State and Society in The Balkans Before Ottoman Conquest

The Institute of History Belgrade
Collection of Works, vol. 35
Yunus Emre Enstitüsü

Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade
STATE AND SOCIETY

IN THE BALKANS
BEFORE AND AFTER
ESTABLISHMENT
OF OTTOMAN RULE
Editors in chief
Srđan Rudić
Selim Aslantaş
Belgrade 2017.
Reviewers
Professor Rossitsa Gradeva, PhD

(American University in Bulgaria, Blagoevgrad)
Prof. Esad Kurtović, PhD
(University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy)
Olga Zirojević, PhD
(Institute of History Belgrade)
Editorial Board
Selim Aslantaş (Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade)

Hatice Oruç (Ankara University)
Aşkın Koyuncu (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University)
Dragi Gjorgiev (Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje)
Rossitsa Gradeva (American University in Bulgaria)
Neven Isailović (Institute of History Belgrade)
Srđan Katić (Institute of History Belgrade)
Machiel Kiel (Netherlands Institute in Turkey)
Nenad Moačanin (Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts)
Srđan Rudić (Institute of History Belgrade)
This book has been published with the financial support of

the Ministry of the Education, Science and Tehnologial Development
of the Republic of Serbia and
Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Marko Šuica
EFFECTS OF THE EARLY OTTOMAN CONQUESTS
ON THE STATE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
OF THE LAZAREVIĆ PRINCIPALITY 7
Neven Isailović
LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE VLACHS OF THE BALKANS
BEFORE AND AFTER OTTOMAN CONQUEST: AN OVERVIEW 25
Miloš Ivanović
CYRILLIC CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE COMMUNE
OF RAGUSA AND OTTOMANS FROM 1396 TO 1458 43
Adrian Magina
IN THE HANDS OF THE TURKS. CAPTIVES FROM SOUTHERN
HUNGARY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (14–16TH CENTURIES) 65
Emir O. Filipović
THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST AND THE DEPOPULATION
OF BOSNIA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 79
Srdjan Rudić
BOSNIAN NOBILITY AFTER THE FALL
OF THE KINGDOM OF BOSNIA IN 1463 103
Aleksandar Krstić
“WHICH REALM WILL YOU OPT FOR?” –
THE SERBIAN NOBILITY BETWEEN THE OTTOMANS
AND THE HUNGARIANS IN THE 15TH CENTURY 129
Machiel Kiel
THE OTTOMAN CASTLE OF RAM (HARAM) IN SERBIA
AND THE ACCOUNTS OF ITS CONSTRUCTION, 1491 165
Hatice Oruç
THE CITY OF VIŠEGRAD BASED ON FIFTEENTH
AND SIXTEENTH CENTURY TAHRIR DEFTERS 191
Ayşe Kayapinar, Levent Kayapinar

APPLICATION OF DERBEND ORGANIZATION IN THE BALKANS:
AN EXAMPLE OF CONTINUITY OF BALKAN INSTITUTIONS
IN THE OTTOMAN SYSTEM 205
Dragi Gjorgiev
SOME ASPECTS OF SPREADING OF ISLAM
IN MACEDONIA (XV–XVI C.) 223
Dragana Amedoski
INTRODUCTION OF RICE CULTURE
IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS (15TH AND 16TH CENTURY) 235
Güneş Işiksel
MANAGING COHABITATION AND CONFLICT:
FRONTIER DIPLOMACY IN THE DALMATIAN FRONTIER
(1540–1646) 256
Aşkın Koyuncu
KAVÂNINI YENIÇERIYÂN AND THE RECRUITMENT OF
BOSNIAN MUSLIM BOYS AS DEVSHIRME RECONSIDERED 283
Nenad Moačanin
DIVISION OF CIZYEPAYERS INTO THREE CLASSES
AS FORESHADOWED IN THE PREREFORM 17TH CENTURY
“PSEUDOMUFASSALS“ 319
Ema Miljković
FROM “DHIMMITUDE“ TO TURKISM – CONFESSIONAL
AND ETHNIC POLICY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE 331
LIST OF AUTHORS 351

The establishment of Ottoman rule in the Balkans led to changes in its
political, religious, demographic, ethnic, cultural, economic and social picture.
The most distinct changes took place in the political and religious domain –
numerous divided little Christian states gave way to a strong Islamic state.
In time, the process Islamisation of the domestic population strengthened,
with Islam becoming dominant in some parts of the Balkans compared to
Christianity. In parallel with the processes of discontinuity, the processes of
continuity unfolded as well. The Ottoman state was building its internal struc
ture by relying, among other, on various practices of political, legal, econom
ic and social development of medieval Balkan states. These practices survived
within the Ottoman state, which embraced and adapted them for its own needs.
They were manifested in various forms of continuity and change, which was
one of the characteristics of the Ottoman social organisation.
Knowledge about the complete picture of processes unfolding in the
Balkans during Ottoman rule is still far from satisfactory. This is partly due to
the fact that the research conducted so far has been largely diffused in view of
the wide area encompassed by the Ottoman state. In contemporary scientific
discourse, this has implied, as a rule, individual, regional researches of small
er areas delving into some thematic fields only. Such an approach was not con
ducive to systematic grouping of knowledge units, while at the same time, lin
guistic differences in research did not facilitate comparative analyses which
could lead to the exchange of scientific arguments at the international level.
Furthermore, some issues have remained insufficiently explored, while some
have not been even raised in researches carried out so far.
The Conference Proceedings STATE AND SOCIETY IN THE BALKANS
BEFORE AND AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF OTTOMAN RULE are the
result of cooperation between the Institute of History Belgrade and the Turkish
Cultural Centre – Yunus Emre Enstitüsü (Belgrade). They contain papers of
seventeen authors from seven countries, who have tried, each in his/her own
way, to cover some issues in the field of the history of the Balkans between the
14th and 17th centuries.
The objective of these Proceedings is to encourage further interest in the
history of the Balkans under Ottoman rule, to summarise the results achieved
so far, and to highlight new directions of research.
Editorial Board
UDC: 316.343:94(497.11)”13/14”
Marko ŠUICA
EFFECTS OF EARLY OTTOMAN CONQUESTS

