The Empire in the Making 47
The importance of the final part of Ahmedi’s work as one of the first
Ottoman chronicles has overshadowed the rest of his text, which in fact con-
stitutes a universal history and a re-reading of the Alexander myth; the lack
of a transliteration or translation of the İskendername in its entirety contrib-
utes to this.39 It has been suggested that Ahmedi’s work is more a “mirror for
princes” than a historical epic.40 At any rate, his political views can be seen
scattered throughout his work, especially in the eulogies of the various sul-
tans; they are influenced by the Persian tradition insofar they stress the impor-
tance of the personal virtues of the sultan, and especially of justice. We may
single out the emphasis placed on the importance of the ulema (in contrast to
their demonization by the more gazi-oriented authors) as well as the almost
total absence of criticism of Bayezid I (a topos of the opposition).41 Ahmedi’s
stress on justice can be interpreted as an affirmation of the role of the sultan:
he is the dispenser of justice and it is his personal charisma that maintains
the power of the dynasty. Unlike the infidel rulers who are doomed to fall, as
described, for instance, by Yazıcıoğlu, Ahmedi’s world admits the possibility of
infidel or cruel kingship; all the more so, his presentation of the Mongol khans
and of Timur suggests that, when justice is absent, only the utmost cruelty
may keep a dynasty in power, especially when it is presented in the form of
law (as in the Mongol case).42 It was Timur’s oppressive and devastating policy
that overpowered Bayezid’s piety and justice, not the latter’s greed or neglect.
On the other hand, one should note Heath Lowry’s suggestion that Ahmedi
wished that the young prince Süleyman would avoid the mistakes of his father,
and thus implied that Bayezid’s mistake was to turn against the Muslim rulers
of Anatolia. Lowry points out, for instance, that the Anatolian conquests of
Murad I are systematically downplayed, while Ahmedi stresses the religious
zeal of the first glorious rulers to show that their success was linked to their
struggle against the infidel.43
159–162; Ménage 1962, 169–170; Fodor 1984 and 1986, 221; Silay 1992; Sawyer 1997; Kastritsis
2007, 34–37; Kastritsis 2016; Turna 2009; Toutant 2016.
39 See Sawyer 1997; Kastritsis 2016; Toutant 2016.
40 Fodor 1984. There are parts in the epic, concerning Alexander’s education by Aristotle,
which show Ahmedi’s familiarity with the neo-Aristotelian theories of the soul current in
late medieval Persian philosophy (see below, chapter 2): Toutant 2016, 13–14.
41 It has been suggested that Bayezid’s reaction, in Ahmedi’s text, following the Mamluk sul-
tan’s death (he thought that Egypt would now be his instead of reflecting on death) is, in
a way, conceived as hubris that resulted in his defeat at the hands of Timur (Sawyer 1997,
92–93; Ahmedi – Silay 2004, 21 [v. 280–282]).
42 On early Ottoman attitudes to the Mongols cf. Tezcan 2013; see also below, chapter 3.
43 Lowry 2003, 15ff.; cf. Kastritsis 2007, 36–37 and 197.