Gábor

Prof.

A generation before Lepanto, the Ottoman Empire was a superpower due to its vast human and economic resources and military and naval power. In the first decade of Sultan Süleyman’s reign, the empire’s revenues are estimated at almost 11.5 million gold ducats. However, in the last years of his reign, revenues of the central treasury decreased to 3 million gold ducats, as opposed to 4.8 ducats in 1527-28, and the treasury had 110,000 and 370,000 ducats deficits in 1565-66 and 1566-67. Still, revenues increased to 3.8 million ducats next year, and the treasury closed the fiscal year with a positive balance. It was not until 1592 that the treasury faced recurring deficits.&nbsp;The vast empire of the Habsburgs possessed human and economic resources comparable to those of the Ottomans. However, unlike the padishah’s territorially contiguous “wellprotected domains,” the Spanish Habsburgs had a discontinuous empire with territories loosely arranged and scattered all over Europe and overseas. Charles V’s combined revenue from Castile, the Kingdom of Naples, and the Low Countries’ core provinces amounted to about 4.8 million Spanish ducats in 1540. However, Castile alone collected 10 million ducats by the end of the century. Ferdinand I, Charles’ brother and the Ottomans’ main rival in central Europe collected about 1.9 million Venetian ducats annually. The revenues of the Republic of Venice, the Ottomans’ maritime rival in the eastern Mediterranean, were equally modest: about 2 million ducats before 1570.The padishah had a professional army of 125,00-130,00 men at his disposal, which reached 160,000-170,000 men with the auxiliary raiders (akıncı) and the infantry peasant militia (azab). The professional army consisted of 70,000-80,000 provincial cavalrymen remunerated by military fiefs (timar). The number of the salaried standing troops of the Porte (kapukulu) fluctuated between 15,000 and 19,000 soldiers before Lepanto. Süleyman routinely mobilized 60,000 to 70,000 troops for his campaigns.Initially, neither Charles V nor Ferdinand had a standing field army. Both had to raise armies anew for each new campaign and negotiate with the Estates of their respective kingdoms to get the troops and funds necessary to pay them. However, when not fighting against his Valois rival in Italy, Charles V could assemble an army comparable in size to that of Süleyman’s. In 1532, contemporary estimates put the combined military force of the Habsburg brothers at 160,000 to 220,000 men. No wonder, Neither Charles nor Süleyman risked an open battle. The Venetians had a modest standing force, 6,750 men in about 1550 and 9,279 men by 1582, but in wartime, such as the war years of 1570-73, the Republic was capable of maintaining an average of 33,400 soldiers.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Ottomans’ naval superiority rested not on the quality of their ships but the empire’s ample natural and human resources and efficient organization. In Istanbul, the main Ottoman Arsenal (Tersane-i Amire) had 160 docks by 1515. Between 1527 and 1531, it built 61 ships and repaired 146 vessels. The Venetian bailo in Istanbul reported in 1558 that the Ottomans could build and outfit 130 ships without difficulty, although he considered them of inferior quality, made with green timber. Four years later, the secretary of the bailo claimed that the Ottomans could deploy 170 galleys “for long voyages” and some 200 “for short ones,” plus those that the corsairs owned.Charles V’s Mediterranean fleet was under the able leadership of Andrea Doria, the Genoese maritime condottiere. The fleet consisted of Doria’s galleys, galley squadrons from Spain, Sicily, Naples, and other hired galleys from Italy. For major naval campaigns, the emperor could mobilize several hundreds of vessels and tens of thousands of troops. For his Tunis campaign in 1535, he mobilized over 400 vessels and 50,000 men. The Venetians also had a strong navy. In the mid-sixteenth century, in the Venetian Arsenal, 120-130 light galleys (galie sotili), 6-12 large galleys (galie grosse), and 12-21 flagships (galee bastarde) were built or under construction. The Arsenal had 100 light galleys, four to ten great galleys, eight biremes, and 16 light dispatch and scouting vessels. Of these vessels, 25 galleys were held in basins, armed and equipped, ready to be dispatched at short notice. The rest of the fleet was kept on land, complete in hull and superstructure, and could be launched after caulked.As can be seen, only the joint military and naval might of Spain, Venice, and their allies could successfully challenge the Ottomans. This was the case at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Still, the numbers of vessels recorded in various contemporary sources (202 to 219 galleys and six galleasses on the Christian side instead of 205 galleys and 35 to 68 galiots on the Ottoman side) are misleading. They exclude the smaller transport ships in both navies and the galiots and frigates in the Christian fleet. The Holy League slightly outnumbered the Ottomans in terms of combatants and auxiliaries: 62,100 men to 57,700 men. More importantly, the league had a substantial advantage in firepower: 1,334 to 741 guns. Ottoman accounts also underlined that their fleet suffered from a shortage of manpower. Many died during the 1571 campaign, and the soldiers aboard the coastal begs’ ships had already returned home for the winter.Following the destruction of the Ottoman fleet at the battle, the abundance of Ottoman resources and efficient resource management enabled the Ottomans to rebuild their navy. The strength of the rebuilt Ottoman navy was estimated at between 180 and 230 ships in 1572. The resurgence of the Ottoman navy forced the Venetians to conclude a separate treaty with the padishah in 1573. Although in 1573 the Spanish conquered Tunis, in 1574 a large Ottoman fleet of some 240 galleys, 16 galleasses, three galleons, and other ships under Kılıç Ali Pasha’s command conquered La Goletta (Halk al-Wadi), which the Spanish had held since 1535, and retook Tunis. The victory—off the coast of Spanish Habsburg, Sicily at such a great distance from Istanbul, the logistical center of Ottoman operations—demonstrated Ottoman naval resurgence and restored Ottoman military prestige. However, these wars exhausted the belligerents who concluded a treaty in 1580 to attend to more pressing concerns in the Netherlands and Persia. Spain, Venice, and the Ottomans all faced significant financial difficulties, negatively affecting their naval power.&nbsp;

Ottoman Military and Naval Power in Comparative Perspective:  Before and After Lepanto

Güneş

Assoc. Prof.

On March 23, 1570, Kubad Çavuş arrived in Venice to present to the Senate a letter from Selîm II and one from the grand vizier, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, both dating from the first days of February 1570. Public honors were not rendered to Kubad, transmitter of the texts, and he was introduced unceremoniously to the Senate, presided over by the Doge. Because of the dispatches of Marc’Antonio Barbaro, Venetian representative at the Sublime Porte, the patricians knew part of the content of the letters, which were to contain the grievances of the Sublime Porte on some Venetian activities after the granting of the Capitulations in 1567. However, the letters that Kubad delivered were much more detailed than usual and somewhat atypical.The sultan started his letter with a discussion about common borders that the Venetians were not respecting despite many warnings. Moreover, they were building fortresses in Dalmatia. In a previous letter, Selîm II had already asked for the demolition of some thirtyfour fortresses built contrary to the recent treaty. The sultan then moved on to the public grievances, which were made for the first time. The most important among those is about the support that Venetian authorities in Cyprus gave to the Catholic corsairs. The Venetians did not communicate to the governor of Alexandria the names of those who had recently captured two Muslim ships after having refueled with food and water on the Cypriot bases. The sultan also mentioned a recent assault to a Turkish ship near the Rosetta Canal by two privateer ships, which also obtained water from Cyprus. When the Ottoman authorities captured those and the hostages in the ships were questioned, they confirmed that the Venetians had provided assistance. Selîm II then evoked the case of the Venetian ships which had been confronted with Muslim corsairs. Once again, contrary to the Capitulations, where it is stipulated to not claim the blood of fallen privateers but to send them to the responsible State, the Venetians had executed the corsairs and seized their property.From that point, the sultan moved on to the difficulty of negotiating with the bailo. Cases were unnecessarily postponed or not settled.His other grievances were related to the commercial affairs of Ottoman subjects in the Venetian territories. For instance, in Venice, the father of a dhimmî merchant was kidnapped and killed on the pretext that he was trafficking in iron, a prohibited commodity. Uskok pirates robbed the merchant Hacı Ali, who embarked at Kotor in the Venetian territory to trade mohair and other products, without being compensated by the Republic, despite a relevant article in the Capitulations.After listing all those points, the sultan summoned the Republic to cede Cyprus.In his letter to the Senate, the grand vizier reiterated similar criticisms, but in a somewhat different manner, rather acting as a diplomat. He began by referring to the good relations between the two states during the days of the previous sultan. Sokollu Mehmed, as his grand vizier, frequently negotiated with the bailo who were to confirm his continued efforts for Ottoman-Venetian friendship. After the new sultan’s accession to the throne, he continued to give not only his advice to Venetian emissaries in Istanbul but some warnings also. However, they were not heeded as they might have been.For example, after the delimitation of the borders in accordance with the Treaty of 1567, the Ottoman emissaries observed the formation of Venetian settlements in the Ottoman territory and informed the Ottoman capital about them. After that, Sokollu could only present those reports to the sultan. He then criticized the Veneitan Republic’s treatment of Muslim privateers. While the Serenissima, according to the treaty, was to send them to Istanbul for trial and punishment, she illegally detained them. Whenever the Pasha tried to argue with the Venetian representatives in Istanbul on those matters, the latter delayed negotiations on various pretexts, and as a result, several cases remained unresolved. However, when the Venetians had business dealings with him, all of them were fully examined and settled.After those criticisms and remarks, he turned to the important matter of Cyprus. He evoked, just as the sultan did, the privateer ships captured near Alexandria which had obtained supplies in Cyprus. He accused the Venetian authorities of sheltering and supplying the enemies of the sultan at the expense of the Capitulations. Therefore, if they wished to repair the damaged relations, they should cede Cyprus by their own will. Otherwise, they would have to suffer severe consequences.The grand vizier’s letter differed from the sultan’s by a more personal tone, so much so that at the beginning of his letter, he tries to present himself as an intermediary between the two powers and does not hide his sympathy for the Republic of Saint Mark. But when the Porte’s interests compelled the grand vizier to position himself as the enemy of Venice, the advices of the skillful diplomat turned into real and surreptitious threats.After the reading of the letters, 220 senators participated in a vote: 199 approved the Doge’s proposal of resistance; five were of the opposite opinion; sixteen balls were canceled. Two states entered into bloody warfare.In this article, I not only propose an edition of the two hitherto unpublished letters (the sultan’s is a nâme, and the grand vizier’s a mektûb) of ultimatum but try to explicitly give the circumstances in which the letters were composed, focusing especially on Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s dealings with the Venetian emissaries in Istanbul and international configuration in the first months of 1570.&nbsp;

A Diplomatic Novelty? Ultimatum Given to the Venetian Republic in 1570 and the Edition  of Relevant Letters by Sultan Selîm II and his Grand Vizier

