VASSALS, SERVA TS a D TRAITORS: IMAGE of SERBS I POPULAR TURKISH HISTORIOGRAPHY by Murat Öziş Submitted to the Graduate Schoo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VASSALS, SERVATS AD TRAITORS: IMAGE OF SERBS I POPULAR TURKISH HISTORIOGRAPHY by Murat Öziş Submitted to the Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Sabancı University September 2012 ii © Murat Öziş 2012 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT VASSALS, SERVATS AD TRAITORS: IMAGE OF SERBS I POPULAR TURKISH HISTORIOGRAPHY Murat Öziş History, M.A. Thesis, 2012 Thesis Supervisor: Selçuk Akşin Somel Keywords: Popular Turkish Historiography; Ottoman-Serbian History; Serbs in the Ottoman Empire; ationalism This study is established around the pre-1990 popular historiography in the Turkish Republic with a specific focus on depictions of Serbia and Serbs in the Ottoman Empire. By analyzing the events and characters from both early (i.e. the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries) and late Ottoman history, the aim is to understand how the established image(s) of ‘Serbia’ and ‘Serbs’ functions within popular Turkish historiography, a discipline which addresses a considerable portion of the society. This work, in order to achieve a comprehensive historiography survey, consists of the evaluations of the narratives of the authors with diversified political backgrounds. By doing so the thesis strives to understand the similarities and divergences among the authors and thus encourage a comparative discussion of historiography. For the comparison Western and Turkish academical works on Ottoman history, and for the theoretical framework studies regarding Turkish historiography, theories of nationalism were used. As a result, this study offers a broad, representative and yet critical reading of the Turkish historiography on the common histories of the Ottoman Empire and Serbia as well as examples and indications of anachronisms, distortions and instrumentalization of the history. iv ÖZET VASALLAR, KULLAR VE HAĐLER: POPÜLER TÜRK TARĐH YAZIMIDA SIRP ĐMGESĐ Murat Öziş Tarih, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 2012 Tez Danışmanı: Selçuk Akşin Somel Anahtar Sözcükler: Popüler Türk Tarih Yazımı; Osmanlı-Sırbistan Tarihi; Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu’nda Sırplar; Milliyetçilik Bu çalışma 1990 öncesi Türkiye Cumhuriyeti popüler tarih yazıcılığı çerçevesinde, Osmanlı Đmparatorluğu’ndaki Sırbistan ve Sırplar’a odaklanarak hazırlanmıştır. Buradaki amaç, hem erken hem de geç dönem Osmanlı tarihindeki olayları ve karakterleri inceleyerek, toplumun önemli bir kısmına hitap ettiği düşünülen popüler tarih çalışmalarında ortaya çıkan ‘Sırbistan’ ve ‘Sırp’ imgelerini anlamaktır. Bu çalışma, kapsamlı bir tarih yazımı araştırması yapmak amacıyla, çok çeşitli siyasi arkaplanlara sahip yazarların anlatılarının değerlendirilmesinden oluşmaktadır. Bu sayede yazarlar arasındaki benzerlik ve farklılaşmaları anlamak ve ortaya karşılaştırmalı bir tarih yazımı tartışması çıkarmak amaçlanmıştır. Kıyaslama amacıyla Batı’dan ve Türkiye’den Osmanlı tarihi üzerine yapılmış akademik çalışmalar; teorik çerçeve oluşturma amacıyla da Türk tarih yazımı ve milliyetçilik teorileri hakkındaki çalışmalardan faydalanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma Osmanlı-Sırbistan ortak tarihleri hakkında geniş, temsil edici ve eleştirel bir Türk tarih yazımı okuması ve bu yazımdan anakronizm, çarpıtma ve tarihin araçsallaştırılması bulguları ve örnekleri sunmaktadır. v günışığım imruş’a vi ACKOWLEDGMETS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Selçuk Akşin Somel, for his suggestions, comments and especially patience throughout my thesis process. I would also like to thank my committee members Yusuf Hakan Erdem and Ersin Kalaycıoğlu for their comments that help me to clarify my thoughts. I am also thankful to Fikret Adanır and the entire history faculty for developing my interest and knowledge in the Ottoman and the Balkans history starting from my undergraduate years. My deepest appreciation goes also to Feyzullah Yeşil, Zeynel Harun Alioğulları, Abdullah Vahdi Kanatsız and Aykut Mustak for being supportive and excellent friends. Special thanks are due to Luc Donckerwolke for his design, Elizabeth Woolridge Grant for her music and the members of FCB, especially Josep Guardiola, for their art. They provided enormous stimulus that I needed for writing of this thesis. For ceaseless support and care over the years, and not only the years of my graduate study, I also express my appreciation to my parents, Ali Öziş and Nilgün Öziş, my lovely sister Zeynep Öziş, and my guardian angel Malike Çalışkan Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my sweet wife Rabia Đmra for making me feel happy inside. It’s such a feeling that …I can’t hide. vii TABLE OF COTETS Page I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Methodological focus and delimitations of the research ...............................1 1.2. Organization of the study ……………………...............................................8 II. CONFRONTATION AND DISSOLUTION: 1350-1475 .........................................12 2.1. From the first encounter to the Battle of Kosovo …....................................14 2.1.1. Dušan and Orhan ..