#ask: mehmed iii | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ottomanladies · 1 month ago

Note

DAUGHTERS OF MEHMED III

This is also a very unknown, controversial and somehow interesting topic and I would like to put my stamp on this. Also, I have a few interesting digs and findings, so I'd love to hear your comments on my research as always...

_____________________________________________

The first Sultana I would discuss is Ayşe Sultan. It is not confirmed who her mother is, but the sure thing about her is that she was in marriage during early reign of her brother Ahmed I to vizier Destari Mustafa Pasha, who made some fountain in 1608 and died in 1610 (not 1614, it’s the year his little mosque was finished(!!!)). We know also that she had two sons and a daughter and that they died very young and were buried in their father’s tomb. I would at least suggest that Ayşe survived her husband when he died in 1610.

It is very interesting that Ayşe Sultan is claimed by Öztuna to be remarried in 1613 to Gazi Hüsrev Pasha. I think that this time, Öztuna may hitted by sudden the right info;

https://cdn2.islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/dosya/19/C19006276.pdf (page 46)

https://isamveri.org/pdfdrg/D00057/1969_23/1969_23_EYICES.pdf (page 192)

Both of there liks provide the fact that Ayşe Sultan was wife of Hüsrev Pasha.

I would ask you to pay attention on second link I’ve send to you. It is a great text, and is a study of Grand Vizier Gazi Hüsrev Pasha. On page 192, we understand that his wife was Ayşe Sultan (I’m not sure if text says that she survived him or died before him). More interesting, on the same page (note 43 below) author is obviously confused which Ayşe Sultan was his wife; he suspects of daughter of Murad III and Ahmed I, but we all know it is not true; Murad III’s daughter died in May 1605, and Ahmed I’s daughter was married to Hafiz Ahmed Pasha at the time and before that. I would suggest this Sultana may really be daughter of Mehmed III. As she was not listed among Sultanas in 1638 harem registers, it means she died latest in mid 1630s (if not before 1631).

We know for sure that one of Mehmed III’s daughters was named Şah Sultan. I saw you suggested that she could be wife of Kara Davud Pasha, but you were wrong in your assumption. No source clearly claimed that she was his wife. But, I’ve found something interesting. In 82 numarali muhimme defteri, under cesision 116, here is what Ahmed I wrote in 1616/1617:

Dürrî Efendi yazdurmışdur. Narda kâdîsına hüküm ki: Müteveffâ Vezîr Mustafâ Paşa'nun hâl-i hayâtında Narda hâsları bin on tokuz senesinde ebnâ-i sipâhiyândan kıdvetü'l-emâsil ve'l-akrân Muhammed zîde kadruhûnun tokuz yük akçaya uhdesinde iken mûmâ-ileyh vezîrüm fevtolup muhallefâtı zevcesi olan hemşîrem Şâh Sultân'a ve evlâdına intikâl idüp meblağ-ı mezbûr merkûm Muhammed'den taleb olundukda zikrolunan tokuz yük akçanun yedi yük iki bin dört yüz elli beş akçasın mûmâ-ileyh vezîrüme kemâl-i sıhhatinde teslîm olunduğına defterde mastûr u mukayyed bulunup ve sene-i mezbûre mahsûlâtından bâkî kalan iki yüz toksan yedi bin beş yüz kırk beş akçayı dahı mûmâ-ileyhâ sultâna teslîm idüp ve bin yiğirmi senesinün mûmâ-ileyh vezîrümün tahvîline düşen ispençesinden yüz elli bin akçayı dahı bî-kusûr mûmâ-ileyhâ sultâna teslîm itdüğine mûmâ-ileyhâ sultândan ve eytâmına vasî* olan Müteferrika Halîl zîde mecdühû tarafından me[m]hûr temessük virilmeğin, mûcebince amel olunup ol temessüğe muhâlif mezbûr Muhammed rencîde olunmamak bâbında fermân-ı âlî-şânum sâdır olmışdur. Buyurdum ki: Vusûl buldukda göresin; mûmâ-ileyh vezîrümün hâsları mahsûlinden fi'l-vâkı‘ zikrolunan mikdârı akça, mezbûr Muhammed tahvîlinden teslîm olunduğına mûmâ-ileyhâ sultân ile eytâmına vasî* olan mezbûr Halîl zîde mecdühû tarafından memhûr temessük virilmiş ise mûcebince amel idüp min-ba‘d ol temessüğe muhâlif mezbûrı rencîde vü remîde itdürmeyesin.

From this letter, we find out that Şah Sultan was in 1616/1617 widow of vizier Mustafa Pasha, who died in 1009 H. (1610) and that they had a son. I would remind you that we all know for sure that daughter of Mehmed III who was married to vizier Mustafa Pasha, died in 1610 and that this Sultana remarried in 1612 to Cığalazade Mahmud Bey, great-grandson of Mihrimah Sultan.

Now, in book Searching for Osman, T. Baki says that Sultana who was married to Mustafa Pasha and later Mahmud Bey was full-sister of Mustafa I beside wife of Kara Davud Pasha. I strongly suggest that this claim is a mishit by author or of a source he used to state this, because that Sultana was full-sister of Ahmed I and her husband Mahmud Bey was favourite brother-in-law of his. See why:

Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, il pellegrino, descritti da lui medesimo in lettere familiari all'erudito suo amico Mario Schipano divisi in tre parti cioè : la Turchia, la Persia e l'India (page 118)

Note: I found out this was originally reported in June 1615

‘’…Mahmud bascia, figliuolo chef u del gia Cicala, e cognate ora del Gran Signore , e henche giovane, uomo qui di molta estimazione e di maggiore speranza: si perchee di spirit per se stesso, come anche per lo favour della sultana sua moglie, che tra le sorelle del Gran Signore e forse la piu amata, e, se ben mi ricordo, credo che sia sorella a lui di padre e di madre, che in queste parti rade volte avviene ai principi del sangue reale.’’

La porta d'Oriente - lettere di Pietro della Valle : Istanbul 1614 (pp. 132-133)

‘’Di queste cose di Persia gli fece gran danno Mahmud Bascia, egli ancora vezir, detto qui per sopranome Cigaliogli, cioe figliuolo del Cicala, perche quel rinegato Cicala, gia capitano famoso nel mare, fu suo padre. Costui, richiamato dal governo che haveva non so se nella Babilonia o in altro paese de’ confine del Persiano, venuto in Constantinopoli, per disgusti che haveva havuto con Nasuh, ne disse molto male al Gran Signore, insieme con la sua moglie, che e sorella del Gran Signore e da lui molto amata. Hebbero amendue udienza poco prima della morte di Nasuh, et in particolare la moglie di Mahmud, una volta assai secretamente et a lungo. Fra le alter cose che di lui suggerirono al principe, dissero che Nasuh haveva fatto morire innocentemente in quelle parti un ufficiale, che era buonissimo ministro, solo per torgli la robba, dopo la morte del quale I turchi havevano perduto molto co’i persiani, e che in somma Nasuh se la intendeva con loro; e mostrarono alcune lettere di questa intelligenza, le quali Mahmud haveva intercettate, facendo morir secretamente e seppellir dentro al suo proprio padiglione colui che le portava, che a caso un giorno in campagna, verso quelle bande, haveva per camino incontrato e trattenuto seco alquanto a riposare.’’

Also, there was one of Mehmed III’s daughters named Hatice. Oztuna suggests she was wife of Mirahur Mustafa Pasha, but obviously not the one who was vizier and died in 1610. It is true that she had her own tomb in Şehzade Mosque Complex as one of her sisters Ayşe and her first husband Destari Pasha, but she was not married to Mustafa Pasha.

In 82 numarali muhimme defteri, in decision 56, Ahmed I points her out just as Hatice Sultan, in difference to his full-sister Şah Sultan, to whom he reffered in decision 116 as hemşîrem Şâh Sultân (my sister Şah Sultan; similar case with Murad IV’s sister Gevherhan and Ümmügülsüm). Just to remind you, this is not Murad III’s daughter Hatice, who was wife of beylerbeyi of Kefe Mehmed Pasha.

Mâliyye emri mûcebince. Vulçıtrın Beği olup bi'l-fi‘l Üsküb ve Kratova Nâzırı olan Mehmed dâme ızzühûya ve Đvranya kâdîsına hüküm ki: "Kazâ-i mezbûrda vâkı‘ Đvlasne (?) ve Kovanes (?) hâsları mukaddemâ Dergâh-ı Mu‘allâm Yeniçerileri Ağası olup vefât iden Mustafâ'nun zevcesi seyyidetü'l-muhadderât Hadîce Sultân dâmet ısmetühâya ber-vech-i paşmaklık hâs ta‘yîn olunup zabt üzre iken girü havâss-ı hümâyûnuma ilhâk olunup kendüye gadrolduğın" Rikâb-ı Hümâyûnum'a arz-ı hâl sunup girü; "Bin yiğirmi altı Zi'l-hıccesi'nün yiğirmi birinci güninden havâss-ı hümâyûnumdan ifrâz olunup müşârun-ileyhâya ibkâ’en mukarrer ola." diyü hatt-ı hümâyûn-ı sa‘âdet-makrûnum ile fermân-ı âlî-şânum sâdır olmağla Mâliyye tarafından dahı emir virilüp mûcebince Dîvân-ı Hümâyûnum'dan dahı hükm-i hümâyûnum recâ itmeğin buyurdum ki: Vusûl buldukda, Mâliyye tarafından virilen emir mûcebince amel idüp min-ba‘d hılâfına cevâz göstermeyesiz.

Anyway, we find out from this letter that her former husband was late (by then) jannisary Mustafa Aga. Also, I found out something more interesting; I found writings of vakfiye of twice Grand Vizier Kayserili Halil Pasha (d. 1629), where his wife was Hatice Sultan!

https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/203007 (PAGE 7)

Also there are sources where Halil Pasha is claimed to have two sons with Hatice, Mahmud Bey and Ebubekir Bey: https://en.marastaedebiyat.com/templates/yayinlar/marasli-kardesler.pdf (page 24)

Interesting is that Halil Pasha is rarely known as damad, and that he married one of the daughters of Mehmed III. (A Short History of the Ottoman Empire by Ayfocu (2022), Diplomatic Cultures at the Ottoman Court, C.1500–1630 (2021), Rarities of These LandsArt, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Dutch Republic (2021), etc…)

I will now suggest name of Kara Davud Pasha’s wife. It is confirmed that he and his wife had a son, and rumours were that they wanted to put him on throne. What is lesser known is that their son’s name was Suleiman, confirmed first by Evliya Celebi in his work Şeyahatname and by John Freely in Inside the Sergalio. By documents of judicial reports, Suleyman Bey had a juridical dispute with one of his aunts, Fahri Sultan, in 1662 about the lands. He is referred in those documents as Sultanzâde Süleyman Bey b. el-merhûm Davud Paşa. However, he died in 1687/88, and after his death, he left three daughters behind him, named Ayşe, Safiye and Afife.

Husûs-ı âti’l-beyânı mahallinde tahrîri için fermân-ı âlî sâdır olmağla imtisâlen-leh savb-ı şer‘-i şerîfden irsâl olunan Mevlânâ es-Seyyid Abdülmu‘ti Efendi Âsitâne-i Sa‘âdet’ime bi’l-fi‘il kāimmakām-ı vezâret-i uzmâ ve nâib-i menâb-ı vekâlet-i kübrâ olan vezîr-i rûşen-zamîr-i müşterî-tedbîr mümehhid-i bünyâni’d-devleti ve’l-ikbâl müşeyyid-i erkâni’s-sa‘âdeti ve’l-iclâl el-muhtassu bi-mezîdi inâyeti’l-meliki’l-a‘lâ devletlü ve sa‘âdetlü Ömer Paşa -dâme birruhû ve feşâ- hazretlerinin sarây-ı âlîlerine varıp zeyl-i kitâbda muharrerü’l-esâmî udûl-ı müslimîn ve sikāt-ı muvahhidîn huzûrunda akd-i meclis-i şer‘-i mübîn eyledikde medîne-i Hazret-i Ebî Eyyüb el-Ensârî’de sâkin iken bundan akdem vefât eden merhûm Davud Paşazâde Süleyman Bey’in sulbiye sagīre kızları Afife ve Âişe ve Safiye’nin kıbel-i şer‘den mansûb vasîleri olan el-Hâc Mahmud b. Receb meclis-i ma‘kūd-ı mezbûrede vezîr-i müşârun-ileyh hazretleri mahzarlarında bi’l-vesâye ikrâr ve takrîr-i kelâm edip bundan akdem yedimde olan işbu hüccet nâtık olduğu üzere sefer-i hümâyûn mühimmâtı için istidâne lâzım gelmekle taraf-ı mîrîden sagīrât-ı mezbûrât mâllarından ben hacc-ı şerîfde iken nâzırları İbrahim Çelebi b. Mahmud yedinden dört kîse akçe olmak üzere iki bin guruş istidâne ve kabz olunup ve çuka bahâsından dahi iki yüz guruş ki cem‘an iki bin iki yüz guruş deyn-i mîrî mukābelesinde taraf-ı şehriyârîden işbu kırmızı minâkârî her yâfte ortasında on dokuz taşlı elmâs ve etrâfı sagīr elmâslar ile murassa‘ iki yâfte elmâslı murassa‘ olup ol vakitde iki bin iki yüz elli guruş kıymet ile tahmîn olunup ve hâlâ bin iki yüz elli guruş ile tahmîn olunan işbu ön cevâhir kuşak nâzır-ı mezbûra rehn vaz‘ ve teslîm olunup ba‘dehû ben hacc-ı şerîfden geldikde nâzır-ı mezbûr kuşak-ı merkūmu bana def‘ ve teslîm ve meblağ-ı mezbûru ahz u kabza tarafından beni ihâle ve tevkîl etmişdi. El-hâletü hâzihî zikr olunan kuşak deyn-i mezkûr için değer kıymetiyle temlîk olunmak bâbında hatt-ı hümâyûn-ı şevket-makrûn vârid olmağla verese-i müşârun-ileyh hazretleri bâ-hatt-ı hümâyûn deyn-i mezkûre mukābelesinde mârru’z-zikr kuşağı bi’l-vekâle temlîk, ben dahi vesâyetim hasebiyle ber-vech-i muharrer temellük ve kabûl ve tesellüm eyledim dedikde gıbbe’t-tasdîki’l-mu‘teberi’l-vicâhî vâki‘-i hâli mevlânâ-yı mezkûr mahallinde tahrîr ve ma‘an ba‘s olunan Mehmed Çelebi b. İdris’le meclis-i şer‘a gelip her biri alâ vukū‘ihî inhâ ve takrîr etmeğin mâ-vaka‘a bi’t-taleb ketb olundu.

This all is true. Additionally, there is one document written by granddaughter of Kara Davud Pasha, Afife Hanim, who was trustee of one foundation; there writes Kara Davud Paşa Torunu, Vakıf Mütevellisi Afife Hanım İmzalı:

Or, if you can't enter the link, just google as "Devletlü Saadetlü Sultanım Efendi Hazretleri Sağolsun" Hitaplı Talepname'' and you will find her letter.

Now, Kara Davud Pasha’s son Suleyman had three daughters, but very interestingly, one of them named Safiye. It was very unnormal to me that he would give such a name to his daughter, considering with happenings from June 1603, when Valide Safiye Sultan was the main mediator in the murder of his uncle Shehzade Mahmud and exile of his grandmother Halime Sultan.

But, very interesting, from 1638 Harem records J. Dumas provided, we see that beside own sisters of Murad IV and one own sister of late Murad III, who received the highest payments as being full-sisters to a Padishah, also there were two daughters of Murad III, Beyhan Sultan and Fahri Sultan, who also were granted highest payments according to positions their husbands (respectively Nigdeli Mustafa Pasha and Çerkes Mehmed Pasha) took under reign of Murad III, it seems that half-sisters of (late and current) sultan(s) received lesser stipend, as Ahmed I’s daughter Atike Sultan and Murad III’s daughter Hatice Sultan. But, there was also one Sultana, Safiye Sultan who received greater amount than Atike and Hatice, but lesser amount that abovementioned ones. We just see that she was wife of some Mehmed Pasha. I have some very strange feeling that this very easily could be former wife of Kara Davud Pasha. Ofc, there are sources lacking to additionally confirm this assumption, but it seems that her son named one of his daughters after her. Nevertheless, she lesser amount (350 aspers) was due to her actions in 1622 probably, she was obviously forgiven, but not forgotten about her doings in those horrible times. To name her son a sultan, she had to kill all remaining sons of Ahmed I, so she was possibly remarried to this Mehmed Pasha after second fall of Mustafa I and lived a quiet life. I hope I will found somehow source which would reaffirm my claims, but for now, it seems to me this might be right…

The greatest mystery for me is this Sultana, who is reported in 1600 to be the eldest child of Mehmed III. By citations that you’ve provided to me, it seems that this Sultana was daughter of Handan Sultan; as she was given to Mehmed in 1582 on his circumcision by his aunt Gevherhan Sultan, she could very easily bore her in following 1583. To remind you, before festivities in June 1582, earlier that year or previous one Mehmed impregnated one of Nurbanu Sultan’s slaves, whom she ordered to be thrown into cold Bosphorus. So, he was capable of bedding a woman, as he could had his own harem. Ofc, as the girl was born (and not a boy), it was not celebrated on high level, and we have no infos about that in regular sources. But, I will add some things

In report from 1600 (Girolamo Cappello), on page 414 he reports that governor of Cairo Iskender Pasha (Kender bassa) is fourth vizier and that he tries by all means to have king’s daughter as wife, but the ambassador considers it unlikely because Pasha was being in age disproportionate to king’s daughter. On the other side, on page 415, he reports that Mahmud Pasha, who was general and fighting against enemy in Micali, was said to be given king’s daughter by king himself if he would be succesfull in fights.

