34 chapter 1
the turbulent times that followed the defeat at Ankara, when he chose one of
the wrong sides (that of Prince Süleyman Çelebi). Moreover, as Yahşi Fakih’s
chronicle was incorporated into Aşıkpaşazade’s Ottoman history, one cannot
be certain which part of the socio-political critique is his and which part is
his copyist’s. Nevertheless, the various layers of narratives and ideas super-
imposed (or coexisting, as in Kafadar’s metaphor of a “garlic-like” rather than
“onion-like” structure in early Ottoman historiography)10 on Yahşi Fakih’s text
may be said to enrich rather than conceal the original spirit of the first warriors:
both Yahşi Fakih and Aşıkpaşazade came from the same environment and do
not seem to have been influenced by the Persian traditions on government
that were circulating in neighboring emirates, as were other writers (such as
Ahmedi or Şeyhoğlu). As will be seen below, although it is possible to detect
ideas unique to Yahşi Fakih and Aşıkpaşazade, the pieces of political advice
or evaluation expressed by both belong to the same set of ideas and emanate
from the same milieu, thus enabling us to examine the text as a whole in this
regard and to consider it a representative mirror of the gazi mentality. Thus, it
might be appropriate to begin (somewhat paradoxically) with Aşıkpaşazade’s
work, even though it is not the earliest specimen of Ottoman thought and
despite the fact that, in the long run, it came to represent an opposition to,
rather than a description of, the imperial paradigm.
A descendant of the great early Ottoman mystic, Aşık Pasha, Aşıkpaşazade
Derviş Ahmed was born around 1400 near Amasya. He took part in numerous
campaigns and battles in Rumili during the reign of Murad II and the start of
that of Mehmed II and, after 1453, he settled in Istanbul, where he began writ-
ing his chronicle. He seems to have died, almost a centenarian, in the last years
of the fifteenth century (according to one tradition, in 1481). His chronicle
(Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osman, “Stories of the House of Osman”) goes up to 1478, while
additions to 1502 contained in some manuscripts may have been made by a
copyist belonging to the circle of Korkud, Bayezid II’s son.11
Yahşi Fakih’s chronicle, as preserved within Aşıkpaşazade’s text,12 contains
some interesting insights on early Ottoman political practice and the way the
10 Kafadar 1995, 102: “... ‘garlic’ is a more apt metaphor for certain aspects of early Ottoman
historiography than ‘onion’ because it recognizes a plurality of voices without assigning
any of them, even the earliest, the monopoly over a ‘core reality’ ”.
11 Aşıkpaşazade – Atsız 1949, 82. Two different versions have been published, the second
incorporating the first: Aşıkpaşazade – Giese 1929 and Aşıkpaşazade – Atsız 1949. On
Aşıkpaşazade see Kafadar 1995, 96ff. and passim; İnalcık 1962 and 1994; Ménage 1962;
Zachariadou 1995; Özdemir 2013. İnalcık 1994b, 139–143, considers the final part of the
chronicle as original, as he argues that Aşıkpaşazade lived from 1392/3 to 1502.
12 On the parts attributed to him see Zachariadou 1995, and cf. Kafadar 1995, 99ff.