Ottoman Morea Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Abstract: The Morea Peninsula, which had been under the control of the Ottoman
Empire, was passed to the control of the Venetians in the Treaty of Karlowitz on
26 January 1699, concluding the Austro-Ottoman War of 1683–1697. Morea was
one of the first targets of the Ottomans, who had recovered well after the Battles
of Vienna (1683–1699). In the spring of 1715, a campaign under the command
of the Grand Chief Commander Damad (Martyr) Ali Pasha was launched. During
the campaign, the island of Tinos (Istendil) was captured on 6 June, which was
followed by the conquest of Nafplion (Anabolu), Morea Castle, Navarino, Koron,
and Moron. Toward the end of August 1715, almost all castles in the peninsula were
captured, including Monemvasia (Benefşe), which had to surrender on 7 September.
In the Morea Campaign, several islands and castles which were not able to defend
themselves were conquered. For example, the islands of Egine (iğne) and Cuka,
and the castles of Souda (Suda) and Sperlonga (Isperlonga) in Crete (Girit) were
captured. This way, not only did the Ottomans dominate the Morea again, but also,
they managed to decrease the pessimistic atmosphere in the region after the Treaty
of Karlowitz (1699) had been dissolved.
A number of sources can explain the Ottoman conquest of Morea in 1715.
One of these is the conquest letter (fetihname) which was sent to states and other
countries to declare the area as conquered. In this study, the afore-mentioned
conquest letter is briefly investigated and evaluated, after which its transcription is
also presented.
A fathnama–an important source for Turkic-Islamic literature and history–
is the generic name of letters and imperial firmans giving information about the
victories against enemies and newly conquered lands. Apart from its literary aspects,
a fathnama can also be used as a historical source.
The fathnama by Râshid Mehmed Effendi, examined in this article, was
prepared in order to give information about the conquest of Morea in 1715, and
which was dispatched to the ruler of Iran, Shah Hussain. Mehmed Efendi, who
had been in various positions serving the Ottoman Empire, was especially famous
as an official historian (vekayinuvis). In his History, he tells that he wrote this
conquest letter personally. A copy of the work published here is accessible from
the Namah-ı Humayun Record, no. 6 (pp. 352–362), in the Ottoman Archive of the
Prime Ministry. According to this document, Rasid Mehmed Efendi was awarded
80,000 coins (bakhsis) for this conquest letter.
In this study, the copies of the Morea Conquest Letter were evaluated and
analyzed. The letter starts with an introduction containing the praise of the Prophet
Muhammed (PBUH) in Arabic language. After giving the sobriquet of Shah Huseyin of Iran, his name and a pray sentence for him are presented. Then, by
referring to the verse of Quran that states that “Allah will create a caliph on Earth,”
it is expressed that the Sultan was appointed as caliph and that he acts under the
direction of Allah’s commands, and that he is given a great sultanate. After that,
expressing the necessities of ghazi (warrior) and jihad (holy war), it is stated that
a war was started from the side of the Venetians who broke the agreement in 1715.
Detailed descriptions are then given on the Sultan’s arrival to Edirne with his army,
the sending of more than 40,000 soldiers to the navy, and the appointment of grand
viziers as grand commanders in chief. In this part, the names of the conquered
places are given. Particular attention is given to the siege of the Nafplion Castle.
After explaining the campaign process, the name of the conquered places are briefly
mentioned again. It is stated that all these places are a gift from Allah, and that the
public servant Yusuf is appointed for notifying the declaration of the conquest. The
conquest letter ends with prayer words and a date note. The Conquest Letter Copy
is dated February 1716 (Hijri Calender Evâsıt-ı Safer 1128).
The language used in the conquest letter is generally heavy. The sections
narrating war details are simpler than the other parts. The verses of Quran related
to the narrated text are given as a separate selection. In addition, Hadith Sharif’s
quotes are also used. When the general points that are necessary for a conquest letter
are taken into consideration, it can be observed that all of these points are included
in the conquest letter under examination here.
As this study compares other resources explaining the 1715 Morea conquest,
it can be observed that the conquest letter is an extremely good brief of stated
campaign. As Rasid Mehmed Efendi explains, this campaign (detailed in his
History) was merely summarized in the chapter of his History, while he was writing
conquest letter. When these kinds of conquest letters are compared, although they
have some common parts and sobriquets because they are official documents, it is
seen that they reflect the styles of their writers. There are also major differences in
volume. For example, compared to the conquest letter of the Kandiye Siege (written
between 1667 and 1669) which took two and a half campaign seasons, the 1715
Morea Conquest Letter only resulted in one campaign season.
For the text that we prepared for publication, we followed a simple transcription
method. In Turkish, word circumflex is not used. The (b) and (c) at the end of Turkish
words are written as (p) and (ç). Hemze is symbolized as (’). Long vowels in Arabic
and Persian words are shown as (â), (î), and (û). Also, the long vowels in Arabic and
Persian words following the letters Ghayn ( غ) and Qaaf ( ق) are shown as (ā), (ī), and
(ū). The letter Ayn ( ع) is shown as a (‘) sign. The transitions in Arabic conjunctions
and compounds are shown as ('). The phrases that are necessary to be presented in
text (but are not), are written in box brackets [ ], and extra words and phrases arwritten in as < >. In order to make the text more comprehensible to the public, some
punctuation marks, like dots and commas, have been added. The transcriptions of
verses, hadiths, and quotes are presented in the text, and their original forms and
meaning are given in the footnotes (as showing in the references). The equivalents
of dates in the Hijri calendar are shown as Gregorian calendar dates in the footnotes.
Names of places are written in italics. During transcription, the punctuation of the
original text was saved.