In source Relazioni degli stati Europei lette al senato dagli ambasciatori Veneti nel secolo XVII on page 37 is stated: Ha tre figliuoli maschi e una femmina: questa di eta di 18 anni: ed ha discorso di alcuni bascia che la pretendono per moglie, come Mahmud, e il bascia del Cairo, ma non si maritera se prima non si fa il ritaglio del primogenito, ne questo si fara se non si termina la querra di Ungheria…tutti questi sono di una madre, e l’ultimo che ha 3 o 4 anni ha nome Osmano./ He has three sons and a daughter: the latter is 18 years old: and he has spoken of some pashas who want her as a wife, like Mahmud, and the bascia of Cairo, but she will not marry unless the firstborn is cut off, nor will this be done unless the war in Hungary is ended…all them are from the same mother, and the last is 3 or 4 year old by name Osman.

It seems that before December of 1602, during reign of her father, this Sultana was eventually married off. In Safiye’s Household on page 29 (note 64) says:

14 Dec. 1602 – the baylo says that once paşas in disgrace were killed or sent away from Constatinople; now two former paşas, one the husband of the sultan’s sister and the other of the sultan’s daughter, create disorders but their wives freely enter the Imperial Palace

Reported in Osmanlı İmparatorluğu tarihi (1965) by Zuhuri Danı��man (page 243) that beside Sultan Ahmed’s daughter Gevherhan who marries Mehmed Pasha, he has two sisters who were before married to Mustafa Pasha and Kanije defender Tiryaki Hasan Pasha (also said by Hammer). G. Borekci said that Handan Sultan was reported in February 1595 to have three sons and two daughters. Obviously, these were own sisters of Ahmed I. It seems that the eldest Sultana married secondly in 1604 to Hasan Pasha. In Oztuna’s work Devletler ve hanedanlar, she is reported by him to had a son and two daughters.

Also, one of Ahmed I’s sisters married in early 1610s governor of Buda Kadizâde Ali Pasha, also known as Ali Pasha of Buda. Ali Pasha died in December 1616 in Belgrade. Sakaolgy in his book reported that Ambassador Valier says that Ali Pasha’s his wife was Sultan Ahmed’s younger sister. If so, she was not his full-sister. Anyway, I would like personally to see that report about Ali Pasha, I wasn’t able to find it.

It seems that Mehmed III also had a daughter named Halime, who was a widow during 1622; she was surely Halime’s daughter. It seems it was popular back then to name daughter after their mother (case with Murad II’s daughter Hundi, Bayezid II’s daughter Ayşe, Selim I’s daughter Hafsa, Mehmed III’s daughter Halime, Ahmed I’s daughter Kösem, Murad IV’s daughter Ayşe and Mehmed IV’s daughter Emetullah).

I would suggest Halime was born in 1598; you shared with us once report from Leonardo Dona dated from August 1597: Et si dice che fin hora habbia conggresso con otto altre donne, tre o quattro delle quali siano già gravide// And it is said that until now he has had congress with other eight women [other than Handan], three or four of them being already pregnant

It was maybe Halime one of those four who got pregnant and bore a daughter in 1598, as she gave birth to Mustafa in 1600/01.

One source (https://nek.istanbul.edu.tr:4444/ekos/TEZ/49544.pdf) (page 54, note 337) claims that Sultan Mehmed III had one daughter named Hüma(şah) Sultan. Author namely cites Selaniki as source, but he says nothing about her. ________________________________________

Anyway, as by now, I would sum up Mehmed III’s daughters like this:

Fülane Sultan (1583 — after 1604); daughter of Handan. Married firstly in late reign of her father to some of the pashas. Married secondly in 1604 to Tiryaki Hasan Pasha, with whom she had three children.

Ayşe Sultan (1588? — after 1614); daughter of Halime. Married firstly in 1604 to Destari Mustafa Pasha, with who she had three children. She might remarried to Gazi Khusrev Pasha.

Şah Sultan (1589? — 1618?); daughter of Handan. Said to be full and favourite sister of her brother Ahmed I. Married firstly in 1605 to Mustafa Pasha, with whom she had a son. After his death, she remarried Mahmud Bey in 1612. She was still alive in 1617, but as her husband remarried in May 1620, she most likely died in 1618/19.

Hatice Sultan (?? — ??); daughter of Halime or another concubine. Married firstly to Mustafa Agha, remarried to Kayserili Halil Pasha, with whom she had two sons.

Safiye Sultan (1590? — after 1638); married in 1606 to Kara Davud Pasha with whom she had a son Suleiman. After her husband was executed, she remarried to some Mehmed Pasha.

Halime Sultan (1598 — after 1622); daughter with Halime

Hümaşah Sultan; might name of eldest daughter

Fülane Sultan (after 1590 — after 1616); younger half-sister of Ahmed I, married to Ali Pasha of Buda.

Oh, I really like this topic. Mehmed III’s daughters fascinate me a lot.

Sorry for the wait, it took me a really long time to gather all the sources.

This is going to be so long it could kill the reader, I’m so sorry 😭

I don’t understand how you came up with the date of Ayşe’s marriage to Destari Mustafa Pasha. As far as I know, we don’t have it. Also, I have found (in Öztuna, Devletler ve Hanedanlar) that Destari Mustafa Pasha was governor of Anatolia for a year, only in 1603, so I wonder what happened: was he governor of Anatolia when he was given the hand of a princess or was he appointed governor because he was the husband of a princess? In 1604 the governorship was given to Kejdehân 'Alî Paşa.

Anyway, Destari Mustafa Pasha died in 1610 and was buried in his tomb in the Şehzade Mosque.

There is no source that says that Ayşe was married during Ahmed I’s reign, so she could be the princess described by Agostino Nani in 1600:

Ha tre figliuoli maschi e una femmina: questa di età di 18 anni: ed ha discorso con alcuni bascià che la pretendono per moglie, come Mahmud, e il bascià del Cairo, ma non si mariterà se prima non si fa il ritaglio del primogenito, né questo si farà se non si termina la guerra di Ungheria, e si resti liberi dai travagli dei sollevati in Asia.

To be honest, basically every princess who wasn’t Halime’s daughter could have been the one described by Agostino Nani.

Pietro della Valle wasn’t completely sure that Şah was Ahmed I’s own sister but it’s interesting that he mentioned that because foreigners usually didn’t. About the second quote you posted, the one about Nasuh’s execution: well, it seems this was a family affair because Pietro della Valle says that Şah and her husband spoke with Ahmed I before the Grand Vizier’s execution and told him about some misdeeds he had done. On the other hand, Ragusian diplomats said that Gevherhan Sultan binti Selim II was the reason behind Nasuh Pasha’s execution:

“Dicesi che la causa della morte di Nasupassa è stata sultana di Gevatmehmet la quale essendo li messi passati andata verso Mecha scrisse di la al Gran Signore piu cose contro detto Nasupassa, e particolarmente li disse, che non era suo Visiero, ma Capiciehaia del Persiano”

Both princesses said that it looked like Nasuh Pasha had ties with the Persians.

I have to disagree with you on the fact that Hatice Sultan can’t be Ahmed I’s sister based on that decision. While it’s true that I said the same about Ümmügülsüm binti Ahmed I and Murad IV, in the same 82 numarali muhimme defteri, Osman II calls Ayşe “hemşîrem” in decision 273. In 85 numarali muhimme defteri, Murad IV refers to Gevherhan as “hemşîrem” in decision 93 and 563.

I’m not entirely sure that Hatice went on to marry Kayserili Halil Pasha because in the first source you sent his wife is mentioned as “Hatice Sultan” only by the author. The original document says “Hadice Hanım” (p. 7, n. 14), which made me a little suspicious. In the second source you sent, his wife is mentioned as “Hatun” and never as a princess; the author says:

The name of Halil Pasha's wife is Hatice Hatun. Other relatives include Fatma Hatun, Emine Hatun, Melek Sima Hatun, Can Fida Hatun and Sakine Hatun, but there is no information about their degree of closeness.

It kind of makes me think that the author of the first source made a typing mistake when he referred to Halil Pasha’s wife as “Hatice Sultan”, because he doesn’t say anything else about it in the entire essay.

It is true, though, that Hatice Sultan was married to one Mustafa who had been the Janissaries commander. It’s also true that had this Mustafa been Mirahur Mustafa Pasha, he would have been referred to as a pasha and not as a janissaries commander. The decision is dated Zilhicce 1026, which went from November 30, 1617 to December 30, 1617, which means this man could have been the Mustafa Ağa who died in Baghdad in 1616 (Öztuna). The next Mustafa is “Hoca-zâde d��mâdı Mustafa Ağa” but he was commander from 1617 to 1618 (also, he was married to a woman from the Hocazade family, clearly).

About Safiye Sultan. Let’s go back to Dumas’ harem registry, which you mentioned:

The princesses are in order of amount of money except for Safiye Hanımsultan who most likely took her mother’s place in the harem register as a recipient. I don’t know why the princesses who receive 12900 per month are in that particular order but that’s not the point right now.

Now, to find out the identities of most of these princesses we cross-referenced them with other sources, especially the princesses mentioned by Ragusian diplomats in 1642 and 1648:

(can you tell I love tables?)

From this list I left “Safiyye Sultan merhum Mehmed Paşa” out because we don’t know who she is, also because Mehmed Pasha as a husband is truly too vague.

Now, let’s get to the decision in the Istanbul Court Registry you sent me. So, one of the issues I have with it is that Davud Pasha’s son is called “Davud Paşazâde Süleyman Bey”, which opens the possibility that he could have been Davud Pasha’s son from another marriage. If he had been called Sultanaze then we would have been safe.

I’m going to be honest with you: I couldn’t find where you said that Evliya Celebi confirmed that Davud Pasha’s son with the princess was called Süleyman. The only mention to Davud Pasha I found was this:

Hayat hikâyesi : Mere Hüseyin Paşa, Arnavut ırkından olup, evvelâ Satırcı Mehmed Paşa’nm aşçıbaşısı, sonra sırasıyle sipahi çavuşu, koyun emini, çavuşbaşı, kapıcıbaşı, kapıcılar kethüdası, büyük mirahur ve en sonra Mısır valisi, daha sonra da hain Davud Paşa’nın yerine Sadrâzam oldu.

which is just Evliya saying that Hüseyin Pasha succeeded Davud as Grand Vizier.

But whatever, let’s move on. This Süleyman Bey had three daughters: Afife, Ayşe, and Safiye.

Your theory is that Safiye was also the name of his mother, considering that Mehmed III was very close to his mother and that there is a Safiye Sultan listed in a harem register in 1638-39. Now, this is kind of a risk because a) it cannot be confirmed in any way and b) we have to suppose that Davud Pasha’s wife married a Mehmed Pasha after his execution. I mean, it could be but it’s just a conjecture at the moment. For example, Afife could have been named after her grandmother and she could have died before 1639, when the harem register was compiled.

As I said above, any daughter of Handan could be the one described by the ambassadors.

It is true, though, that Francesco Contarini says this (unfortunately we don’t have his relazione)

therefore prompting that, in the end, Mehmed III married off at least one of his daughters towards the end of his reign. It is interesting that at this point Şehzade Mahmud was still alive so marrying a princess off could have changed the balance in the harem since both Halime and Handan had daughters.

Let’s move onto Tiryaki Hasan Pasha. You mentioned Hammer, and I was able to find out the where he talked about him:

A Constantinople, Mahmoud, fils de Cicala, obtint en mariage une sœur du Sultan défunt, Mohammed III; le kapitan-pascha, Mohammed le' Boeuf, épousa la sœur aînée du Sultan régnant, et le grand-vizir, Nassouh, fut fiancé, en présence de tous les vizirs et du moufti, à la sœur cadette du souverain ( février 1611- silhidjé 1020 ). Deux des sœurs d'Ahmed avaient été mariées antérieurement à Moustafa-Pascha et à Hasan Teryaki, le brave défenseur de Kanischa, et sa fille, Ghewherkhan, avait été fiancée au gouverneur d'Egypte, Mohammed Koulkiran. Le 13 juin 1612, noces du kapitan-pascha et de la sœur aînée d'Ahmed furent célébrées avec une pompe inouïe.

Now, this excerpt is interesting because there’s so much confusion lmao:

Cigalazade Mahmud (Bey?) “had married a sister of the deceased sultan, Mehmed III”: now, Cigalazade Mahmud Bey married a daughter of Mehmed III. On the other hand, Cigalazade Mehmed Bey married a daughter of Murad III. Who is he referring to? Who knows.

Öküz Mehmed Pasha “had married the eldest sister of the reigning sultan”: Kara “Öküz” Mehmed Pasha, though, was Gevherhan binti Ahmed I’s first husband.

“Nasuh, the Grand Vizier, was betrothed, in the presence of all the viziers and the mufti, to the younger sister of the sovereign (February 1611)”: Nasuh Pasha, though, married Ayşe binti Ahmed I. Maybe Nasuh Pasha was supposed to marry one of Ahmed I’s sisters but she died? According to Tezcan, the marriage took place in December 1612; if Hammer is right then maybe he was first betrothed to another princess.

“Two of Ahmed's sisters had been previously married to Mustafa Pasha and Hasan Teryaki, the brave defender of Kanischa”: Mustafa Pasha could be Destari Mustafa Pasha.

I don’t understand where you found that in Devletler ve hanedanlar a princess had three children with Hasan Pasha.

I don’t see anyone married to Hasan Pasha.

We can’t say that these princesses were Ahmed’s own sisters because Hammer mentioned at least 4.

About the princess who married Ali Pasha. I checked what Sakaoglu said and he referred to Alderson so I checked him too. So, Alderson’s source says this:

On dit aussi que ce fut en cette année que Cigale, duquel il a esté fait souvent mention, fut fait General de la mer, au lieu d'Haly Bassa beau-frere du grand Seigneur. (Chalcondyle, Histoire des Turcs, p. 851)

So, the Grand Seigneur mentioned here is Mehmed III, not Ahmed I, so Ali Pasha was married to a daughter of Murad III, not of Mehmed III. This being Alderson’s source for saying that a daughter of Mehmed III was married to Ali Pasha confuses me a lot because “beau-frère” means — clearly — brother-in-law.

His other source is Hammer:

Les Turcs ne pouvaient songer sérieusement à la paix avant que Bocskai eût conclu la sienne avec l'Autriche; lorsqu'un traité entre Bocskai et l'empereur eut été signé à Vienne, le Sultan donna à son gendre Ali-Pascha, gouverneur d'Ofen, au vizir Mourad-Pascha et à Habil-Efendi, juge d'Ofen, des pleins pouvoirs pour agir en son nom.

According to Uzunçarşılı, though, the governor of Buda Ali Pasha was the son-in-law of Kuyucu Murad Pasha, not of the sultan:

Ali Pasha, the governor of Budin, the son-in-law of the vizier Murad Pasha, and Habil Efendi, the qadi of Budin, and Kadim Ahmed Efendi, the kethuda of Murad Pasha, and Nasrüddin zade Mustafa Efendi, one of the notables of Budin, became the executive director of peace.

İşbilir too says that Kadızâde Ali Pasha was the son-in-law of Kuyucu Murad Pasha:

the Treaty of Zitvatorok was signed as a result of the negotiations conducted between 17 Cemaziyelâhir - 10 Rajab 1015 (20 October - 11 November 1606) by his son-in-law Kadızâde Ali Pasha and the judge of Budapest Hâbil Efendi.

I’m sorry but I could not find Sakaoglu’s mention of Cristoforo Valier; he mentioned the secretary to the Austrian ambassador, Werner, instead:

Her name, birth and death dates are unknown. It could be determined that she married Ali Pasha, who died in 1617. In his footnote regarding this princess of Mehmed III’s and Ali Pasha, Alderson mentions Chalcocondyles; Hammer reports that he was married to a daughter of Ahmed I. Austrian ambassador Werner, while describing his meetings with Ali Pasha in Budin, which he stopped by on his way to Istanbul in 1616, said, "He is a liberal and close to Christians, he is about 50 years old. He is married to the sister of the Turkish ruler." It appears that she was the sister of Ahmed I.

Werner, that is Adam Werner von Crailsheim, was not the Austrian Ambassador but the secretary to the Austrian ambassador, Hermann Czernin von Chudenitz. Unfortunately I could not read his diary but it’s been published in Turkish as “Padişahın Huzurunda”.

In conclusion I would be very cautious in saying that Kadızâde Ali Pasha was a damad because I don’t think he was.

I personally don’t agree that if a princess is younger than Ahmed then she’s not his own sister because Mehmed III had discarded harem rules: both Handan and Halime kept having children after the births of their sons so it can be entirely possible that Ahmed I had a younger full sister.

I don’t know how popular it was to name daughters after their mothers because Ayşe, Hafsa, and Emetullah are Muslim names. Kösem and Halime are certainly unusual names (but I’m not sure a princess called Kösem really existed).

Honestly, this princess could have been born basically anytime. Also, I made a typo in that ask because I don’t think Leonardo Donà was in Istanbul in 1597. His last dispatch from Istanbul is dated 14 December 1595. Moreover, Lorenzo Bernardo in 1587 (though his relazione is dated 1590 for some reason) stated that Mehmed (then prince) had two sons “and many daughters”:

Ha finalmente due figlioli maschi, sultan Selim e sultan [***] e molte femine, di molte schiave, che tiene al suo servizio.

Of course some of these princesses could have died before Ahmed I’s accession.

I’m sorry I can’t open your last source, the link doesn’t work for me.

Anyway, what I wanted to highlight is that I don't think we can put Mehmed III's daughters in order because we have no idea who the eldest Venetian ambassadors kept talking about is.