İdris

One of the two most important naval battles in the history of the Mediterranean is Lepanto. The Ottomans, who were victorious over the Allied European naval powers in Preveza (1538), were defeated in Lepanto (1571). Following Preveza, the Ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean was gradual, with several expeditions organized to further consolidate its position in North Africa and the Mediterranean islands. Djerba was captured from Spain at the end of these expeditions (1560), but the Ottoman attempt to capture Malta failed (1565), despite the Ottomans’ determined effort. In this period, the Ottomans moderately took France under their protection, just like Venice, by granting ahidnâmes and establishing amicable relations. Since the Ottomans’ greatest struggle in the Mediterranean was often with Spain, granting ahidnâmes to France and Venice left Spain largely isolated.Because Cyprus was a Venetian Island, the Ottomans, who were tasked with ensuring the security of pilgrimage and trade routes in the Eastern Mediterranean, did not intervene after the conquest of Egypt (1517). However, they were disturbed by the situation because the island had become a base for Christian pirate activities. A campaign to Cyprus was decided upon by a fatwa issued by Shaykh al-Islām Ebussuûd Efendi and a decision made by the Imperial Council. As diplomatic contacts with Venice did not yield any results, the preparations which had already started, gained more speed. Armies from Rumelia and Anatolia were prepared for this campaign, and a large navy consisting of 350–400 ships sailed from three different points. Lala Mustafa Pasha, the commander-in-chief, lead this navy, with commanders including Piyale Pasha, Murad Reis, the chief of levends, and Grand Admiral Muezzinzade Ali Pasha. Eventually, with the surrender of Nicosia on September 9, 1570, and then Famagusta on August 1, 1571, the endmost outpost of the Catholic Christian World in the Eastern Mediterranean came under Ottoman rule.The Ottoman expedition to Cyprus (1570-71) resulted in the formation of a Crusader alliance in Europe, which included states such as the Papacy, Spain, and Venice. The goal was to either retake Cyprus from the Ottomans or seize another Ottoman territory in exchange.To prevent this alliance from organizing an operation toward Cyprus, the Ottomans set sail to the Mediterranean on May 4, 1571, under Pertev Pasha, the commander-in-chief. Later, navy ships under important figures such as Grand Admiral Muezzinzade Ali Pasha, Algerian governor Uluç Ali Pasha, Hayreddin Pashazade Hasan Pasha, Cafer Pasha, and fleets of volunteer levend chiefs, joined Pertev Pasha. The Ottoman fleet, which went as far as Dubrovnik by plundering the Venetian islands in the Aegean and Mediterranean, returned from that area and anchored in the port of Lepanto.On October 7, 1571, in the war that took place outside the Gulf of Lepanto near the island of Oxeia, which the Ottomans called Beydemir, the Ottoman navy was almost destroyed and most of the ships were either sunk or captured. The Ottomans lost not only ships but also their highest-ranking commanders, galley chiefs, bannermen, experienced sailors, and crews in the Battle of Lepanto. In two ways, this result was widely discussed in the Ottoman capital and was hotly debated by historians of the time. There had to be an explanation for the heavy loss suffered immediately following a victory like Cyprus, and several explanations were advanced. Some criticized war tactics and strategy by emphasizing flaws. Others interpreted the defeat as a punishment for the deterioration of moral values and non-compliance with the given covenants.The defeat of Lepanto caused grief, but Sultan Selim II and the grand vizier Sokullu Mehmed Pasha decided to build a new navy the day after they received the news of the defeat. Shaykh al-Islām Ebussuûd Efendi also paved the way for new activities to be carried out with moral encouragements and with his fatwas by making some decisions based on the results of the war. One of these fatwas was about those who fought in the Battle of Lepanto, and two of them were about meeting the needs of the soldiers who would serve in the navies.In his fatwa on the soldiers of Lepanto, he stated that those who died in the battle were martyrs and that those who survived would be rewarded in Allah’s presence. Those who flee or drown while fleeing, on the other hand, will be cursed by the creator. The advocacy and conferment made by Pertev Pasha, the commander-in-chief, about all members of the navy after the war were canceled as a requirement of this fatwa. Orders were issued to other commanders, and it was requested that no one be conferred.Shaykh al-Islām Ebussuûd Efendi contributed to the preparations after Lepanto by giving two fatwas on the importance of jihad with wealth and giving zakat for this purpose to meet the needs of the ghazis who will fight in the navy. According to him, it was the responsibility of wealthy Muslims to save money for the military equipment and ammunition required by the sea warriors who would serve on the ships. Just as the companions of the prophet Muhammed mobilized their financial resources in the early days of Islam to meet the needs of those who went to war, wealthy Muslims of the time should do the same. Besides, he issued a fatwa about zakat. According to this fatwa, he said that rich Muslims can give the zakat of that year together with their unpaid zakat and the zakat they will give in the following years. This situation also shows the gravity of the current conditions.In this article, the fatwas issued by Ebussuûd Efendi about the Cyprus Campaign, the Battle of Lepanto, and the effects of these fatwas on the wars will be examined.&nbsp;

The Influence of Fatwa on Ottoman Administration and Society:  Ebussuûd Efendi’s Fatwas Regarding Cyprus and Lepanto

Zoltán

History is Written by Victorious Battles: Glorious  Lepanto (1571) and Forgotten Preveza (1538)

Ergün

Klaus

Battle of Lepanto in Fuggerzeitung Collection

Mikail

The period between 1538 and 1571 marked the peak of Ottoman maritime power in the Mediterranean. Specifically, the superiority of the Ottoman navy, which began with the Turkish victory at Prevesa, secured the eastern Mediterranean for the Ottoman Empire within this period. However, the Ottoman naval activities and conquests from Prevesa to Cyprus ended with another major battle of the 16th century, at Lepanto. The victory of Christian powers called the Holy League at Lepanto has long been considered one of the decisive naval battles in the Mediterranean. It has also been given a special place in the history of the Mediterranean and Europe.&nbsp;Since a large number of Christian fleets, mainly composed of ships from Venice, Spain and the Papacy, participated in the Holy League, the event achieved religious significance by all of Catholic Europe. However, one of these fleets in the Holy League, consisting of a number of galleys and smaller vessels belonged to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had been struggling to remove the Spanish monarchy over Florence. The 12 galleys of Tuscany, five of which belonged to the Knights of St. Stephen, created in 1561 by Cosimo I de’ Medici, the first Grand Duke of Tuscany, were hired by the then Pope and commanded by Marcantonio Colonna, a Papal admiral. The main goal of Cosimo I was to take part in the anti-Ottoman struggles as an independent state, gain a place in the internal politics of Italy and play in active role on the Mediterranean scene.On the other hand, the participation of the Order of St. Stephen in the siege of Malta, in 1565, which resulted in the defeat of Ottoman navy, prompted the sultan’s harsh reaction. On 1 May, 1566, the Ottoman Sultan ordered the deportation of all Florentine residents in the empire, after which diplomatic relations were broken off between the two countries. Moreover, the anti-Ottoman activities of the order and the participation of the Tuscan galleys at Lepanto worsened the situation.Prior to the battle, despite Spain’s opposition, the Pope’s approval of Florence as the Grand Duchy in 1569, had caused a minor crisis. However, the Ottoman expedition to Cyprus, offered a new opportunity to the Medici to overcome this crisis, by offering their galleys to the Pope. This action by the Papacy paved the way for this newly formed state to participate in the Battle of Lepanto. Meanwhile, despite King Philip II’s objections, Pope Pius V had granted Cosimo the title of Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1569. Specifically, until the very last moment, King Philip II and Emperor Maximilian II opposed Cosimo I de’ Medici’s participation in the league. However, King Philip II was eventually convinced.One of the most important points here is that the 12 galleys rented by the Papacy from Tuscany are known as the ships of the Papal navy among modern Ottoman scholars. Despite&nbsp;this designation, this information found in very few Ottoman sources. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to reveal the activities and roles of the Tuscan fleet that participated in the Battle of Lepanto under the Papal banner. Furthermore, it examines the effects of the battle on the relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.&nbsp;

The Tuscan Galleys at the Battle of Lepanto

Volkan

Res. Assist.

Through the deliberation of the Collegio on February 20, 1550, two voluntary private notaries (nodaro/notario) in the service of the Duchal Chancellery or two Venetian citizens who were not notaries might have been sent to Constantinople with the title of language boy. These language boys had a five years’ education in Turkish, Arabic, and Persian from the School of the Language Boys (La Scuola dei Giovanni di Lingua) which was founded at the residence of the Bailo. There they undertook translation issues with their assignments to the translation office. Besides, the Venetian government required them to be at least 20 years old and to have served for at least for five years. Its principal goal was to ensure a more productive continuance of Venetian–Ottoman relations; to achieve this goal, the translation office had to be transformed into a solid institution with an educational body. The Bailo also had the responsibility of supervising the aforementioned school, presenting a two years’ report to the government to inform about the abilities, performance, and degree of advancement of the first language apprentices. The School of the Language Boys had to cope with two major problems in its process of establishment.&nbsp;The first one was the plague, and it appeared several times in Constantinople in the 16th century including the years 1551, 1552, 1553, 1560, 1568, 1575, 1590, and 1592. The second problem was the high prices of the Turkish, Arabic, and Persian language books, which were used in the courses of the language boys. The Ottomans copied these language books by hand, never allowing them to be printed. Because of this attitude, the aforementioned books were so expensive. The issues were dealt with by Bailo Antonio Erizzo; he was on duty between 1554 and 1556. In addition to these problems, the Turkish tutor of the language boys was not qualified in Italian and this created a problem of connection between the tutor and his students.&nbsp;The diplomatic missions of Venice’s dragomans and language boys in Constantinople during the difficult political climate of the Conquest of Cyprus and the Naval Battle of Lepanto are the focus of this essay. The release and the exchange of the captives and the resolution of the border contraversions constituted their focus. This article evaluates and analyzes the negotiation methods that the dragomans adopted when they made a contribution to the settlement of the aforementioned problems. The deliberations of the Senate and the letters of the Bailo of the Venetian State Archive were utilized as the primary resources other than secondary resources such as some Italian history books and researchers’ articles.In this article, it was emphasized that the dragomans of Venice had to be very competent in the Ottoman society, palace, governing class, law, commerce, politics, and the current affairs of the Ottoman land besides having a brilliant comprehension of the select languages. They were entrusted with multitudinous important diplomatic missions on the condition that they were superintended by the Bailos and the Extraordinary Envoys.&nbsp;&nbsp;The article also discusses and analyzes in detail when and how the dragomans were included in the aforementioned matters, the regions where they were commissioned and how they affected the process of negotiation and found a solution. Within this context, the Grand Dragoman, who was acting on the Bailo’s orders, negotiated with the Ottoman governing class on these matters. For example, following the Naval Battle of Lepanto, the Dragoman Matteca Salvago dealt with border and debt concerns while also participating in negotiations for the release of the hostages. When he came to the presence of the Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha, he reported about the Muslim and the Jewish merchants who were the subjects of the Ottoman Empire and were imprisoned in Venice. He also shared with the Grand Vizier the information about their properties. In return for their liberation, he requested for the restitution of the captives who were the subjects of the Venetian Republic and taken as a captive in the Ottoman ruled soils, such as Constantinople, Alexandria, and Syria. In the same period, the Venetian Senate sent the Dragoman Giacomo Ragazzoni to Constantinople. He, like Salvago, was tasked with informing the Ottoman governing class about the Ottoman captives and their properties’ predicament. He informed the Grand Vizier of the Senate’s deliberations and reports on the aforementioned issues. For his travel expenses, he was paid 500 ducats. The Ottoman–Venetian exchange of captives also included Rome. The Dragoman Bartolomeo the 1st Bruti was an intermediary for the restitution of some leading Muslim captives and their conduct to Ancona. The four sons of Müezzinzâde Ali Pasha, namely, Şahin, Melikbuğ, Ahmed, and Mehmed were also rescued with thousands of captives.&nbsp;

The Diplomatic Roles of The Dragomans of Venice During the  Campaigns in Cyprus and Lepanto

Özgür

Assist. Prof.

The Ottoman conquest of Cyprus in 1571 caused great distress in the Catholic world. Due to the efforts of Pope Pius V, the conquest also led to the establishment of a Holy League against the Turks. Soon after the fall of Famagusta, the Ottoman navy was virtually destroyed in the battle of Lepanto by a fleet of the Holy League. This sea battle was a great victory for the Holy League, and historians have rightfully interpreted it as such. Conversely, further developments, such as the dissolution of the Holy League and the Venetian diplomatic attempts to make peace with the Ottomans, demonstrate that the effects of this victory were short-lived. In the end, Venice requested peace, and following negotiations, reached an agreement with the Ottomans. On March 7, 1573, Selim II issued an ahdname, and with that, the war between the two states was officially over.The ahdname of 1573 has been briefly mentioned by several historians, and numerous transliterations of two existing copies have been published. However, there are some gaps and misinterpretations in the literature regarding its articles. Furthermore, this ahdname was a renewal of the ahdname of 1567, which itself was a renewal of the 1540 ahdname. In order to have a thorough understanding of the ahdname of 1573, one needs to be conversant with all these three texts. Mahmut Şakiroğlu tried to do just that and published a comparative study of the two texts but omitted the 1540 ahdname.The ahdname of 1573 obliged Venice to pay 300,000 ducats to the Ottoman Empire. This requirement has been interpreted by several scholars as comprising reparations. Some scholars have even argued that the money had to be paid to the Ottoman Empire to cover the expenses of the Cyprus campaign. Although this payment can be seen as reparations at first glance, both the Ottomans and the Venetians preferred not to use this term and instead simply called it a “payment.” A similar payment existed in the ahdname of 1540, where again it appeared under this term. However, when ambassadors paid installments, and the Ottomans received them, different names started appearing in the letters, including “pişkeş” (gift) or “kesim” (tax). Other letters and chronicles show that the Ottomans had sought the amount as a precondition for issuing the ahdname. In this regard, I prefer to interpret and define this payment as the “price of friendship.”When the decision to reach peace was made, the Ottoman castle of Sopoto was under Venetian control. Together with the 300,000 ducats, the Ottomans asked Venice to return the castle. This demand, I argue, was also a “precondition” for peace as well as the “price of friendship.” In the ahdname, it was made very clear that both Bosnia and Albania would return to their prewar borders. Based on this term of the ahdname, Sopoto Castle would have become Ottoman property in any case but because this transfer was to be a precondition of the ahdname and its other details were not yet set, the Ottomans asked for the castle to&nbsp;prove the Venetian desire for friendship. A similar demand had been made in 1540, when the Ottomans got the last Venetian castles in Morea, Nafplio, and Monemvasia, in precisely the same way.As I mentioned above, the ahdname of 1573 defined Ottoman–Venetian borders in accordance with the principle of status quo ante bellum. Although this principle sought only a return to the prewar borders, which sounded very simple, it took approximately three years to draw the final border due to constant disagreements and local uprisings. In the end, the two states settled their dispute, but the Ottomans never returned Ulcinj and Antivari.The ahdname of 1573 regulated the following two different tribute issues as well: Cyprus and Zante. The Venetians had been paying tribute for Cyprus to the Ottomans since 1517, but during this war, as the Ottomans had captured the island, the Venetians no longer had to pay the tribute of 8,000 ducats. The ahdname does not mention Cyprus other than in this specific article and does not discuss its sovereignty. By accepting the abolishment of the Cyprus tribute, Venetians implicitly accepted the Ottoman jurisdiction over the island. In the second tribute regulation, the Ottomans increased the tax of Zante, an Ionian island held by the Venetians since 1485, from 500 ducats to 1,500 ducats.At the beginning of the war, both sides arrested each other’s subjects and confiscated their merchandise and properties. With the 1573 ahdname, all the arrested subjects of the two parties were to be released and their properties returned. If the merchandise had been sold or disappeared, the states had to offer compensation.Although the Ottomans suffered a great defeat in the battle of Lepanto, they managed to compensate for their loss at the diplomatic table. On the contrary, Venice not only lost territory but also had to accept burdensome terms, including the sizable payment and increases in its previous tribute. In this sense, following a great victory, the Venetian Republic suffered a humiliating peace.&nbsp;