ON THE STATE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
OF THE LAZAREVIĆ PRINCIPALITY*
Abstract: The topic relates to the historical issues defining the political and social
outline of the Lazarević Principality in the reflection of the early Ottoman conquests
in the Balkans. The timeframe covers the period of the late 14th up to the beginning of
the 15th century. The article deals with the concrete effects of the early Ottoman
conquest on social mobility that the Lazarević Principality experienced in the
mentioned period. The direct and implicit Ottoman political and military actions
induced certain historical processes and specific changes in the political and social
milieu in Serbian feudal states. The influence of the early Ottoman conquests had both
positive and negative aspects on the development of the Lazarević Principality. The
social changes within the Principality caused by different factors adjusted to the new
political setting under the rule of Yildirim Bayezid. During the early period of Ottoman
conquests the hierarchy of the nobility in the Lazarević Principality went through
several different substantial alterations.
Keywords: Prince Stefan Lazarević, Lazarević Principality, nobility, social
structure, Ottomans, Yildirim Bayezid.
The late 14th century in the Balkans is marked with certain internal and
external political phenomena that initiated significant changes of the elite
social class in Christian states. The gradual disintegration of the Serbian
central state and the abrupt political rise of the Serbian nobility concurred
with the appearance of the Ottomans and their conquests in southeastern
Europe. These two different and separate processes overlapped with the
restructuring of states and social capacity in the central Balkans.
*
This article is the result of the project No177025 of the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
7
Marko Šuica
The immense political changes that struck the Serbian Empire

reflected on the state hierarchy and redistribution of political power
among the Serbian nobility. Subsequently, the effects of these changes
were also present among Serbian regional feudatories under the
governance of the highest nobility when the Serbian Empire
disintegrated. After the decisive Battle at Chernomen (1371), the
influence of the Ottoman foreign policy on central Serbian principalities
increased, but only after the Battle of Kosovo (1389) it became persistent
and prevailing.1 Soon after prince Lazar’s death in the Battle, his
principality, although exposed to different political influences and
agendas, succumbed under the Ottoman supreme authority. The
uniqueness and political significance of the Lazarević Principality at the
end of the 14th century rested on its geopolitical position, military
capacity, and uniqueness built upon the Nemanjić legacy.2 Therefore,
its vassal position within the Ottoman polity had farreaching
implications on Ottoman Balkan warfare, especially regarding filling in
the manpower shortage.3
Since the first Ottoman intrusion into the prince Lazar’s Principality
in 1380/1381 until the Battle of Ankara in 1402, the nobility from this
Principality experienced several minor or greater changes. The question
that emerges is to what extent high society alterations and upheaval in
the Lazarević Principality were initiated by direct Ottoman political or
military pressure, and how much they were influenced by the side effects
of the Ottoman conquests in the Balkans. Once transformed from the
local military episode to the irreversible historical process after the Battle
of Kosovo, the early Ottoman conquests had twofold effects on the
survival and political life of the Lazarević Principality. It is obvious that
Ottoman martial progress produced political, economic and existential
1
C. Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481, Istanbul 1990, 42–47.
2
Р. Михаљчић, Лазар Хребељановић, историја, култ, предање, Београд 19892,
81; M. Шуица, Моравска Србија на крају XIV века – питање државноправног
континуитета у светлу ограниченог суверенитета, Моравска Србија,
Крушевац 2007, 37; С. Мишић, Од земаљског кнеза до кнеза Срба, уздизање до
владарске моћи, Власт и моћ – Властела Моравске Србије од 1365 до 1402.
године, Крушевац 2014, 12–17.
3
H. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, State University of New York
2003, 134–135.
8
Effects of the Early Ottoman Conquests on the State and Social Structure of the Lazarević Principality
instability among Christian states in the whole region.4 After the Battle
of Kosovo the military capacity and dominance of Ottomans in the
region served as the tool for the appeasement of internal political and
social turmoil within the Lazarević Principality. The sociopolitical
interactions within the Lazarević Principality caused by the Ottoman
conquests and policy in general, reshaped the structure and internal line
up of nobility. During the last decades of the 14th century the structure
of the nobility in the Lazarević Principality was interchanging within at
least five different, but not equally significant chronological phases.
1. The first phase coincides with the period of prince Lazar’s
unambiguous authority, the time when internal nobility’s hierarchy in
his state was not largely influenced by the Ottoman conquests.
2. The second stage began after the Battle of Kosovo (1389). The
Lazarević Principality was strongly affected by the consequences of the
battle itself and death of many noblemen, the vassals of prince Lazar.
This period characterises the social disorder that endangered the bare
existence of the Principality.
3. The third stage emerges after the direct intervention of the
Ottomans in the political breakdown of lord Vuk Branković (the sonin
law of prince Lazar and his wife princess Milica), when his territorial
domains, including the properties of his noblemen, were annexed to the
feudal domain of the Lazarević family. The changes in the composition
of nobility’s hierarchy were multifaceted. They are not explicitly
chronicled in the preserved sources and could not be documented in the
appropriate way, but they obviously afflicted the nobility of Lazarević
as well as nobility of the Branković dynasty.
4. The stage four relates to the sociopolitical commotion that covered
the period after the battle of Nicopolis (September 1396) until prince
Stefan’s visit to Sivas in the autumn of 1398. It was marked by the
consequences of an unsuccessful plot of Serbian noblemen, predominantly
dukes, against prince Stefan Lazarević in the spring of 1398. The
remodelling of the social pyramid in the Lazarević state at this stage was
directly induced by the political decisions of the Ottoman ruler, and
4
Ј. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, The University of Michigan Press 1996, 406–414;
Р. Мантран, Историја Османског царства, (Н. Ватен), Београд 2002, 39–47.
9
Marko Šuica
hazardous foreign politics of Prince Stefan Lazarević that reached its