#kehribar-sultan #ask: ottoman history #unnamed daughters of mehmed iii #ayse sultan daughter of mehmed iii #sah sultan daughter of mehmed iii #hatice sultan daughter of mehmed iii

7 notes · View notes

vladdocs · 5 months ago

Note

Do you have any more fun facts about Vlad Dracul?

Not many at hand but I know from where to take them (If you know Romanian):

youtube

Something that is less talked about on the internet is the Danube campaign after the failed Crusade of Varna where Walerand de Wavrin and Vlad Dracul team up to take Giurgiu: We are in Varna, not far from the Black Sea coast, and it is November 10, 1444. A horrific battle has just ended. Over 30,000 crusaders were overwhelmed by the Ottomans, who were twice as numerous, so half of the Christians were killed. King Vladislav III of Poland and Hungary died on the battlefield(Before the Battle Vlad Dracul offered him a Wallachian horse which were the best horses at that time (That's why a castrated horse in german is called "Wallach") but the king refused it), beheaded. He paid with his life for the haste (Before they learned about the death of Vladislav III The pope asked Vlad Dracul to negotiate with the ottomans for his release, since Vlad Dracul was seen as mediator between the Ottomans and Christians), impulsiveness and pride that led him to disregard the tactical plan drawn up by the experienced and brave voivode of Transylvania, John Hunyadi. The Turks are victorious and their opponents are retreating. The news of the defeat at Varna sends shivers down the spine of all of Europe. The only one putting the work on the ottomans at Varna was Vlad's older brother the 15-year-old Mircea, That till (if we believe the chronicle of the clown Michael Beheim) Murad II sent a letter to him: "Many of them, a countless number, were killed. When the Emperor(Murad II) heard what great losses his men were suffering, he sent a message to Trakal(Dracul/Mircea): if he did not stop fighting before more messages came to him, he would kill his two brothers whom he had captured. He would do this if he did not show restraint in battle."

For what Mircea II did at Varna watch this video, really worthy it, really sad ending too:

youtube

The Christian Crusade launched in 1443 did not end there, however. There was one last stage, known as the Danube Campaign, to which we now turn our attention.

At the request of the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Pope Eugenius IV ordered a new Christian campaign, Burgundo-papal, to take place in the second half of 1445. It was commanded by Walerand de Wavrin, counselor and chamberlain of the Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, and commander of the crusader fleet in recent years. He was joined by the Venetian cardinal Francesco Condulmer (nephew of Pope Eugenius). The Venetians were very interested in this Danube campaign: let us not forget that the Turks had given the Genoese a commercial monopoly in Dobruja, at the mouths of the Danube, and Genoa and Venice were on different sides of the war.

The declared objective of the campaign was to destabilize the Ottoman Empire and replace the child sultan Mehmed II (the future Mehmed the Conqueror, 1444-1446, 1451-1481) with Daud Celebi, a pretender favored by the Crusaders. John Hunyadi, Voivode of Transylvania (future regent of Hungary), and Vlad Dracul, Voivode of Wallachia, were also persuaded to participate in the campaign.

The Burgundo-Papal fleet, consisting of a few dozen ships, sets sail from Constantinople and enters the Black Sea. Wavrin was in serious financial trouble: the money he had received from the Pope was gone, and he still had debts from equipping the ships. Before raising anchor, he sells his jewels for 1,000 ducats, but this is not enough. He engages in piracy in the Black Sea, plundering Turkish merchant ships. He is not alone, as two other Burgundian navigators, Geoffroy de Thoisy and Regnault de Confide, had done the same thing, in another area, closer to the Georgian Pontic coast. Thoisy returns to Constantinople, but Confide joins his ships with Wavrin's fleet.

The Burgundians arrive at Panguala, present-day Mangalia. Here, the commander (or "fleet captain" as he appears in some sources) sees the submerged ruins of the ancient city of Callatis as well as the rocky outcrops in the area that made navigation dangerous. From Panguala, the Crusaders go north and enter the Danube at Chilia. Officer Pietre Vasquez is sent to Wallachia and Transylvania to inform Vlad Dracul and John Hunyadi that the crusade expedition is ready. The fleet then arrives at Isaccea and finally at Brăila. Here Vasquez also returns and conveys to Wavrin John's order: to go up the Danube with 8 galleys and wait for the land forces in September. John was to bring some 10,000 soldiers and Vlad Dracul, about 5,000-6,000. In this late August 1445, an Ottoman prince (other than Daud), named Savci, who claimed to be the grandson of Murad II and who, with the help of Hungary, dreamed of the Ottoman imperial throne, also boarded one of the Burgundian ships. The Burgundian fleet reaches Silistra, which is heavily fortified. The Burgundians do not dare to besiege it and Savci does not succeed in convincing the soldiers to surrender the fortress to him. On August 29, the Burgundian fleet - from the water and Vlad Dracul's forces - from the land - destroyed Tutrakan (Turtucaia), then arrived at Giurgiu. John had not yet arrived, but the Christians nevertheless attacked Giurgiu. Here is what is mentioned in Wavrin's military journal: "The Lord of Wallachia sends news that a day's journey away by navigable water with a favorable wind, there is a fortress four times larger than Tutrakan, on a large island and which was called Giurgiu." Vlad says that it belonged to Wallachia, claims it and asks Wavrin to attack it. The Crusaders accept and a bombard (cannon) is brought from the captain's galley and dragged on sled runners to the front of the walls. Wavrin and his second-in-command Confide withdraw at one point and leave the Wallachians the cannon. The siege continues, especially since the shells seem to destroy part of the wall (it's just an appearance, according to sources). Uninspired, they fire frequently and the bombard breaks down, its rings burst and two gunners are killed in the accident. Wavrin and Vlad decide to pile wood next to the walls and set it on fire. The Ottoman garrison suffocates so the Turks decide to surrender and over 60 of them are taken hostage and the rest are allowed to leave (But In the same Wavrin chronicle, Mircea and Wavrin spoke:

“In the meantime, the son of the lord of Wallachia went to visit the lord of Wavrin, to whom, after greeting him, had an interpreter say that he was planning an enterprise against the Turks: and, if he promised him not to judging him badly, he would tell him his secret; which the lord of Wavrin absolutely swore to him. And then the interpreter, having received instructions from the son of The ruler of Wallachia, spoke in this way: "My father sent for me and told me that, if I do not avenge him of that subachi of that castle of Georgye (Giurgiu), he will disown me and he no longer considers me his son; because he is the one who betrayed him and who, with a safe conduct from the Turk, made him go to the aforementioned Turk, then took him prisoner to the castle of Gallipoli, where he held him for a long time with chains on his legs . Now the fact is that he and his Saracens have now surrendered to my father, their lives and possessions must be spared, and they must be taken to Vulgarye (Bulgaria); and I will go, along with 2000 Wallachians, two leagues from here, cross the river and set up an ambush on their path: so, when they try to go to Nicopolis, I will be in front of them, so I will put them all to death . ” A thing to which the aforementioned lord of Wavrin did not answer a single word, neither good nor bad. So the aforementioned son of Wallachia went away, to go and carry out his enterprise.“

So technically Vlad Dracul let them go but Mircea had other orders, he caught them, skinned them and put their empty husks on display next to the ottoman border (Deserved ngl) After Giurgiu, they go to Ruse, to Nicopolis and then further on, to Turnu Măgurele. John Hunyadi also arrives on the Danube on September 15. There are minor skirmishes with the Turks but everything ends on September 29, when, for fear of being caught in the ice on the Wallachian waters, the Crusaders decide to return to Constantinople. The crusade expedition fails but the memory of the huge crusade ships that sailed on the waves of the Pontus and the waters of the Danube, at Panguala, Chilia and Isaccea, then at Silistra and Tutrakan, remains…

#romania #history #vlad the impaler #vlad tepes #wallachia #vlad dracula #youtube #corpus draculianum #dracula #mircea ii #varna #Jean de Wavrin #Vlad Dracul #questions

15 notes · View notes

womenoftheottomanempire · 2 years ago

Text

~Halime Sultan~

Her exact date of birth is unknwon. Most historian agree that she was a woman of abkhazian origin.She gave birth to at least four childern to Sultan Mehmed III. Her first and last child have a age differnce of 15 years what suggest that she was clearly the favorite consort. After the death of princes Süleyman and Selim, sons of Handan Sultan, Halime's son Mahmud was the eldest living son. But Mehmed III never named him as his heir. In fact, he saw him as a threat because Mahmud was popular among soliders. Mahmud often spoke against his grandmother, Valide Safiye Sultan. Once, Halime wrote a letter to a seer and asked if her son would ascend the throne, the reply letter came and the seer wrote, that Mahmud would ascend the Throne within 6 months after unpleasant thing happend to Mehmed III. The reply letter unfortunately never reached Halime but her mother in law, Safiye. Mehmed III executed his son Mahmud and Halime was exiled to Old Palace. In fact, it was belived for centuries that Halime was executed along with her son. After Sultan Mehmed's death, Ahmed I ascended the throne. He didn't execute Halime's youngest son Mustafa and thus stopped the fratricide law. But he created cages , appartments where the survived princes lived without right of proper education and right of having harem. After Ahmed's death, Halime's son Mustafa acended the throne. But his reign didn't last long because after all this years spent in kafes, he suffered of mental problems. Mustafa was dethroned and locked up again and Ahmed's son, Osman ascended the Throne. Four years later, Osman was deposed and Mustafa ascended the throne again. Halime worked hard to built alliances and urged to appoint her son in law, Davut Pasha as grand Vezir. Halime and Davut ruled the Empire. Davut Pasha was found guilty of execution of Sultan Osman 2 and was executed in 1623. Halime wothout Davut's help couldn't rule the empire. She made a deal with Kösem Sultan, that Mustafa is going back to kafes and Kösem's son Murad would ascend the throne. Halime moved back to Old Palace. She lived there forgotten. It is unknown when she died but since she is buried in Mustafa's türbe in Hagia Sofia. This suggest that she died after Mustafa who died in 1639.

youtube

#halime sultan #ottoman empire #valide sultan #Youtube

13 notes · View notes

gulnarsultan · 2 years ago

Text

》 Halime Altunşah Sultan 《

Real name : Altunşah (It is thought that her first name was Altunşah. She was given the name Halime after she was taken to the palace.)

Date and place of birth: 1572 / Caucasus

Date and place of death: 1642

Origin: Abkhaz nobleman belongs to the Lakerbe Dynasty.

Her brothers: Pervan Mirza, Astamur Mirza, Misost Mirza

Sister: Fatma Hatun, Zamane Hatun, Feride Hatun.( Feride Hatun is the mother of Mahfiruz Sultan.)

Hsband : 3 Mehmed

Marriage date : 1586

Children:

Şehzade Mahmud

1 Mustapha

Hatice Sultan

Gevherhan Sultan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The palace was taken by Servezad Kalfa. Halime Sultan was not liked by Safiye Sultan because she was Caucasian. There is no information about how he got along with his other rivals (3 Mehmed's wives). She was not a witch as shown in the movie. He caused the execution of his son, Şehzade Mahmud (After the letter from the astrologer, which he was waiting for information about his son's ascension to the throne, passed into the hands of Valide Safiye Sultan and in addition, After Şehzade Mahmud asked his father for an army to suppress the rebellion, Mehmed III listened to his mother Safiye Sultan and had her son executed. ) and she played a great role in the murder of 2 Osman.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gerçek adı: Altunşah (İlk adının Altunşah olduğu sanılmaktadır. Saraya alındıktan sonra Halime adını almıştır.)

Doğum tarihi ve yeri: 1572 / Kafkasya

Ölüm tarihi ve yeri: 1642

Menşei: Abhaz asilzadesi Lakerbe Hanedanlığına aittir.

Erkek kardeşleri: Pervan Mirza, Astamur Mirza, Misost Mirza

Kız kardeşleri: Fatma Hatun, Zamane Hatun, Feride Hatun.( Feride Hatun, Mahfiruz Sultan'ın annesidir.)

Eşi: 3 Mehmed

Evlilik tarihi : 1586

Çocuklar:

Şehzade Mahmud

1 Mustafa

Hatice Sultan

Gevherhan Sultan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Saraya Servezad Kalfa tarafından alındı. Halime Sultan, Kafkasyalı olduğu için Safiye Sultan tarafından sevilmemiştir. Diğer rakipleriyle (3 Mehmed'in eşleri) nasıl geçindiği hakkında bilgi yoktur. Filmde gösterildiği gibi bir cadı değildi. Oğlu Şehzade Mahmud'un infazına sebep oldu (Oğlunun tahta geçtiğine dair bilgi beklediği müneccimden gelen mektubun Valide Safiye Sultan'ın eline geçmesinden ve ayrıca Şehzade Mahmud isyanları bastırmak için babasından ordu istemesinden sonra 3 Mehmed annesi Safiye Sultanı dinleyerek oğlunu idam ettirmiştir. ) ve 2 Osman'ın öldürülmesinde büyük rol oynadı.

The picture is representative. Resim temsilidir

#magnificent century #muhtesem yuzyil #ottoman empire #osmanlı #halime sultan #mahfiruze sultan #muhtesem yuzil kosem

10 notes · View notes

brookstonalmanac · 7 months ago

Text

Events 4.23 (before 1950)

#Events

0 notes

rhaenahanzades · 2 months ago

Note

Thanks for the answer! :)

About the daughters of Mehmed IV, Ayşe and Hatice, I thought the Ragusan envoy had simply confused Hatice's name with that of her deceased sister, but it sure is interesting he (or they?) commit the same mistake twice, in 1676 and 1680.

The reason I thought of it being a confusion with a deceased sister is because it seems to have happened in 1642, where Ibrahim is said to have a sister called "Guiheri" married to one Mustafa Paşa. "Guiheri" sounds like Gevher, but by then Gevherhan was already dead, and the one who could've been married to a Mustafa Paşa is Hanzade Sultan, and indeed one Hanzade is named later in 1648 as wife of one Mustafa Paşa, but without specifying whether she's a sister or niece of Ibrahim.

I know some historians identify Nakkaş Mustafa Paşa's wife as a daughter of Murad IV who was named Hanzade like her aunt, but Foscarini in 1641 claims Ibrahim's sister was married to the "bassà di Cairo", who from 1640 and 1642 was Nakkaş Mustafa. Also, according to E. Kırca in "Dönemin Yazarlarının Gözünden Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Paşa (1639-1644)", page 6, the Austrian ambassador Rudolf Johann Schmid wrote that Kösem's 3 daughters, including one who was married to the governor of Egypt Nakkaş Mustafa, went to Ibrahim to ask for the return of Nakkaş and to speak against Kemankeş Kara Mustafa. Unfortunately, E. Kırca didn't write the exact words of Rudolf Johann Schmid and only summarized it and I don't have the original source to read myself and try to analyze it.

Anyway, back to the topic, that in 1642 Hanzade appears to have been called "Guiheri" in a confusion with a sister dead for about 10 years at the time, and who never even married a Mustafa Paşa at that (since Gevherhan's husbands had been Oküz Mehmed and Topal Recep), made me think it wouldn't be so absurd for a foreign source to also confuse Hatice's name with that of her deceased sister, when both had been married (in Hatice's case) and betrothed (in Ayşe's case) to men called Mustafa. But the fact that it happens twice is certainly weird, and the explanation of a second name for Hatice could work too, but then why have 2 daughters called Ayşe, especially when the eldest was still alive? It seems unusual considering what happened in the family tree of Ahmed III, who had three daughters called Hatice, apparently none with a second name, but the first Hatice was dead when the second was born and so on. But I think a confusion or second name really are the only possible explanations.

Hi! Previously in Ottomanladies you answered an ask about marriages of Burnaz Atike, Gevherhan and little Atike. So, some historians confused Burnaz Atike with one of Ibrahim's daughters when they claim she married Musahib Cafer Pasha (d.1647) in 1630, as according to Giorgio Giustinian in 1627, Koca Kenan (d. 1652) was already married to Murad IV's sister (Pedani, p.596). And some historians say Gevherhan was the one who married Cafer in November 1646, like Sakaoglu.

And according to Joseph von Hammer, the youngest daughter of Ibrahim betrothed to Cafer was married to the other Kenan, Sari Kenan (d. 1659). But some historians separate the wives of these pashas as Gevherhan marrying Cafer and her sister Atike marrying Sari Kenan, with Atike going on to marry Ismail Pasha.

However, in "Dubrovacka akta i povelje", a report of 1650s refers to "Ghiusciahato sultana moglie di Chieman passa", so it seems to me she married Sari Kenan after Cafer died. And the "Mémoires du Sieur de la Croix" in 1670s, pages 368, 369, 370 and 371 says: "Les soeurs du Grand Seigneur (...) la premiere fut mariée à trois ans, & eftoit à dix avec fon second mary Affaki Mehemet Pasha, Gouverneur dAlep, il fuit étranglé fous pretexte de fauffe monnoye, & elle fe maria pour la troisiéme fois avec Ibrahim Pacha Tefterdar, du depuis Pacha du Kaire, dAlep, & enfin Capitan Pacha, aprés la mort duquel Jemblat Oglou Gouverneur du Kaire la épousée en quatriéme nopces. La seconde mariée auffi jeune que sa soeur, a eu cinq maris, dont le dernier la prit vierge, à cause dun défaut de nature (...) Je ne fcay pas le nom des deux premiers, le troisiéme fut Sinan Pacha, lequel estant Capitan Pacha, perdit la Bataille des Dardanelles (...) Le quetriéme eftoit Ismael Pacha, ce grand Seigneur l ayant choifi pour und es Lieutenans generaux de l armée dHongrie (...) Le cinquiéme sappelle Kassum Pacha, il est Chirurgien de profession"

The quote says Mehmed IV had 2 sisters in 1670s. The 1st married Haseki Cavuszade Mehmed Pasha, then Defterdar Ibrahim Pasha and then a Canpulatoglu (son of Kosems Fatma?). The other, younger than the first, was married to "Sinan" who was Kaptaniderya, so it should be Sari Kenan. After him she married Ismail Pasha and then Cerrah Kasim Pasha, and also had 2 husbands before the first.