“A Humiliating Treaty Followed the Great Victory”: The Ahdname of 1573 Issued by Selim II

Güner

While many works were published in Europe on the Turks (Muslims/Ottomans), Italy is where these works are most concentrated. Emerging as citizens of city-states in the Italian region, Venetians and Genovese and later the Florentines worked with the Turks in every aspect of society, especially trade, since the early era of their contacts. This mutually beneficial relationship between the parties would create a desire to receive information from each other over time. Italians were more ambitious in contact Ottomans and, therefore, ensured the placement of an ambassador who represented them in Istanbul diplomatically. Diplomatic documents were written by the ambassadors, or in other words, by Bailo, by obtaining information about the Turks from almost every aspect, and would become important sources of information coming from the East to Italy. Over time, this information undoubtedly interested other states besides the Italian city-states, and Italy was to play a significant role as a bridge in transferring the news and information from East to the West.News about the Turks, especially diplomatic documents written by the ambassadors in Italy, did not concern the general public. These diplomatic documents, of course, appealed to the rulers. However, even if there were no similar content, the printed texts that were partially similar in terms of the information offered and appealed to the general public started to be published in Italy. This publication began with the first communication with the East and became more common, especially when ongoing communication with the Turks was established. This article focuses on these texts, especially those written around the time of the Battle of Lepanto, a turning point for Turkish and European history. The main aim in our study, which covers four years, is to understand how works published in Italy at the time of the Battle of Lepanto are in a change both in content and number.The works examined in the article reached readers in different cities of Italy at different times. Still, they were written to illustrate and understanding of the Turks in all respects since early times. However, at first, the attempt to understand Turks focused predominantly on the military field. The first thing the authors of these texts wanted to learn was about Turkish military power. Especially after the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Turks, who were then in a period of continuous expansion, soon encountered Italians both at sea and on land. Therefore, any information obtained from the Turks relating to the military sense was valuable for Italians. While this information was particularly valuable for the rulers and soldiers, it is evident that the general public also desired this information as a matter of intellectual curiosity. The questions of how the Turks, who constantly threatened their own lands, were fighting and their military structure were repeatedly addressed in the texts.&nbsp;&nbsp;Apart from other wars, the Battle of Lepanto, in both a military sense and in terms of the defeat of the Ottoman army, had a great impact in different cities of the Italian peninsula as well as in the rest of Europe. The Battle of Lepanto inspired Italian visual arts and literature. Many works were written in Italy about the Battle of Lepanto, but most of these works were not prose but poems written under different specific names. The most important issue underlying such a preference is undoubtedly related to the readership. Besides the Sonettos, the considerable number of Canzone, Barzelletta and Poetica, each evaluated in the same manner in terms of content and writing, ensured that the publications written under these titles were preferred and read by the public, As they were both concise and constructed with exciting sentences in terms of content, these works were consistently popular. Poetry-style works were practical in providing information for the readership in a short space, while popular as entertainment. Here, it is necessary to consider the literacy rate of the Italian readership, and studies showed that the situation of literacy rates were superior in Italy compared to other European states.&nbsp;Another point emphasized by this article is that 1571, the year of the Battle of Lepanto, saw the highest number of publications in terms of publication density. Indeed, regardless of their nature, a significant number of works reached readers that year compared to other years. These publications were issued to celebrate victory and aimed to satisfy the general curiosity of the people. Conversely, it seems right to attribute the multitude of works to two different factors: the first being gratitude to God and the other to prevent the disintegration of the Holy Unity of Western Christianity. In the end, the first of the two issues was realized, while the other was not. The Sacred Unity, was extensively considered, had disintegrated in a short time after Lepanto. The disappointment of the text authors with the separation of Spain from the union increased even more with the peace treaty signed by the other pioneers of the union and their own nation, the Venetians, with the Ottomans. In short, the messages given by the works published in the year of the Battle of Lepanto disappeared rapidly.Finally, it should be noted that there was a serious change in the number of works in the short term, both in number and content, in the Italian literature published after the Battle of Lepanto. While a certain number of works about Turks continued to be written, an attempt to understand the Turks took place more intensely than the message given in the contents of these works. Entering a period of peace with the Turks was an effective tool in this attempt at understanding.&nbsp;

From War to Compromise: The Turks in Italian Literature Before  and After The Battle of Lepanto (1570-1573)

Evrim

The defeat of the Ottoman forces by the armada of the Holy League in the autumn of 1571 has been the subject of several historical narratives and analyses. Since then, this naval victory against the Ottomans has become an important part of Christian iconography, artistic, and literary representations, and is commemorated with festivals and celebrations in many parts of the Christian world. Studies on the Battle of Lepanto have revealed the centurieslong echoes of this battle and its place in historical memory. However, little attention has been paid to the function that the memory of the Holy League and the victory/defeat at Lepanto played in political events right after the war. This article discusses how and in what contexts the historical memory of the Holy League and Lepanto occupied in the discourses of Spanish, Italian, and Ottoman diplomats and ministers at the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century. Beginning in the 1590s, these diplomats and ministers made frequent references to the War of Cyprus, the Holy League, the Battle of Lepanto, and the ensuing developments in their diplomatic negotiations, decision-making processes, and the advice they gave their rulers.In this period, the memory of the Holy League and Lepanto became influential in the analysis of political and military issues. The Ottoman armada’s attempt to reenergize their Mediterranean policy in 1590–1591, the end of the Spanish-Ottoman truce, the outbreak of the Ottoman-Austrian war in 1593, the efforts of the Papacy to establish a new Holy League, and the aggressive policy of the Ottomans in the Mediterranean revived the memory of the events that occurred between 1570 and 1573. In this context, the article will analyse the correspondence of the Spanish and Italian ministers and diplomats such as Admiral Gian Andrea Doria of the Spanish armada (1540–1606), Duke of Sessa Antonio Fernández de Córdoba y Cardona (1550–1606), Spanish ambassador in Rome, Paolo Paruta (1540–1598), Venetian ambassador in Rome, and Francisco de Vera (1533–1603), Spanish ambassador in Venice. Additionally, I will especially focus on the letters in which the Venetian ambassadors in Istanbul, Matteo Zane and Marco Venier, quoted their conversations with Ottoman ministers such as Hoca Sadeddin Efendi (1536–1599) and Ferhad Pasha (d.1595). These diplomats and ministers interpreted the current political, diplomatic, and military issues they faced by referring retrospectively to the Lepanto period as a personal experience of recent history.&nbsp;This article examines how the memory of the Holy League and the Battle of Lepanto was reflected in the daily political practices of these diplomats and ministers in three parts. First, I will discuss how the restructuring of the Ottoman navy in 1590–1591 triggered the references to Lepanto. Next, I will analyse how the events of 1570–1573 became a major topic in the negotiations between the Pope Clement VIII (1536–1605) and the Venetian and Spanish representatives in Rome. In this part, special importance is given to the year 1594, in which the importance of Lepanto reached its peak because of a possible rapprochement between Spain, Venice, and the Papacy. Finally, the third part will deal with the references to Lepanto during the reign of Philip III, when the anti-Ottoman policy gained a different dimension in the overall foreign policy of the Spanish monarchy.The article reveals that the events of the Lepanto period functioned as historical references that shed light on the political and military circumstances of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, such as the distrust between Spain and Venice, the tension between Spain and the Papacy, the balance in Venetian-Ottoman relations, and the Ottoman fear of a renewed Holy League. I demonstrate that the historical memory of Lepanto is used on some occasions as a historical comparison, a victory to be repeated, and a process from which to learn lessons, and on other occasions as an instrument of political leverage and a motive for mutual reconciliation. One significant aspect is that all these diplomats and ministers directly or indirectly experienced the Battle of Lepanto. The importance this generation gave to Lepanto in their negotiations, recommendations, and advice were analyses based mostly on their own experiences, without necessarily consulting a history book. Doria’s constant recalling of the resurgence of the Ottoman fleet immediately after Lepanto can be read both as an indication of the fear of the potential power of the Ottoman Empire and as an attempt to find a historical reference for his failure to act in the Mediterranean. Paolo Paruta’s references to Lepanto functioned to legitimize Venice’s policy of neutrality and political caution. Unlike Doria and Paruta, Pope Clement VIII saw in the Lepanto period a victory to repeat as an emulation of Pope Pius V, the patron of the initial stages of his ecclesiastical career. For Hoca Sadeddin, who endorsed a cautious foreign policy in the Ottoman Empire and watched this process from a completely different perspective, Lepanto symbolized a catastrophe that could harm the Ottoman Empire if it was repeated. The rhetoric of Lepanto, as seen in the correspondence and conversations of these officials, shows that the hostility, mutual distrust, and fears of military attack in the Mediterranean were still high even in the period when the Mediterranean is thought to have withdrawn from the stage of history.

The Place of Lepanto in Political Memory: Allusions to the Holy  League and Lepanto in International Politics in the Late 16th and  Early 17th Centuries

Ardian

The revival of the anti-Ottoman projects in the Balkans  after Lepanto and Venice’s struggle to maintain long  lasting peace with the Ottomans (1573-1645)

On October 7, 1571, the Mediterranean witnessed one of the most violent and destructive sea battles in its history. The Battle was fought with galleys and galleons belonging to the Ottoman Empire and the major Catholic powers united under the banner of the Holy League. The two fleets encountered one another at the Bay of Lepanto at noon, and in four and a half hours, the Ottoman navy was virtually destroyed. Although eventually the Fourth Ottoman-Venetian War (1570–73) was resolved in favor of the Ottomans, with the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus and Lepanto (İnebahtı, in Turkish) remaining in Ottoman hands, the Holy League’s victory at Lepanto became a symbolic triumph by halting the “unstoppable” Ottoman advancement toward the Western Mediterranean in the 16th century. In European literature and historiography, it became symbolic of the triumph of Catholicism over the “infidel” Ottomans.Naturally, the Battle immediately became a popular subject among European artists, and in time its influence expanded beyond the geography and time it occurred. Many artists from different periods and places produced commemorative works or paintings even centuries after the Battle took place, using different media of art. Not only the media but also the motives of these productions were various. This paper examines some examples of this artistic heritage, focusing on European engravings, frescoes, and oil-on-canvas paintings over the centuries.The author primarily analyzes the artworks in accordance to their genres and the motives behind their production. The first group of depictions is titled: “Documentary Representations” and includes maps, engravings, and frescoes made principally with the purpose of documenting the battle as it happened. In these purely descriptive depictions, the chief aim is to document and disseminate the news of the Battle, depicting mostly the formation of the Battle, its ships, and the topography. These versions are mostly produced by 16th century Venetian and Roman engravers with the purpose of passing on the information available at the time about the Battle and therefore serve as avvisi-like broadsheets. The goal was to document the Battle as a contemporary event. Artists such as Antonio Lafreri, Giovanni Francesco Camocio, and Cosimo Bartoli work in consultation with the Battle’s participants, including Marcantonio II Colonna and Monsignor Romegas to represent the actual situations in the Battle. Therefore, their depictions can be considered as essentially actual contemporary representations. However, these avvisi-like broadsheets disappear in later centuries.The second group consists of “History and Maritime Paintings” and examines the Lepanto theme in the 17th century Northern European artistic movements of the military painting genre. Maritime artists, whose main inspiration was the sea itself and then the naval battles, created a significant number of paintings on the Lepanto, again in a “secular” manner, generally depicting the glorious mariners of the armada of the Holy League and the devastated Ottoman navy among waves in a turbulent sea. From the examples of paintings from the Dutch Golden Age by artists such as Andries Van Eertvelt, Pieter Brünniche, and Johannes Lingelbach, one can observe that the Battle had become a subject for its historical and naval value and served solely artistic purposes. Therefore, although in some of the depictions the effort for accurate portrayal of galleys and topography is apparent, the artistic concerns frequently overcome historical accuracy. Following the artistic fashion, these depictions slowly disappear in the following centuries.The most enduring theme for the Lepanto art had become the “Symbolic Depictions” dominated by religious propaganda purposes. Considering the fact that the Catholic Church in the 16th century was endeavoring to reestablish its authority and demonstrate its power against all the “infidels,” including the Protestants of the European Reformation and the Muslim Ottomans, in particular, the Holy League’s victory at Lepanto had by then become a significant means to achieve that purpose. In accordance with spirit of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, the Battle’s paintings depicting the glory of the Holy fleet were very favorably received. Many of the European protagonists of the Battle commissioned paintings to immortalize the victory and these served as means of religious propaganda. These commissions focused almost entirely on religious unity and biblical and divine figures, and gave the impression overall that the Holy League had been able to defeat the Ottomans through their Catholic faith. These symbolic works generally portray some form of divine intervention, sometimes Madonna with Child and sometimes the Madonna of the Rosary appearing on top of the clouds over the Holy fleet, leading the Christians to victory. These “legendary” portrayals of the Battle of Lepanto had mainly Catholic propaganda purposes and played a significant part in strengthening the image of the Church. These symbolic depictions that began appearing immediately after the Battle created a traditional visual narrative which survived until today, beginning with the paintings of Renaissance painters such as Giorgio Vasari, Tiziano Vecellio, Jacopo Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese, and continuing in later centuries with artists from different regions, such as Filippo Gherardi, Giovanni Coli, Charles Lemiere, and Albino Americo Mazzotta.Overall, this study aims to show how the Lepanto depictions in European art history changed and developed over the centuries. Among the abundant Lepanto-themed works from different genres in the 16th and the 17th centuries, the documentary representations and examples of maritime art disappeared in the following centuries, leaving the field open for those depictions with a core religious narrative. The symbolic meaning attributed to this Battle in the religiously motivated imaginary depictions created since the 16th century is still alive. As paintings from different genres and eras, and their thematical and iconographical analyses demonstrate, the Battle of Lepanto has always been a popular theme among artists, yet within centuries, the weight of the artistic output shifted from the examples of documentary representations to maritime art pieces and finally to the religiously symbolic versions.&nbsp;