peak in the violation of the vassal oath to Yildirim Bayezid.
5. The last stage covers the period on the eve of the Battle of Ankara
(1402). It is similar to stage three outlined in this list, but represents the
opposing process, i.e. the restoration of the Branković rule over their
Principality that was previously relinquished to the Lazarević family.
The Serbian noblemen that inhabited land properties (mostly in the
region of Kosovo) that had previously been confiscated from the
Branković family changed the suzerain, once again becoming dependent
on successors of Vuk Branković instead of prince Stefan Lazarević. This
historical occurrence reestablished former borderlines between two
bloodrelated families and remodelled the nobility’s structure in both
principalities. Once more, the prior political setting was influenced by
the decisions of Ottoman sultan Yildirim Bayezid.
Each of designated stages had internal distinctions mirrored in the
rise, existence or decline of certain aristocratic families and individuals
that were part of suzerainvassal relationships in the Lazarević
Principality.5 The common denominator for all phases is that each of
them was, in this way or another, linked to the Ottoman foreign policy
and its influence on the Christian states, i.e. Serbian principalities in the
Balkans. It is also important to underline that the regional geopolitical
setting influenced not only the political agenda of Serbian feudal/local
rulers and their subordinated nobility, but political actions and plans of
Yildirim Bayezid as well.6
Even though the lack of contemporary narrative sources impedes
more a detailed reconstruction of the outlined phenomena, it is possible
to extract relevant data from the charters, semiinformative inscriptions,
epistolary and other documents from the Ragusa state archive. However,
5
M. Шуица, Властела кнеза Стефана Лазаревића, Годишњак за друштвену
историју 1 (2004) 7–28; M. Ивановић, Структура властеоског слоја у држави
кнеза Лазара, Власт и моћ – Властела Моравске Србије од 1365. до 1402.
године, Крушевац 2014, 75–94; М. Ивановић, Властела у Житију деспота
Стефана Лазаревића од Константина Филозофа, Средњи век у српској науци,
историји, књижевности и уметности VII, Дани српскога духовног преображења
ХХIII, Деспотовац 2016, 41–56.
6
Х. Иналџик, Османско царство, класично доба 1300–1600, Београд 1974, 23–24.
10
The Life of Stefan Lazarević, the literary work written by Constantine the
Philosopher in the fourth decade of the 15th century, still subsists as one
of the most prominent and insightful historical sources on this period.
The main problem with this hagiography/biography that aggravates the
effort to get deeper into the reconstruction of the social processes of the
period is the lack of chronological consistency and the dispersed
narrative concept that Constantine implemented. Serbian historian
Miodrag Purković, one of the greatest experts for the work of
Constantine the Philosopher, wrote that the medieval author “almost
enjoyed being inexact or unclear…”.7 Bearing that in mind, researching
the Ottoman influence on social relations among nobility within the
Lazarević Principality by unravelling the historical coil Constantine the
Philosopher had knitted seems a delicate and tentative task.
***
The centralized and resilient state structure of prince Lazar’s