(All in all, I believe the first sister who married Haseki Cavuszade could be Beyhan instead, as in 1653, according to "Dubrovacka akta i povelje" she is called "Behar sultana, moglie di passa di Cairo", and in 1563 this was Haseki Cavuszade Mehmed; but interestingly historians believe he was Gevherhans second husband instead...)

In "Per favore della Soltana", several lists give us marriages of Gevherhan. In 1648, she is called widow of Cafer, in 1662 she is wife of Ismail Pasha, and in 1670 she is called wife of Casciu Pascia who is probably Cerrah Kasim Pasha. And in 1676 and 1680, she is called wife of a Canpolatoglu and not another Sultana as Croix claimed.

Paul Rycaut in "The Present State of the Ottoman Empire" also says Gevherhan married Ismail Pasha (and then remarried to Gurcu Mehmed Pasha): "At this tenderness of age, Sultan Ibrahim, father of the present Grand Signior, married three of his daughters, one of which was called Gheaher Han Sultan, hath had already five husbands, and yet as is reported by the world, remains a virgin; the last husband deceased was Ishmael Pasha, who was slain in the passage of the River Raab; and is now again married to Guirgi Mehemet Pasha of Buda".

So it seems to me that Gevherhan married the following: Musahib Cafer in 1646, Sari Kenan in 1647, Ismail Pasha after him, then Gurcu Mehmed, then Cerrah Kasim Pasha, and then maybe a Canpulatoglu (unless that was the other sister like Croix claimed, maybe Beyhan?), before finally marrying Palabiyik Yusuf later in life.

But after all this, I want to ask whether its possible that this sister of Mehmed IV called Atike existed at all? Because it seems quite certain that Gevherhan married Kenan Pasha and Ismail Pasha, not one named Atike, and historians did make a confusion with Burnaz Atikes marriages. And if little Atike didnt exist, was Gevherhan the full-sister of Mehmed IV instead? I know Gevherhan is believed to be born in 1642, and with Mehmed and Fatma it gets too much for Turhan, but Hammer describes her as the youngest daughter in 1647, and if the sister who married Haseki Mehmed was Beyhan, and she was reportedly married for the first time to another at the age of 3 as Croix claims, and the sister who married Sari Kenan and the others was younger than her, then Beyhan could still be born in 1645 as she married Hezarpare in 1648, and Gevherhan was born after her...

Hi! Please be patient with me because these asks take time to unwrap and I’m only doing this in my free time.

I think you’re talking about this ask. About the confusion, it’s something that Uluçay too believes:

Alderson confused the daughters of Ahmed I, Murad IV and Sultan Ibrahim, so he made mistakes.

Alderson confused the daughters of Ibrahim with the daughters of Ahmed I and Mehmed IV, and therefore made some mistakes.

and he’s right because the rapid successions plus the practice of marrying princesses as children created so much confusion.

(it’s so funny that he says that twice lmao)

Okay, so your theory is that Atike Sultan binti Ibrahim doesn’t exist and that some historians seem to have mistaken Burnaz Atike with a daughter of Ibrahim? I hope I understood well.

Everything under the read more (it's very... heavy, sorry lol)

I read Giustiniani’s relazione and the math is not really mathing because he says Murad IV put his four brothers-in-law at the highest posts of government but then mentions five brothers-in-law:

Çatalcalı Haşan Pasha: he’s Fatma’s husband

Hafiz Ahmed Pasha: he’s Ayşe’s husband

Bayram Pasha: he’s Hanzade’s husband

(Recep Pasha: he’s Gevherhan’s husband) > Giustiniani only mentions her as Osman II's elder sister

“Chinan” who, you believe, was Koca Sofu Kenan Pasha

“Mustaffà” ?? who is he??

Sicill-i Osmani says that Kenan Pasha married Burnaz Atike in 1633-34, but Giustinian’s last dispatch from Istanbul was dated 4 July 1627 so… did he foresee the future? Were there more Kenan Pashas?

(Also, who is that Mustafa??)

Now, onto Ibrahim's daughters.

So, I made this table to semplify things because I was going insane with all the information.

I think there is some confusion between Haseki Mehmed Pasha, who was strangled in Aleppo in June 1661 (like de la Croix says), and Çavuşzade/Çavuşoğlu Mehmed Paşa, who lived until 1681. Sicill-i Osmani doesn’t call the latter “Haseki” but he’s identified as Gevherhan Sultan’s husband. Now, the princess who married Haseki Mehmed Pasha could have remarried after 1661, but the one who married Çavuşzade/Çavuşoğlu Mehmed had to wait until 1681.

Beyhan is admittedly a mistery because she was married for less then a year to Hezâr-pâre Ahmed Pasha when she was little but afterwards didn’t have a husband for 11 years? It seems strange. If the Ragusian diplomats called her “wife of the pasha of Cairo” and if Haseki Mehmed Pasha was beylerbey of Egypt in 1653 (as Oztuna confirms in Devletler ve Hanedanlar), then Haseki Mehmed Pasha was married to Beyhan binti Ibrahim. Unfortunately my only Ragusian sources come from the essay Per Favore Della Soltana, and in it there’s a gap between a letter dated 1648 and one dated 1662.

About the Canpulatoğlu Pasha, I would like to add that Canbulad-zâde Mustafa Paşa had two sons with Fatma: Sultânzâde Hüseyn Paşa, who was governor of Budin and of Egypt, and Sultânzâde Süleymân Bey. Both lived to adulthood. Moreover, he had a daughter from his previous marriage: Ayşe Hâtûn. Maybe he had other sons too. It is interesting, though, that de la Croix says Canpulatoğlu is Governor of Egypt, because Sultânzâde Hüseyn Paşa was indeed governor of Egypt at some point.

About Atike binti Ibrahim:

(Uluçay doesn't believe she existed)

As we can see, Oztuna and Sakaoğlu use the same source. Oztuna, though, says that Atike binti Ibrahim was buried in Ibrahim’s mausoleum, while Sakaoğlu says that her burial place is unknown. Curiously, Atike binti Ahmed I is buried in Ibrahim’s mausoleum too.

Since Alderson gave his sources, I went to check. This is a passage from Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, volume 12, pp. 49-50:

L'ainée, Aïsché, fiancée dès l'age de trois ans à Ipschir-Pascha, épousa à dix Mohammed-Pascha, gouverneur de Haleb; ce dernier ayant été décapité comme faux monnoyeur, elle devint la femme du defterdar Ibrahim, gouverneur du Kaire, puis de Haleb, et alors kapitan-pascha; à sa mort, elle fut mariée à Djanbouladzadé, ancien gouverneur d’Ofen, qui depuis remplit les mêmes fonctions au Kaire. La seconde, nommée Aatika, épousa d'abord le vizir Kenaan-Pascha, puis le vizir Yousouf-Pascha, et en troisième lieu le kapitan Sinan-Pascha, qui avait perdu la bataille des Dardanelles contre les Vénitiens; elle eut pour quatrième époux Ismail-Pascha, grand-inquisiteur en Asie, qui fut tué à la bataille de Saint-Gotthardt; enfin elle contracta une cinquième union avec KasimPascha, l'un des pages de la chambre intérieure, et chirurgien de profession, qui, lors de la circoncision du sultan Mohammed , sut arrêter, au moyen d'une poudre astringente, une hémorrhagie qui avait fait tomber le prince-en défaillance, service que ce dernier récompensa plus tard en donnant à Kasim le gouvernement de Temeswar. […] le Sultan, en reconnaissance du sang qu'il lui avait conservé, refusa de répandre le sien, et, pour le sauver, lui donna la main de sa sœur, qu’un vice de conformation avait empêchée d'appartenir à ses premiers maris, et qui, après dix-neuf ans de mariage, entra vierge dans le harem de Kasim. Celui-ci la délivra de son infirmité au moyen d'ine opération qu’il pratiqua pendant le sommeil d'Aatika, assoupie par un narcotique. Ce fut ainsi qu'il acquit des titres puissans aux bonnes grâces de la princesse, comme précédemment il avait mérité la faveur particulière de Mohammed IV.

Doesn’t it kind of sound like de la Croix (below)? I think Hammer’s source is him.

"La premiere fut mariée à trois ans, & estoit à dix avec son second mary Assaki Mehemet Pasha, Gouverneur d’Alep, il fut étranglé sous pretexte de fausse monnoye, & elle se maria pour la troisiéme fois avec Ibrahim Pacha Tefterdar, du depuis Pacha du Kaire, d’Alep, & enfin Capitan Pacha, aprés la mort duquel Jemblat Oglou Gouverneur du Kaire l’a épousée en quatriéme nopces. La seconde mariée aussi jeune que sa soeur, a eu cinq maris, dont le dernier la prit vierge, à cause d’un défaut de nature (...) Je ne sçay pas le nom des deux premiers, le troisiéme fut Sinan Pacha, lequel estant Capitan Pacha, perdit la Bataille des Dardanelles (...) Le quetriéme estoit Ismael Pacha, ce grand Seigneur l’ayant choisi pour un des Lieutenans generaux de l’armée d’Hongrie (...) Le cinquiéme s’appelle Kassum Pacha, il est Chirurgien de profession”

Now, I think Hammer starts with a mistake because Ibsir Mustafa Pasha was one of Ayşe binti Ahmed I’s husbands. Also, it’s impossible to say where he found that Mehmed IV’s eldest sister was named Ayşe. After these mistakes, though, he repeats what de la Croix said: Haseki Mehmed Pasha, Defterdar Ibrahim Pasha, Canbuladzâde Pasha. The second sister is named Atike (so he says) and stayed a virgin until her last husband, Cerrah Kasim Pasha, operated on her to solve some kind of physical problem she had. This story is similar to the one reported by Rycaut, but he named her Gevherhan instead:

At this tenderness of Age, Sultan Ibrahim, Father of the present Grand Signior, married three of his Daughters; one of which called Gheaher Han Sultan, hath had already five Husbands, and yet, as is reported by the World, remains a Virgin; the last Husband deceased was Ishmael Pasha, who was slain in the passage of the River Raab; and is now again married to Gurgi Mahomet Pasha of Buda, a Man of 90 Years of Age, but rich and able to maintain the greatness of her Court, though not to comply with the youthfulness of her Bed, to which he is a stranger like the rest of her preceding Husbands. — p. 40.

It’s possible that Rycaut had already left the Ottoman Empire when this princess married Cerrah Kasim Pasha. He’s the only one talking about Gurci Mehmed Pasha, though… Interestingly, Sakaoğlu corrects Rycaut’s Gürcü into “(Çavuşzade, Haseki)” but, admittedly, his quote is quite different from Rycaut’s original. In Sakaoğlu’s it is said that the pasha is 30, while Rycaut says he’s 90. Moreover, as far as I know, Çavuşzade Mehmed Pasha was never governor of Buda.

In conclusion, I’m more confused than before lol

As for Mehmed IV’s full sister, I really have no opinion on this. Usually, it’s Beyhan who is given as Turhan Hatice’s daughter but with no hard evidence.

You (and other people) can send me asks on ottomanladies now, I have re-opened my ask box. As I have already said, please be patient with me because I don't have much free time and these things need to be analyzed properly :D

20 notes · View notes

sisididis · 2 years ago

Text

One month ago (I believe, but refuse to believe all the same (ಢ_ಢ), I learned about the legend of the almond tree blossom while reading José Saramago’s Journey to Portugal.

After sharing my enthusiasm for Portuguese love stories with @reallunargift (who illustrated so beautifully the story of Inês de Castro and Dom Pedro), I asked her if there are any other famous Portuguese love stories that I should know about.

She kindly promised that she’d make a post about them and then I promised to compile some famous Romanian love stories myself~ So, as promised, here are five Romanian love stories that came to my mind. Please don’t expect any happy endings ahead. You’ve been warned...

1. The Legend of the Brick Mason Manole

This is one of our most famous legends, if not the most famous. Every child in Romania grows up learning about it. Some of us have even visited the Curtea de Argeș Monastery (the setting of the legend) on school trips.

The legend revolves around Manole, a brick mason who travelled to Argeș, alongside nine other men, to build a monastery at the orders of Negru Vodă, the then-ruler of Wallachia. During construction, it became apparent that the men’s task was more challenging than they had expected. No matter how hard they toiled, their daytime progress would crumble overnight, so they had to start building anew every day.

This situation continued until one fateful night when Manole received a prophetic dream. In his dream, he was told that the monastery would stand, and Negru Vodă would spare the brick masons' lives if Manole encased the first woman who brought them food the next day inside the monastery's walls.

At the break of dawn, Manole silently prayed that his wife wouldn't be the first to bring him breakfast, but as you might have guessed, Ana, his wife, was the first to arrive at the monastery's gates. Horrified, Manole begged God for rain and storm so that Ana would return home, but Ana's love was stronger than any rain and storm. Nothing could prevent Ana’s sacrifice, and to make matters worse, unbeknownst to Manole, Ana was pregnant with their first child. Manole had no choice but to trap Ana and their unborn child inside the monastery's walls.

After the sacrifice is done and the monastery is built, Manole is left stranded on the monastery's roof by order of Negru Vodă, so that he'd never build another monastery as beautiful as that one. The legend ends with Manole’s death after he tries flying from the roof with wooden wings. It is said that freshwater sprang where he landed, and now a well marks the place of this death.

2. Radu the Handsome and Sultan Mehmed II

Radu III, also known as Radu the Handsome, was the brother of Vlad III, aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Dracula, and the alleged lover of Sultan Mehmed II. There's a running joke among Romanians: "Although Vlad III was fond of shoving stakes up people's asses, it was his brother who was said to be gay." asdfghjkl I'm so sorry.

Unfortunately, not much has been written about him. All we know is that Radu ascended the Wallachian throne after allying himself with the Turks in a war against his brother. According to history and the nation's perception, Radu was a traitor who sold out his brother and people.

At the same time, not much is known about Radu and Mehmed's alleged relationship. A Greek by the name of Laonic Chalcocondil wrote in his chronicle that Mehmed II took a liking to Radu and used to invite him to his parties and private chambers. It's also been written that Radu initially resisted Mehmed's advances. One of Chalcocondil's entries tells us of the time Mehmed kissed Radu against his will, and Radu struck the Sultan in his thigh with a dagger. According to that historical record, we can assume that the beginning of their romantic relationship (had there been any) was not consensual.

But were the rumours about their relationship true? We know that Mehmed II used to write what would now be considered homoerotic poetry. So adding that to Laonic's account and the malicious propaganda directed against the traitorous Radu, I believe that the truth might be somewhere in the middle.

Also, I did NOT expect to find fanart of Radu and Mehmed online. The art is so pretty, too. ( 　ﾟ ,_ゝﾟ)

3. Vlad III and Katharina Siegel

The love story between Vlad III and Katharina Siegel, a Saxon peasant from Brașov, an important center in Transylvania, is proof that the right person can warm even the iciest hearts. :')

In 1455, 24-year-old Vlad laid his eyes on 17-year-old Katharina for the first time as she struggled to pull a sled full of supplies for the soldiers in Brașov. Her blond locks and deep blue eyes stole Vlad's heart, and the love story that followed was tumultuous and tragic.

Vlad had intended to marry her, but Pope Pius II did not consent to the annulment of Vlad's marriage to Anastasia Holszanska, the niece of the Queen of Poland. So Katharina remained his mistress for 20 years. The Wallachian ruler often visited her and ordered her expensive dresses made of lace and silk. Everyone became aware of their relationship, but not everyone welcomed it.

In April 1459, the Saxons in Brașov started imposing higher taxes on the Wallachians, and the local chiefs began plotting against Vlad. Angered by this news, Vlad destroyed all the grain crops in Brașov and ordered hundreds of merchants to be impaled. Upon hearing this news, the merchants' wives hurried to Katharina's house to attack her, cut off her hair, and take her to the Pillar of Infamy. At the time, Katharina was pregnant with their second child. Upon hearing that his beloved had been beaten and humiliated at the Pillar of Infamy, Vlad threatened to set fire to the entire city. Ultimately, Vlad managed to free Katharina through negotiation, and she convinced him to spare the Saxon merchants (and their wives).

After the Ottomans killed Vlad III in 1476, Katharina returned to the monastery where she grew up. Legend has it that she never spoke again and died of a broken heart.

4. Mihai Eminescu and Veronica Micle

Mihai Eminescu, generally regarded as Romania's national poet, met Veronica Micle, the muse and love of his life, in Vienna, at the literary salon she hosted. It is believed that their friendship morphed into a romance sometime after 1875 when they started dedicating poems to each other. At the time, Veronica was married with two children, but even after the death of her husband, the couple's 17-year-long relationship remained unstable due to their distance and money issues.

Aside from the romantic and expressive nature of their relationship, which brought fame to these lovers, their dramatic episodes became the upper class's favorite gossip material in the capital.

Eminescu, for instance, was famously tormented by jealousy following rumours of Veronica's infidelities with personalities such as I. L. Caragiale, one of Romania's most important playwrights. Although Eminescu and Caragiale were good friends, Caragiale took advantage of the fact that Eminescu and Veronica had quarreled, so he started an affair with Veronica. Eminescu never forgave Caragiale. Historical accounts speak of Eminescu hunting down Caragiale in Bucharest with a gun in his pocket.

The end of their relationship was more bitter than sweet. In 1887, when Veronica finally moved to Bucharest, Eminescu was already bedridden. After the poet’s death in 1889, Veronica retired to the Văratec Monastery, where she compiled a volume of her poems and Eminescu’s poems dedicated to her.