From Representation to Imagination: The Battle of Lepanto in  European Painting

Arzu

Prof. Dr.

Nathan

Transforming the Religious Landscape: Emperor Leo VI and His Struggle for Supremacy over the Church

Murat

Assoc. Prof. Dr.

This study comparatively examines Christianity as a factor in the foreign policy of the Sassanid Dynasty (224-651), that ruled Iran and its surrounding territory for more than four centuries, and the Ilkhanid Dynasty (1256-1353), described by researchers as the Iranian Mongols. The study narrows down the framework of the cross-reading based on these two dynasties as much as possible in the context of Christianity. For instance, the article makes no mention of the geography of the Caucasus, which constantly confronted the Sassanid and Eastern Roman against each other, apart from a few exceptions. Similarly, the study excludes the Ilkhanids’ relations with the Cilician Armenians in particular, as well as the Ilkhanids’ commercial ties with the Venetians and Genoese.&nbsp;As a result of the comparative readings, issues are observed to come to the forefront such as the religious beliefs of the Sassanid and Ilkhanid rulers and their wives, the situation of the Eastern Church during these two periods, and the persecution of Christians, especially in the case of the Sassanids. Although some Sassanid and Ilkhanid rulers and their wives being mentioned as Christians and the struggle of the Eastern Church to survive under a government that does not coincide with its own creed appear to be closely related issues, no reference is found regarding a systematic persecution of Christians by the time of the Ilkhanids. On the other hand, while sources dealing with the Christianity of some Sassanid kings do actually exist, the fact that secular and religious administrators of this state are held responsible for the Christian persecution in the Persian Martyrs Narratives raises some questions. This strengthens the assumption that these narratives of martyrdom had been created to serve a specific purpose. During the preparation phase of this article, the ups and downs the Christians had experienced under the Sassanids greatly facilitated observing the members of the Eastern Church within the Ilkhanate, and even more importantly, raised further doubts.&nbsp;The foreign policy of the two dynasties in their foundation periods differed from each other in the context of Christianity. When the Sassanid dynasty was founded, the Roman Empire was far remowed from Christianity. For this reason, Christianity did not perform an important function in external politics during the reigns of the first Sassanid rulers Ardashir I and Shapur I. Christianity is seen to have emerged as an important element regarding both domestic and foreign policy during the reign of Constantine I. Although this has been reflected to the present an incomplete form, the Christians living among the Sassanids in particular were mentioned in the negotiations between Constantine I and Shapur II. The adventure of Christianity, which thus began in the relations of the two sides, continued almost uninterruptedly until the fall of the Sassanids.&nbsp;The tendency of the Roman Empire to use the Christians within the Sassanids had already emerged during the reign of Constantine I, and this intention was maintained in the following&nbsp;period with some interventions in the organization of the Eastern Church in the Iranian geography. The most obvious instance regarding this topic involved Theodosius II sending Bishop Marutha to the Sassanids during the reign of Yazdegerd I. In 410, Marutha, who had contributed to convening the Council of Isaac, tried to shape the Eastern Church within the framework of the Nicene Creed. Unlike Yazdegerd I, Yazdegerd II is depicted with a negative image in the Christian sources. The positive image drawn for Yazdegerd I in the Christian historiography was also valid for Khosrow I. The wars against Eastern Roman during the reign of Khosrow II allowed different Christian sects to occur among the Sassanids.While warfare was the main factor in the positioning of Christians within the Mongol Empire during the reign of Ögedei Khan, diplomacy replaced it in the following period. This situation arose from the difference between the religious identities of the neighboring states of the Near East during the Sassanid and Ilkhanid periods. The Ilkhanids reigned in the Near East in a region surrounded by Muslims. Therefore, they endeavored to find Christian allies, even if they were far away. Unlike the Sassanids, the Ilkhanids came into contact with the Christian world in their early years; thus, the Islamic factor became decisive in religio-political matters during Ilkhanid Dynasty. Noteworthily, the Ilkhanids did not compromise on their Christianitybased foreign policy despite the presence of Muslim Il Khans such as Ahmad Tekuder and Ghazan Khan.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the other hand, the factors of women and the catholicos were observed to have had a significant impact on the relations the Sassanids and Ilkhanids had with the Christian world. The Christian women among the Sassanids and Ilkhanids, (e.g., Shirin, Doquz Khatun), seem to be a suitable topic for comparison. The adventure of the Eastern Church from the Sassanid Dynasty to the time of the Ilkhanids was quite colorful. After the fall of the Sassanids, the Eastern Church had to live under the rule of the caliphate states (i.e., Umayyads and Abbasids), and especially the Turkish dynasties. During this period, the Eastern missions became the main target for the members of the Eastern church, with a substantial percentage of Christian communities being formed this way in Central Asia and China. By the time of the Ilkhanids, the Eastern Church that had been established under the Sassanids was experiencing a very different process, because this time corresponds to when the presence of the Muslims in the Near East who had ended the Sassanids; began to be questioned. The Sassanid past prior to the Muslim rule must undoubtedly have been considered to be a legacy that positively nourished the Eastern Church during the time of the Il Khans, who had not yet embraced Islam. The Eastern Church did not have a faultless internal structure during the Ilkhanid dynasty, nor did it have a harmonious relationship with the secular administrators. The fact that the Ilkhanid government had to begin with an anti-Islamic attitude inevitably brought a Mongol-Christian alliance to the agenda. However, the divisions within Christianity that emerged during the reign of the Sassanids had not disappeared by the time of the Ilkhanids.&nbsp;When viewed from the outside, an Eastern Church and Ilkhanate alliance should be regarded as usual in an region encircled by Muslim states. If the reports, exchanged letters and rumors in the sources are all reflections of the truth, then they indicate that the Christians had had astonishing efficiency during the time of these two dynasties. Due to the authors’ focus on the deeds of the leading political figures, the extent to which ordinary Christians were aware of and satisfied with the ongoing politics of these two states is impossible to determine. This is precisely the reason why the sceptical approach adopted by contemporary scholars toward the reports of the Christian persecution in Late Antiquity should also be taken into consideration in relation to success stories.

Christianity in the Foreign Policy of the Sassanid and Ilkhanid Dynasties

Hüseyin

Assist. Prof. Dr.

The climax of an ambassador’s diplomatic mission is being received by the highest authority of the state to which one has traveled. In the case of Haci Halil Efendi, these offices were occupied by the Holy Roman German Emperor Franz I and by his wife Maria Theresia, Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia. Both official receptions involved Halil Efendi delivering the nâme-i hümâyûn [letters to foreign rulers] declaring Sultan Osman III as the new ruler of the Ottoman throne. The intermediary was first received by Kaiser Franz I on May 14, 1755, which is when Halil Efendi handed over the nâme-i hümâyûn that had been entrusted to him in Istanbul. Both an image and a transcription of this letter is found below. Subsequently on May 17, Halil Efendi paid an official visit to Queen Maria Theresia, to whom he also handed over the other copy of the sultanic document during the reception ceremony. Both an image and a comparison with the kaiser’s beşâretnâme are also found below. Both documents are identical apart from the name and title of the recipients, with the address of one of course having been arranged in accordance with feminine case norms.Due to no known sefâretnâme [book of embassy] being available regarding Halil Efendi’s embassy, one can only learn about the ambassador’s diplomatic mission through contemporary German sources. In this context, the Austrian archival documents and the contemporary newspaper reports based on them provide a generalized picture. On April 16, 1755, the intermediary and his entourage, a retinue of 54 men, arrived in the suburb of Schwechat, the last stop before arriving in the city of Vienna. One Viennese newspaper first described in detail the order in which Halil Efendi as an intermediary and then his extraordinary envoy entered the large city of approximately 170,000 inhabitants (based on the data from the previous year), as well how the usual customary ceremonial procession took place. This event had attracted the attention of the European public and could also be read about in Spenersche Zeitung, a newspaper published in Berlin.The diplomatic representatives of the Ottoman Empire that were sent to Vienna, sometimes with a large and other times with a small entourage were always the center of attention, and the entrance of the flamboyant ambassadorial procession to the Habsburg capital had been placed on the agenda days in advance. The main reason for this was that the Ottomans had not resorted to establishing permanent embassies in Christian capitals until the end of the 18th century and only sent diplomats on ad hoc missions to perform a specific service. Thus, the news of the arrival of the Ottoman embassy in Vienna, Paris, Berlin and later London led the citizens of these cities to gather along the processional route on the day of arrival and to admire this exotic sight. Judging from the impression conveyed in the public records of the period, the entry of the Ottoman envoy into the city and their sumptuous reception can be&nbsp;said to have fueled fairy-tale dreams of an extravagantly rich oriental country. In addition, the 1739 Treaty of Belgrade and the long period of peace, as well as the intense interest of Maria Theresia as the ruler of the Habsburg lands and Jeanne Antoinette Poisson as Marquise de Pompadour and the most famous and favourite of King Louis XV of France led to the Turkish called Turquerie, as seen in the oil paintings they had commissioned wherein they were portrayed as lady sultans, announcing themselves to the high society; this fashion reached its peak in Europe in the 18th century.Approximately three months after the first reception ceremonies, the Ottoman envoy led by Haci Halil Efendi paid a farewell visit to Kaiser Franz I on August 25, 1755 and to Queen Maria Theresia August 27, this time at Schönbrunn Palace, which had been used as a summer palace in Vienna since 1745. Detailed information about these official receptions can be found in the Viennese newspapers as well as in archival records. Finally, Haci Halil Efendi left his residence with his entourage on September 18, 1755 after 8 a.m. under the protection of the Leopold-Dhaunisch troop of the Viennese city garrison, boarded a ship anchored in the Danube tributary, and started his journey back to Istanbul.Both beşâretnâmes, the sub-type of nâme-i hümâyûn at the center of this article, are found among the Türkische Urkunden [Turkish Documents] Collection and Varia und Collectanea [Miscellaneous Collection] preserved in the Austrian State Archives. The documents are written in celî divânî calligraphy style on large-sized âbâdî [manilla] paper with a flamboyant and rather large gilded tughra at the top of the text. The nâme prepared for Maria Theresia measures 182 x 78.5 cm. The documents are in very good condition. Although the text from the nâme that had been prepared for Kaiser Franz I is included in the history written by Mehmed Hâkim Efendi, one of the chroniclers of the period, the abbreviations at the beginning and end of Hâkim’s version, as well as some differences in wording between the original and the copy, necessitate viewing the original nâme in order to form a complete opinion on the beşâret-nâme. These sultanic documents were issued in Istanbul between December 16-25, 1754 CE (1-10 Ra 1168 AH). They also consist of a number of sections known as the erkan (singular rükn) [pillars/internal structure of the composition], which occur in the following order: tughra (imperial seal), elkāb [inscription], du‘a [salutation], nakl or iblâğ [expositionnarration], te’kid [reiteration], closing du‘a [salutation], târih [dating], and mahall-i tahrîh [formulation stating the place of issuance].&nbsp;This research paper Osman III’s proclamation to Austria regarding his accession and reveals a series of findings: Haci Halil Efendi had been sent as an intermediary and resided in Vienna with a retinue of 54 people; the officials in his retinue (i.e., envoy) have been individually identified for the first time; and the official receptions before the Kaiser had been made to the Austrian chancellor and vice-chancellor instead of the president of the Palace War Council, and this change was the result of recently modified protocol rules and caused an internal conflict in the Viennese court. In addition, the article has uncovered information about how well received the ambassador had been, the special efforts that were made to ensure this, how his embassy had been covered in the German press of the time, what the ambassador did during his days in Vienna, how the ceremonies for the official visits had been organized, and the exact dates of the embassy.In conclusion, similar to the envoys that were sent to the Ottoman capital for congratulatory occasions regarding the accession to the throne, the Ottoman envoys sent to foreign countries to proclaim the accession to the throne can also be said to be noteworthy for the history of Ottoman diplomacy.