Principality from the beginning of the ninth decade of the 14th century
suffered a constant threat from the gradually ascending “fear of the
Turks”.8 This permanent state of alert kept his subordinated nobility
loyal, disciplined and prepared for the forthcoming warfare.9 The first
encounter with the Ottomans that probably brought some changes in the
organization and lineup of aristocracy was the breach of the Ottoman
army led by emir Murad I in the region of Toplica, south from Lazar’s
capital Kruševac. During this campaign in 1386, prince Lazar lost a very
important fortress and city of Niš on the strategic Via Militaris.10 His
acquisition of firearms afterwards and the demand addressed to the
merchants from Ragusa settled in the city and fortress of Novo Brdo
near Priština to provide guards and citadel wall reparations, were proof
7
M. Пурковић, Кнез и деспот Стефан Лазаревић, Београд 1979, 24.
8
Р. Радић, Страх у позној Византији 1180–1453 II, Београд 2000, 223–228.
9
М. Шуица, Немирно доба српског средњег века, Београд 2000, 164–166; M.
Ивановић, Структура властеоског слоја, 75–76.
10
S. Reinert, From Nis to Kosovo Polje, reflections on Murad I’s final years, Ottoman
Emirate (1300–1389), Crete University press Rethymnon 1993, 169–210.
11
Marko Šuica
that prince Lazar felt insecure and vulnerable.11 One hypothesis given by
historian Miloš Ivanović recently is that Ottoman pressure in other
regions of feudal local rulers caused the migration of lowerranked
feudal aristocracy to the state of prince Lazar, where they were bestowed
with feuds as part of vassal pledge.12 The lack of records in preserved
sources does not allow to conclude to what extent prince Lazar had to
reorganize the military and administrative structure in his Principality
after the loss of the Niš fortress on the eve of the Battle of Kosovo.
Nevertheless, the conjoint defence policy against the Ottomans planned
with his soninlaw Vuk Branković implied certain military alterations
that affected his aristocracy as well.13
The fact that only few exact names, titles and biographies of
noblemen from the Lazarević Principality could be outlined or
reconstructed in this survey, shows the challenges for every researcher
dealing with this topic. The actual extent and the structure of
reorganization of Lazarević aristocracy after the Battle of Kosovo (1389)
still puzzle historians. Several sacred liturgical texts devoted to the
sanctification of prince Lazar testify about the great loss of aristocracy
in the epic battle.14 Among them, the anonymous monks from the
Ravanica monastery and patriarch Danilo III were the most inspired.
But none of them is giving any information about the real situation in the
Lazarević Principality during the summer of 1389, after the death of
prince Lazar in the clash with the Ottomans. This reduced viewpoint is
somehow expected, regarding the nature of the sacred liturgical texts.
The records about the internal disorder and clashes in the Lazarević
Principality come from Constantine the Philosopher who is probably the
11
А. Младеновић, Повеље кнеза Лазара, Београд 2003, 192–193.
12
M. Ивановић, Властела државе српских деспота, unpublished PhD thesis,
Београд 2013, 87–88.
13
M. Шуица, Однос кнеза Лазара и Вука Бранковића у светлу дубровачких
исправа из 1387. године, Стари српски архив 9 (2010) 231–232; М. Шуица, О
могућој улози Вука Бранковића у Косовској бици – прилог разматрању
средњовековне ратне тактике, Споменица академика Симе Ћирковића,
Зборник радова, књ. 25 Историјски институт, Београд 2011, 232–237.
14
Ђ. Трифуновић, Српски средњовековни списи о кнезу Лазару и Косовском боју,
Крушевац 1968; Б. Бојовић, Краљевство и светост – политичка филозофија
средњовековне Србије, Београд 1999, 249–274.
12
only author that testifies about the bloodshed between the nobility, the
former prince Lazar’s vassals.15 According to him, the nobility in the
Lazarević Principality started mutual fights while “the others were
independent”; together they “like reptiles wanted to take over this land”
(i.e. Lazarević Principality).16 Prince Lazar’s aristocracy decimated at
the Kosovo battlefield left unprotected land properties, which were
exposed to the nobility who survived the clash with the Ottomans.17
Actually, very unclear and imprecise records do not allow conclusions
about the nature and degree of Ottoman pressure on the Lazarević
Principality after the Battle of Kosovo. Some sources that depict the
consequences of Ottoman raids are written in a vague and universal
manner typical for clerical liturgical genre, and therefore do not permit
any closer specification of the timeframe they refer to.18 Nevertheless,
the structure of aristocracy in the Lazarević’s feudal state after the Battle
of Kosovo changed. The Ottoman campaign had both direct and side
effects on the social consistence of the Lazarević Principality. The direct
consequence was the loss of noblemen at the Kosovo battlefield, while
indirect effects were noticeable in the struggle for the vacant land
properties and high aristocracy ranks in the Principality. Another
phenomenon that emerged in the aftermath of the Battle was vassal
infidelity toward the suzerain from the house of Lazarević. Some
members of former Lazar’s nobility, after his death stood against Lazar’s
closest family, probably in favor of lord Vuk Branković who tried to
impose himself as Lazar’s political successor and new rampart against
the Ottomans. In this respect, the best known is the case of certain duke
15
Константин Филозоф и његов живот Стефана Лазаревића деспота српског,
В. Јагић, Гласник Српског ученог друштва 42 (1895) 262–263; Константин
Филозоф, Живот Стефана Лазаревића деспота српског, прир. Г. Јовановић,
Београд 2007, 29–30; М. Благојевић, О издаји или невери Вука Бранковића,
Зборник Матице српске за историју 79−80 (2009) 28–30; M. Шуица,
Нарастање нових моћника, Власт и моћ – Властела Моравске Србије од 1365.
до 1402. године, Крушевац 2014, 25.
16
Константин Филозоф и његов живот Стефана Лазаревића, 262–263;
Константин Филозоф, Живот Стефана Лазаревића, 29–30.
17
M. Шуица, Властела кнеза Стефана, 10–11; М. Ивановић, Властела у
житију деспота Стефана, 43–44.
18
Списи о Косову, Стара српска књижевност у 24 књиге, Београд 1993, 133–134.
13
Marko Šuica
Obrad Dragosaljić, who belonged to the old generation of noblemen.19