One month after Eminescu's death, an inconsolable Micle committed suicide by drinking arsenic.

5. Maitreyi and Mircea Eliade

I seriously contemplated whether I should add this to the list or not, mainly due to the controversial nature of the relationship. But since I added Radu and Mehmed’s alleged relationship, I decided to include this one as well.

The history between Maitreyi Devi, an Indian writer, and Romanian scholar Mircea Eliade became famous after the publication of Eliade’s fictionalised account of their romance, Bengal Nights.

I like to think of his book as Romania’s Memoirs of a Geisha. Just like Arthur Golden stole Mineko Iwasaki’s story to write Memoirs of a Geisha, Eliade twisted the reality of his relationship with Maitreyi Devi to portray the pitfalls of young love.

Maitreyi Devi was sixteen years old when Mircea Eliade, then twenty-three, came to Calcutta to study with her father. Over forty years passed before Maitreyi read Bengal Nights, and wrote her response, It Does Not Die, to speak her truth.

While I do recommend you read the book for its deeply moving plot and characters, it is important to acknowledge how damaging its publication was to Maitreyi’s reputation. In her book, Maitreyi explains that when her and Eliade’s secret romance was discovered, her father banished Eliade from their home.

Alas, I recommend that you read both of Eliade and Maitreyi’s accounts in tandem. Both books talk of a first love thwarted by cultural tensions, arrogance and naivete.

#Romania #romanisme #legends #love stories #aaaaaand we're done : )#I'm sorry if this is too long #I tried to summarise them as much as possible :/#I hope at least one of these caught your attention ;)#oh and I can't wait to read your post Lunie~#my entries

12 notes · View notes

dutch-and-flemish-painters · 3 years ago

Photo

Jean Baptiste Vanmour - Ambassador Cornelis Calkoen on audition with Sultan Ahmed III - 1727

In 1727 the Dutch ambassador Cornelis Calkoen asked Van Mour to record his audience with Sultan Ahmed III on canvas. Van Mour was allowed to enter the palace during these ceremonies accompanying the ambassador and his retinue; therefore, he was familiar with the special protocol that prevailed in the Ottoman court for ambassador's receptions. Calkoen took many paintings of Jean Baptiste Van Mour with him, when he was appointed as ambassador in Dresden for the Dutch Republic. In his will of 1762 the bachelor Calkoen directed his nephew and heir Nicolaas to keep the collection together, and it was his express wish that they were to hang in the room of Amsterdam City Hall reserved for directors of Eastern trade. Unbeknownst to him or his heir, soon the city hall itself was ceded to the Franch authorities and became the residence of King Louis Napoleon. Nicolaas, who went on to play a central role in various negotiations on behalf of the Batavian Republic, died himself in 1817 and bequeathed this collection to the closest substitute institution he could think of, namely the Directie van den Levantschen handel te Amsterdam, or 'directors of the trade with the Levant in Amsterdam'. That institute was dissolved in 1826 whereupon the collection was absorbed into the national collection and spread over multiple locations. In 1903 the paintings were reunited and have since been on show together in the Rijksmuseum collection.

Ahmed III (Ottoman Turkish: احمد ثالث‎, Aḥmed-i sālis) (30 December 1673 – 1 July 1736) was Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and a son of Sultan Mehmed IV (r. 1648–87). His mother was Gülnuş Sultan, originally named Evmenia Voria, who was an ethnic Greek. He was born at Hacıoğlu Pazarcık, in Dobruja. He succeeded to the throne in 1703 on the abdication of his brother Mustafa II (1695–1703). Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Pasha and the Sultan's daughter, Fatma Sultan (wife of the former) directed the government from 1718 to 1730, a period referred to as the Tulip Era.

The first days of Ahmed III's reign passed with efforts to appease the janissaries who were completely disciplined. However, he was not effective against the janissaries who made him sultan. Çorlulu Ali Pasha, who Ahmed brought to the Grand Vizier, tried to help him in administrative matters, made new arrangements for the treasury and Sultan. He supported Ahmed in his fight with his rivals.

Jean Baptiste Vanmour or Van Mour (9 January 1671 – 22 January 1737)[1] was a Flemish-French painter, remembered for his detailed portrayal of life in the Ottoman Empire during the Tulip Era and the rule of Sultan Ahmed III.

#Jean Baptiste Vanmour #18th #turkiye #people #historical

21 notes · View notes

reallifesultanas · 3 years ago

Text

Portrait of the daughters of Mehmed IV / IV. Mehmed lányainak portréja

IV. Mehmed szultánnak csupán három lánya érte meg biztosan a felnőttkort. Only three of Mehmed IV's daughters reached adulthood for sure.

Hatice Sultan

Hatice was Mehmed's eldest daughter, born in 1660 (or earlier). Her mother was probably Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş Sultan. Her wedding took place in 1675, after her father returned home from the Polish campaign and organized a huge series of ceremonies to crown the victory. It was then that the two brothers of Hatice, Mustafa (later Mustafa II) and Ahmed (later Ahmed III), were circumcised. Hatice Sultan’s husband was Musahip Sarıkçı Mustafa Pasha, with whom their first child, Sultanzade Mehmed Bey, was born the following year. Then in 1677 another son was born, Hasan Bey.

Hatice was widowed in October 1686, and from then on her sons were taken to the palace to be educated there. She lived as a widow for a time but was remarried in 1691. This time Moralı Hasan Pasha became her husband, who rose to the rank of Grand Vizier. After 1695, Hatice Sultan gave birth to a girl, Ayşe. We know this because it was recorded that after the birth, the Valide Sultan, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, visited her daughter in her palace. And Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş was a valide from 1695. The little girl probably died in 1717.

A high rank, an influental life was soon followed by a loss of grace, and Hatice's husband was exiled to Izmit in 1704. Hatice asked permission from the sultan to go with her husband, which she received, so she also traveled to Izmit. In 1707 the pasha was then pardoned, and was made the governor of Rakka. Hatice no longer followed the pasha there but returned to Istanbul. The pasha died in December 1713 and Hatice was widowed again. She never remarried.

Hatice spent her widowhood with collection porcelains and making parties. One of these parties happened during the disastrous revolt of 1730. We cannot rule out that she was also part of the rebellion. She was holding a banquet for the sultan and the grand vizier, along other high-ranking dignitaries, at her palace and it seems like she prevented the grand vizier from moving on to Istanbul that night in order to take immediate action against the rebels. We dont know if she did that because she secretly was a member of the opposition party, or she was just making a mistake? Anyhow, it led to her brother Ahmed Ill’s dethronement.

She lived a long life, seeing the reign of a total of six sultans: her father Mehmed IV; her uncles Suleiman II and Ahmed II; younger brothers Mustafa II and Ahmed III; but even her nephew's reign as she was alive during the reign of Mahmud I. She died on July 5, 1743, and was buried in the complex of her grandmother, Turhan Hatice.

Fatma Emetullah Sultan

Certainly she was born after 1675, because the ambassador report written in 1675 does not list her among Mehmed's children. Usually 1675 is given as her date of birth for this reason, but considering that she was married in 1695, it seems to be early in 1675, her date of birth may be closer to 1680. The identity of her mother is likely Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, based on her name.

Her first husband was Tırnakçı Çerkez İbrahim Pasha, whom she married in September 1695. Their first child, Rukiye Hanimsultan was born in 1696. Rukiye Hanimsultan reached adulthood and died around 1720. About her daughters we know that: in 1708, Rukiye Hanimsultan married Sirke Osman Paşa (d. 1724), who had been called from Bosnia; after Rukiye Hanimsultan died, Sirke Osman Paşa married Emetullah Sultan, one of the daughters of Mustafa II.

Fatma Emetullah's first husband was executed in 1697, and then the widow sultana remarried in 1698. This time Topal Yusuf Pasha was the designated husband from whom a daughter was born in 1700, Safiye Hanimsultan, who died young, presumably in 1711. Fatma Emetullah is believed to have died in December 1700 of birth-complications due to the birth of Safiye Hanimsultan. Other sources suggests she died of plague, another suggests she died of tuberculosis. Her funeral procession started from her mansion in Bayezit, with the Chief of Black Eunuchs Nezir Agha and her husband Yusuf Pasha leading it, passed in front of the Alay köşkü, and terminated at the Valide Mosque, where she was laid to rest next to her father Mehmed IV.

Ümmügülsüm / Ümmi Sultan

She was born around 1680 but the identity of her mother is unknown. One of her first mentioning is from a harem register of 1691, when her uncle Suleiman II moved the harem to Edirne. She is the only niece to show up on the list, which raises interesting questions. Her sister, Fatma Emetullah, was also not yet married at the time, yet she is not mentioned in the list. This is because Fatma Emetullah certainly spent her time in the Old Palace next to her mother, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş. The fact that Ümmügülsüm was not in the Old Palace may indicate that she may not have been the child of Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş Sultan or Afife Hatun living there. Her mother could have been someone else who might have already died, so the little princess could stay at Topkapi Palace.

Ümmügülsüm was very close to her uncle Ahmed II. She was the one who married her off in December 1693 to his close servant, Silahdar Çerkes Osman Pasha. They settled in a luxurious palace with the Pasha and had at least two children together. Their daughters were Hatice Hanimsultan and Fatma Hanimsultan, of whom Fatma probably reached adulthood and died around 1730. We know nothing more about the children of Ümmügülsüm. Ümmügülsüm and the pasha were very influential, living a magnificent life. In April 1694, for example, they held a huge party in their palace, for which the sultan, his Haseki - the last Haseki - Rabia, and several political leaders attended. Ümmügülsüm Sultan died before her fortieth birthday in 1720. Some say smallpox caused her death. She was buried in the mosque complex of Turhan Hatice.

Beside these daughters, Mehmed IV's had other daughters as well. One of them is Ayşe, who was born around 1673/4, and died young. Her mother was certainly Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş, the Haseki Sultan of Mehmed. All we know is that the princess was promised to Kara Mustafa Pasha around 1675/6, but the wedding could never take place because the princess did not reach adulthood.

Two anonymous sultanas are also known, who are listed as daughters of Mehmed. All we know is one of them married Kasım Mustafa Pasha in 1687, who was Edirne's beylerbey. The other girl is said to have been the daughter of Gülbeyaz. Beside them, some also mention a girl named Gevher or Gevherhan, who may have been Mehmed IV’s sister rather than her daughter and they consider her as her daughter just because of a mistake.

Used sources: J. Dumas - Les perles de nacre du sultanat; N. Sakaoglu - Bu Mülkün Kadin Sultanlari; M. C. Uluçay - Padişahlarin Kadinlri ve Kizlari; A. D. Alderson - The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty; L. Peirce - The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire; C. Finkel - Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire; M. Özgüleş - The women who built the Ottoman Empire: Female Patronage and the Architectural Legacy of Gülnüş Sultan

* * *

Hatice Sultan

Hatice volt IV. Mehmed legidősebb lánya, 1660-ban (vagy korábban) született. Édesanyja valószínűleg a szultán Haszekije, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş volt. Esküvőjére 1675-ben került sor, miután apja hazatért a lengyel hadjáratból és a győzelmet megkoronázván hatalmas ünnepségsorozatot rendezett. Ekkor került sor Hatice két öccsének, Musztafának (későbbi II. Musztafa) és Ahmednek (későbbi III. Ahmed) a körülmetélésére. Hatice Sultan férje Musahip Sarıkçı Mustafa Pasa lett, akivel a következő évben megszületett első közös gyermekük, Sultanzade Mehmed Bey. 1677-ben született még egy fiuk, Hasan Bey.

Hatice 1686 októberében megözvegyült, fiai innentől a palotába kerültek, hogy ott oktassák őket. Egy ideig özvegyen élte életét, de 1691-ben újraházasították. Ezúttal Moralı Hasan Pasa lett a férje, aki a nagyvezíri rangig emelkedett. 1695 után Hatice Sultan életet adott egy kislánynak, Ayşénak. Ezt onnan tudjuk, mert feljegyezték, hogy a szülés után a valide szultána, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş meglátogatta lányát annak palotájában. A kislány valószínűleg 1717-ben hunyt el.

A magas rangot, befolyásos életet hamarosan kegyvesztettség követte és Hatice férjét 1704-ben Izmitbe száműzték. Hatice engedélyt kért a szultántól, hogy férjével tarthasson, melyet megkapott, így ő is Izmitbe utazott. 1707-ben aztán a pasának megbocstottak és Rakka kormányzójává tették meg. Hatice oda már nem követte a pasát, hanem visszatért Isztambulba. A pasa 1713 decemberében elhunyt, Hatice pedig megözvegyült. Hatice sosem házasodott újra.

Özvegységének éveit arra használta, hogy porcelánt gyűjtött, és ünnepélyes esteket szervezett. Az egyik ilyen este épp egybeesett az 1730-as lázadással. Egyesek szerint Hatice maga is felelős volt az eseményekért, ugyanis nem engedte a nagyvezírnek - aki jelen volt az estélyen -, hogy távozzon és a lázadással törődjön. Lehet, hogy Hatice ezt szánt szándékkal tette, mert a lázadókkal volt titkon, de az is lehet, hogy egyszerűen végzetes hibát vétett. Akárhogyan is, a lázadás során Hatice öccsét, III. Ahmedet trónfosztották.

Hosszú életet élt, összesen hat szultán uralkodását látta: apjáét IV. Mehmedét; nagybátyjaiét II. Szulejmánét és II. Ahmedét; öccseiét II. Musztafáét és III. Ahmedét; de még unokaöccse I. Mahmud uralkodása alatt is életben volt. 1743 július 5-én hunyt el és nagyanyja, Turhan Hatice komplexumában temették el.

Fatma Emetullah Sultan

Minden bizonnyal 1675 után született, mert az 1675-ben írt követi jelentés nem listázza IV. Mehmed gyermekei között. Általában 1675-t adják meg emiatt születési idejének, de figyelembe véve, hogy 1695-ben házasították ki, az 1675 korainak tűnik, inkább lehet születési ideje közelebb az 1680-hoz. Édesanyja kiléte neve alapján valószínűsíthető, így Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş szultána lányaként tekintenek Fatma Emetullahra.

Első férje Tırnakçı Çerkez İbrahim Pasa volt, akivel 1695 szeptemberében házasodtak össze. Egy gyermekük született, Rukiye Hanimsultan 1696-ban. Rukiye Hanimsultan megérte a felnőttkor és 1720 környékén hunyt el. Fatma Emetullah első férjét 1697-ben végezték ki, majd az özvegy szultána 1698-ban újra férjhez ment. Ezúttal Topal Yusuf Pasa volt a kijelölt férj, akitől 1700-ban egy lánya született, Safiye Hanimsultan, aki fiatalon elhunyt, vélhetően 1711-ben. Fatma Emetullah vélhetőleg A Safiye Hanimsultan születése során fellépő szülési komplikációk miatt halt meg 1700 decemberében.

Ümmügülsüm/Ümmi Sultan

1680 között született, édesanyja kiléte nem ismert. Egyik első említése egy 1691-ből származó háremjegyzék, mikor nagybátyja II. Szulejmán a háremet Edirnébe kölöztette. Ő az egyetlen unokahúg, aki a jegyzékben feltűnik, ami érdekes kérdéseket vet fel. Nővére, Fatma Emetullah ekkor szintén nem volt még kiházasítva, őt mégsem említi a jegyzék. Ennek oka, hogy Fatma Emetullah minden bizonnyal a Régi Palotában töltötte idejét édesanyja, Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş mellett. Az, hogy Ümmügülsüm nem a Régi Palotában volt arra utalhat, hogy talán nem az ott élő Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş Sultan vagy Afife Hatun gyermeke volt. Édesanyja valaki más lehetett, aki talán már elhalálozott, így a kishercegnő a Topkapi Palotában maradhatott.

Ümmügülsüm igen közel állt nagybátyjához II. Ahmedhez. Ő volt az, aki kiházasította szultánát 1693 decemberében Silahdar Çerkes Osman Pasához. A Pasával fényűző plotában telepedtek le és legalább két gyermekük született. Lányaik, Hatice Hanimsultan és Fatma Hanimsultan voltak, akik közül Fatma valószínűleg megérte a felnőttkort és 1730 körül hunyt el. Nem tudunk mást Ümmügülsüm gyermekeiről. Ümmügülsüm és a pasa igen befolyásosak voltak, pezsgő életet éltek. 1694 áprilisában például hatalmas ünnepélyt rendeztek palotájukban, melyre hivatalos volt a szultán, annak haszekije - az utolsó Haszeki - Rabia és több politikai vezető is. Ümmügülsüm Sultan negyvenedik születésnapja előtt hunyt el, 1720-ban. Egyesek szerint himlő okozta a halálát. Turhan Hatice mecsetkomplexumában temették el.

Mehmednek a fentebb leírt lányok mellett voltak további lányai is. Egyikük, egy Ayşe nevű kislány volt, aki 1673/4 környékén született és korán meghalt. Édesanyja minden bizonnyal Emetullah, Rabia Gülnüş, a szultán Haszekije volt. Annyit tudunk, hogy a hercegnőt 1675/6 környékén odaígérték Kara Mustafa Pasához, ám az esküvő sosem jöhetett létre, mert a hercegnő nem érte meg a felnőtt kort.

Két névtelen szultána is ismert, akiket Mehmed lányaiként jegyeznek. Egyikükről annyit tudunk, hogy Kasım Mustafa Pasához ment nőül 1687-ben, aki Edirne helytartója volt. A másik lány a legendák szerint Gülbeyaz lánya volt. Mellettük néhányan egy Gevher vagy Gevherhan nevű lányt is szoktak említeni, aki lehet, hogy inkább volt Mehmed testvére, mint lánya és csupán keveredés miatt tekintik néhányan az ő lányaként.