The Beşaret-name sent to Austria with Halil Efendi announcing Osman III’s Accession to the Throne and the Envoy’s Vienna Days According to the Contemporary German Press

Ahmet

A Contribution to the History of Ottoman-English Diplomatic and Commercial Relations: The Ahdname of 1612

Metin

The significance of money changing and money changers (sarrafs) in the context of the Ottoman economy before 1750 requires further exploration. Research on their roles before this date is limited, partly due to the constraints of the primary sources available from that period and the little information they contain. Money changers, played important roles in historical, socio-political, and political-economic aspects since the early years of the Empire’s establishment, are considered a topic that needs to be more thoroughly examined in studies of the early modern period in Ottoman history. The increasing importance and influence money changers had in Ottoman finance and financial circles before the second half of the 18th century need to reveal their positions in the Ottoman financial sector.While Jewish names are frequently mentioned in relation to credit and money changing in the 16th-17 th centuries, the predominance of Armenian money changers from the 18th century onward shifted the focus in this profession away from Jews. Armenian money changers, particularly after the 1750s, gained more significance in the Ottoman economy. Indeed, studies emphasizing the diminishing influence of Jewish money changers in the Ottoman financial market-based on credit transactions have highlighted this trend.In addition to Armenians and Jews, Muslims also practiced the profession of money changing before this date. Muslims having been involved in money-changing from the early days of the Ottoman Empire. However, importance to is had in noting that mostly converts to Islam were to ones who engaged in this business. Among the first list of the 12, Istanbul money changers in 1691, three were Muslims. The list of had grown to 30 money changers in 1696, of whom only one was a Muslim named Beşir. Once the list of money changers reached 60 in 1710, it no longer contained any Muslims and Armenians constituted the majority.The central figure of this study is Beşir bin Abdullah, a convert and a Muslim who had also performed the Hajj pilgrimage. As declared by the central economic administration, Beşir was a prominent Istanbul money changer with close ties to the Imperial Mint. Abundant historical and economic research is found on the roles money changers had asssumed after the second half of the 18th century. Remarkably, these studies coincide with the period when significant challenges and changes began to occur in the Ottoman Empire’s economic course.This study focuses on Beşirʼs life and it in terms of his entry into the Ottoman world, his life as a Janissary, his relationships within the financial environment, and his accumulation of wealth. The study describes his social status and the career stages through which he progressed. The study also discusses the qualities of the life patterns that emerged as he climbed the career ladder in the early Ottoman world and examines the characteristics of the relationship networks Beşir established throughout his life as a Janissary and a money&nbsp;changer. The study investigates the impact these relationship connections, defined as social capital, had on his professional life. The studyʼs final section, subjects the wealth Beşir had accumulated throughout his life to qualitative and quantitative analyses.Beşirʼs possessions provide realistic information about the nature of his worldly goods. He was religious, interested in music, and had a sensitivity to clothing. He had a penchant for objects and furniture made from various metals. Near the end of his life, he freed one of the slaves he had purchased. Being a convert to Islam, he perhaps sought to alleviate the loneliness and longing for family that he had felt throughout his life in this way.While expanding his material world as a money changer, Beşir also was a Janissary, had accumulated a certain level of wealth. After becoming an official moneychanger, however he engaged in credit operations and managed money from various professionals, thereby increasing his comfort and joining the relatively wealthy class. The late 17th century was a challenging period for the Ottoman central administration. Wars with the Holy League had been ongoing, and structural changes in the economy were a consequence of the stateʼs efforts to reorganize itself. When Beşir became an official money changer, he had reached an important stage in his career. His inclusion onto the 1696 list of official money changers indicates that he had fulfilled the duties the state had assigned him. Although the long period of wars came to an end after the defeat at Senta the following year, the state was financially and economically worn out and had to make the right decisions to stand upright, fill its coffers, and improve its economy. Despite being the implementer of these policies in the field, Beşir unfortunately did not live much longer and passed away a year after the defeat at Senta. The Karlowitz Treaty signed a year after his death profoundly shook the Ottoman central administration, opening the door to efforts to rebuild prestige and reputation alongside territorial losses.In conclusion, Beşir had entered the Ottoman world and tried to sustain his life by utilizing the opportunities offered by this order. The net material accumulation he left behind was relatively low. However, his experiences, observations, and material as well as spiritual worlds were evidence of his sufficient success. Historical records can unexpectedly emerge at any moment, surprising historians and those interested in history. Beyond the existing documents used in this study, other historical will undoubtedly be found in the future that will reunite Beşir with researchers and readers, thus allowing them at that time to better understand Beşir, his life-as a Janissary who had entered Ottoman service alone and as a man who died alone, after living a solitary life apart from a brief marriage.

An Analysis Of Social Capital And Wealth Accumulation: The Estate Of El-Hac Beşi̇r Bi̇n Abdullah, One Of Istanbul’s First Gedi̇kli Sarrafs (1698)

Şit

The Druze of Hauran were the only group of people to have posed serious challenges to the provincial government in Syria in the early years of Abdulhamid II’s reign. By 1878, the Druze had already become a locally powerful group in Hauran, where despite its strategic importance, the Ottoman government was unable to take the measures necessary to impose its authority in the aftermath of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878. The local government became weak to the point that it put the regional balance in danger. In other words, the Ottoman authorities held that a peaceful future between the Druze and the other Arab tribes in Hauran depended on a delicate balance that was already under serious threat. To preserve the local balance, the successive governors-general and the central government agreed that the rising power of the Druze should be taken under control by gradually increasing state authority and integrating the region into the Ottoman system. Hence, they firstly tried to limit the new Druze migrations to the region and prevent the Druze from taking new non-Druze villages under their control. Secondly, they tried to gain the support of the strong Arab tribes in and around Hauran against the Druze, and this was apparently one of the decisive factors that contributed to achieving a peaceful solution. Thirdly, the local government secured the cooperation of some distinguished local tribes such as the Ruwala, and more importantly convinced the powerful Atrash family to work with the government. Lastly, the Ottoman authorities spent every effort to prevent foreign interference in Druze affairs, especially from the British, believing that doing so would strengthen the government’s position regarding bringing the Druze to the negotiating table.Nevertheless, the period under study witnessed the Druze to make efforts to increase their power in the region using practically all opportunities, whether peaceful or otherwise. The case of Ibn Abū ‘Assāf at Izra‘ is one significant example of the peaceful attempts for Druze expansion around Laja. As explained, Cevdet Pasha and the Sublime Porte stood firmly to prevent Ibn Abū ‘Assāf from achieving his goal, and they succeeded without using military force despite the district governor being in favor of a military solution. Realizing the degree of determination on the government’s side, Ibn Abū ‘Assāf for his part wisely accepted a middle-ground solution, which in reality meant recognizing his strong position in the region.&nbsp;As for Midhat Pasha’s attitude towards the Druze issue, the governor-general faced the problem at a time when his relations with the central government and the commander of the Fifth Army Corps in Syria were strained. He resigned on October 19, 1879 before taking any action regarding the conflict in Busra al-Harir that had happened in early October. Only when Abdulhamid II refused to accept his resignation did Midhat Pasha start to correspond with the Porte regarding the Busra al-Harir conflict and express his view that the developments in Hauran had reached such a degree that no other way existed apart from the use of force. Both&nbsp;the Sultan and the Grand Vizier insisted that peace should be achieved by reconciling the two parties. By the end of October 1879, Midhat Pasha recognized the fact that the Palace, the Sublime Porte, and the British government, all but him, were all insisting on peaceful solutions and the necessity for avoiding the use of force. The central government underlined time and again the need to use notables and other locally influential figures as mediators between the two parties. The government even put pressure on Midhat Pasha to proceed to Hauran in person and supervise negotiations. Although he resisted this last request, Midhat Pasha finally sent a delegation headed by the Lebanese Druze sheikh Said Talhuq Bey, who played an important role in reconciling the two parties.The final incident that provided another opportunity to see the Ottoman policy succeed toward the Druze of Hauran took place in late January 1881 at Karak village. The Karak incident was the bloodiest of the three incidents this paper examines. The Sultan, the Porte, and the governor-general unanimously agreed that the conflict had to be solved as soon as possible by peaceful means. Moreover, Abdulhamid II and Hamdi Pasha both held the view that the conflict was not an ordinary blood feud; rather it could be the result of a foreign, probably British, instigation. Hence, Hamdi Pasha took effective measures to prevent communications of the Hauran Druzes with other Druzes in different mutasarrifliks as well as their correspondence with the British and other foreign representatives in the region. They underlined that the speed of achieving a peaceful solution was crucial to prevent any foreign intervention.&nbsp;After solemnly assuring the central government that he would not use military force and only the culprits would be brought to justice, Hamdi Pasha deployed more than the usual number of military units to Hauran and sent a special commission to resolve the conflict peacefully. He consistently tried to separate the innocent Druze from the guilty ones, and published proclamations stating that the commission will only interrogate the Druze who had taken part in the incident with the others being able to continue their usual work. He also assured the Druze sheikhs that the commission’s proceedings would be just and reconciliatory (adilane ve muslihane) and that the commission would attempt to work with them to achieve justice. In the end, the commission worked with the powerful Atrash family to reach a settlement. Moreover, Hamdi Pasha managed to gain the support of strong Arab tribes in the region against these Druze. Thus, the Ottoman position can safely be said to have been considerably strengthened as a result of the new measures the government had taken. Lastly, the findings of this article support the existing view that the Ottoman Empire preferred negotiation and reconciliation over coercion in its relations with the Arab tribes in the Bilad al-Sham region during and after the Tanzimat.

