartari la Turchia’.[702]Huart,Souvenirs de voyage, 164, speaks of the battle, but does not mention occupation of Konia.[703]Abulfaradj,Chronicon Arab., 365-7; d’Ohsson,Histoire des Mongols, ii. 570-80; Howorth, iii. 295.[704]Howorth, iii. 315.[705]Konia, Ville des Derviches tourneurs, 177.[706]‘Ils sont souspost an Tartar de Levant, qui y met sa seigneurie.’ Edition of Pauthier, 37. For status of this country at the beginning of the thirteenth century, seeChronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier(ed. Mas-Latrie, Paris, 1871), pp. 377, 381.[707]Hadji Khalfa naïvely solves this doubt by rolling Masud and Kaï Kobad into one and the same person.Djihannuma, folio 1752bis.[708]There is no way of reaching certainty on this point. Rasmussen,Annales Islamici, pp. 34-8, reflects the confusion which attended the scholar of the early nineteenth century who wanted to make a chronological table of the later Seljuk Sultans. The two best modern tables are to be found in Sarre and Huart, scholars who became interested in the Seljuk problem through their archaeological travels in Asia Minor. The best account of the Seljuks is that of Houtsma in theEncyclopaedia Britannica. It is to be regretted that Professor Houtsma has not published the French translation of Ibn Bibi, which he promised in his introduction to the 4th volume of the Leyden series of Seljuk texts. Three years ago, Professor Sir William Ramsay, who knows Konia better than any European scholar, told me that he felt there was rich reward for the research student in the Seljuk period. The history of the Seljuks of Konia has yet to be written.[709]Osman was the sole heir according to Boecler: also Donado da Lezze, 4.[710]‘Osman, Karaman, and Assam. Karaman retired to Syria and Assam to Persia. The house of Osman always persecuted the descendants of these two latter.’ Geuffroi, 267. Also Cuspianus, 11, and Haeniger.[711]Spandugino, Lonicerus, and Egnatius.[712]Mignot, 33.[713]Tractatus de moribus; Vanell, i. 351-2; Sagredo; Cervarius; Cuspianus, 46.[714]The historian must use the Bonn editions with caution. There are frequent glosses in the Latin translations of Byzantine texts. See foot-note on p. 263.[715]Pachymeres, ii. 589.[716]See Appendix B, which is really a continuation of this argument.[717]Vie de Timour, iii. 255.[718]‘Osman possessed all Anatolia, which he called Osmania: he came to be called Lord of Asia Minor,’ Formanti, 4; ‘Osman made himself master of all Anatolia without any difficulty,’ Spandugino; ‘Osman seized Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia,’ Cuspianus, 10; ‘master of Syria as well as of Asia Minor,’ Donado da Lezze, 5.[719]Formanti; Geuffroy; Donado; Cuspianus; Giovio Paulo; Richer; Guazzo, 257 vº.[720]Rabbi Joseph, ii. 505.[721]Mignot, 33.[722]Chronique de Saint-Denis(Ed.Soc. Hist. de France), i. 319, 709.[723]Richer, whom I have already quoted in Chapter I.[724]‘Cette nation nombreuse, pleine de confiance dans ses forces, et brûlant du désir de soumettre à sa domination toute la chrétienté, avait quitté les confins de Perse.’Chronique de Saint-Denys, i. 709.[725]‘Quod cum ante complures annos florens illud Orientis imperium everterit et in Occidentis non exigua spacia invaserit, atque oppresserit quod reliquum nobis factum est, omni vi suo intolerabile iugum ditionemque redigere studet.’ Domini de la Vuo,Disputatio de bello turcico, bound in with Camerarius, p. 94, in Bibl. Nat., Paris, Imprimés, no. J 860.[726]Col. Djevad bey, 192-3.[727]H. Saladin,Manuel de l’architecture musulmane, 437-40.[728]Ibid., 437. On p. 479, Saladin makes another curious statement to the effect that in 1300 the Osmanlis employed architects who had fortified the Seljuk strongholds. I have never been able to find in my reading or from observation of Ottoman constructions any authority for such an assertion.[729]i. 50. Themedresséis, as Seadeddin says, to the right after you enter the Yeni Sheïr gate. Theimaretis near the Yeshil Djami, which is the oldest Ottoman mosque extant, dating from 1378. The imam of the Yeshil Djami told me that the imaret was built by Osman’s wife, Malkhatun. According to Seadeddin, however, Malkhatun died before Osman![730]Parvillée, p. 6, says that the Oulou-Djami, which is attributed to Murad I in Brusa by popular consent, was not finished until the reign of Mahomet I.[731]Cf. preface of Parvillée; and Hammer, i. 83.