Felhasznált források: J. Dumas - Les perles de nacre du sultanat; N. Sakaoglu - Bu Mülkün Kadin Sultanlari; M. C. Uluçay - Padişahlarin Kadinlri ve Kizlari; A. D. Alderson - The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty; L. Peirce - The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire; C. Finkel - Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire; M. Özgüleş - The women who built the Ottoman Empire: Female Patronage and the Architectural Legacy of Gülnüş Sultan

#ümmi #ümmügülsüm #fatma #fatma emetullah #gevher #gevherhan #Mehmed IV #turhan hatice #Emetullah Rabia Gülnüş #emetullah rabia #emetullah #rabia gülnüş #Hatice

24 notes · View notes

ottomanladies · 3 months ago

Text

reallifesultanas Thank you very much for your answer! Yes I meant Dumas not Alderson sorry for that! Is there a reason for the illogical amount of salaries? I mean the earlier salary lists of registers clearly help us to indentify the sultanas. The 1555-1556 registers are 100% logical; the 1603-1604 registers are still logical: Safiye, Handan, aunts of Ahmed, great-aunt of Ahmed, great-great aunt's daughter (Ayse Hümasah), cousin of Mehmed III, far relatives. But then there is this one.. highest salary for the full sisters of the sultan is logical, but then what does the daughters of Murad III doing there? Fahri/Kamer and Hümaşah/Rukiye* are surely Murads and so Ümmügülsüm could be also Murad's... For the lesser salaries Beyhan, Safiye, Hatice I could imagine they were Mehmed III's, maybe Beyhan's Mustafa was Mirahur Mustafa? But these stipends are just not logical... (*Murad III's daughte Rukiye was said to be married to Nakkas Hasan not Huma). And for Ümmügülsüm there is that one report from 1688 (Katherine Trumbull) when it is said she developed a relationship with Sultana Ümmühan, the aunt of the deposed Sultan Mehmed IV, through visits to the harem. This Ümmühan could be Halil Pasha's wife and so Murad III's/Mehmed III's daugher, or is it more likely not an aunt but sister/cousin? Or she truly can be Ahmed I's daughter? There is this 85 numaralı Mühimme defteri that provide some informations suggesting suggesting Ümmügülsüm was sister of Murad IV. Sadly I dont have the book so I cannot check how true is this claim...

I hope you don't mind if we continue here on ottomanladies.

I know the harem register doesn’t seem to make sense from the point of view of hierarchy but we must remember that the hierarchy could be broken on the basis of favouritism. Maybe those aunts were more favoured than the others.

In this table we can see Gevherhan Sultan, a great-aunt of Ahmed I’s, the reigning sultan. Dumas mistakenly identifies her as a daughter of Murad III’s and a concubine of non-haseki rank, but the reality is she’s first because she’s the most senior princess alive. If you look closely at the second category — “Frais de bouche” — she receives the same amount as Ayse and Fatma, Safiye’s daughters. Gevherhan was quite favoured by Ahmed I because she had trained Handan in her household. Also, her late husband Cerrah Mehmed Pasha had performed Ahmed I’s circumcision. Borekçi says that she was the only recipient — apart from Handan and Safiye — of sable fur:

“A register preserved in the Topkapı Palace Archives gives further details of the gifts Gevherhan Sultan received from her great grand-cousin. At the beginning of this register, there are records of the furs and robes of honor sent by the new sultan to his larger family right after his enthronement on December 27, 1603. Here, Gevherhan Sultan is listed as a recipient of a sable robe (semmûr kaplu nimtâne) and recorded as the third female member of the dynasty after the retiring queen mother, Safiye Sultan, and the new queen mother, Handan Sultan, and before all other living sisters and daughters of Murad III and Mehmed III -- a clear indication of her privileged position. Later, on February 6, 1604, she again appears in the register, this time as the only female family member apart from Handan Sultan to receive a fur-trimmed silk robe.”

(I believe the 6 şehzâdegân are unmarried princesses that Ahmed still had to matchmake but this is another story)

I know it’s Rukiye that Öztuna says has married Nakkaş Hasan Pasha but he could be wrong tbh, it wouldn’t be the first time. Also, neither Sakaoğlu or Uluçay confirm this; they give no information about Rukiye except for the identity of her mother. Unfortunately Öztuna never gives his sources so we don’t know where he found that Rukiye was married to Nakkaş Hasan Pasha. I would trust the harem register and contemporary sources (the ragusian diplomat, in this case) more tbh… both say that Nakkaş Hasan Pasha was married to a princess called Hümaşah…

About Beyhan… the problem is the wife of Mirahur Mustafa Pasha went on to marry Cigalazade Sinan Pasha’s son Mahmud Bey in 1612, and died before 1620, the date of Mahmud Bey’s second wedding, which means she shouldn’t have been alive in 1638-39. The Ragusian letter date 1648, though, lists a Beyhan Sultan widow of “Nideli Mustafa Pasha”— unfortunately, I can’t say who this man is or what “nideli” means.

I do agree with you, though. I think that Beyhan, Safiye, and Hatice are daughters of Mehmed III. We know that seven princesses were married in the summer of 1613, after all. A letter dated July 1613 by a Ragusian diplomat, furthermore, says that “at the present there are fifteen sultanas”.

About Katherine Trumbull, I guess you mean this:

“While in Istanbul, Katherine had developed a relationship with Sultana Ümmühan, Mehmed IV’s aunt and sister to Ibrahim II. On 14 July 1688, Katherine met with Ümmühan for the first time, and the two women continued to meet in the imperial harem throughout Trumbull’s residence in Istanbul. During these visits, Katherine must have been accompanied by someone with knowledge of spoken Turkish, or else it is unclear how she would have been able to communicate with the women she met in the harem. At any rate, when she returned to the embassy, she brought to Trumbull news of things taking place in the Ottoman court.” — Ghobrial, John-Paul A, 'Overcoming Distance in Everyday Communication', The Whispers of Cities: Information Flows in Istanbul, London, and Paris in the Age of William Trumbull (Oxford, 2013; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Jan. 2014)

Unfortunately, William Trumbull’s diaries were not published, they’re in the British Library. I always like to cross-check my sources and the fact that I can’t read the original kind of annoys me. Ümmühan is quite an unusual name for an Ottoman princess: Ümmi means mother and Han sovereign, it kind of sounds like “valide sultan”, which is why I thought it was a title for a moment but I couldn’t find anything to confirm this. It is kind of interesting, though, that Öztuna says that Ibrahim’s eldest daughter was called Ümmügülsüm, who could have been named after another Ümmügülsüm (the one that in 1622 was unmarried? Who knows)

The Mühimme defteri is not a book but a collection of copies of all the imperial decrees or decisions taken in the imperial council. They’re numbered and the number 85 refers to the years 1630-31. You can find the PDF for free on the website of the Turkish National Archives but, well, it’s in Ottoman Turkish.

(This is one of them)

So I can’t really read it even though I have it.

#ask: ottoman history #reallifesultanas #gevherhan sultan daughter of selim ii #rukiye sultan daughter of murad iii #humasah sultan daughter of murad iii #unnamed daughters of mehmed iii #i'm sorry if the layout looks weird but it's been so long since i used tumblr and i'm a little rusty

12 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 4 years ago

Note

Hi, I hope this isnt annoying to ask but w the old guard ive seen a lot of people mixing up catholic and christian when it comes to nicky. when by todays standards theyre not interchangeable as catholic is a specific strain of christianity. i was kinda under the impression the crusades were a purely catholic thing since the pope. is that right or were other christians involved??

Hmm. Just to be clear what you’re asking, are you wondering whether it’s a mistake to use “Catholic” and “Christian” interchangeably when talking about this time period or describing Nicky’s faith? And/or asking for a basic religious primer on medieval Europe and the crusades more generally?

First, it’s not a mistake to use “Catholic” and “Christian” as synonyms during the crusades, especially since a) Catholics are Christians, no matter what the militant Protestant reformers would like you to think, and b) until said Protestant reformation, they were the dominant and almost (but not quite) singular Christian denomination in Western Europe. Our source material for the period doesn’t describe the crusaders as “Catholics,” even if they were; they call them Christians or Franks. (Likewise, the word “Frank,” i.e. “French” was often used to describe Western European crusaders no matter which country they were from, since so many crusaders came from France and that was where the crusades were originally launched, at the council of Clermont in 1095.) To call them “Christians” points us to the fact that the crusades were viewed as a great pan-Christian enterprise, even if the reality was more complicated, and nobody would need to specify “Catholic,” because that was implicit.

In short, medieval Europe had two major strands of Christianity, which developed out of the centuries of arguments over heresy, the contents of the biblical canon, the nature and/or divinity of Christ, their relationship to Judaism, paganism, and other religions of late antiquity, and so forth. Eventually these two competing branches took on geographical, cultural, and linguistic associations: Western (Latin) Catholic Christianity, and Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Christianity. The Great Schism in 1054 split these two rites formally apart, though both of them had at least some thought that the internal divisions in Christianity should be healed and dialogue has continued intermittently even up to the present day (though they’re still not actually reconciled and this seems highly unlikely to ever happen.)

The head of Western Catholic Christianity was (and is) the Pope of Rome, and the head of Eastern Orthodox Christianity was (and is) the Patriarch of Constantinople. Both of these branches of Christianity were involved in launching the crusades. To make a long story short, the Byzantine (Greek) Emperor, Alexios Komnenos, appealed to the Catholic (Latin) pope, Urban II, for help in defending the rights of eastern Christians, territorial incursions against Greek possessions by the Muslims of the Holy Land and North Africa, and the city of Constantinople (and Jerusalem) itself. So although the actual French and Western European participants in the crusades were Catholic, they (originally, at least) joined up with the intention of helping out their Orthodox brethren in the East and “liberating” Jerusalem from the so-called tyranny of Islam. To this end, the accounts of the council of Clermont focused heavily on the brotherhood of western and eastern Christians and the alleged terrible treatment of these Christians by the ruling Islamic caliphate in Jerusalem. At that time, that was the Isma’ili Shia Muslim Fatimids (who had replaced the Sunni Muslim Abbasids in the early 10th century -- there are many names and many dynasties, but yes.)

However, despite this ecumenical start, relations between Western and Eastern Christians started to go bad very quickly over the course of the crusades, indeed within a few short years of Clermont. Alexios Komnenos wanted the crusade leaders to swear loyalty to him and pledge to return formerly Byzantine lands that might be recaptured from the Muslims, and the crusade leaders did not want to do this. There were deep cultural, linguistic, religious, social, and political differences between Greek and Latin Christians, even if they were both technically Christians, and these caused the obvious problems. The Greeks were obviously located in a different part of the world and had a different relationship with their Islamic neighbors (they fought them often, but also traded with them and established diplomatic ties) and this caused constant friction during the crusades, since the Westerners always suspected (not entirely wrongly) that the Greeks were secretly in league with the Turks. Albert of Aachen, writing his Historia Ierosolimitana in the early 12th century, referred to “wicked Christians, that is to say Greeks,” and our primary source for the Second Crusade (1145--49) is Odo of Deuil and his De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem (Journey of Louis VII to the East.) He spent the entire time grousing about “treacherous Greeks” and blaming them for the crusade’s struggles (though the Second Crusade pretty much sabotaged itself and didn’t need any outside force to blame for its failure). There was some truth to this accusation, since Byzantium was then engaged in a war against Sicily (Louis VII’s ally, though it had its own connections to Muslim culture and indeed had been Muslim before the Normans conquered it in 1061). The Greeks had thus been working with the Muslims to undercut the invasion of Western Europeans into this contested territory, and this was not forgotten or forgiven.

The best-known example of Western-Eastern relations during the crusades going catastrophically awry is in 1204, at the sack of Constantinople as the culmination of the Fourth Crusade. Basically: the crusaders were deeply in debt to the Venetians and had already attacked the Catholic city of Zara (Zadar in Croatia) in hopes of getting some money back, then got involved in the messy politics of the Byzantine succession, went to Constantinople, and eventually outright attacked it, sacked and destroyed the city, and raped and slaughtered its inhabitants. This obviously poisoned the well all but permanently between Latin and Greek Christians (frankly, in my opinion, it’s one of the worst tragedies of history) and Constantinople never regained its former wealth and pre-eminence. It declined until it was captured in 1453 by the Ottoman Turks and Sultan Mehmed II, and has been an Islamic city ever since. (It was renamed Istanbul in 1923, under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the “founding father” of modern Turkey.) Obviously, Latin and Greek Christianity still had to work with each other somehow, but the crusades were actually the single biggest factor in driving the two branches further apart, rather than reconciling them.

The words “catholic” and “orthodox” both have connotations of universality, overall correctness, and all-encompassing truth claims. Therefore, in some sense, to a Catholic Christian or an Orthodox Christian, defining themselves as such, with both words, is repetitious; they are Catholic/Orthodox and therefore the correct sort of Christian (even if their theological opponents would disagree). However, historians obviously do use that convention to distinguish them, since the identity is important, and makes a big difference as to what religious landscape an individual is living in. As for heresy, it was an equally complicated subject. Numerous “heretical” (i.e. not mainstream Catholic Christianity) Christian sects existed in Europe for this entire period, most notably the Cathars. (They got their own crusade launched against them, the Albigensian Crusade of 1209--29 in southern France.) The lines between heresy and orthodoxy (small-o orthodoxy meaning in this case, confusingly, Catholic Christianity) could often be blurred, and religious practices were syncretic and constantly influenced each other. A big problem in the Albigensian Crusade was identifying who the heretics actually were; they looked like their Catholic neighbors, they lived in community with them, their friends and family members were Cathar and Catholic alike, both rites were practiced, and plenty of towns were just fine with this hybrid arrangement. Hence it was not as simple as just pointing and going “get those guys,” and indeed, one of the leaders of the Albigensian Crusade, when asked by a knight how to tell them apart, advocated to just kill them all and God would know who the good Catholics were. Welp.

Northern and eastern Europe also remained pagan relatively late into the medieval era (into the 10th and 11th centuries) and the Northern and Baltic Crusades were launched with the aim of converting them to Catholic Christianity. (You will notice that the crusades have a complicated history as both a vehicle of religious warfare and as an attempted theater of conversion.) Heresy was a constant preoccupation of the Catholic popes, especially Innocent III (the progenitor of the Fourth, Albigensian, and Fifth Crusades). Especially in the thirteenth century, splinter religious groups and localized sects of “heresy” were popping up like crazy, and it was a constant point of contention as to how to deal with them, i.e. by force, persuasion, reconciliation, dialogue, etc. No, the medieval Catholic church was not the stereotyped instrument of fear, oppression, and tyranny, and could never enforce its views universally on all of western Europe. Church attendance on the parish level could be so low that in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council, Innocent issued an order requiring Christians to take communion at least once a year. So yes. The standard was very far from “everyone believed Catholicism fervently at all times and if they didn’t, they were immediately punished/burned alive.” The idea of burning heretics at the stake wasn’t even introduced until the early fifteenth century, and even then, it required an often-months-long formal church trial and wasn’t just something that the local village priest could hand out on a whim.

There were also monastic orders, and these (at least in Western Europe) were therefore Catholic, but they had different ways of practicing it and what their orders emphasized. The most common order were Benedictines (founded in the 6th century by Saint Benedict), who adhered to the Rule of Saint Benedict, which is still the basis for the following monastic orders. There were also the Cluniacs (founded in 10th-century France at Cluny Abbey) and the Cistercians (founded as rivals to the Cluniacs at the end of the 11th century, also in France). In terms of the crusades, the Cistercians were by far the most involved with/zealously supportive of them (Bernard of Clairvaux was a Cistercian) and took part in directly financing, preaching, and launching the Second, Fourth, and Albigensian Crusades alike. The better-known monastic orders, the Franciscans and Dominicans, weren’t founded until the thirteenth century, on the tail end of the crusades, and didn’t take much direct part in them. The Dominican inquisition, however, took over the business of dealing with the Cathars after the Albigensian Crusade petered out, and their concern was often with heresy thereafter.

Anyway. This has gotten long, as per usual. But I hope this gives you some introductory sense of the religious landscape of medieval Europe, the divisions within Christianity, and the fact that it’s entirely accurate to use “Catholic” and “Christian” interchangeably when discussing Nicky’s crusades-era faith and counterparts. The crusaders themselves did not specify themselves as being Catholic, and the crusades were (at least initially) viewed as a pan-Christian movement, even if eventually fatal tensions with Orthodox Christians left a permanent scar. The idea of identifying the precise denomination of Christianity is also another Protestant Reformation-era innovation, and wasn’t, at least in this case, necessary to do.

#history #medieval history #history of religion #long post #anonymous #ask

204 notes · View notes

vladdocs · 2 years ago

Note

Good day! I’m quite curious based off a post of yours, what kind of Christian was Vlad III and others in the Order that Catholic Christians weren’t fans of? I know Christianity is wide so I found it best to ask :)

Hi, I don't really understand the question. Vlad was a good orthodox Christian: He built churches, gave them gifts, took part in the celebrations(we all know this one) and destroyed the ones that touched them. As a Catholic Christian, we didn't get much time with him, there is something about him and the pope in 1475 but it is small and I'm not allowed to tell yet. The Catholics hated Orthodox back then, even more than the ottomans actually. Pope pius II wrote a letter to Mehmed asking him to convert to catholicism and together to destroy the Christians with horns. It wasn't sent tho.

the biggest Orthodox hater in Vlad's time was probably the guy that met him and gave his description Niccolo de Modrussa. "others in the Order" if you are referring to the order of the dragon here, I don't know. Vlad III wasn't a member, Vlad II Dracul was neither (But he was really liked by the Catholics, ottomans too. Even managed to make them stop fighting at one point)

#questions #vlad dracula #vlad the impaler #history

22 notes · View notes

mc-critical · 3 years ago

Note

Reffering to my previous ask, I just love how you paralleled Handan to Hafsa because I was thinking the exact same thing! Though I’d say they concretely differed in the sense that Hafsa always possesed more confidence and security in her status and power, though this is likely due to Hafsa living in a less stressful time period than Handan. Not only was Handan’s very powerful and very ambitious mother-in-law still alive but so was another prince that wasn’t her biological son and his mother as well (because LBR just as Kösem and Halime themselves had said, a prince without a mother isn’t nearly as much as a threat.) And not only that but Handan’s son was also a minor, never having ruled a sanjak and lacked a male heir upon his ascension to the throne. Suleiman was an adult, had experience at a sanjak and a male heir. Overall the observation in the similar character arc was a very good one, but it makes me think if Handan could have turned out more like Hafsa had her circumstances lined up better?