Ottoman Policy Toward the Druzes of Hauran (Syria) During the Early Years of Abdulhamid II (1878-1881)

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Vural

It is well known that many Iranian scholars and intellectuals traveled between Ajam and Rum towards the end of the 15th century, in order to secure wealthy and benevolent patrons. The reason for the mobility of scholars, which can be traced back to the reign of Murad the Second (1421-1451), was undoubtedly related to the changes occurred across the Islamic world. Of these changes, the conquest of Istanbul was the most important. Adding “the protector of Islam” to his extant titulatures with this conquest, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, proclaimed that he was the only representative of the Islamic world. The second reason was the decline of Timurid Empire after the demise of Shahrukh (d. 1447) who were the reputed patron of science and art like&nbsp;his father towards the second half of the 15th century. By exiling scholars and crafters from newly conquered lands to his capital Samarqand, Timur created a Renaissance era and bequeathed this cultural heritage to his successors. Timurid princes’ fights for the throne perpetuated in Iraq, Fars, Mazandaran, Mawara al-Nahr and Khurasan, and several handovers and plunders of Samarqand and Herat precipitated the exodus of Timurid scholars and craftsmen in order to secure wealthy patrons and safe places, after the demise of Shahrukh. This chaotic atmosphere pervaded in Iran and on the other hand Ottoman sultans’ patronage of science and art made the Ottoman lands a safe and inviting shelter for Iranian scholars and literary men. Based on the claims that they were the only representative of Islam, the Ottomans’ superiority over the Aqquyunlus who presented themselves as Timur’s licit heirs, led this competition to another phase. Reputed with his wealth, benevolence and power, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror made his capital Istanbul a center of attraction for Iranian scholars and poets.&nbsp;His patronage of science and art had spread across Iran so much so that his palace was replete with Iranian scholars and encomiasts at the very beginning of his reign. Along with scholars and bureaucrats such as Şemseddin Fenârî, Molla Gürânî, Mevlana Şeyh Ebu İshak Tebrizî and Ali Kuşçu, encomiasts and man of letters such as Ma’âlî, Kâşifî, Hamidî, and Kabûlî presented their works to Sultan Mehmed and, made contributions to sultan’s imperial image from the viewpoint of Ajamness. It is also well known that Sultan Mehmed endeavored to take famous Iranian scholars under his patronage and, for this purpose he sends them enticing gifts.&nbsp;Benevolent and wealthy image of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror and, his capital’s hallmark as a center for a multi-cultural junction, attracted another Ajam known as Riyâzî. He was less known among the Ajams in Sultan’s palace. Neither contemporary chroniclers nor collection of the biographies of poets mention him. Beside his Persian epistle, which he penned on the occasion of Sultan Mehmed’s conquest of Akçahisar and constitutes the subject of the present study, there are at least three copies of his Divan survived to this date. None of these primary sources provide any information concerning his migration from Ajam to Rum and his residence in Istanbul. According to his Divan, his full name was Mawlana Riyâzî-i Samarqandî. This specifies the fact that he was native of Timurids’ cultural center Samarqand. Most probably in order to escape the political chaos and seeking a new patron, he headed towards Istanbul, after the decline of the Timurid Empire in Iran and Mawara al-Nahr. In the patrimonial states of the 16th-century Islamic world, scholars and craftier were more depended on court patronage. Because of that sultans were the only resorts. When the scholars fell from the grace of their patron(s), they set on a journey seeking for welfare and patronage in another sultan’s court.&nbsp;Riyâzî’s venture was not different from the scholars and bureaucrats who lost their patronage and set out to secure a new one in 15th and 16th centuries Islamic world. Although it is not known how and when he managed, he might have come to Istanbul and secured Sultan Mehmed’s patronage prior to 1479. Beyond the Sultan Mehmed’s personal interest to attract many Iranians, this phenomenon should be supported with the role which sultan played himself. Eventually, patronizing Muslim scholars and craftsmen was an indispensable source of legitimacy for the sultan who had claims for superiority in the Islamic world.&nbsp;&nbsp;Although his contemporaries Ma’âlî and Kabûlî gave huge details on their journeys, observations on the palace and how they managed to secure Sultan’s patronage, neither in his Persian epistle presented to Sultan Mehmed nor in his Divan replete with poems of love and separation Riyâzî-i Samarqandî does not provide any information about himself and his personal experiences. In contrast to Ma’âlî, Kabûlî, and Hamidî, he has never presented a panegyric to his patron. The only information about his life in Istanbul was his disease, which he could not recuperate and finally died in 884/1479-80. Though he did not relate his observations on the palace and the Sultan, and how he behaved, accounts of other Ajam’s provide details about the perception of Ajamness in the Ottoman palace, which we can further elaborate on. Furthermore, it is well known that there was a competition of superiority between highly-educated Ajams and their rival Rumîs in Sultan Mehmed’s palace.Riyâzî-i Samarqandî penned his Persian epistle entitled with Risâle-i Tehniyet-i ‘Iyd ve Nevrûz Berây-ı Ebu’l-feth Sultan Mehmed or Tehniyet-i ‘Iyd ve Fethnâme-i Akçahisar in 1479 on the occasion of the conquest of Akçahisar in Albania and presented to the Sultan. The seal of Sultan Mehmed on the folios verifies that the epistle was accepted to the personal library of Sultan. The coincidence of Sultan Mehmed’s conquest of Akçahisar with Nawruz feast was a double occasion for Riyâzî to present himself to the Sultan. Unlike his fellows in this genre, he merely confined his epistle to create an imperial image for the Sultan with titles and titulatures, which he formulated for him. He furthermore explained the reason for giving these titles to the Sultan under each titulatures. It should also be specified that this Persian epistle penned and presented to the Sultan to proclaim Ottoman dynasty’s superiority over the other dynasties such as Aqquyunlu and Mamluk, and to show them how Ottomans were the only protectors of Islam.As a wealthy, powerful, benevolent and just sultan, Mehmed the Conqueror took many Iranian scholars, encomiasts, and craftsmen under his patronage. Thus, he commenced “Eastern Renaissance” which would last in his successor’s reign Bayezid the Second (1481-1512). Thanks to this cultural mobility, those who came from Ajam, penned and presented many epistles and panegyric to the Sultan. It should not be forgotten that Iranian shahnama-writers had major contributions for the creation of the imperial image of Sultan Mehmed, which would be imitated in Bayezid the Second’s reign as well. It can be concluded that like his Iranian contemporaries’ pieces, Riyâzî-i Samarqandî’s Persian epistle was also a contribution to create an imperial image for the Sultan from the viewpoint of an Ajam.

THE CONTRUBUTION OF AN IRANIAN LITERARY MAN TO THE IMPERIAL IMAGE OF THE MEHMED THE CONQUEROR: MAWLĀNĀ RIYĀZĪ-I SAMARQANDĪ

Arda

The efforts for founding an Israeli state in Palestine, which gained momentum with the Balfour Declaration issued in the end of World War I, constituted one of the most important problems causing instability in the Middle East during the interwar period. In this process, when Jewish immigration to Palestine increased and Arabs and Jews began to have serious conflicts in the region, Turkey did not get involved in the developments in Palestine. The conflicts became bitterer following World War II when the victorious USA began to back up the efforts for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The ambitions of Western countries and the Jews for Palestine became the prominent issue for Arab countries after World War II. Arab nationalists gathered around anti-Westernism and the Palestine issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;Unlike its passive position in the interwar period, Turkey began to take more active involvement in the Palestine issue after the war. Turkey’s increasing interest in the issue following 1945 was due to its convergence with Arab nations, rather than religious or nationalist considerations. Turkey was left alone against the Soviet Union by Western nations. With no alternative but to create stronger bonds with the states in the region against the Soviet threat, Turkey approached its Arab neighbours and realized that the Palestine issue was the first item on their agenda. When the Palestine issue was brought to UN, Turkey supported Arab nations due to its sense of solidarity with Arab nations and its concern that a Jewish state to be founded in the area might cause instability. Turkey’s support to Arab nations for the Palestine issue would come to an end with the improvements in Turkey’s relations with Western nations and the outbreak of the First Arab-Israeli War.As a result of its strategic alliance with Western nations against the Soviet Union threat, Turkey felt the need for acting in concert with its allies in the international area. Meanwhile, it became clear to Turkey during the First Arab-Israeli War that military alliance with Israel would be more beneficial than with Arabs. At this stage, the UN decided to set up a Conciliation Commission for resolution of the Palestine issue. Acting uniformly with Western nations in the Conciliation Commission and carrying out missions together with the USA and France, Turkey made it clear that it would no longer take an approach supporting Arab theses in the Palestine issue.The UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine was important in that it was the first multilateral attempt for resolution and Turkey’s first critical alliance with Western nations following World War II. Turkey was included in the conciliation commission with the USA and France due to its support for Arab countries in the conflict, but it did not maintain its support in the works of the commission. Commission membership increased Turkey’s diplomatic contact with Israel, and as a result&nbsp;of these interactions Turkey’s concerns over Israel disappeared and led Turkey to become the first Muslim country to recognize Israel.&nbsp;The Conciliation Commission was set up with great expectations and strong international support. At the time the Commission made serious efforts for resolution of the problem, the disagreement between the two parties was new and so there were suitable grounds for resolution. However, the biggest disadvantage of the Commission was its Western identity which caused lack of trust with Arab nations. France, a member of the Commission that aimed to provide suitable conditions for lasting peace following the First Arab-Israeli War, was known for its colonial past among Arab nations. Turkey’s membership was also met with mistrust due to memories from the Ottoman Empire period and the Hatay issue, which was seen as a conspiracy set against Arab countries by Turkey and Western nations. The USA was the only nation with no colonial past from the point of view of Arab nations. However, the USA’s strong support for the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine following World War II was known by the Arab public. For these reasons, the Commission’s neutrality was questioned by Arab nations.&nbsp;Between the Commission’s most active years of 1949 and 1952, Arab nations were devoid of strong governments that could sign a peace treaty with Israel, as they were struggling with political and military depression caused by the First Arab-Israeli War. Israel, on the other hand, had seen the weaknesses of Arab troops during the War, and aimed to extend and strengthen its boundaries through further conflicts rather than make peace with Arab nations. The works of the Conciliation Commission failed as they were trying to reconcile those with no power for making peace and those with no intention of doing so. After the Paris Conference of 1951, the Commission acknowledged that it would be unable to reach its aim of ensuring a peace accord, and decided to focus on the resolution of the problems of Arab refugees. However, it failed to gain effective results in its smaller targets because the parties of the Arab-Israeli conflict adopted more uncompromising attitudes as the Cold War began to influence the Palestine issue. During the course of the work of the Commission after 1952, the relations between some of the Arab nations that were expected to be made better through the joint efforts of the members, namely Turkey, the USA, and France, became even worse. With Arab nations being supported by the Soviet Union, and Israel by the USA in the international area, the parties of the conflict began to manifest their uncompromising attitudes more comfortably, which put the Conciliation Commission in a situation where it could no longer function.&nbsp;The Conciliation Commission was an unsuccessful experience on the part of Turkey. Turkish foreign policy pursued until the 1960s did more harm than good on&nbsp;the works of the Conciliation Commission. During the 1950s, Turkey formed closer economic and political relationships with Israel, while its relations with important Arab nations such as Egypt and Syria deteriorated. Such direct conflicts between Western and Arab nations as the Suez Crisis did not only worsen the relations between Western and Arab nations in the Conciliation Commission, but also caused Turkey to lose its role of mediator. With Cold War and the Soviet Union becoming more influential over Middle East, Turkey’s policies on Arab nations, especially Egypt and Syria, became stricter. When Turkey and Syria were on the brink of war in 1957, the two nations had no chance of cooperation and resolution under the Conciliation Commission. Egypt and Syria also sharpened their irreconcilable attitudes against Turkey both in terms of regional policies and of international relations with the support they received from the Soviet Union. Because Egypt perceived a Muslim state’s contribution to the resolution of the Palestine issue as interference in the internal affairs of Arab nations at a time when it saw itself as the protector of Arab nations, it did not support Turkey’s efforts for conciliation. The Conciliation Commission for Palestine was imbedded in history as another UN initiative that failed to provide solutions to international relations under the existing structure of the UN.

