Osman I

Turkish military leader

• Born: c. 1258
• Birthplace: Söğüt (now in Turkey)
• Died: 1326
• Place of death: Söğüt, Ottoman Empire (now in Turkey)

Under Osman’s patient and steady leadership, the influence and territorial extent of his principality expanded until it arose as a regional power, which, as the Ottoman Empire, ultimately became one of the great powers of the early modern world.

Early Life

When Osman (ahs-MAHN), the son of Ertuǧrul, was born in northwestern Anatolia at Söǧüt, much of the surrounding area was held by Turkish tribes that had moved into that region in the wake of widespread political upheaval. The Seljuk sultanate, which had displaced Byzantine power, increasingly began to weaken under Mongol pressure from the east, and separate march lords arose in border areas. Ertuǧrul, as a leading noble, was granted lands about 90 miles (150 kilometers) southeast of Constantinople in return for his service as a commander on behalf of the Seljuk sultan. Some Turkish materials maintain that Ertuǧrul and his associates were from the Kayı, one of the Oǧuz tribes that had earlier played a major role in the settlement of Asia Minor. Relatively little is known specifically about Osman’s youth. One explanation of his given name has cited an Arabic form, ՙUthmān, which would seem to signify an early acquaintance with Islam; another version has suggested that it was taken from the Turkish name Ataman. Osman succeeded his father in 1281 or 1288; some have speculated that as an octogenarian, Ertuǧrul yielded power before his death.

Various quaint tales have been recounted about Osman’s early life. It is known that for advice he turned to Edebali, who was respected as a wise and venerable old man. There probably is as much legend as fact to the account that Osman had a dream showing great rivers of the world outlined against a tree, which Edebali interpreted as a sign that his achievements would bring great and lasting renown on his house. Other claims that Osman’s fame as the founder of a mighty dynasty was foretold in portents from his own time may well have been the concoctions of later annalists. As the sheikh of a dervish order, Edebali may have exercised some spiritual influence on Osman; some accounts maintain that he urged the Qur՚ān on Osman as a condition of marrying his daughter. Osman had two wives, and among the nine children born to his household were Alāeddin, who became an important administrator, and Orhan, his eventual successor.

Life’s Work

After he assumed power, Osman began a series of military campaigns that gradually cleared a path for the growth of his state. In the process, Turkish as well as Greek opponents had to be confronted. His first conquest of note was achieved in 1288, when he drove the neighboring Germiyan tribe from Karacahisar, to the south of his birthplace. At about that time he also wrested İnegöl, to the west, from Greek lords. Osman’s armies captured outposts such as Bilecik and Körprühisar, which lay northwest of Söǧüt in the direction of Nicaea (İznik). When Turkmen chieftains to the north relented in their raids on Byzantine positions, Osman’s troops began to operate in that region as well. Some sources suggest that Osman conspired to murder his uncle (or cousin) Dündar, whom he may have regarded as a potential rival within his own ranks. Osman began to assert personal sovereignty by having his name read in the hutbe, or religious invocation, which customarily was delivered during Friday services. By 1299, Osman was sufficiently powerful to be able to terminate payments to Seljuk rulers or their Mongol suzerains. It seems more likely, however, that some form of tribute was disbursed during the early fourteenth century until this practice was discontinued after his death.

By this time, Osman’s warriors were in a position to disrupt access along routes leading from Constantinople to inland cities; further raids were also mounted across the frontier. A decisive engagement came about when a Byzantine force, determined to check Turkish incursions, embarked on an expedition that marked the first effort on the part of the central government to meet the challenge of Ottoman power. At Bapheus (Koyunhisar), near Nicomedia (İzmit), on July 27, 1302, an army of about two thousand men met a Turkish force later estimated at about five thousand troops. Osman’s men, who excelled in cavalry tactics, carried out a series of charges that broke through the lines of their heavily armored adversaries. They were prevented from turning this action into a rout only by the stalwart defense of Slavic mercenaries in the Byzantines’ rear guard. Thereafter, Osman was left in a position to consolidate his gains. Although some action was necessary to repel Tatar irruptions in lands to the south, major objectives involved the reduction of Byzantine resistance in areas where Ottoman forces could dominate the countryside. By 1308, several fortresses were captured that brought Osman’s armies within range of Prousa (Bursa), northwest of Mount Olympus, or Uludaǧ. Moreover, Ottoman units had already reached the Black Sea and by this time also ranged as far as the Sea of Marmara. An arc was thus drawn about that corner of Anatolia to hem in Byzantine holdings on their southern and eastern frontiers. Subsequently, Osman remained steadfast in his determination to subdue his opponents by landward expansion leading to the encirclement of local strongholds.