[623]Sherefeddin, iv. 1-6. For description of route from Sivas to Angora, Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, ii. fols. 1803-4. Timur’s own account of his march and the battle of Angora is very brief: ‘Je pris moi-même le chemin d’Ancouriah. Bayezid, suivi de 400,000 hommes, tant cavaliers que fantassins, vint à ma rencontre; on livra la bataille, et je la gagnai. Ce Prince vaincu fut pris par mes troupes, et amené en ma présence. Enfin ... je retournai victorieux à Samarcande’: Langlès trans., p. 264.

[624]A great deal has been written about the date of Angora, but all authorities agree in putting it between July 20 and July 28, 1402. Cf.Art de vérifier les Dates, i. 193; Silvestre de Sacy, inMémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, vi. 488-95; Moranvillé, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, lv. 437-8. A few early western writers have given 1397 and 1403, while Petits de la Croix, in his French translation of Sherefeddin, is a decade too late in all his dates. The latter part of July 1402 is fixed by all contemporary authorities on this battle. Abu’l-Mahasin, in his history of the reign of the Egyptian sultan Barkok, states that the greater part of Bayezid’s army perished by thirst before his capture.

[625]On the nationality of the Tartars who betrayed Bayezid at Angora, see the latter part of the note of Bruun on the ‘White Tartars’ in the Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, pp. 114-17.

[626]From the account of the Dominican Friar, pp. 458-9, it seems clear that Bayezid was the aggressor until after Soleiman’s command had been cut to pieces.

[627]Sherefeddin, iv. 8-12; Dominican Friar, p. 458.

[628]Afterwards Mohammed I. Many western writers have confused him with his nickname of Kiritchelebi (Girigilibi in Rabbi Joseph, i. 257, and a variety of spellings in other early writers), and made him thus his own father, to account for the later Sultan Mohammed.

[629]In this battle I have used Sherefeddin, Arabshah, Dominican Friar, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, lv. 437-68, Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the invaluable letters in Marino Sanuto, Muratori, xxii. 794-7. The authorities for Angora and Timur are classified in the bibliography below.

[630]Sherefeddin, iv. 15, says the carnage in this battle was seven times greater than in any of Timur’s previous victories. The Dominican Friar, p. 459, puts the Ottoman losses at 40,000.

[631]Schiltberger, p. 21, says that he retreated to this hill with 1,000 horsemen. Hammer is in error in saying that Bayezid ‘resisted like a hero at the head of histen thousandjanissaries with whom he had occupied the slope of a hill’: ii. 91. There were never as many as ten thousand janissaries enrolled in the Ottoman army until a century after Bayezid’s death. See above, p. 119. In oriental historians numbers are almost invariably exaggerated at least tenfold.

[632]Solak-zadé, p. 63. Sherefeddin and Arabshah bear witness to Bayezid’s personal courage.

[633]The Ottoman historians explain the capture of Bayezid by the fact that he was unhorsed. Some say that he was mounted on an inexperienced horse. A great deal was written about the battle of Angora at a much later date, but, as in describing the battles of Kossova and Nicopolis, I have limited myself to contemporary sources.

[634]Mustafa’s fate was never cleared up. Mohammed and Isa fled naked, according to the Dominican Friar, p. 450.