PALESTINE CONCILIATION COMMISSION AND TURKEY

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Gökhan

Known as the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the cuneiform texts were compiled (copied) by Babylonian scribes and mostly concern the historical events of both the recent and distant past. Recorded concisely and chronologically, they detail events starting from the Babylonian king Nabunassar era in 747-734 BC and continue to the period just after the capture of Babylonia by the Persians in 539 BC. In this study, the records concerning the illnesses and disabilities of the Mesopotamian and Elamite kings in these chronicles will be discussed. We will attempt to determine the historical importance of these medical problems of the kings with regards to the medical history of Mesopotamia. Some assessments will be made concerning the relations between these records and the political, religious, and traditional aspects of Babylonian historiography. Additionally, other pieces of information in other chronicles such as Esarhaddon, Weidner, and Chronicle of Early Kings will be referred to when needed. Although numerous Babylonian and Assyrian kings are mentioned concerning political events in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the only king whose illness is mentioned is the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681- 669 BC). The king fell ill during one of his campaigns and subsequently died. There is not much detailed information about the king’s illness in the relevant chronicles. Similarly, the chronicles do not mention the illnesses of the Babylonian kings in much detail. While the Neo-Babylonian king Nabunassar (747-734 BC) died after becoming sick in his palace, another Babylonian king Nabonidus (555-539 BC) was also ill but recovered. In brief, it is observed that the medical backgrounds of some of the numerous Babylonian and Assyrian kings are mentioned in the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles and that these references are only superficial. However, it is very clear that the illnesses and disabilities of the Neo-Elamite kings, who reigned during the 1st millennium BC, are mentioned in more detail by the chronicle scribes. What is the reason behind the fact that no detailed information is given about the illnesses of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, while the health situations and deaths of their contemporary Neo-Elamite kings include more details? There might be more than one answer to this question. One answer might be that the scribes could not find sufficient information in the ancient sources about these issues while compiling the chronicles. In addition, statements indicating that the demise of the kings did not result from an illness and particularly that some of them “died in the palaces” are either proof of&nbsp;the fact that there is not sufficient information about the cause of death of these kings or it is possible that these individuals were accepted as “well-remembered figures” in Babylonian history. However, another answer (and one which is the main focus of the study) should be sought in the relation between the medical knowledge and tradition of Babylonian historiography, in which political and religious ideologies are dominant. It is possible to find pieces of information about the health problems of kings such as Esarhaddon and Nabonidus in other cuneiform sources such as the royal inscriptions and correspondence. However, only in the chronicles is it possible to encounter details about the illnesses of the Elamite kings. The records of the death of two Neo-Elamite kings following a stroke and/or paralysis can be considered as an example of the reflection of a pro-Babylonian attitude towards historiography. It is certain that the scribe or scribes, who mentioned these pieces of information, are eager to leave no stone unturned about information and the details concerning the disabilities or deaths of the Elamite kings. It should be considered that a conscious preference in deciding which pieces of information to be recorded might be related to the world views of the scribes, the relevance of the kings, the form of the illnesses to be mentioned, divine background, and the political/ideological aspects of historiographical tradition. Similarly, this relation is conspicuous in the health problems of the Sargon of Akkad and Isin king Erra-imitti written in the records of the Chronicles of the Early Kings and Weidner as well.It is possible that some of the details concerning the illnesses of the kings might contain fabrications, exaggerations, or personal comments. However, even if these details are supported by information from other cuneiform sources or even if it is medically possible, it doesn’t change the possible views asserted in the study about the intentions behind adding them to the chronicles. Sometimes concise and sometimes relatively longer, the information provided by the chronicle writers about the illnesses of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Elamite kings, and even about the Isin king Erra-imitti contribute to our knowledge about the medical history of ancient Mesopotamia. Independent from the individuals, since these medical cases (such as stroke, paralysis, fever, insomnia, and respiratory problems) are common in royal correspondence and literary texts and particularly in medical texts, they have no particular privilege. However, these medical details in the chronicles are important with regards to Babylonian historiography. It is observed in the chronicles that only the health problems of the kings are detailed with interest. However, some kings like the Neo-Babylonian King Nabonidus (who recovered after the illness), or kings who died without getting sick, are also discussed. Particularly in the latter case, it was also relevant that some of the scribes did not have knowledge about the causes of deaths of the kings. Additionally, it was recorded that some of the kings (like the Babylonian king Nabunassar) died in the palaces, even without getting sick. The Babylonian scribes were probably informed about the details of the illness of the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon; however, they did not mention it. In fact, Esarhaddon was a Neo-Assyrian king, who was trying to revive the city of Babylonia and return it to its old magnificent days after his father, Sennacherib, wrathfully devastated the city. It can be considered that these kings were not remembered with ill feelings by later generations. However, this interpretation can involve problems, since it is a result of an overall general view about the whole life of the individual. It is also possible that they were punished with illnesses resulting in death by the gods due to their misconduct in any period of their kingdom or in any issue that might annoy (!) the gods.Therefore, all of these examples have great importance since they reflect the dominant understanding concerning the ancient Mesopotamian historiography: a religious belief that the illness is a divine punishment arising from the faults of an individual. The common trait of almost all of the kings, about whom the chronicles give detailed information concerning their illnesses, is that they were all remembered negatively with regards to the history of Babylonia. It is possible that there was an attempt to create a perception that the patron deity of the city of Babylon Marduk (Bel) punished these kings who were in the wrong. Illnesses and deaths related with these situations were remarkable events since they demonstrated the proof of the relation between the crime and the punishment. Thus, the motives behind the intention to abstain from recording the known or fabricated medical causes of deaths of some kings should not be examined, to a large extent, in the epistemological concerns. These motives should be investigated in the relations between historiography and its political, religious, and traditional aspects. For example, mentioning the insomnia problems of Sargon of Akkad doesn’t have a medical or historical importance in itself. This record reaches significance when there is an attempt to establish relations between the current ideologies and compilation of literary narratives, whose “reality is suspicious”, that are dated to the 1st millennium BC. It might also be mentioned that, sometimes while narrating, the role and influence of these relations are behind the inclusion of the themes and contents, which are thought to arouse curiosity and interest, with a high potential of speculation.

IDEOLOGICAL READINGS THROUGH THE MEDICAL RECORDS: ILLNESSES IN THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES AND BABYLONIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

Ebru

The Last Penetration of The Crusader Armies into the Seljuḳ Territory of Anatolia: Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa’s Crusade (1089-1190)In the 12th century, Anatolia witnessed the great struggles between the Crusaders and the Turks, and the Crusaders penetrated into Seljuḳ territory for the last time during the Third Crusade (1189–1192). By conquering Jerusalem in 1187, the Egyptian-Syrian ruler, Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, put an end to the Crusaders’ domination in Jerusalem, which lasted 88 years. It was at this point that German Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa, who had accompanied his uncle Conrad III, King of Germany during the Second Crusade, once again agreed to participate in the Crusade—this time as a 70-year-old ruler. He formed an immense army with the goal of capturing Jerusalem from Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn. While the English and French kings traveled by sea to the Holy Land with their forces, Friedrich tried to reach the East through Anatolia. This paper discusses the march of the German Crusaders under the command of Friedrich Barbarossa in Anatolia, and the Seljuk-Crusader relations in this period.&nbsp;Emperor Friedrich, who started to prepare for the expedition after accepting the cross, sent ambassadors to Hungarian King Bela III, Byzantine Emperor Isaakios Angelos II, and Seljuk Sultan Ḳilidj Arslan II to ask for permission to pass through their countries. In response, Emperor Isaakios said that the Crusaders would be allowed to enter the territory of the empire if they promised not to take any action against the Byzantine State. When this stipulation was accepted by Friedrich, the Byzantine emperor agreed to provide guidance and suitable markets to the Crusaders during the transition from Anatolia. After that, Emperor Isaakios took the necessary measures in accordance with the agreement reached; however, Barbarossa’s contact with the enemies of Byzantine Serbs and Seljuks increased Isaakios’s concerns. Faced with such danger, Isaakios found it appropriate to contact Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn for the interest of his country. According to Ibn al-Asir, when Isaakios learned of the German emperor’s movement, he sent an envoy to Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn and promised that he would prevent Friedrich from passing through the Byzantine land.After the year-long preparations, Friedrich finally moved from Regensburg to the East in May 1189. His enormously large and well- organized army seemed almost invincible. Barbarossa passed Hungary, where he was welcomed by King Bela, and by crossing the Danube near Belgrade, he entered the Byzantine territory in 1189. The Crusader army was said to have 50,000 horsemen and 100,000 infantrymen. Meanwhile, the Serbs and Bulgarians’ attempt to form an alliance with the German emperor destressed the Byzantines.Because of the events in the Balkans, the relations between the two sides became so bad that Friedrich even contemplated attacking Istanbul. Eventually, Friedrich, who intended to arrive in Palestine after spending the winter months in Adrianople, went to Gallipoli in March 1190, and by crossing through the Dardanelles into Anatolia, he entered the path that Alexander the Great had followed about 15 centuries prior. After crossing the Granikos Stream and the Angelokomites River, the Crusaders followed a Byzantine military road between Miletopolis and today’s Balikesir (Akhyraous), and they moved southward through Balikesir-Ala Shehir before heading toward Seljuḳ territory after the Byzantine border town of Laodiceia (Denizli). The German emperor thought that he would easily pass from Anatolia, in accordance with the old friendship and the agreements between Ḳilidj Arslan II and him. In the last two years, he sent ambassadors to the sultan several times, and he stated that his intention was to go to Jerusalem. When the German army was in Adrianople, Sultan Ḳilidj Arslan and his son Malik Shah’s envoys had gone to Friedrich and promised to help him. Meanwhile, the Anatolian Seljuk State had lost its political unity. Sultan Ḳilidj Arslan did not actually have power. The feuds for the throne had begun among the Maliks soon after he allocated the country between his 11 sons in 1187. Because of these circumstances, the Turks were not in a position to openly fight against this enormous army, but they also did not want to let them pass through Anatolia. As a result, they followed the German Crusader army and harassed them. In the meantime, the Turkmens, who acted on their own at the borders, also pursued the Crusaders along the road from Denizli. The Turkmens initially retreated to the mountains and grazed large herds of animals (around 5,000) along the Germans’ way and therefore condemned the horses of the Crusaders to starvation. Then they suddenly attacked the Crusaders, who were devastated by fatigue and starvation. As&nbsp;a result of these attacks in the mountains and passages in the Uluborlu region, the Germans suffered great losses. While the attacks of the Turkmens continued along the way, the Germans were forced to carry out a series of fierce battles (from April 28 to May 18). The Turks also continued their activities around the Crusader camp at nights, shouting and shooting arrows until the morning, causing the Germans sleepless and troubled nights. In the meantime, under the rain of arrows that pierced the tents, the Crusaders were sometimes killed while they were asleep. For this reason, most of the Crusaders were unable to remove their armor at night for weeks. This situation created an exasperating impact on them. Also, the water resources along the way of the Crusader army were rendered unusable, all kinds of foodstuffs were destroyed, cities were evacuated, and the people hid in the forests and mountains.As a result of the war tactics applied by the Turks, the German army, which was miserable because of both the lack of food and water and the constant Turkish attacks, suffered heavy losses. They set Aḳshehir on fire and marched toward Iconium (Konya). After a fierce battle, Emperor Friedrich finally managed to enter Iconium by force on May 18th. However, after leaving Iconium, Friedrich drowned while crossing the Saleph River (Silifke /Salūḳiya). As a result of this, the German army disbanded (June 10, 1190), and only a small part of the army, led by his son Friedrich VI of Swabia, reached Acre.

THE LAST PENETRATION OF THE CRUSADER ARMIES INTO THE SELJUḲ TERRITORY OF ANATOLIA: EMPEROR FRIEDRICH BARBAROSSA’S CRUSADE (1089-1190)

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) is an international, scientific, open access periodical published in accordance with independent, unbiased, and double-blinded peer-review principles. This is a scholarly, international, peer-reviewed and open-access journal published three times a year in February, June and October.
The publication languages of the journal are Turkish and English. Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) aims to contribute to the literature by publishing manuscripts at the highest scientific level on all fields of history. The journal publishes original articles and translations.
Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) aims to contribute to the literature by publishing manuscripts at the highest scientific level on all fields of history.
Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) publishes research articles and translations on national, regional and world history. The journal also includes book reviews and critiques.

Notes for Authors
1- The journal does not include the works of authors who do not belong to any university in the academic field and students who continue their graduate education.
2-  Two years following the publication of an author's first article in the journal, that author's second piece is published.
3- Studies of the "Book Review" type are not included in the journal.

Gültekin

Scopus

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)

EBSCO

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Turkish Journal of History

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Section Editor

Ethics Editor

Editorial Relations Manager

Publicity Manager

Editorial Management Board Member

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) aims to contribute to the literature by publishing manuscripts at the highest scientific level on all fields of history. Turkish Journal of History (Turk J Hist) publishes research articles and translations on national, regional and world history. The journal also includes book reviews and critiques.

Aim and Scope

SCOPUSWeb of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Index EBSCO Historical AbstractsEBSCO Historical Abstracts with Full TextDOAJERIH PLUSSOBİAD

Indexing and Abstracting

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a> The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. Plagiarism Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. If plagiarism/self-plagiarism will be found authors will be informed. Editors may resubmit manuscript for similarity check at any peer-review or production stage if required. High similarity scores may lead to rejection of a manuscript before and even after acceptance. Depending on the type of article and the percentage of similarity score taken from each article, the overall similarity score is generally expected to be less than 15 or 20%. Double Blind Peer-Review After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.*The journal does not include the works of authors who do not belong to any university in the academic field and students who continue their graduate education.*Two years following the publication of an author's first article in the journal, that author's second piece is published.

Policies

The journal is an open access journal and all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" target="_blank">BOAI</a> definition of open access.The open access articles in the journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) license.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</a> ) and grant the Publisher non-exclusive commercial right to publish the work. CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Editor should consider publishing correction if minor errors that do not effect the results, interpretations and conclusions of the published paper are detected. Editor should consider retraction if major errors and/or misconduction that invalidate results and conclusions are detected.Editor should consider issuing an expression of concern if there is evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors; there is evidence that the findings are not reliable and institutions of the authors do not investigate the case or the possible investigation seems to be unfair or nonconclusive. The guidelines of <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> and <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a> are taken into consideration regarding correction, retractions or expression of concern.

To guarantee that all papers published in the journal are maintained and permanently accessible, articles are stored in Dergipark which serves as a  national archival web site and at the same time permits LOCKSS to  collect, preserve, and serve the content.Additionally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final PDF version of their articles in open electronic archives with  that conform to standards of Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>). Authors should provide a link from the deposited version to the URL of IUPress journal website.

Turkish Journal of History is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-bestpractice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-bestpractice-scholarly-publishing</a>All submissions must be original, unpublished (including as full text in conference proceedings), and not under the review of any other publication synchronously. Each manuscript is reviewed by one of the editors and at least two referees under double-blind peer review process. Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unnethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing.