The nature of government under Osman has been represented in several ways, and it may well have been that there were some variations in the practices that he employed. Osman himself has been described as having swarthy features, with dark hair and a dark beard; he had long arms and was well built. He was reputed to have been a good horseman. When centuries later his portrait was made to show him as the first of his dynasty, he was depicted seated on his throne, a regal figure with a solemn and pensive demeanor. Throughout his rule, Osman was known as bey (provincial governor); the title of sultan came into use only during the late fourteenth century. While for a time he had resided in Karacahisar, after about twelve years Osman made Yenişehir his capital, possibly because of its location on a line south of Nicaea and east of Prousa. The extent to which Islamic conceptions of war and administration were important for early Ottoman institutions has been disputed. Different approaches indeed may have been used as Osman and his staff increasingly had to deal with diverse peoples in their vicinity. While in time later historians, both Ottoman and Western, often contended that the new state owed its expansion to the practice of ghāza, or war for the faith, divisions along religious lines may not have been so sharply drawn as was the case during subsequent periods of struggle. The nucleus of Osman’s army was composed of Turkish warriors who had settled in western Anatolia with their leaders.

Disorders and internecine conflict in other parts of Asia Minor probably led to the flight of Turkmen bands, which tended increasingly to settle on the frontier; some of them may have joined Osman’s forces. When news of Osman’s feats was received in other Muslim lands, men from adjoining areas also enrolled themselves in his armies. The distinction between religious warfare and raids into outlying Byzantine lands, however, may not have been very great, and for that matter villagers involved in local turmoil may have elected to support the Ottomans. Fiscal exactions on the part of Greek authorities quite possibly hastened this process. Some townspeople may also have valued the relative security provided by Ottoman rule. There is also evidence that in some cases lands were obtained by purchase or through marriages involving the families of local seigneurs. Some materials refer to the service of Greek Orthodox Christians with Osman’s army. While many of them apparently embraced their commander’s Muslim faith, forced conversion was not carried out as a matter of policy among conquered peoples at large. A certain number of renegades rose to important positions in the service of the Ottoman state. One of them, who became known as Köse Mihal, was from a prominent Greek family. After he was captured during an early raid, he became one of Osman’s advisers on military matters. Moreover, while political authority was exercised on a local level through Osman’s family, particularly his sons, who governed particular cities and towns, religious preferences were not always decisive on more basic concerns. It is known that at times Osman intervened to prevent Christians from being treated unfairly by Muslim merchants, and he also opposed the wholesale depredation of villages in Bithynia.

Apart from the outcome of military undertakings, not much is known about the last years of Osman’s rule. In 1317, his son Orhan captured Atranos (Orhaneli), southwest of Mount Olympus. The Ottomans increasingly began to mobilize large armies to provide a show of strength that might daunt beleaguered Byzantine garrisons. A report from about 1330 maintained that the Ottomans could put about forty thousand men into the field. Although this estimate may have been exaggerated, it has been taken as indicative of the growing strength of Ottoman forces during that period. In 1321, the maritime city of Mudanya, 45 miles (70 kilometers) from Constantinople, was taken, and thus a logistical connection that was vital for the defense of Prousa was severed. While Ottoman armies also encircled Nicaea, preparing for its eventual capture under Orhan in 1331, want and deprivation gradually began to weaken the Byzantine defenders further south. The capture of Prousa, which as Bursa in its turn became the capital of the Ottoman state, was accomplished finally with minimum fighting. When it yielded, on April 6, 1326, Osman evidently had been inactive for some time; it is recorded that he received word from Orhan of the city’s fall while he was on his deathbed. The source of his final illness has been described as an infirmity of the limbs. He had returned to Söǧüt, and when he died later that year, he left his son an enlarged and strategically situated state with a growing military tradition that had already proved its capacity to endure struggle and conflict.

Significance

During the generations that followed, Ottoman power was established in other parts of Anatolia, and by the late fourteenth century significant conquests had been achieved in the Balkan peninsula as well. After certain setbacks, notably in the wake of Tamerlane’s incursions into Asia Minor, sultans of the fifteenth century proceeded to subdue other lands in Europe and Asia.

In 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottomans, while elsewhere further expansion was carried out. Once the Ottoman Empire had become a great power, with its own distinctive ethos and means of government, historians began to trace the origins of the Ottoman state and in many instances attempted to find lofty antecedents and edifying principles in the acts of past rulers. In an early form, this tendency appeared in writers such as the poet-historian Ahmedi (1334?-1413). Other chronicles, such as those of Aşıkpaşazâde (1400-after 1484) and Neşri (d. c. 1520), which also formed the basis for later historical studies, depicted religious themes and doctrines of holy war in ways meant to stress the elements of continuity they contended had existed throughout Ottoman history.

Moreover, genealogical claims were added whereby the house of Osman was asserted to have descended from Noah and other illustrious figures. Occasionally, other legends were incorporated into historical writings. As a result, quite apart from obvious overstatements and embellishments, many of the ideals and principles of the ascendant Ottoman state were also attributed to Osman and his immediate successors. Traditions of this sort came to be regarded as part of Osman’s heritage, and the epithet gazi often accompanied his name.