Once loyal to prince Lazar, soon after the Battle he was disempowered
and dispossessed from his family domains after the unidentified
infidelity he committed. This case is mentioned in the charter issued by
prince Stefan Lazarević, his mother and brother dated vaguely in the
period 1392–1396.20 The confiscated land properties were immediately
given to the unnamed vassal, obviously the one who was loyal to the
dynasty. This example shows deep and sharp changes in the organization
of Lazarević’s aristocracy at the beginning of the last decade of the 14th
century. Yet, it is not known when and how another land property –
pronoia of Lazar’s vassal Mladen Psisin became vacant, later given to
nun Jevpraksija, relative of prince Stefan, but it shows that feudal
properties were changing the owners for different reasons.21 Sources do
not show the extent of these socioeconomic transformations that
afflicted the Lazarević Principality. Some noblemen, not mentioned by
name in preserved sources, were taking over the feudal properties that
became available by the grace of the Lazarević dynasty. It is still unclear
whether the principle explicated in chapter 31 of the Life of Stephen
Lazarević by Constantine the Philosopher that involved the promotion
of lower nobles (or even subjects belonging to lowgrade social classes)
into the higher rank was implemented already in this period of prince
Stefan’s rule, or they belong to the period of his later reign. The changes
in the status of certain noblemen (either promotion or degradation) were
clearly influenced by the effects of the Ottoman policy, at this stage
particularly conquest and permanent military pressure.
It is obvious that shortly after the Battle of Kosovo the internal state
structure of the Lazarević Principality was falling apart. In order to stay
in power, Lazar’s successors had to find a proper instrument to conserve
19
A. Младеновић, Повеље кнеза Лазара, 201–214; С. Милојевић, Мусићи,
Историјски часопис 33 (1986) 16–17; М. Шуица, Немирно доба, 110–112.
20
М. Шуица, Повеља кнеза Стефана Лазаревића о цркви Ваведења у Ибру,
Стари српски архив 3 (2004) 107–123; A. Младеновић, Повеље и писма деспота
Стефана, Београд 2007, 155–162.
21
А. Веселиновић, Повеља деспота Стефана Лазаревића деспотици Евпраксији,
Стари српски архив 1 (2002) 131–141; А. Младеновић, Повеље и писма деспота
Стефана, 175–182; M. Ивановић, Структура властеоског слоја, 88.
14
the social structure and prevent a further decline. The decision of the
incomplete state council called by Lazar’s widow, princess Milica, and
patriarch Spiridon, to make peace and subjugate to Yildirim Bayezid
was emotionally intimidating but the most pragmatic political exit for
Lazar’s family. What lingers as the riddle for historians is the hastiness
and determination in bringing this political decision. According to
relevant sources, the choice to break up the vassal relationship toward
Sigismund I of Luxembourg, the king of Hungary, and accept Yildirim
Bayezid as the sovereign was already made during the life and chairing
of Serbian Patriarch Spiridon who died on 11 August 1389. This means
that even before the Hungarian legal intrusion into the Lazarević
Principality, internal conflicts of the subordinated nobles and fear of new
political alliance between king Sigismund I and lord Vuk Branković
were decisive motives for the submission of princess Milica and Lazar’s
sons to the newly proclaimed Ottoman ruler.2 After all, it seems that the
Ottoman presence and supremacy were essential for calming down the
internal unrests in the disturbed demographic, especially aristocratic
setting. It was also important in preventing the political actions of Vuk
Branković that were endangering the autonomy and political primacy
of Lazar’s family in the Lazarević Principality. The shortage of sources
does not allow any concrete conclusion about the political impact of the
nobility that took part in the session of the State Council that stood
behind the decision of the Lazarević family to accept Yildirim Bayezid
as the supreme suzerain. It is not known who of the noblemen was
present and what was their stance regarding the decision to subordinate
to the Ottomans. It is possible that the mentioned infidelity of duke
Obrad dates from this event as well. Since there is no evidence about
the gathering of the State Council in other principalities, it is difficult to
identify and list the participants from the nobility who took part in
bringing crucial political decisions.
Within the next several years the Lazarević Principality was under
permanent pressure, either from the Kingdom of Hungary or the
22
M. Шуица, Вук Бранковић, славни и велможни господин, Београд 2014, 119–128;
Ђ. Харди, Прилог расправи о угарском нападу на Србију после Косовске битке,
Кнегиња Милица – монахиња Јевгенија и њено доба, Трстеник 2014, 83–90.
15
Marko Šuica
Ottoman Empire.23 According to sources, during the last decade of the