[The parallels between Hafsa and Handan's arcs truly are a lot with that they care the most about their personal familial relationships at the very core and they are the major reasons why they do what they do. The differences between them lie in that Hafsa actually has a country and tradition to attach to, because that's an environment she had grown up in and it automatically makes her view the state of the country and dynasty as what's most important, while with Handan we have a person who has been forcibly put into her environment and has no real bond with anything there, expect for the only thing that has come from her own blood, her own heart and soul - her son. And yup, it's important to note that Hafsa is way more confident in her power, because she has practically exercised it her whole life. All the while that amount of power is a new territory for Handan. The different circumstances and environment are key here.]

With that said, I agree that if circumstances were different, Handan may have been able to adapt a little better to the harem system. Especially if the princes could still go to sanjacks - ruling the harem in her son's sanjack would give her more breathing room and agency, because in the show, we were often made to believe that the life in sanjacks was comparatively calmer than life in Topkapi. And since the prince gets more experience in his sanjack, seeing his accomplishments would sure make the mother proud and make her ease up a little more than life in Topkapi ever would. The pressure placed by her stronger enemies would also be comparatively lesser, at least in the way she would rule the harem. There wouldn't be such a strong opposition to her power, thus Handan would get in the heels of a (future) Valide Sultan much more easily, she would have gained the experience for it and habits like bowing down to Safiye would be gone completely. She would truly get calmer and more confident, she would handle matters more smoothly and who knows, could even get more decisive as a result of her time in a sanjack. (similarly to Mahidevran's development when she went in Manisa with Mustafa - honestly, the only thing I could personally draw a comparison between her and Handan on, if we put this hypothesis into consideration, with their otherwise virtually opposite character arcs.) Maybe indeed similarly to Hafsa, due to the amount of similar experience.

On the other hand, even if we still had the sanjack rule of a prince, Handan would still be put under pressure, because the other mothers would definetly scheme against Ahmet, so there is no way she could be totally calm and these survival instincts to go away, maybe these schemes could still make her helpless and have to undergo this nightmare once again, maybe making irrational decisions to protect her son in the process, but that aside, her stay in a sanjack would still help her think about something other than how to stay alive. Hafsa also had hardships in the sanjack (see the infamous kaftan situation) and if Handan got to face those as well, she would have more time to sit and think, just like Hafsa. She would be closer to knowing what to do and that would reflect in her rule in the Topkapi castle, too.

If we imagine, along with the still lasting sanjack tradition, that Safiye and Halime weren't all that powerful, this would have lowered Handan's pressure, because they were a very major factor in it and she would stand up to them more. Or even better, if we imagine Handan being a favourite or one of the favourites of Mehmed III, just like Hafsa was a favourite of Selim I, and if Ahmet and Mehmet's relation was more similar to Selim I and Süleiman's, a chance of Handan being more like Hafsa could be even more present. Handan could be wary of Mehmed III's (hinted at least) cruel nature and be able to predict more accurately of what he could and would do and act accordingly in the sanjack. Then her fight would be different - fighting with a father's cruelty and the possibility for her son to be killed by him instead of fighting a fight of power with her rivals in a more massive scale, but yeah, that would be closer to what Hafsa experienced.

So when Handan becomes Valide, she would be closer to Hafsa, all these factors considered. Now, I don't think her attachment to the country or tradition would be as strong, because she wouldn't be nobility that is born and raised in them, but her way of exercising power could match anyway.

We have to consider whether the SOW exists or not in these different circumstances - I would say yes, because the women's power would still be on a path of evolution in one way or another - because for this amount of experience, it is possible for Handan to not only become a more similar Valide to Hafsa, but also become a part of the SOW. If Safiye and Halime still end up beinh as powerful as they normally are, it's still possible for Handan to gain more agency, if the circumstances were a little different. She would probably even become more of a force to be reckoned with, because she would be already used to assert power.

So yeah, Handan's flaws are mostly created by these wild circumstances and if we twist them a little, she could unleash her full potential, I'm certain. Because neither is she stupid, not is she as weak as many, I feel, make her out to be, it's just that she, like everyone else, is impacted by the toxic system she has to constantly be around and has dealt with pressure by more competent enemies every single day. That's not easy to handle.

#magnificent century #muhteşem yüzyıl #muhtesem yuzyil #magnificent century: kösem #magnificent century kösem #magnificent century kosem #muhteşem yuzyil kösem #muhtesem yuzyil kosem #handan sultan #ayse hafsa sultan #ask #stuffandthangs

10 notes · View notes

cincinnatusvirtue · 4 years ago

Text

Vlad III Dracula (1428/1431-1476/1477) AKA Vlad the Impaler. Voivode of Wallachia and real life inspiration for the modern popular conception of the vampire.

Some historical figures are steeped in more mythology and it can be hard to separate fact from fiction. This could well be true of one especially seen to be viewed as the inspiration for one of the most popular monster figures of contemporary culture. Let’s look in more detail at what we know of the real life, Dracula, Vlad III, Voivode of Wallachia...

-Vlad was born between the years 1428-1431 in what is the modern nation of Romania. At the time Romania was divided among different provinces, Transylvania in the north, then part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Moldavia in the east, a part of modern Romania and Moldovia and Wallachia in the south just north of the Danube river border with Bulgaria.

-He was born in the town of Sighisoara in Transylvania, the town was largely a merchant town controlled by Transylvanian Saxons (Germans) burghers and located in the Kingdom of Hungary. Transylvania was populated by Hungarians, German Saxons and Romanians (Vlachs/Wallachians).

-Vlad was an ethnic Romanian with roots in the nobility of Wallachia & Moldavia. His father was originally from the House of Basarab, but their branch became known as Draculesti. Vlad’s father was Vlad II of Wallachia, also known as Vlad Dracul, due to his membership in a Christian military order sanctioned by the Catholic Church, the Order of the Dragon. Their mission was to prevent the spread of Islam into Europe, namely from the threat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire that had conquered much of the Balkans in Southeastern Europe by then.

-The sobriquet Dracul was Medieval Romanian for “dragon” and Dracula as Vlad III would be called or Vlad Dracula meant “son of the dragon” as relates to his father. In modern Romanian, Dracul means the “devil”.

-Vlad’s mother is unknown, Vlad II’s first was unknown but some historians now believe his mother to have been Eupraxia of Moldavia, a relative of Alexander I of Moldavia.

-Vlad II Dracul would serve as voivode of Wallachia on more than one occasion, due to his family’s noble status. The term voivode was used mostly in Southeastern Europe, taken from the Slavic languages to mean roughly warlord, or later as prince. It mostly used in Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia & Croatia, Poland, Ukraine & Russia as well as Romania and Hungary.

-In 1436 his father came to power as voivode of Wallachia in the south of Romania following the death of his half-brother Alexander I Aldea. At the time, Wallachia found itself caught in a power struggle between rival factions and interests internally as well as in the wider context of the rival ambitions of Moldavia, Hungary and the Ottomans. Nominally, the voivode of Wallachia needed the blessing of the Hungarian King, Sigismund of Luxembourg, later Holy Roman Emperor or the Ottoman Sultan.

-Vlad II was made a member of the Order of the Dragon by Sigismund and given his blessing on the grounds, he protect Roman Catholicism, despite himself being a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

-Vlad was supported by the Hungarians whereas his brother had paid homage to the Ottoman Sultan. However, in 1437 Sigismund died, followed by rebellion in Transylvania which weakened the Hungarian position. In order to protect his own precarious position on the throne, he now chose to deal with the Ottomans and traveled to the then Ottoman capital in Adrianople, modern Edirne, Turkey. In return for Ottoman patronage he agreed to annual monetary tribute and had to serve on military campaigns in support of the Turks. Becoming their vassal. The Sultan at the time was Murad II.

-Vlad II supported the invasion of Hungarian Transylvania serving as Murad’s guide and aided the Turks in capturing 30,000 slaves for them. However, he also sought to placate the new Hungarian king, Albert of the House of Hapsburg by releasing some prisoners taken. He hoped to maintain a balance between patrons, leaving both the king & sultan to be wary of his intentions.

-Albert died in 1439 and was replaced by the young King of Poland Wladyslaw III, now King of Hungary as well. He appointed John Hunyadi, a Hungarian as Voivode of Transylvania in 1441. Hunyadi asked Vlad join him on a renewed Crusade against the Turks. He would meet Vlad in the Wallachian capital of Targoviste.

-Vlad II was accused of betraying Turks by their governor of Bulgaria following a Hungarian victory in 1442. Murad ordered Vlad to Adrianople to prove his loyalty. He named his eldest son, Mircea to serve in his stead, possibly suspecting danger. He was indeed arrested by the Ottomans and held prisoner for a time.

-The Turks tried to invade and annex Wallachia proper in 1442 but were defeated again by the Hungarians under Hunyadi who placed Basarab, Vlad’s cousin the new voivode.

-The Turks realized working with Vlad once again, maybe in their interest. In order to secure his throne once more, he made a new pledge to the Ottomans, to supply an annual blood tribute of 500 Wallachian boys to serve as janissaries in the Ottoman army (Christian boys forcibly converted to Islam and trained to be personal guard of the sultan). He also had to leave two of his own sons as hostages in Adrianople for training in Turkish culture and the ways of Islam. These two sons were Vlad (Dracula) & Radu.

-Vlad II was back to power in Wallachia in summer 1443 under unknown circumstances. During the subsequent war between the Hungary and the Ottomans he was to remain neutral. His sons were to be released if a peace deal with Hungary was signed. However, the papal legate to Hungary prevented its signing and encouraged the war to continue with the disastrous Battle of Varna (1444) fought in Bulgaria which resulted in the Turks defeating a Christian coalition of several nations, Wladyslaw III was himself killed while charging the Ottoman sultan’s position, nearly succeeding only to be stopped and saved by his bodyguards.

-The war between the Crusaders & Turks raged on over the next couple of years and gradually Vlad came out of his neutrality to fight against the Turks, meanwhile he may have believed his sons were murdered during their hostage stay in Turkey.

-In fact Murad had not killed Vlad’s sons, instead they were given an education in all matters, including Turkish warfare, military structure, governance, language, history and Turkish and greater Islamic culture. Vlad Dracula was reported to have been far more resistant to the Turks attempts to earn his favor than his brother Radu who is believed to have become a potential lover of Murad II’s son the future sultan, Mehmed II.

-In 1446 he made peace with the Turks once more on his own, but his relations with Hungary and Hunyadi in particular was worsened, he still believed his sons had been murdered having not heard on their condition. Meanwhile, Hunyadi wanting to make sure Wallachia remained a Hungarian and not Turkish vassal was prepared to now replace Vlad II once more, he had given shelter to another cousin of Vlad’s and pretender to the throne of Wallachia, named Vladislav or Dan. He invaded in late November 1447, during this invasion Vlad II fled but was caught and killed along with his son Mircea, betrayed by the boyars (Romanian aristocracy) who were possibly paid off by Hunyadi and the Saxon burghers who saw Vlad and his back and forth with the Turks as harmful to their political and economic influence in the area.

-Vlad Dracula meanwhile now as eldest surviving son of Vlad II had a claim to the throne of Wallachia and the Turks wanted a client to continue their influence. Taking advantage of his cousin Vladislav II ‘s absence from Wallachia to support Hunyadi in the Battle of Kosovo 1448, with Ottoman support he snuck back into Wallachia and was proclaimed voivode, becoming Vlad III, but his reign only lasted a month as his cousin returned with an army that he couldn’t compete with. Dracula fled back to Turkey.

-His exile in Turkey soon transferred to Moldavia where he was taken in as a guest of his possible maternal uncle and brother in law of his father. He travelled between Moldavia, Transylvania and Hungary during this time, at times conversing with Hunyadi in the hopes of restoring himself to the throne. However, Hunyadi saw him as not as useful having concluded peace with the Turks in 1451 and denied the right of him settling in Brasov, a major center of Transylvanian Saxon mercantile power, crucial to Hunyadi’s power base.

-Nevertheless, Vlad procured some support from Hungary and in the late summer of 1456 invaded Wallachia to overthrow his cousin Vladislav II, who did indeed die in the invasion, some sources state by Dracula’s hand in one on one combat.

-What followed was the consolidation of his second and ultimately most lengthy and notable reign as voivode. Vlad III set about settling old political scores and implementing reforms to his lands.

-First, he dealt with the boyars that had killed his father in conspiracy with the Saxons by purging them and killing hundred of them during a feast. Those not killed were put to slave labor towards building his castles and fortresses. He also at this time sent a letter to the Transylvanian Saxons asking for mutual aid against the Turks, whose politicking he felt jeopardized his father’s rule and whose harsh treatment including beatings and whippings as a hostage made him resentful of them.

-He also made land reforms and had some property from his victims (former boyars) confiscated to compensate his new supporters who in turn pledged loyalty to him.

-Dracula passed new laws as well which included punishment for crimes committed by nobility & commoners. Criminals, beggars, transients & committers of adultery among his own people were punished, sometimes with death. His preferred form of capital punishment was what became most associated with him, impalement. Using wooden stakes hammered into the ground, his victims would be placed upon the stake which would pierce the body and leave the body in great agonizing pain and left for public display as a deterrent for others. Impalement was often a slow form of execution and thought to take hours or days to complete death. Blood loss and damage to the vital organs would ultimately be the cause of death, the impalements depicted in this time, could be done frontally or dorsally, some may have been vertical for the victim as well, but the contemporary artwork from the time only depict the frontal or dorsal aspects. The frequent use of impalement earned him the moniker Vlad Tepes or Vlad the Impaler.

-Dracula during this time, continued his tribute to the Turks whose sultan sent 1451 was Mehmed II, the Conqueror. So named because he at long last achieved the goal of his ancestors, the completed conquest of Constantinople, the capital city of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) in 1453. This successful siege swept away the last remnants of ancient Rome and consolidated the links between Ottoman controlled Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe. Mehmed had known Vlad during his childhood imprisonment and had probably become lovers with his brother Radu, known as Radu the Fair or Handsome. Radu didn’t officially convert to Islam but he was more receptive to the Turkish education and attempts to control him than his older brother Vlad.

-Dracula used this time not only to reform his own land but to partake in a Hungarian civil war in Transylvania. He invaded and sacked the villages around Brasov, killing Saxon families including women & children by impalement. His attack wasn’t for wanton cruelty so much as to secure his position since the Saxons were harboring another Wallachian pretender that could usurp his throne. They agreed to peace and to hand over the pretender as well as have mutual trade for Saxon & Wallachian merchants in both Transylvania & Wallachia. Vlad’s agreements with the Saxons would be off and on over the years, alternating between peace brief periods of war, usually consisting of raids. Vlad laid claim to parts of Transylvania as well during this time.

-Hunyadi had died in 1456 and eventually a son of his Matthias Corvinus, in part aided by Dracula’s raids against the Saxons was elected King of Hungary in 1458. Convinus would like his father and Dracula’s father before him also play politics siding both with and against one another. Initially he had peace with Dracula but later supported a pretender, Dan III against him only to have Vlad defeat Dan’s ad hoc army in battle, killed Dan and then raided southern Transylvania once more, killing peasants in the surrounding area, both German & Romanian who had supported his ouster. However, peace was concluded by 1460 with Corvinus & the Saxons.

-Sources vary and aren’t conclusive but suggest Dracula’s problem with the Turks was renewed by 1461, due to his lack of paying tribute, some said he stopped paying tribute in 1459 others only in 1461. This brought him into conflict with Mehmed.

-Finding out through spies that Dracula was negotiating with Corvinus, Mehmed sent emissaries to demand Dracula’s personal presence in audience with the sultan. As the story goes, Vlad found out that he was to be arrested at the border on the Danube river like his father decades before. While meeting with the emissaries, he had them executed. Supposedly during an audience, Dracula asking them to take off their turbans as a sign of respect, when they refused on religious and political grounds, Dracula obliged them and instead had nails hammered into their skulls so that their turbans would never leave their head again. He sent the executed envoys returned to the sultan, essentially an act of war.

-Dracula knowing Mehmed would now find reason to invade Wallachia, decided to preempt him and go to war. Hoping a new Crusade would materialize with Hungarian support. He first lead his troops to the fortress of Giurgiu, along the Danube river. There disguised as a Turkish official and being fluent in Turkish deceived the garrison commander into opening the gates to let him in. He and his guards overwhelmed a portion of the garrison and let in awaiting other troops to sack the city and kill the Turks.

-From the sack of Girugiu, Dracula’s army crisscrossed Ottoman Bulgaria, along the Danube river, killing mostly Turkish soldiers and settlers but also some Bulgarians who were Christian as well, this may have been out of necessity if they had loyalty to their Turkish overlords. By his own account in February of 1462, 23,000+ were killed by his troops. Wallachian settlers in Bulgaria joined in his cause too, declaring themselves liberated.

-Dracula wrote to Corvinus of his actions in the hope of spurning an alliance with Hungary. He wrote of the need to defend Christendom and protect Catholics, though he had been raised Eastern Orthodox, he had functionally become Catholic.