[635]I am unable to agree with Alberi,Rel. Ven. Ambasc., 3rd ser., vol. i, preface viii., ‘Secondo migliori testimonianze deve rigettarsi per falsa la tradizione’, and Bruun, Notes to Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, p. 21n., ‘We are forced to conclude, after Hammer’s searching inquiries, that there is no truth whatever in the story of Bayezid having been confined by Timur in an iron cage’. Hammer’s arguments, ii. 96-101, do not seem to me at all convincing. From the philological point of view, they have been refuted by Weil,Gesch. der Chalifen, ii. 92. From the historical point of view, there is just as strong evidence for as against the litter with bars, which could hardly have been any different from a cage. If one argues that Timur did not subject his prisoner to this indignity, and advances that the cage was really nothing more than a closed litter, such as was used for ladies of the imperial harem, he is merely substituting one indignity for another. From the character of Bayezid, one would infer that the humiliation of being shut up like a lion in a cage would have been less than that of being put into a harem litter like a woman, for whom the conqueror had contempt rather than fear. There is no mention of the iron cage in Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the Dominican Friar. But their silence signifies nothing. They are excellent witnesses for the battle of Angora itself, but knew little or nothing of what happened in Asia Minor after Angora. One might just as well argue from Schiltberger’s silence that Timur did not capture Smyrna! Nor does Sherefeddin mention the humiliation of Bayezid, and the iron cage. But the story is given in Arabshah, p. 210, who must be reckoned with as a contemporary source. If, as de Salaberry, iv. 200-1, claims, the iron cage story was inserted in Arabshah by his Ottoman editor and translator, Nazmi-zadé, it only goes to show that the careful Ottoman students of his time believed the story. The Ottoman historians, who arewithout exceptiontoo late to be regarded as sources, and who had reasons for making the degradation of the Ottoman sovereign as slight as possible, show their knowledge of the early and contemporary character of this record by trying to controvert it, and prove that Bayezid was carried on a litter rather than in a cage, e. g. Seaddedin, i. 230. That the common tradition among the Osmanlis, outside of the court chroniclers who were compelled to uphold at all costs the dignity of the house of Osman, was in favour of the cage story is proved conclusively by Ali Muhieddin, Migne ed., col. 597, who is earlier than Seadeddin, and by Evliya effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21-22, who gives the story just as we find it in Arabshah and the western writers. Sagredo, who follows Spandugino, vigorously defends the cage story as opposed to the litter of the Ottoman court chroniclers, and says that Bayezid died from striking his head against the bars of his cage, pp. 25-6. In Lonicerus, fol. 12 vº, is a picture of the cage. It is mentioned by Guazzo, fol. 275 vº; Donato da Lezze, p. 10; Paolo Giovio; Geuffry, p. 283; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Egnatius, p. 30; Rabbi Joseph, i. 256; Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791; Bonincontrius, col. 88; Formanti; and Timur’s early western biographer, Perondino, p. 31, who, fifty years before Seadeddin, wrote that Timur compelled Bayezid’s wife Despina to wait nude upon him and his guests at table. The story is also found in Ducas, chapter 26.

[636]Perondino, p. 31; Sagredo, p. 26; Campana, fol. 8 vº; Raynaldus and Spandugino;Lettres d’un Solitaire turc, i. 106-7. Exposure of women was a common symbol of conquest among the Mongols. It was a formal ceremony at the sack of Pekin and Djenghiz Khan’s sack of Samarkand.

[637]Many authorities declare that Bayezid committed suicide by striking his head against the bars of his cage, being unable to support the sight of his wife’s disgrace. The humiliation to which Despina was subjected was often given in later times by the Osmanlis themselves as a reason why the house of Osman does not contract marriages. See above, p. 183, and note.

[638]Sherefeddin, iv. 65-7; Chalc., III, pp. 162-5; Duc., 17, pp. 77-8; Phr., 1. 26, p. 85; and the Ottoman historians.

[639]The Dominican Friar says that the Jews of Brusa sent a delegation of rabbis to inform Mohammed-Sultan that their religion was the same as his. He answered that their law was a good one, and that they should assemble all their people in the chief synagogue. He promised that no harm would come to them. When the Tartars entered the city, they sealed fast the doors of this synagogue, and set fire to it.

[640]Sherefeddin, iv. 37-48; Duc., 16, pp. 66-7.

[641]Seadeddin, i. 235.

[642]Sherefeddin, iv. 47, 52.