Ethics

Turkish Journal of History adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.<li>Principles of integrity, quality and ransparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.</li><li>The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.</li><li>The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.</li><li>Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.</li><li>Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.</li><li>The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.</li><li>In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.</li><li>If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.</li><li>In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.</li>

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced. All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/ conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form.</a> The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section. All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for double-blind peer review evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Peer Review

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing. Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed. Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective. Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by Editor-in-Chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international external referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by Editor-in-Chief upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.- Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?- Is the problem significant and concisely stated?- Are the methods described comprehensively?- Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?- Is adequate references made to other Works in the field?- Is the language acceptable?Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

Language Articles in Turkish and English are published. Submitted manuscript must include an abstract both in the article language and in English.Manuscript Organization and Submission Manuscripts can only be submitted through the journal’s DergiPark submission system, available at <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iutarih" target="_blank">https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iutarih</a> manuscripts submitted via any other medium will not be evaluated. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will first go through a technical evaluation process where the editorial office staff will ensure that the manuscript has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. Submissions that do not conform to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the submitting author with technical correction requests. All manuscripts submitted to the Turkish Journal of History must be written in Times New Roman font style in 10 font size using MS Word or MS Word compatible program, and must be in A4 size. Authors are required to submit the following: • <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a> • <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/2042B071CBF64926AE8330D517106754" target="_blank">Title Page</a> A separate title page should be submitted with all submissions and this page should include: • The full title of the manuscript as well as a short title (running head) of no more than 50 characters, • Name(s), affiliations, and highest academic degree(s) and ORCID ID(s) of the author(s),• Grant information and detailed information on the other sources of support, • Name, address, telephone (including the mobile phone number) and fax numbers, and email address of the corresponding author, • Acknowledgment of the individuals who contributed to the preparation of the manuscript but who do not fulfill the authorship criteria. Abstract: Research articles should contain an 80-100 words abstract in Turkish and English. The abstract should be prepared without any subheadings. Keywords: Each submission must be accompanied by a minimum of three to a maximum of six keywords for subject indexing at the end of the abstract. The keywords should be listed in full without abbreviations. Manuscript Types Research Articles: This is the most important type of article since it provides new information based on original research. The main text of original articles should be structured in accordance with the context of the article. Translations: This type of manuscript should be submitted with a file that contains the original text with its full bibliographic information. A formal consent letter from the author of the original text is also required.Tables Tables should be included in the main document, presented after the reference list, and they should be numbered consecutively in the order they are referred to within the main text. A descriptive title must be placed above the tables. Abbreviations used in the tables should be defined below the tables by footnotes (even if they are defined within the main text). Tables should be created using the “insert table” command of the word processing software and they should be arranged clearly to provide easy reading. Data presented in the tables should not be a repetition of the data presented within the main text but should be supporting the main text. Figures and Figure Legends Figures, graphics, and photographs should be submitted as separate files (in TIFF or JPEG format) through the submission system. The files should not be embedded in a Word document or the main document. When there are figure subunits, the subunits should not be merged to form a single image. Each subunit should be submitted separately through the submission system. Images should not be labeled (a, b, c, etc.) to indicate figure subunits. Thick and thin arrows, arrowheads, stars, asterisks, and similar marks can be used on the images to support figure legends. Like the rest of the submission, the figures too should be blind. Any information within the images that may indicate an individual or institution should be blinded. The minimum resolution of each submitted figure should be 300 DPI. To prevent delays in the evaluation process, all submitted figures should be clear in resolution and large in size (minimum dimensions: 100 × 100 mm). Figure legends should be listed at the end of the main document. All acronyms and abbreviations used in the manuscript should be defined at first use, both in the abstract and in the main text. The abbreviation should be provided in parentheses following the definition. All references, tables, and figures should be referred to within the main text, and they should be numbered consecutively in the order they are referred to within the main text. Limitations, drawbacks, and the shortcomings of original articles should be mentioned in the Discussion section before the conclusion paragraph. Revisions When submitting a revised version of a paper, changes made according to the reviewers’ comments should be highlighted in the revised document. Revised manuscripts must be submitted within 30 days from the date of the decision letter. If the revised version of the manuscript is not submitted within the allocated time, the revision option may be canceled. If the submitting author(s) believe that additional time is required, they should request this extension before the initial 30-day period is over. Accepted manuscripts are copy-edited for grammar, punctuation, and format. Once the publication process of a manuscript is completed, it is published online on the journal’s webpage as an ahead-of- print publication before it is included in its scheduled issue. A PDF proof of the accepted manuscript is sent to the corresponding author and their publication approval is requested within 2 days of their receipt of the proof.

Author Guidelines

While citing publications, preference should be given to the latest, most up-to-date publications. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of references. References should be prepared according the detailed information and examples provided below. In-text references should be stated in superscripts and numbered starting from 1 as footnotes. Footnotes should be written in Times New Roman style, type size 9 with one space. All footnotes should be end with a full stop. While stating references in footnotes, the title of books and journals should be in italic whereas the title of articles should be plain text font in quotation marks. In the footnotes, the author name and source must be given exactly in the first place, then only the author’s surname and abbreviation ibid should be written. When citing different publications of the same author, last name of the author and the abbreviated title of the book or the article should be provided after the first citation of the second work. In books with multiple authors, all authors must be written in the first citation and only the surnames of the authors should be given in the following citations of the same book. While citing an article, book section or an encyclopedia item, start and end pages should be provided.Examples: Books with a Single Author: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, Menteşe Sancağı 1830 (Nüfus ve Toplum Yapısı), TTK Yay., Ankara 2010, p. 115.For following citations: Kütükoğlu, ibid., p. 123 or Kütükoğlu, p. 123. Different publications of the same author: Arzu Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti, TTK Yay., Ankara 2000, p. 98 (Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa). If the same book will be cited again, the abbreviated title of it should be provided in the parenthesis as shown in the example. To indicate the volume of the book, only the volume should be written in Roman numerals. Hoca Sa‘deddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-tevârîh, I, İstanbul 1279, 25. Tayyâr-zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi Târîh-i Enderûn, haz. Mehmet Arslan, Kitabevi, III, İstanbul 2010, 138. Book Translations: Philippe du Fresne-Canaye, Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, tran. Teoman Tunçdoğan, İstanbul 2009, p. 51.Encyclopedia items: Feridun M. Emecen, “Başmukataa Kalemi”, DİA, V, 135. Books with multiple authors: Robert Anhegger-Halil İnalcık, Kānūnnāme-i Sultānī Ber Mūceb-i ‛Örf-i ‛Osmānī, II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknāme ve Kānūnnāmeler, TTK Yay., Ankara 2000, p. 25. For following citations of the same book: Anhegger-İnalcık, ibid, p. 36. Editor(s) or compiler(s) as authors: Osmanlı Uygarlığı, eds. Halil İnalcık-Günsel Renda, Kültür Bakanlığı Yay., I-II, Ankara 2009. Book section: Terzi, Arzu, “II. Abdülhamid’in Emlakı ve Irak Petrolleri”, Sultan II. Abdülhamid ve Dönemi, ed. Coşkun Yılmaz, İstanbul 2014, s. 181-188. Journal Article: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), p.149. Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Ma‘rûzât”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, issue 10-11, İstanbul 1983, p. 251. Mücteba İlgürel, “Şer‘iyye Sicillerinin Toplu Kataloğuna Doğru”, Tarih Dergisi, issue 28-29 (1975), p. 164. Journal article with multiple authors: Kayhan Orbay-Hatice Oruç, “Sultan II. Murad’ın Edirne Câmi‘-i Şerîf ve Dârü’l-hadîs Vakfı (1592- 1607)”, Tarih Dergisi, issue 56 (2012/2), İstanbul 2013, p. 10. For the following citations of the same book: Orbay-Oruç, ibid, p. 15. Journal Translations: Géza Dávid, “XVI. Yüzyılda Osmanlı-Habsburg Mücadelesinin Bir Kaynağı Olarak Mühimme Defterleri”, tran. Özgür Kolçak, Tarih Dergisi, issue 53 (2011/1), İstanbul 2012, pp. 295-349. Articles of the authors with the same surname: Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, “Osmanlıdan Günümüze Yer Adları”, Belleten, LXXVI/275 (2012), 149. Bekir Kütükoğlu, “Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Ma‘rûzât”, Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, issue 10-11, İstanbul 1983, p. 251. For the following citations of the same authors: M. S. Kütükoğlu, ibid, p. 160 or B. Kütükoğlu, ibid, p. 250. Thesis: Sinem Serin, Yıldız Çini/Porselen Fabrikası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı Osmanlı Müesseseleri ve Medeniyeti Tarihi Bilim Dalı, Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul 2009, p. 146.Archive Documents: In the footnotes; the name of the archive, the title of the classification, file and the document number should be stated respectively. Abbreviated classifications of the archives may be written in the footnote, however the full title of the classification should be given in the bibliography. • BOA, Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler (MAD), nr. 9146, s. 200. • BOA, Mühimme Defteri, nr. 120, s. 103, h. 250.Bibliography All sources that are cited in the footnotes should be stated in alphabetically by the surnames of the authors under Bibliography heading. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu, Menteşe Sancağı 1830 (Nüfus ve Toplum Yapısı), TTK Yay., Ankara 2010. Hoca Sa‘deddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-tevârîh, I-II, İstanbul 1279-80. Translated texts: Fresne-Canaye, Philippe du, Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, tran. Teoman Tunçdoğan, İstanbul 2009. *The edition number of the book should be indicated as superscript. Terzi, Arzu, Sultan Abdülhamid’in Mirası, Petrol ve Arazi, Timaş Yayınları, İstanbul 20142. Thesis: Sinem Serin, Yıldız Çini/Porselen Fabrikası, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tarih Anabilim Dalı Osmanlı Müesseseleri ve Medeniyeti Tarihi Bilim Dalı, Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul 2009, p. 146. Archive Documents: Archive classifications that are stated in footnotes should be written in full in bibliography, abbreviations should be stated in parenthesis. When references are used from different archives, these archives should be classified. Since the document numbers of the archives are stated in the footnotes, only the document classifications should be stated in bibliography section. • Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA) • Cevdet Bahriye Evrakı (C.BH.) • Şura-yı Devlet (ŞD.) • Deniz Tarihi Arşivi (DTA) • Bahriye Nezareti (BN.)

Ensure that the following items are present:<ul><li>Confirm that the category of the manuscript is specifed.</li><li>Confirm that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.</li><li>Confirm that disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement is provided.</li><li>Confirm that last control for fluent English was done.</li><li>Confirm that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.</li><li>Confirm that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in with Chicago Manual of Style.</li></ul>● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>● Permission of previous published material if used in the present manuscript● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/DA78A786D02C4904947053E76EE62450" target="_blank">Title page</a><ul><li>The category of the manuscript</li><li>The title of the manuscript both in the language of the article and in English</li><li>All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country), e-mail addresses</li><li>Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, and phone number</li><li>ORCIDs of all authors.</li><li>Grant support (if exists)</li><li>Conflict of interest (if exists)</li><li>Acknowledgement (if exists)</li></ul>● Main Manuscript Document<ul><li>Important: Please avoid mentioning the the author (s) names in the manuscript</li><li>The title of the manuscript both in the language of the article and in English</li><li>Abstract (80-100 words)</li><li>Key words: 3-6 words</li><li>Extended Abstract (800-1000 words) in English for the articles which are not in English</li><li>Body text sections</li><li>References</li><li>All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, explanation, captions)</li></ul>

<div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/23902FFD8AED477FACB35089D3B27DD8" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/7A2F0FC168C64E8F99ABD2AB598E6363" target="_blank">Title Page</a></div>

Issue Type	Regular
Editor(s)	Arzu Terzi
Cover (PDF)
Full Text (PDF)
Front Pages (PDF)

Turkish Journal of History

ISSUE 76, 2022

Ottoman Military and Naval Power in Comparative Perspective: Before and After Lepanto

A Diplomatic Novelty? Ultimatum Given to the Venetian Republic in 1570 and the Edition of Relevant Letters by Sultan Selîm II and his Grand Vizier

The Influence of Fatwa on Ottoman Administration and Society: Ebussuûd Efendi’s Fatwas Regarding Cyprus and Lepanto

History is Written by Victorious Battles: Glorious Lepanto (1571) and Forgotten Preveza (1538)

Battle of Lepanto in Fuggerzeitung Collection

The Tuscan Galleys at the Battle of Lepanto

The Diplomatic Roles of The Dragomans of Venice During the Campaigns in Cyprus and Lepanto

“A Humiliating Treaty Followed the Great Victory”: The Ahdname of 1573 Issued by Selim II

From War to Compromise: The Turks in Italian Literature Before and After The Battle of Lepanto (1570-1573)

The Place of Lepanto in Political Memory: Allusions to the Holy League and Lepanto in International Politics in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries

The revival of the anti-Ottoman projects in the Balkans after Lepanto and Venice’s struggle to maintain long lasting peace with the Ottomans (1573-1645)

From Representation to Imagination: The Battle of Lepanto in European Painting

INFORMATION

SHARE