14th century some noblemen could not deal with the mentioned political
and existential extremes and took monastic vows. For example, unclear
is the case of nobleman Uglješa Desislalić, who was during his secular
life grand duke.24 He died in 1394 and was buried as monk Sava in the
Church of Virgin Mary near the Gornjak monastery in the Lazarević
Principality.25 It is not known when and why he left profane life, but
another nobleman of respectable family origin, known only under the
monk name Evsevije, explicitly said that he could not bear “the
heaviness of Bayezid’s rule” and therefore escaped to the Holy Mount
Athos.26 It is impossible to determine a closer timeframe of this event
too, but it remains to be the testimony of difficult times for members of
Serbian aristocracy. In the wake of the success on the Nicopolis
battlefield (September 1396), prince Stefan Lazarević and his family
received, as a prize, land properties formerly belonging to their cousins
from the Branković family. The scarce preserved sources do not give
the opportunity to reconstruct the social change that occurred during the
year 1397, i.e. what happened with the noblemen from the Branković
Principality at the time when prince Stefan and his brother took over
their estates. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Lazarević family secured
their rule in the newly enlarged territory. In Priština, the former capital
of the Branković Principality, they instituted kephalia Branko as the
governor and representative of their authority on local level.27
Another socially dynamic period disturbed the Lazarević Principality
when Yildirim Bayezid reconsidered his politics toward prince Stefan
23
В. Трпковић, Турскоугарски сукоби до 1402, Историјски гласник 1–2 (1959) 93–121.
24
M. Шуица, Немирно доба, 116; M. Ивановић, Структура властеоског слоја, 84.
25
Д. Мадас – А. Гајић, Надгробне плоче и гробови ктитора цркве Богородице
Пречисте у комплексу Ждрела у Горњачкој клисури, Саопштења 15 (1983) 234.
26
Љ. Стојановић, Стари српски записи и натписи IV, Београд 1986, 21, бр. 6107;
M. Шуица, Властела кнеза Стефана, 12–13.
27
Т. Živković, S. Bojanin, V. Petrović, Selected Charters of Serbian Rulers (XII–XV
Century), Centre for Studies of Byzantine Civilization, Athens 2000, 117–125; A.
Младеновић, Повеље и писма деспота Стефана, 165; M. Динић, Област
Бранковића, Српске земље у средњем веку, Београд 1978, 148–176; M.
Благојевић, Државна управа у српским средњовековним земљама, Београд
1997, 271–272; M. Шуица, Властела кнеза Стефана, 14–15.
16
Lazarević, during the year 1397. The political misbalances between

Serbian regions emerged with the imprisonment of Vuk Branković, and
unrestrained strengthening of prince Stefan Lazarević after the Battle of
Nicopolis.28 In the absence of a political counterbalance, sultan Yildirim
Bayezid started to support the mighty nobles who were subordinated to
the Lazarević dynasty, since the time of prince Lazar. The documents
from Ragusa, namely the letters addressed to prince Stefan and his vassal
Nikola Zojić testify about sociopolitical changes that were taking
place.29 Yildirim Bayezid’s political matrix in diminishing the influence
of his subjects was the leading principle in rearranging the political
setting within the Lazarević Principality. A secret convergence of prince
Stefan to his recent rival King Sigismund I of Luxemburg triggered the
chain of events that resulted in the unsuccessful plot of Serbian nobles
who were loyal to the Ottomans.30 The proOttoman party wanted to
change the sociopolitical order and deconstruct the aristocratic pyramid
in the Lazarević Principality by eliminating the intermediator, i.e. Prince
Stefan Lazarević, between them and the supreme ruler Yildirim Bayezid.
The full extent of the conspiracy is still unknown. It has not been
identified who else, beside dukes Nikola Zojić, Novak Belocrkvić and
certain Mihailo were engaged in the intrigue. The only source that gives
an explicit denouement of the plot is again The Life of Stefan Lazarević
by Constantine the Philosopher. After the collapse of the conspiracy,
many of Prince Stefan’s highest military nobles, who were at the same
time subjects of the sultan, were removed. Some of the disloyal vassals
were either executed or forced to take monastic vows. This political
cleansing, as well as the violation of the vassal oath to the sultan, prince
Stefan Lazarević had to justify before sultan Yildirim Bayezid
personally. The only source describing this traumatic episode is also
Constantine the Philosopher. In chapter 31 of his work, Prince Stefan’s
28
M. Шуица, Вук Бранковић, 165–168.
29
А. Младеновић Повеље и писма деспота Стефана, 23–24; М. Шуица, Писмо
Дубровчана Николи Зојићу, Стари српски архив 10 (2011) 123–128; M. Шуица,
Дубровачка писма: огледало друштвенополитичких промена у српским земаља
(1389–1402), Годишњак за друштвену историју 2 (2011) 29–49.
30
M. Шуица, Завера властеле против кнеза Стефана Лазаревића 1398. године,
Историјски гласник 1–2 (1997) 7–25.
17
Marko Šuica
biographer constructs the alleged dialogue between the sultan and his
repented vassal. The suzerain, Yldirim Bayezid, among many other
pieces of advice, also gives his servant the instruction how to reorganize
and discipline the aristocracy in his principality.31 Constantine the
Philosopher actually paraphrased the high society reform initiated to
reenergize the state administrative and military capacity of the Lazarević
state. This social commotion was not only important, but compulsory
for the reorganization of the army that was needed for the forthcoming
Ottoman military warfare against Timur Lenk at the beginning of the
15th century. We could only presume that reform of the nobility in the
Lazarević Principality was done before prince Stefan’s departure, or
almost immediately after his return from the court of Yildirim Bayezid in
Anatolia (1398). It is unclear whether chapter 47 of the same source, where
Constantine the Philosopher depicts the internal policy of Stefan Lazarević
and the structure of nobility, also designates the actions prince Stefan took
immediately after the suppression of the conspiracy in the year 1398, or
he refers to the events after the battle at Tripolje in the autumn of 1402.32
Some historians already noted that this chapter is not referring to a specific
time, and therefore leaves room for different interpretations.33 What
supports the speculation that this chapter could be describing the events
before the Battle of Ankara is the mention of the sultan, i.e. Yildirim
Bayezid in the similar context as in chapter 31. Nevertheless, it is
important to emphasize that the changes in the hierarchy of the Lazarević
nobility were influenced by the Ottoman policy.
The last substantial change within the structure of the social elite in
the Lazarević Principality occurred as part of restoration of the
Branković feudal region. This process was also induced by the Ottoman
political plans on the eve of the Battle of Ankara (1402).34 Although
lacking concrete records, it is rational to presume that during this process
of territorial changes, the Branković nobility, once subjugated by the
31
Константин Филозоф, Живот Стефана Лазаревића, 34–35.
32
Константин Филозоф, Живот Стефана Лазаревића, 47.
33
M. Ивановић, Властела државе српских деспота, 87.
34
M. Динић, Област Бранковића, 164–166.
18
Lazarević dynasty, returned with their land possessions under the reign
of Vuk Branković’s successors. The political change created a
misbalance within the internal social structure in the Lazarević
Principality, by decreasing the military and economic capacity of his
state and transferring it partly to the renewed Branković Principality.
The changes that affected Serbian nobility in the Lazarević
Principality at the end of 14th century were caused by different factors.
Among them the most important were initiated by the direct or
subsidiary effects of the Ottoman conquests and sultan’s policy.
Restructuring of the noblemen hierarchy had a strong influence on the
military, political and economic capacity of the Lazarević Principality.
Consequently, it reflected on the vassal position of the Lazarević
Principality within the whole system of Ottoman Christian vassal states,
particularly at the time of Yildirim Bayezid’s reign.
19
Marko Šuica
Marko ŠUICA
ERKEN OSMANLI FETIHLERIN LAZAREVIÇ

