The furious dogs of hell Rebellion, janissaries and religion in sultanic legitimisation in the Ottoman Empire
Yükleniyor...
Tarih
2010
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bu çalışma, on sekizinci yüzyıldan ocağın kaldırılmasına kadar uzanan sürede patlak veren yeniçeri isyanlarının teknik aşamalarını irdelemektedir. Ayrıca, isyancılarla saray arasındaki meşruiyet mücadelesi, çalışmamızın bir diğer konu başlığıdır. Başkentte patlak veren dört büyük isyan bir arada değerlendirilerek, Osmanlı isyanlarının karakteristik özelliklerine ve isyanlarda izlenilen meşruiyet pratiklerine ışık tutulması hedeflenmiştir. Çalışmamızda kullandığımız metot dâhilinde, 1703, 1730, 1807 ve 1826 isyanlarını konu alan yazma eserler karşılaştırılmış, müelliflerin, eserlerini oluşturdukları süreçteki niyetleri ve getirmiş oldukları yorumlara odaklanılmıştır. Argümanların devamlılığını gözlemlemek için, 1703 ve 1730 isyanları ile 1807 ve 1826 isyanları iki ayrı grupta incelenmiştir. 1703 ve 1730 isyanlarının ortak noktası, isyancıların kendi çıkarları doğrultusunda padişaha yakın olan ve rakiplerini bu sayede eleyen politik kişilikleri hedef almalarıdır. Bunun sonucunda, tecrit edilen gruplar, eski mevki ya da ayrıcalıklarını yeniden kazanmak için isyancılara destek vermiştir. 1807 ve 1826 isyanlarında ise, isyancılar, politik kişilikleri değil, belli bir kurumu hedeflemişlerdir. Bu isyanlarda, saray ve isyancılar arasında daha katmerli bir meşruiyet mücadelesi yaşanmıştır. Çalışmamızda bu dört isyanın seçilmesinin nedeni, olayların karakteristik özelliklerinin benzeşmesidir. İsyanlarda izlenilen ortak adımlar ve meşruiyet süreçleri bu doğrultuda incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, isyanlar karşılaştırılarak, farklı vakalarda izlenilen meşruiyet süreçlerindeki ?eğer var ise- değişimler ve bu değişimlerin müelliflerin eserlerinde öne sürdükleri argümanlar üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilmiştir.
This study aims to discuss the technical procedures of the janissary-led or involved rebellions, legitimisation patterns and the role of religious discourse as a tool of legitimization from the eighteenth century to the abolishment of the janissaries. The starting point of our study is the legitimisation issue in the abolishment of the janissaries. However, in the light of four mainstream rebellions we aimed to discuss the particularities of the rebellions against the Ottoman administration. The method of our analysis is to focus on the inter-textual dialogues of the contemporary authors, their authorial intentions and interpretations in composing the narratives of the 1703, 1730, 1807 and 1826 rebellions and the factors, forming the reasoning of the contemporary authors. As for the continuity of the arguments, it would be safe to categorize the rebellion of 1703 and 1730 as one group and 1807 and 1826 as another group. The common point of the rebellions in the first group is that the rebels had targeted certain political figures that dominantly excluded their political rivals out of the competition. Hence, these groups realigned under the cause of the rebels to reclaim their standing or privileges. Concerning the rebellions in the second group, their opposition was against an institution. The power struggle among the different parties concentrated on the manner of establishment of this new and western institution. Thus, the legitimisation battle within the rebellions of 1807 and 1826 have more complex and sophisticated structure as both sides asserted legitimacy which depended on different reasoning. A common motive for selecting these rebellions is that similar characteristics of the events and practices allow us to gain a deeper insight into the legitimisation process of the events. By following such a comparative method, we also aim to observe if there was a change in the legitimisation practices of different events which depended on different factors. And if there are some changes, which of these factors had influenced the contemporary authors to develop their arguments.
This study aims to discuss the technical procedures of the janissary-led or involved rebellions, legitimisation patterns and the role of religious discourse as a tool of legitimization from the eighteenth century to the abolishment of the janissaries. The starting point of our study is the legitimisation issue in the abolishment of the janissaries. However, in the light of four mainstream rebellions we aimed to discuss the particularities of the rebellions against the Ottoman administration. The method of our analysis is to focus on the inter-textual dialogues of the contemporary authors, their authorial intentions and interpretations in composing the narratives of the 1703, 1730, 1807 and 1826 rebellions and the factors, forming the reasoning of the contemporary authors. As for the continuity of the arguments, it would be safe to categorize the rebellion of 1703 and 1730 as one group and 1807 and 1826 as another group. The common point of the rebellions in the first group is that the rebels had targeted certain political figures that dominantly excluded their political rivals out of the competition. Hence, these groups realigned under the cause of the rebels to reclaim their standing or privileges. Concerning the rebellions in the second group, their opposition was against an institution. The power struggle among the different parties concentrated on the manner of establishment of this new and western institution. Thus, the legitimisation battle within the rebellions of 1807 and 1826 have more complex and sophisticated structure as both sides asserted legitimacy which depended on different reasoning. A common motive for selecting these rebellions is that similar characteristics of the events and practices allow us to gain a deeper insight into the legitimisation process of the events. By following such a comparative method, we also aim to observe if there was a change in the legitimisation practices of different events which depended on different factors. And if there are some changes, which of these factors had influenced the contemporary authors to develop their arguments.