[643]Accounts of the capture of Smyrna: Sherefeddin, iv. 47-53; Chalc., III, p. 161; Duc., 18, p. 78; Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, fol. 1949; Arabshah, ii. 24. For date,seeM. de Ste. Croix, inAcad. des Inscriptions, 2esérie, ii. 566, 569.

[644]Ali Muhieddin, Leuncl. trans., in Migne,Patr. Graec., clix., 596. Schiltberger, p. 27, relates a similar massacre of children after the capture of Ispahan.

[645]Ducas, 18, p. 79.

[646]‘Would that the day might dawn in which your Highness would profess the religion of Christ, and stand up in power as the champion of the Christian Church against the enemies of the cross.’ In the London archives, however, this passage, while legible, is cancelled. So it may not have gone in the copy of the letter sent to Timur. Cf. Wylie’sHenry IV, i. 316 andn.4.

[647]Misti, xlvi. 47.

[648]Ducas, 18, p. 78; Phr., I, 15, p. 62.

[649]Phr., loc. cit.; Innocent VII,Epp., i. 212-13.

[650]Wylie, i. 321, says Timur died February 19, 1405, on authority of Schiltberger. But this date is in Brunn’s note, p. 133, and not in Schiltberger’s narrative. According to Clavijo, fol. 57 rº, Timur died November 18, 1404, while Arabshah, p. 248, says ‘17 Saghan, 807’, which would be in February 1405. For his abandonment of Asia Minor, Chalc., III, p. 182; Duc., 17, p. 76; Sherefeddin, iv. 88-95.

[651]Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1195.

[652]Sanuto, in Muratori, xxii. 791, quoting an eye-witness.

[653]Gerardo Sagredo, quoted by Sanuto, ibid., p. 796. He admits that this action was foolish and ruinous.

[654]‘El Emperador de Constantinopola e los Genoueses de la ciudad do Pera, en lugar do tener lo que con el Tamurbec auian puesto, dexaron passar los Turcos de la Grecia en la Turquia e desque fuera vencido aqueste Turco passauan ellos mismos a los Turcos con sus fustes de la Turquia en la Grecia de los que venian fuyendo, e por esta ocasion tenia mala voluntad el Tamurbec a los Christianos de que se fallaron mal los de sa tierra.’ Clavijo, fols. 26 vº-27 rº.

[655]‘Qui s’ensuivra Dieu le sache. Témir Bey tout seul scet son propos et non aultre qui vive’: Dominican Friar, p. 459.

[656]Epp., vii. 144-60.

[657]The dates given under the Latin columns in Chalcocondylas are almost invariably wrong and are responsible for much of the confusion of European historians in the matter of chronology. Chalcocondylas himself is full of mistakes, and knew very little about the history of Byzantium and the Osmanlis in the fourteenth century. But he is not as bad as his Latin translator, whom the historians have followed. In order to trace some of the errors, I collated the Greek text of Chalcocondylas with the Latin translation through the first two books of his history, which cover the period 1300-1403. The glosses and the inexact translations are many. For example of glosses, in I. c. 4 B, ‘quos Tartaros nominant’ after Scythis; I. c. 7 C, ‘Orthogulus adhibitus in colloquium’, at beginning of third sentence; I. c. 10 C, ‘ex tribus, Orchanes nomine’, after ‘filius eius natu minimus’; I. c. 12 C, ‘circiter viginti duo’ in the sentence ‘Orchanes cum regnasset annos mortem obiit’. For a very unfaithful translation compare Latin with Greek original in I. c. 27, the end of A and beginning of B. In I. c. 28 C ἓξ καὶ τριάκοντα is translated ‘trigintaseptem’! The letters cited refer to column position in Migne edition.

[658]Chalcocondylas (in Migne), I. 6, p. 22.

[659]Trans. Petits de la Croix, ii. 287-9.

[660]Annales Turcici, in Migne,Patr. Graec., clix. 579.

[661]Bratutti trans., i. 4.

[662]Chronological Tables, Italian trans. of Carli Rinaldo.

[663]Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xiii. 188-9.

[664]For editions, translators and dates of publication, see Bibliography.

