mehmed iv’s life and legacy, from ghazi to hunter 241
ghazi, or jihad. It never gives the sultan any agency and dismisses his military
exploits. Concerning Kamaniça, all agency is given the grand vizier, who “took
the sultan” to Poland where, after an easy campaign, the citadel was taken,
only to be retaken by the infi dels several years later (5 1 b–52a). Writing about
the siege of Vienna, the critical anonymous author claims that the grand vizier
“went out on campaign against Austria and even took the sultan out of Istanbul
and from there wintered in Belgrade” (60b–6 1 a). When the grand vizier set
out for Vienna in the spring “with an infi nite army and complete pomp and
circumstance, he left Sultan Mehmed in Belgrade and set out himself” (6 1 a).
Instead of Mehmed IV’s military conquests, the anonymous author de-votes detailed attention to his hunting habit at the end of his reign, particularly
its absurd dimensions and extravagant waste (74b–76b). He begins the section
by claming that in general, Mehmed IV was interested in the chase, javelin
throwing, and wrestling, but also sometimes would call together an assem-
bly of religious scholars who would lecture on important topics and engage in
disputes and discussions. Even while hunting he continued the practice, Vani
Mehmed Efendi being given the place of honor. The sultan is given credit for
understanding some of what they said and even from time to time making ap-
propriate learned comments. But over time he allegedly reduced the number
of learned gatherings, limiting them to a couple of days per year, and “became
so addicted to the hunt and had such a passion for it” that he would hunt
whether in Edirne or Istanbul, winter or summer, leaving two to three hours
before dawn and returning one to two hours after sunset (75a). And every day
a couple of hundred of the grand vizier’s or deputy grand vizier’s men would
have to wait at the palace gate in the predawn dark and set out whenever the
sultan appeared, returning only at sunset. The author then launches into a
tirade against the battue. Astonished, yet at the same time unimpressed by the
sultan’s actions, he claims that Mehmed IV would gather thousands of drovers
from numerous districts who would gather countless animals and kill them
before the watchful gaze of the sultan. No mention is made of the hundreds of
drovers who converted to Islam before the same gaze. Instead, we read about
the miserable commoners who froze to death in the winter chases, especially in
the awful winter of 1 686–87. Again in summer the sultan engaged in his whim
and fancy. Although “so many men became disgusted and bored of hunting,
he never became tired of the habit he so loved” (75b).
The anonymous author set the hunts in a larger pattern of extravagance.He claims that the sultan would take several hundred slave girls along with
him on the hunt, also alleging that Mehmed IV had nearly two thousand con-
cubines in his palaces (76b). Large carriages of the concubines required four
to six horses to pull. This meant that a massive number of horses and carriage