BÖLGESI`NDE DEVLET VE TOPLUM YAPISI
ÜZERINE ETKISI
Özet
Sırbistan’ın Morava bölgesindeki soylu sınıfının toplumsal yapısı,

14. yüzyılın son yirmi yılı boyunca Osmanlı fetihlerinin ve Osmanlı
hükümdarlarının siyasi ve diplomatik stratejilerinin sonucu olarak büyük
değişimler geçirdi. Bu çalışmada, Lazareviç devletinin soylular
tabakasının değişimlerine ait beş aşama tespit edildi. Bu değişimlerin
bazıları doğrudan doğruya savaş benzeri çatışmalardan kaynaklanırken,
diğer bir kısmı ise soyluların bölgedeki içsel hareketlilikleriyle meydana
geldi. Kosova muharebesinin (1389) ardından Balkan yarımadasının orta
bölgelerine doğru Osmanlı askeri ilerlemesi, Lazareviç’lere tabi olan
soylular arasındaki iç çatışmayı tetikledi. Muharebeden sonra hayatta
kalan Sırp soyluları, muharebe alanında erkek mensuplarını kaybeden
asil ailelerinin arazilerine el koydu. Bu şekilde, vassal hiyerarşisi
bozularak knez Lazar’ın haleflerine sadakat yemininden dönülmüş
olundu. Lazareviç bölgesinde toplumsal yapının değişimleri farklı
şekillerde meydana geliyordu. Örneğin, tarihi kaynakların gösterdiği
üzere, soyluların bir kısmı Osmanlı baskısının sonucu olarak keşişlik
yemini ederek dünya hayatını terkediyordu. Niğbolu muharebesinin
(1396) ardından, Vuk Brankoviç’in Osmanlılara karşı politikasının
çöküşü de, Lazareviç’lerin hükümetinde olan bölgedeki güç ve etki
geçişini ilgilendiren sosyopolitik sürecin önemli bir parçasıydı. Osmanlı
sultanı Yıldırım Bayezid bu süreci destekledi. Stefan Lazareviç,
Brankoviç ailesinin tuttuğu bölgeleri ve araziyi kendisi üstüne geçirerek
bu topraklarda mevcut olan soylular üzerine hükümetini kurdu. Özellikle
Asiller Komplosu (1398) sırasında ortaya çıkan toplumsal hareketlilikler,
Lazareviç bölgesinde 14. yüzyılın sonunda seçkin sınıfını ilgilendiren
toplum değişimlerini yansıtmaktadır. Son büyük değişim, Ankara
muharebesinden (1402) hemen önce Brankoviç bölgesinin yeniden
düzenlenmesi sırasında meydana geldi. Sonuç olarak denilebilir ki,
20
Balkan yarımadasında 14. yüzyılın sonlarında Osmanlı hükümdarlarının

fetih ve genişleme siyasetleri, Lazareviç bölgesi`ndeki asiller tabakasının
içerik ve yapısını büyük ölçüde etkiledi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Despot Stefan Lazareviç, Lazareviç devleti,
asalet, toplumsal yapı, Osmanlılar, Yıldırım Bayezid.
21
Marko Šuica
Марко ШУИЦА
ПОСЛЕДИЦЕ РАНИХ ОСМАНЛИЈСКИХ ОСВАЈАЊА НА