[665]Egnatius, cited by Cuspianus, 12, says: ‘Ottomannus obscuro loco et parentibus agrariis natus’. Nicolaus Euboicus, Saguntinus Episcopus, Sylvius Aeneas, and Andreas a Lacuna say that Osman, of obscure beginnings, arose through oppressing neighbours, Moslem as well as Christian. Ab. Ortellius says, ‘Tam Graecis quam Turcis repugnantibus cited by Leunclavius,Pandectes, 99. Bosio, ii. 37, declares, ‘Osman first came out of Persia’. Similar vagueness in Haeniger; Geuffroi, 266; Sagredo; Manutio, 3; Cuspianus, 11, 42; Barletius, in Lonicerus, iii. folios 231-2; Vanell, 356; Cervarius; Richer, 11.

[666]De Sacy, inNotices et Extraits, xi. 56, foot-note 1, in his discussion of the text of a treaty between Genoese of Kaffa and Janko, Lord of Solkat, where this word also occurs, suggests that it is an altered form of ‘sheik’.

[667]Formanti: Donado da Lezze, 4; Paulo Giovio, Ven. ed. of 1541, 3; Vertot, ii. 97; Rabbi Joseph, ii. 503; Guazzo, 257 vº; Ortellius in Leunclavius,Pandectes, 99; Lonicerus, 10 Spandugino, 182-4. Also Evliya effendi, i. 27.

[668]‘Il Pazzo Delis, pecoraio’, Spandugino, 184. Leunclavius,Pandectes, 103, says that Alaeddin poisoned Delis.

[669]Formanti; Donado da Lezze, 4; Cuspianus, 48; ibid., Ant. ed., 6; Spandugino, in Sansovino (ed. 1654), 243; Egnatius, 28. Also travels of Busbecq, Eng. ed., i. 137, and the Ottoman Evliya, ii. 95.

[670]This story in full in Formanti, 2-3; Vertot, ii. 97-8; Spandugino, 183. Leunclavius, inPandectes, 103, says that Nicetas Choniates mentions such a renegade Comnenus, but calls him Isaac.

[671]The author ofTractatus de rilibus, who was a slave captured by Murad II, for example. Also Spandugino, a native of Constantinople, and relative of the Cantacuzenos and Notaras families. Also Donado da Lezze. See the prefaces of editions of Charles Schéfer, of Spandugino; and of Professor Ursu, of Donado da Lezze.

[672]Evliya effendi, a learned member of the Moslem Ulema of Constantinople, who travelled widely in the seventeenth century in the Ottoman Empire, is continually making statements which show that he had a very hazy notion of early Ottoman history. This is true also of Hadji Khalfa, the famous bibliographer, in hisDjihannuma, a work which I have tested and found incomplete and unreliable both in its geographical and historical information about the region which gave birth to Osman and his tribe.

[673]Houdas, p. 374, foot-note 1.

[674]Mohammed en Nesawi, p. 374.

[675]Ibid., 394.

[676]Ibid., 209, 328.

[677]Shehabeddin, 230-9, 263-72, 289-91, in describing Khorussan, Armenia, and the strife between Djelaleddin and Alaeddin, makes no mention of Soleiman Shah or Ertogrul, or of a formidable invasion such as 50,000 families, under one ruler, would certainly have been regarded. Nor is there mention of the 50,000 and their leader in Ibn-Bibi, Seljuk chronicler of this period.

[678]Hadji Khalfa, in index of his Bibliography, iii. folios 133-5, speaks of more than sixty Arabic genealogies known to him, but in his chronological tables he cites none of them for early Ottoman genealogy.

[679]Dourar-al-Othman, ‘the precious pearls touching the original source of the Ottoman house’, by Ibn Ali Mohammed-al-Biwy. No date or indication of contents. Hadji Khalfa inDictionnaire bibliographique, Paris MS., i. folio 867.

[680]Introduction à l’histoire d’Asie: Turcs et Mongols,passim.

[681]There is a letter of this sort to Bayezid, quoted in Timur’sInstitutes. Also a letter, given by Sherefeddin, iii. 259-63, near the beginning of which he says: ‘But you whose true origin ends in a Turcoman sailor,as all the world knows.’

[682]‘L’empire des Seljucides s’écroula, et sur ses ruines surgit celui d’Osman,’ Hammer, i. 83.