Even during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, such conceptions were widely accepted. During the first part of the twentieth century, some modifications were introduced, but the importance of religious warfare for the early Ottoman state was propounded in studies that otherwise showed more critical assessments of the sources and evidence that were available. Other scholars, however, have pointed to latitudinarian aspects of politics in frontier areas. Economic and demographic issues, in a broader context, have also been considered significant.

There is still much that remains murky about Osman’s life and work, and many details will perhaps remain beyond the realm of historical knowledge. The importance of his accomplishments, however, remains evident: By the unswerving and methodical pursuit of his objectives, Osman elevated his state to a position of consequence alongside other principalities, and his methods of rule facilitated the transition from Byzantine to Ottoman administration in a vital portion of Asia Minor. Although the success of his endeavors also depended on the lassitude of Byzantine government, and certainly he and his successors benefited from the fragmentation of political authority that affected much of the area, the combination of resolute persistence in military efforts and pragmatic administration of internal concerns was essential in Osman’s role as the founder of the state that came to bear his name.

The Ottoman Sultans Through the Byzantine Conquest, c. 1281-1453

Reign

• Sultan

c. 1281/88-1326

• Osman (ՙOsmān) I

1326-1362

• Orhān I

1362-1389

• Murad I

1389-1402

• Bayezid I

1402-1421

• Mehmed I

1421-1444

• Murad II

1444-1446

• Mehmed II

1446-1451

• Murad II (second rule)

1451-1481

• Mehmed II (second rule)

1453

• Fall of Constantinople, end of the Byzantine Empire

Bibliography

Acun, Fatma. “A Portrait of the Ottoman Cities.” Muslim World 92, nos. 3-4 (Fall, 2002). A comprehensive and detailed historical survey of the cities of the Ottoman Empire, beginning in medieval times. Argues that the Ottomans administered their empire in a flexible manner, incorporating local customs in government and in architecture. Discusses Turkish settlement in Anatolia, Osman’s birthplace, starting in the eleventh century.

Cahen, Claude. Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 1071-1330. Translated by J. Jones-Williams. New York: Taplinger, 1968. As an essential contribution to modern understanding of early Turkish states in Anatolia, this study considers political developments alongside an analysis of the social problems that affected the formation of the Seljuk sultanate and later principalities. The author, a noted French specialist, does not deal particularly with matters of personality or biography; rather, his work is useful in pointing to the broader historical forces that led to the eventual emergence of the Ottoman Empire.

Gibbons, Herbert Adams. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire: A History of the Osmanlis up to the Death of Bayezid I (1300-1403). New York: Century, 1916. This work is one of the more useful older studies of Ottoman history. Subsequent research has modified some conclusions, supplied details where formerly these were lacking, and turned away from the author’s conceptions about early national and dynastic alignments. Nevertheless, as a narrative account this effort still warrants consideration. Osman’s life and rule are discussed in the first chapter. Extensive bibliography.

Goodwin, Jason. Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Picador, 2003. A history of the Ottoman Turks beginning in 1288. Looks at the empire’s artistic achievements, the first use of the cannon in the seizure of Constantinople, religious tolerance and the empire’s longevity, harems, and more. Illustrations, maps, bibliography, index.

Inalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600. Translated by Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber. London: Phoenix Press, 2000. An important survey by a prominent modern scholar, this work is useful largely for its treatment of Ottoman institutions as they developed during the heyday of the empire. Although historical events are discussed in a cursory fashion, economic relations and the structure of government are considered in specific terms where fundamental patterns of administration are concerned. Bibliography, index.

Inalcik, Halil. “The Question of the Emergence of the Ottoman State.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 2 (1981): 71-79. A useful and important, though brief, restatement of historical theories regarding the Ottomans’ position with respect to neighboring states; some emphasis is placed on population movements and military factors where they affected political developments.

Jennings, Ronald C. “Some Thoughts on the Gazi-Thesis.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 76 (1986): 151-161. This article considers problems with the theory of holy war as a factor promoting early Ottoman conquests. The author comments favorably on arguments that evidence from later times has been taken too readily as applicable also to the period of Osman and his immediate successors.

Lindner, Rudi Paul. Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia. Bloomington: Research for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 1983. A number of primary materials and anthropological studies have been used in this important work of scholarship and interpretation. In considering ways in which previous explanations for the Ottoman ascendancy have been inadequate, the author contends that often enough Muslim and Christian peoples worked together, and thus warfare for the faith was not always an inseparable part of Ottoman ideology.

Runciman, Steven. The Fall of Constantinople, 1453. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. This study by a distinguished Byzantinist, originally published in 1965, is probably the standard work in English on the famous siege. Attention to scholarly detail does not impede the retelling of enthralling and tragic episodes from the last days of the city’s resistance to the Ottomans. Illustrations, maps, bibliography, index.

Wittek, Paul. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. 1938. Reprint. New York: B. Franklin, 1971. This brief study, which concisely summarizes many of the conclusions reached by an influential scholar, is significant as an exposition of the thesis that religious warfare supplied major impetus in the advance of Turkish states on the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire. Bibliography.