Ghazavatname refers to the epic and popular literary works that narrate the ghazas, i.e., the wars that the Ottomans waged against Christian states. The word is a compound of the Arabic ghaza (pl. ghazavat, “holy war”) and the Persian name (“letter” or “narrative”). Initially, its meaning was related to the idea of going to war, i.e., waging war. Subsequently, the term was used to refer to wars waged against the enemies of one’s religion and was understood as jihad.

The first examples of such texts appeared in the Arabic literature as maghazi. They dealt with the wars waged by the Prophet of Islam against “unbelievers.” Later, such ghaza narratives were dedicated to the Prophets’ gender, Ali, or to his uncle, Hamza. They were read, listened to, and greatly appreciated by the Turkish-speaking communities of Anatolia. These ghaza narratives could be considered to have influenced the development of ghazavatnames.

In such works, one generally finds an epic hero, who is the center of the story, waging a ghaza. We can classify these works into three categories based on their topics. The first category narrates the ghaza of a sultan; it is known as Selimname or Süleymanname—from Selim Ist (r. 1512–1520) or Süleyman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566)—and constitutes a specific genre. The second category of works deals with the ghaza of a vizier or famous commander, such as the ghazavatname of Hayreddin Paşa Barbarossa, Köprülüzâde Fâzıl Ahmed Paşa, Özdemiroğlu Osman Paşa, or Mihaloğlu Ali Bey. Finally, the works of the third category narrate the conquest of a special place or fortress.

The first examples of ghazavatname are from the 15th century; their number increases in the 16th century because of the increasing numbers of conquests and military successes during this time. In fact, the best ghazavatnames appeared in this period. Ghazavatnames later declined possibly as a result of the decline of the Ottoman Empire; the multiplying defeats and the fall of the Empire influenced the disappearance of the ghazavatnames. To date, 270 ghazavatnames have been known.

To the best of my knowledge, no scholar other than Agah Sırrı Levend has explored the literary genre of the ghazavatname; no one has elaborated on the style of these historical narratives. Till date, there has been no reflection on the ghazavatname genre. Scholars have primarily worked on transcribing these Arabic texts in Latin or have performed linguistic analyses. Levend’s book provides some information regarding the ghazavatnames and lists the known works, including Mihailoğlu’s ghazavatname. While Levend’s book is of immense value, his list is not perfectly rigorous as it includes certain works that cannot be considered ghazavatnames. This confusion may be attributable to the fact that Ottoman chronicles of that period shared certain similarities with ghazavatnames.

In the first part of this study, the ghazavatnames are investigated from a literary point of view. A challenge in this study was the limited number of reference works available. Notably, the ghazavatnames are of the artificial epic genre (such being my conclusion), but Turkish and foreign scholars have primarily worked on natural epics with a nationalist approach. As the artificial epics were not composed within the people but were written in an artificial manner, they attracted little literary interest despite their value as historical sources. Thus, I could find limited information regarding the artificial epics, the manner in which they appeared, and their criteria. Thus, I attempted to define the ghazavatname genre by comparing it with the natural epics.

In the second part, the ghazavatnames are examined in their historical context. Because these works narrate wars, i.e., historical events, I attempted to determine how they relate these events, particularly whether they manipulate them or not and why. I proceeded by first creating a summary of each ghazavatname and then trying to answer my questions by comparing these summaries with contemporaneous historical Ottoman and non-Ottoman chronicles and with historians’ works on the period.

The analysis showed that the aim of the ghazavatnames was not to relate Ottoman history as is but to glorify the ghaza and the ghazis. Therefore, we can say that historical events that are not linked to war do not find a place in ghazavatnames. If an author speaks about a historical event that is not a war, such referencing will only be aimed at fulfilling the author’s primary purpose. Moreover, the narration of historical events is not always truthful. With his purpose in mind, the author may manipulate historical facts or even invent them.

The language of the ghazavatnames has the linguistic characteristics of the 15th century Ottoman Turkish. As far as the heroes are concerned, some types are easily identifiable, such as the ghazi sultan, the Muslim warrior, the king or lord of the unbelievers, the women, and the coward. We do not learn much about the heroes’ lives, which are mentioned during the ghaza only when they are useful to the story. No period other than wartime is worth the author’s attention. The place and time of the events are precisely indicated, in conformity with historical facts. Authors may even provide a precise date. Finally, as the events described are not very ancient, supernatural aspects are rarely found in the ghazavatname.