[683]i. 7-13.

[684]In the Story of the Nations Series. This book does not do credit to the name of the great scholar whom Orientalists and numismatists universally honour.

[685]In theAllgemeine Staatengeschichte, Werk 15 (1840-63) and Werk 37 (1908-13).

[686]Leunclavius,Pandectes. This work will be found in all large libraries, because it is reprinted in volume 159 of Migne’sPatrologia Graeca Latine, 715-922.

[687]For translations of Cantemir, see Bibliography. The Rumanian translator, Dr. Hodosiu, has reprinted the notes of the various editors of Cantemir, which makes his edition the most valuable.

[688]Youssouf Fehmi,Histoire de la Turquie, Paris, 1908, p. 11.

[689]Halil Ganem,Les Sultans ottomans, Paris, 1901, i. 24.

[690]‘Osman verband sich mit der Leibwache in Bagdad, eroberte die Stadt, setzte sich auf den Thron, wodurch er der Beherrscher aller Muhammedaner wurde, und liess dem Chalifen nur die nichts bedeutende geistliche Oberhoheit in Bagdad; er nannte sich Sultan, d. h. Herrscher, und starb 729 (1328 n. Chr.).’ Prof. F. Wüstenfeld,Geschichte der Türken, &c., Leipzig, 1899, pp. 15-16.

[691]Reineccius thought that this name must be common to all the Sultans of Konia. It does not appear for others than Kaï Kobad II in the Arabic genealogies. Leunclavius is so confused by the discrepancy here that he concludes that the Ottoman historians must have given the name indiscriminately to all the Sultans! (Pandectes, 106). Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, folio 1790, speaking of Amassia, says that its fortress was repaired by ‘Sultan Alaeddin the Seljucide’. It is typically Ottoman to be vague about names as well as about dates. Hadji Khalfa frequently speaks of an Ottoman Sultan, whose name is duplicated, without any following ordinal. There is often no clue in the context to identify the Sultan to whom he refers.

[692]As the year of the Hegira began in June in 1240, there is the alternative of reckoning the Christian era a year later during the middle period of this century. But I have not thought necessary to indicate this alternative each time.

[693]Villani, book VI, c. 32, in Muratori, xiii, col. 175, describes this battle; alsoVie de Saint Louis, by Le Nain de Tillemont (ed. Gaulle), iii. 4.

[694]Abulfeda; Howorth, iii. 47.

[695]This is the opinion of two of the ablest modern scholars, Heyd, i. 534, and Sarre, p. 41.

[696]I can find no record of coins to controvert this statement. Lane-Poole,Mohammedan Coins in the Bodleian Library, 41, gives only one coin of the Bodleian collection after 641 of the Hegira, and to this he assigns the dateA.H.663 with a question mark.

[697]MS. Bib. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, 583, folio 144 rº and vº.

[698]The lists of coins in I. Ghalib Edhem’sMonnaies turcomanesalso bear eloquent testimony to the disappearance of Seljuk vassal dynasties during this period.

[699]I have not heard of such a coin existing to-day, but make the statement on the strength of Abulfaradj,Chronicon Syr., 527-8.

[700]Abulfaradj, ibid., 542-3; Howorth, iii. 69.

[701]Abulfeda, v. 15-16, under date ofA.H.662. Villani (in Muratori, xiii), VII. c. 40, column 261-2, describes how Abaka Khan chased the Saracens (sic) from ‘Turchia’, and also the ‘Re d’Erminia’, who ‘lasciò a’ Tartari la Turchia’.

[702]Huart,Souvenirs de voyage, 164, speaks of the battle, but does not mention occupation of Konia.

[703]Abulfaradj,Chronicon Arab., 365-7; d’Ohsson,Histoire des Mongols, ii. 570-80; Howorth, iii. 295.

[704]Howorth, iii. 315.

[705]Konia, Ville des Derviches tourneurs, 177.

[706]‘Ils sont souspost an Tartar de Levant, qui y met sa seigneurie.’ Edition of Pauthier, 37. For status of this country at the beginning of the thirteenth century, seeChronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier(ed. Mas-Latrie, Paris, 1871), pp. 377, 381.