-Mehmed responded by raising an army, the size of which varied according to the sources, some suggest as big as 150,000 troops and others as small as 25,000-60,000. Mehmed personally led this army and was accompanied by Radu, Dracula’s younger brother, who had become a Ottoman loyalist. Mehmed sought to replace Vlad with the more receptive Radu at this point.

-The sultan and his army crossed the Danube in summer of 1462. Realizing he was outnumbered, Dracula began an scorched earth policy, burning crops so the Turks could not live off the land. Meanwhile, Vlad fled to Targoviste.

-Schooled in Turkish warfare, he knew their methods, strategy and structure and as such he hoped exploit any weakness he could. The Turks encamped near Targoviste on June 17-18th 1462, Vlad would lead a daring charge into the Ottoman encampment with the goal of either abducting or killing Mehmed. Knowing the loss of the sultan would demoralize the army, they would likely retreat in the chaos. Nevertheless, the so called Night Attack did not succeed in its goal, as he attacked a subordinate commander’s tent and not the sultan’s. It roused the Turks to action, despite their initial surprise. Vlad managed to escape at dawn having fought his way back out of the camp.

-Vlad retreated to the Carpathians abandoning his capital to the inevitable. However, Mehmed and his army came to a now famous and horrific sight at the abandoned Targoviste. A field full of 20,000 impaled corpses, a mix of men women and children, including Turks impaled on stakes, creating a so called “forest of the impaled” it measured by some accounts larger than several stadium sized venues combined. Mehmed was said to be alternately sick or impressed with the sight, either way astonished.

-Vlad then hid at Castle Poernari located in the mountains near the Arges river valley northwest of Targoviste. Here in the isolated mountaintop fortress with a commanding view Vlad awaited any movement from his enemies. Nonetheless, Mehmed ordered Wallachia abandoned having suffered attrition through the scorched earth tactics with was causing starvation and thirst among his troops and no decisive action to boost morale.

-Dracula harassed the rearguard of the retreating Turks in guerilla warfare marked by ambush and hit and run tactics. Nevertheless, his brother Radu was gathering support from the local boyars who were tired of warfare and Dracula’s strict criminal justice and authoritarian rule. Not only did he gather boyars to defect to him, Radu promised the Transylvanian Saxons restored trade rights and lasting peace, all parties finding him more agreeable than his brother, they turned on Dracula, aside from a host of devoted loyalists. Dracula was driven from power in late 1462, ending his seven year longest period of rule.

-Radu ended up accomplishing the goal of Mehmed by diplomacy and a show of force where the sultan had failed with show of force alone. Radu would reign uninterrupted for the next 11 years and voivode of Wallachia. Fulfilling, the promise of increased Turkish influence in the area at the expense of the Hungarians.

-Radu’s reign was marked by some conflict with his future son in law, Stephen III of Moldavia.

-Dracula meanwhile fled to Hungary, hoping for help from Corvinus who did not intervene during the Turkish invasion of Wallachia. Instead, Corvinus charged Dracula with trumped up charges of treason and imprisoned him first in Romania and then Hungary proper at the citadel in Visegrad. Vlad would remain there for the next 14 years.

-Meanwhile, Radu ruled Wallachia until a dispute with the Ottoman in the 1470′s lead to his dethronement though he would be restored a few more times albeit briefly.

-Records of his life during imprisonment do not survive. He was only released in 1476 when the Hungarians felt he could be of use once more to drive away the latest Ottoman puppet on the Wallachian throne. He also had to officially convert to Catholicism, the brand of Christianity he and his father had agreed to defend while remaining Orthodox in affiliation.

-The new Ottoman puppet was Basarab Laoita. Vlad had moved to Transylvania in 1475 but was called elsewhere by Corvinus to fight the Turks in Bosnia. Meanwhile, the Turks invaded Moldavia but were countered by a Hungarian force consisting of Stephen Bathory & Dracula.

-The Hungarians launched a two pronged attack into Wallachia with the intent of forcing out Basarab and Ottoman influence and placing Vlad on the throne, this was confirmed in late November 1476. Vlad once more had made peace with the Saxon merchants of Transylvania and was restored this third and final reign as voivode.

-His reign was short lived, less than two months after regaining the throne Dracula was on the defensive against a renewed Ottoman invasion backing Basarab Laoita. Dracula would be killed in battle with his retinue, fighting to the very end.

-The Turks hacked his body to pieces and sent his head to Mehmed in Constantinople as a confirmation that Vlad was at long last dead and no longer a threat. The location of the burial for the rest of his body is not known but widely speculated to this day.

Epilogue:

-Vlad Dracula later most famously served as both the name and partial inspiration for Irish author Bram Stoker’s 1897 Victorian gothic horror novel, Dracula which in turned popularized the modern vampire myth, with its association in Transylvania etc. Stoker never visited Romania but he did read up on its history and the folklore of the area which along with Slavic sources had plenty of vampire references. He came across the name Dracula and made it the central character’s namesake but beyond the name and location of his characterization, little else from Vlad’s life was taken into account for the novel.

-In his own time, German and other sources note and portray Vlad as cruel, sadistic and authoritarian in his rule. This is portrayed in both print and woodcut artwork of the 15th century and later. Some portrayals going so far as to say he dined outdoors amid the forest of impaled victims and dipped his food in the blood of dead and dying, perhaps somewhat influencing the literary vampire connection. These sources are mostly believed to be exaggerated propaganda from biased sources, especially the German ones given Dracula’s antagonistic relations with the Saxons. Undoubtedly, he did engage in impalement and other forms of execution and torture, but realistically he was not the only ruler in that time period to engage in such cruelty.

-Some historians also tend to view his widespread capital punishment and strict justice system as a political means to an end, rather than for mere enjoyment or barbarism. Vlad would have viewed it as a matter of political necessity to maintain a balance of power amid so many warring interests both internally and externally. Given the warring influences, any such widespread torture and execution of the populace was likely to alienate enough factions and ultimately undermine his rule so as to guarantee it was short lived and he like many of his contemporaries and holders of his title held short reigns or multiple reigns for quick time periods.

-Today, in Romania he is still revered as a folk hero by some. With some people believing his methods were justified and others less so. Those who support his memory positively, praise his defense of the country from the Turkish threat, the German economic influence and Hungarian meddling, they also praise his justice system that they view as ridding Wallachia of corrupting internal influences such as the boyars. His detractors of course cite his methods as brutal, arbitrary and authoritarian. Whatever view one takes, Vlad III Dracula’s name is one hard to forget nowadays and his memory lives on far beyond his own short life...

#history #military history #military tactics #capital punishment #15th century #romanian history #romania #vlad the impaler #vlad tepes #dracula #ottoman empire #wallachia #1400s #transylvania #vampire #bram stoker

13 notes · View notes

brookstonalmanac · 2 years ago

Text

Events 4.23

215 BC – A temple is built on the Capitoline Hill dedicated to Venus Erycina to commemorate the Roman defeat at Lake Trasimene. 599 – Maya king Uneh Chan of Calakmul attacks rival city-state Palenque in southern Mexico, defeating queen Yohl Ik'nal and sacking the city. 711 – Dagobert III succeeds his father King Childebert III as King of the Franks. 1014 – Battle of Clontarf: High King of Ireland Brian Boru defeats Viking invaders, but is killed in battle. 1016 – Edmund Ironside succeeds his father Æthelred the Unready as King of England. 1343 – St. George's Night Uprising commences in the Duchy of Estonia. 1348 – The founding of the Order of the Garter by King Edward III is announced on St. George's Day. 1500 – Portuguese explorer Pedro Alvarez Cabral reaches new coastline (Brazil). 1516 – The Munich Reinheitsgebot (regarding the ingredients of beer) takes effect in all of Bavaria. 1521 – Battle of Villalar: King Charles I of Spain defeats the Comuneros. 1635 – The first public school in the United States, Boston Latin School, is founded in Boston. 1655 – The Siege of Santo Domingo begins during the Anglo-Spanish War, and fails seven days later. 1660 – Treaty of Oliva is established between Sweden and Poland. 1661 – King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland is crowned in Westminster Abbey. 1815 – The Second Serbian Uprising: A second phase of the national revolution of the Serbs against the Ottoman Empire, erupts shortly after the annexation of the country to the Ottoman Empire. 1879 – Fire burns down the second main building and dome of the University of Notre Dame, which prompts the construction of the third, and current, Main Building with its golden dome. 1891 – Chilean Civil War: The ironclad Blanco Encalada is sunk at Caldera Bay by torpedo boats. 1914 – First baseball game at Wrigley Field, then known as Weeghman Park, in Chicago. 1918 – World War I: The British Royal Navy makes a raid in an attempt to neutralise the Belgian port of Bruges-Zeebrugge. 1919 – The Estonian Constituent Assembly was held in Estonia, which marked the birth of the Estonian Parliament, the Riigikogu. 1920 – The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) is founded in Ankara. The assembly denounces the government of Sultan Mehmed VI and announces the preparation of a temporary constitution. 1927 – Cardiff City defeat Arsenal in the FA Cup Final, the only time it has been won by a team not based in England. 1935 – The Polish Constitution of 1935 is adopted. 1940 – The Rhythm Club fire at a dance hall in Natchez, Mississippi, kills 198 people. 1941 – World War II: The Greek government and King George II evacuate Athens before the invading Wehrmacht. 1942 – World War II: Baedeker Blitz: German bombers hit Exeter, Bath and York in retaliation for the British raid on Lübeck. 1945 – World War II: Adolf Hitler's designated successor, Hermann Göring, sends him a telegram asking permission to take leadership of Nazi Germany. Martin Bormann and Joseph Goebbels advise Hitler that the telegram is treasonous. 1946 – Manuel Roxas is elected the last President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. 1949 – Chinese Civil War: Establishment of the People's Liberation Army Navy. 1951 – Cold War: American journalist William N. Oatis is arrested for espionage by the Communist government of Czechoslovakia. 1961 – Algiers putsch by French generals. 1967 – Soviet space program: Soyuz 1 (Russian: Союз 1, Union 1) a crewed spaceflight carrying cosmonaut Colonel Vladimir Komarov is launched into orbit. 1968 – Vietnam War: Student protesters at Columbia University in New York City take over administration buildings and shut down the university. 1971 – Bangladesh Liberation War: The Pakistan Army and Razakars massacre approximately 3,000 Hindu emigrants in the Jathibhanga area of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). 1985 – Coca-Cola changes its formula and releases New Coke. The response is overwhelmingly negative, and the original formula is back on the market in less than three months. 1990 – Namibia becomes the 160th member of the United Nations and the 50th member of the Commonwealth of Nations. 1993 – Eritreans vote overwhelmingly for independence from Ethiopia in a United Nations-monitored referendum. 1993 – Sri Lankan politician Lalith Athulathmudali is assassinated while addressing a gathering, approximately four weeks ahead of the Provincial Council elections for the Western Province. 1999 – NATO bombs the headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia, as part of their aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 2005 – The first YouTube video, titled "Me at the zoo", was published by co-founder Jawed Karim. 2013 – At least 28 people are killed and more than 70 are injured as violence breaks out in Hawija, Iraq. 2018 – A vehicle-ramming attack kills 11 people and injures 15 in Toronto. A 25-year-old suspect, Alek Minassian, is arrested. 2019 – The April 2019 Hpakant jade mine collapse in Myanmar kills four miners and two rescuers.

#Events

0 notes

fymagnificentwomcn · 4 years ago

Text

Hello, we all liked Handan here. I suppose Halime turned out to be simply the more interesting character for more people & it’s not surprising because she seems more to be the type to gather bigger fanbases, while I suppose in real life most people would prefer to be friends with Handan. I have to say I actually liked how they bounced each off, and how Handan was the sinnammon roll to Halime’s cinnamon roll as our dearly missed Ksenia showed in gifset here.

Handan truly just wanted her son to be safe and sound first and foremost. Of course, she enjoyed being Valide and wanted to enjoy privileges connected with her new station, but you could see Ahmed was most important for her, she truly just wanted to be loved and have her family safe and sound.

However, you could also see that she pretty much had anxiety problems & was usually reacting to stuff very emotionally, more so than even other “emotional” women on show.

I think her gentler constitution made living in this system a constant stress and frustration for her, she couldn’t adapt.

And it’s actually interesting to see this sort of woman on show – I cannot believe each and everyone of these women functioned pretty normally… like Mahidevran could be emotional for example but she still managed pretty well.

Handan didn’t get much in life – she wasn’t important to Mehmed, she was sidelined by both Safiye and Halime, and while she was lucky to have a son, it was clearly also very stressful for her as she stated multiple times how hard it was to be a mother in that palace; the whole situation truly gave her more anxiety than thinking about any ambitions. Her son wasn’t the eldest and Mahmud was very popular, and after Mahmud’s death she was scared Mehmed III might kill Ahmed.

Dervis’ love was truly the only thing she had left after Ahmed distanced himself from her.

And she was not only grieving Derviş, but scared that Ahmed might reject her even more when he learns about their forbidden love.

Even look at Ahmed’s reaction to what Dilruba told him – he immediately went “so my mum had to help me with killing my father!!!!!” and we know she didn’t & didn’t even know Derviş’ secret until after Ahmed’s accession to throne.

Ahmed was truly the only thing that kept Handan standing in that palace for all these years.

Kösem, who was back then a raising star with padisah’s love and high position for favourite/gözde, just completely didn’t understand her mother-in-law (I mentioned it a bit in post here).

It was only later that she understood Handan, even despite the fact that she was stronger person and far more powerful. It’s that while they were different people in various aspects, Kösem and Handan also had some similarities, which shows how multi-faceted Nurgül!Kösem was.

I’m actually happy they kinda subverted our expectations in MYK S2 & didn’t pull standard MY/K melodrama with Kösem&Kemankeş despite all the stressing about how Haci was worried she might end up like Handan & Kösem going on how she wouldn’t survivie Kemankeş’ death multiple times & being all stressed out and worried when something could be happening to him (they couldn’t have her commit suicide of course, but they could go with some spiritual death or final breaking point, for which nota bene Ibrahim’s death served better, it would have been even too early) & instead she saved her man from her sons’ wrath two times because yes she’s more powerful than Handan & is lucky to have more options than to watch and cry, feeling powerless ☹ It was truly something fresh and while it was totally historically false because truly Kemankeş got executed then and it’s hard to imagine any other scenario, especially since in the show he later walked everywhere with Kösem and lived in palace (so let’s be real it wasn’t a secret he survived later on show-wise) but I don’t mind it here. Much better than another teary melodrama with woman being powerless and just having to watch her loved one die.

Putting history aside, it was also meaningful ending for them from narrative perspective – they used the trope of forbidden lovers dying together and thus being finally able to be together in death – making Kösem lose will to live after seeing dead Kemankes & stop fighting for her life even once they stopped holding her thinking she was dead was a new twist on the formula (and to answer one of my recent asks - I love K&K, they are my OTP for MYK and IMO the most epic and well-written love story of the show 😊, but I will elaborate later, since you all know I usually try to wrtie exhaustive answers and as such can be slow in replying, as the asker of this question on Handan may surely ascertain lmao)

And maybe some bit of trivia about historical Handan, who actually wasn’t such an innocent angel (and frankly, she wasn’t one in the show as well, even though she wasn’t as cruel as some people around her, like Safiye or Halime, and it was mentioned she and Safiye had some understanding when the Mahmud matter was happening). There are some indications that Handan helped Safiye against Halime to remove Prince Mahmud. Quotes under the cut are taken from Günhan Borekçi’s Factions and Favourites at the Court of Sultan Ahmed I and his Immediate Predecessors.

Against this backdrop, Halime Sultan tried to persuade her husband to single out their eldest son Mahmud as his heir and send him to a province, just as Mahmud himself had wished. Clearly, the favorite concubine and her son had their supporters among the viziers and soldiers. Meanwhile, Handan Sultan, as the mother of the only other viable candidate for the throne, must have been alarmed by Halime’s actions and would have sided with Queen Mother Safiye Sultan in order to protect her own son, Prince Ahmed, if not to promote him for the throne instead of his elder brother. Handan may well have been the source of the rumor about Prince Mahmud’s infertility, since she had every reason to undermine him before the sultan decided on a successor. Mehmed III’s response to these machinations remains unclear.

And:

It was indeed a clash between Safiye Sultan and Halime Sultan that led to execution of Prince Mahmud, but this conflict also drew in Halime’s rival Handan Sultan, the mother of Prince Ahmed. Furthermore, it occurred in the absence of Gazanfer Agha, the powerful chief eunuch of the palace. The conflict among the three royal women was not unrelated to the soldiery revolts described earlier.

And:

Indeed, the English ambassador Lello and the Venetian bailo Contarini both indicate that Safiye Sultan was the mastermind behind the execution of Prince Mahmud, a solution which she apparently put forward in order not only to relieve the sultan of deposition anxiety but also to eliminate Halime Sultan, ofwhom she was reportedly “very jealous” (read threatened). According to Contarini, the queen mother had the open support of Handan Sultan in this scheme.

Gazanfer Agha’s execution not only altered the balance of power at the rebellion-weary imperial center but also changed the factional equation within the royal family. In the absence of Gazanfer Agha’s balancing authority, the rivalry between the party of Safiye Sultan and Handan Sultan, and that of Halime Sultan, spun out of control, resulting in the execution of the eldest prince of the dynastic family in mid-June 1603.

- Joanna

#magnificent century kosem #muhtesem yuzyil kosem #handan sultan #kosem sultan #muhteşem yüzyıl kösem #answered #mods opinions #reposting as I promised #I see that it might take a long time for tumblr to be fully okay again #(like it ever was tho lol)#so time to be back anyway :).

26 notes · View notes