……………………………………….……..16 2.1.2. Sırpsındığı and Maritsa (Çirmen): Myth and reality .…..……….18 2.1.3. Struggle in Anatolia: 1387 ………………………………………25 2.2. Enemies to allies: Battles of Kosovo and Ankara ........................................28 2.2.1. The Battle of Kosovo …………………………………..………29 2.2.2. Struggle in Anatolia: 1390 …………..…………………………36 2.2.3. The Battle of Ankara ………………………………..………….38 2.3. Until Serbia becomes history ………….......................................................41 2.3.1. The last phase of the Ottoman Interregnum: 1412-13…….…….41 2.3.2. The Sheik Bedreddin Rebellion: 1416 …………………………42 2.3.3. The reign of Murad II …………………………………………..43 2.3.4. Annexation of Serbia: 1454-49 ……………………………...…45 III. REEMERGENCE OF SERBIA ...............................................................................48 3.1. First uprisings: 1804-16 …….......................................................................53 3.2. Steps towards the independent Serbia: 1816-78 ..........................................58 3.3. Independent Serbia ……………………………..........................................65 IV. CHARACTERS ………………………………………………………...................67 4.1. Serbs in the early Ottoman period ...............................................................67 4.2. Servants of the Sultan ..................................................................................73 4.2.1. Janissaries …………………………………………....................74 4.2.2. Devshirme pashas ……………….................................................77 V. CONCLUSION ………………..................................................................................82 Bibliography....................................................................................................................86 viii CHAPTER 1 ITRODUCTIO As the writing and the teaching of the history is one of the most significant issues with regards to the self-identification of a given society, the method of writing, the selection of the issues, usage of the sources and paradigms that shape the perceptions of the historians gains great deal of importance. Therefore; it is no coincidence that most of the states direct and closely monitor the writing and teaching of the history, almost every nation-wide TV channel has a history program in its weekly schedule in Turkey and historical events have been used frequently by the movie producers. This way it could be seen that there is a two- way relation between the writers and consumers in terms of the history where the state’s and society’s perception and practices interact in a complicated manner. 1.1. Methodological Focus and Delimitations of the Research In this interaction, which brings about a common understanding of history in the society, Büşra Ersanlı Behar stresses the role of the state and preset official stance as the main determinant factor. 1 In this context the state is extremely influential for the orientation of the historiography and the teaching of the history where some issues are highlighted with an unquestioning attitude and some are ignored. That apparently refers to the usage and modification of the history with a specific political program. That is not to claim or defend the existence of one and only true version of the history. As Hakan Erdem warns us, a historian should be aware of the differences between the information gained by the history and positive sciences and there could be more than one version and depiction of a particular section of 1 Behar, B. E. (1992). Iktidar ve tarih : Türkiye’de “resmi tarih” tezinin olusumu, 1929-1937 . Cagaloglu, Istanbul: AFA Yayincilik. 1 the history as “the history is not the past itself, rather is the collection of the written narratives that came from the mazy roads of human memory.” 2 On the other side of the interaction, the society’s attitude towards the history is extremely significant as well. Despite the extensive interest to history in the Turkish society, Erdem finds this relationship a very problematic one as most of the people love to talk but not to read, properly learn and question about the history. 3 It is understood that in the two way relationship of the creation of the historical knowledge, particularly in the Turkish Republic, the questions of “Who writes the history?” and “Who reads what was written?” are extremely valid ones if one wishes to understand the relation between the society and history. Therefore,