[707]Hadji Khalfa naïvely solves this doubt by rolling Masud and Kaï Kobad into one and the same person.Djihannuma, folio 1752bis.

[708]There is no way of reaching certainty on this point. Rasmussen,Annales Islamici, pp. 34-8, reflects the confusion which attended the scholar of the early nineteenth century who wanted to make a chronological table of the later Seljuk Sultans. The two best modern tables are to be found in Sarre and Huart, scholars who became interested in the Seljuk problem through their archaeological travels in Asia Minor. The best account of the Seljuks is that of Houtsma in theEncyclopaedia Britannica. It is to be regretted that Professor Houtsma has not published the French translation of Ibn Bibi, which he promised in his introduction to the 4th volume of the Leyden series of Seljuk texts. Three years ago, Professor Sir William Ramsay, who knows Konia better than any European scholar, told me that he felt there was rich reward for the research student in the Seljuk period. The history of the Seljuks of Konia has yet to be written.

[709]Osman was the sole heir according to Boecler: also Donado da Lezze, 4.

[710]‘Osman, Karaman, and Assam. Karaman retired to Syria and Assam to Persia. The house of Osman always persecuted the descendants of these two latter.’ Geuffroi, 267. Also Cuspianus, 11, and Haeniger.

[711]Spandugino, Lonicerus, and Egnatius.

[712]Mignot, 33.

[713]Tractatus de moribus; Vanell, i. 351-2; Sagredo; Cervarius; Cuspianus, 46.

[714]The historian must use the Bonn editions with caution. There are frequent glosses in the Latin translations of Byzantine texts. See foot-note on p. 263.

[715]Pachymeres, ii. 589.

[716]See Appendix B, which is really a continuation of this argument.

[717]Vie de Timour, iii. 255.

[718]‘Osman possessed all Anatolia, which he called Osmania: he came to be called Lord of Asia Minor,’ Formanti, 4; ‘Osman made himself master of all Anatolia without any difficulty,’ Spandugino; ‘Osman seized Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia,’ Cuspianus, 10; ‘master of Syria as well as of Asia Minor,’ Donado da Lezze, 5.

[719]Formanti; Geuffroy; Donado; Cuspianus; Giovio Paulo; Richer; Guazzo, 257 vº.

[720]Rabbi Joseph, ii. 505.

[721]Mignot, 33.

[722]Chronique de Saint-Denis(Ed.Soc. Hist. de France), i. 319, 709.

[723]Richer, whom I have already quoted in Chapter I.

[724]‘Cette nation nombreuse, pleine de confiance dans ses forces, et brûlant du désir de soumettre à sa domination toute la chrétienté, avait quitté les confins de Perse.’Chronique de Saint-Denys, i. 709.

[725]‘Quod cum ante complures annos florens illud Orientis imperium everterit et in Occidentis non exigua spacia invaserit, atque oppresserit quod reliquum nobis factum est, omni vi suo intolerabile iugum ditionemque redigere studet.’ Domini de la Vuo,Disputatio de bello turcico, bound in with Camerarius, p. 94, in Bibl. Nat., Paris, Imprimés, no. J 860.

[726]Col. Djevad bey, 192-3.

[727]H. Saladin,Manuel de l’architecture musulmane, 437-40.

[728]Ibid., 437. On p. 479, Saladin makes another curious statement to the effect that in 1300 the Osmanlis employed architects who had fortified the Seljuk strongholds. I have never been able to find in my reading or from observation of Ottoman constructions any authority for such an assertion.

[729]i. 50. Themedresséis, as Seadeddin says, to the right after you enter the Yeni Sheïr gate. Theimaretis near the Yeshil Djami, which is the oldest Ottoman mosque extant, dating from 1378. The imam of the Yeshil Djami told me that the imaret was built by Osman’s wife, Malkhatun. According to Seadeddin, however, Malkhatun died before Osman!

[730]Parvillée, p. 6, says that the Oulou-Djami, which is attributed to Murad I in Brusa by popular consent, was not finished until the reign of Mahomet I.

[731]Cf. preface of Parvillée; and Hammer, i. 83.

Back to Index Next