Discerning The Truth About Osman Gazi

10 Pages 2605 Words

e for the source-starved Ottoman historians. Asikpasazade writes extensively about “Osman Ghazi”—from his prophetic dream (which was interpreted by Edebali to show that Osman would become a powerful leader of a powerful empire) through his reign as the ruler of the fledgling empire, and subsequent death. The chronicle is littered with smatterings of Asikpasazade’s political partiality and propaganda, and he makes Osman into the epitome of an archetypal hero, playing off the reader’s natural tendency to root for the underdog. There are endless references to Osman’s munificence and self-determination, and much emphasis put on how moral and fair he was. Asikpasazade even includes a rather mundane legacy for such a powerful person. Since he provides no evidence as to where the legacy came from, it is possible that it was fabricated by Asikpasazade himself to show the humbleness and generosity of Osman. The Ottoman ruler had “no silver or gold” leading us to believe that whatever booty they acquired in the Gaza was put back into the Ghazi, thus making Osman look about as pious as a fundamentalist Muslim could be at the time.
But just how dedicated of a Muslim was Osman? Historians have wondered about this very question for hundreds of years. Some, like Paul Wittek, take the stance that fighting the Gaza against the infidels was the impetus for waging war and expending the empire. Others, like Heath Lowry, take the opposite stance and suggested that religion played no role (that is, that there was no Ghazi ethos) while the desire for pillaging and glory became the idée fixe of the early Ottomans. Without deep examination of the evidence, both of these arguments can seem convincing. It is only possible, though, for Osman to have truly been compelled by one of the two aforementioned theses. This is because no pious Muslim of the time would believe that anything could compete with God’s will, therefore if Osman ...