ДРЖАВУ И ДРУШТВЕНУ СТРУКТУРУ
ОБЛАСТИ ЛАЗАРЕВИЋА
Резиме
Током последње две деценије 14. века структура највишег

друштвеног слоја у моравској Србији у више наврата је претрпела
измене изазване османлијским освајањима или последицама
политичке и дипломатске стратегије османлијских владара. У раду
је идентификовано пет фаза у којима су се одиграле промене
властеоског слоја у држави Лазаревића. Неке од њих су уследиле
као последица директних губитака у ратним окршајима, док су
друге настале услед интерних кретања племства унутар области.
Османлијско војно напредовање ка централним деловима
Балканског полуострва након Косовске битке (1389) иницирало је
и унутарње превирање и сукобе међу властелом потчињеном
Лазаревићима. Српско племство које је преживело битку запосело
је земљишне поседе оних властеоских породица које су изгубиле
своје мушке чланове на бојном пољу. На тај начин кршена је
вазална хијерархија и отказивана лојалност наследницима кнеза
Лазара. Промене друштвене структуре у области Лазаревића имале
су различите манифестације, па је тако део властеле услед
османлијског притиска прихватао монашки завет, напуштајући
световни живот, о чему сведоче и историјски извори. Слом
антиосманлијске политике Вука Бранковића у збивањима након
битке код Никопоља (1396) био је саставни део друштвено
политичког процеса кога је обележио трансфер утицаја и моћи у
области којом су господарили Лазаревићи. Овај процес подржавао
је османлијски султан Бајазит I Муња. Преузимањем територија
које су се претходно налазиле у оквиру области породице
Бранковић, Стефан Лазаревић је успоставио своју власт и над
властелом која је господарила тим земљишним поседима. На самом
крају 14. века друштвене промене које су захватиле елитни слој у
22
области Лазаревића биле су одраз друштвених кретања унутар

властеоског слоја, нарочито уочи и после завере властеле (1398).
Последња већа промена одиграла се приликом обнављања области
Бранковића уочи битке код Ангоре (1402). Освајања и политика
османлијских владара крајем 14. века на Балканском полуострву у
великој мери су утицали на промене у саставу и структури властеле
у области Лазаревића.
Кључне речи: деспот Стефан Лазаревић, држава Лазаревића,
властела, друштвена структура, Османлије, Бајазит I Муња.
23
UDC: 94:343(497)”13/15”:340.15
Neven ISAILOVIĆ
LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE VLACHS

OF THE BALKANS BEFORE AND AFTER
OTTOMAN CONQUEST: AN OVERVIEW*
Abstract: The paper focuses on the analysis of legislative material from the
medieval and early Ottoman period by which the status of the Vlach/vlach population
in the Balkans was regulated. By analyzing both fragmentary and complete laws on the
Vlachs/vlachs, the author tried to establish whether there were substantial changes in
the legal treatment of this group of people after the establishment of the Ottoman rule
in the Balkans, with special regard to the area which includes presentday Croatia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. Although it would not be false to say
that the Ottoman legislative material on this issue was, to a great extent, based on the
medieval, thus representing a continuity, it must be noted that it seems that its use was
expanded to a broader population. In fact, it seems plausible to say that the Ottomans
finished the already ongoing process by applying the laws formerly concerning an
ethnic and professional group to a wider social and even military group, regardless of
its origin and profession. This process may have already been devised by their late
medieval precursors, but there are not enough sources to decisively support that claim.
Keywords: Vlachs (vlachs), Balkans, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Ottoman Empire,
Middle Ages, Early Modern Age, legislation, law.
The question of Vlachs/vlachs1 of South Eastern Europe, whether we

write this term in capital or small letters, has been studied by many
historians since the 17th century, but definitive conclusions about the
origin, nature and status of this group of people have not been reached
*
This article is the result of the project No177029 of the Ministry of Education,
1
Hereafter, the term will be written mainly in small letters, since the article is
primarily dedicated to legal matter.
25
Neven Isailović
yet.2 The only certainty is that, in medieval society of the Balkans, the
vlachs were considered “others” or “foreigners”. They were labelled as
different to the main, usually ethnic group, which gave a name to a state
(the Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians, etc.).3 The earliest theories, never
rejected, suggested that they were relatively numerous remnants of a
preSlavic romanised population of the Balkans, divided into two
branches – those fewer in numbers who stayed in the coastal cities of the
Eastern Adriatic, and those who retreated to the mountainous regions or
were originally settled in them, professionalising themselves in the field
of animal husbandry. According to this theory, the coastal branch mainly
2
I. Lucius, De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae libri sex, Amstelaedami 1666, 281–286;
S. M. Ćirković, Srbi među europskim narodima, Zagreb 2008, 7–14; Encyclopedia
Britannica 28, Cambridge 1911, 166; Τ. J. Winnifrith, Τhe Vlachs. Τhe History of a
Balkan People, London 1987; N. Beldiceanu, Eflak, Encyclopaedia of Islam II, eds.
B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, J. Schacht, Leiden 1991, 687–689; Z. Mirdita, Vlasi u
historiografiji, Zagreb 2004. A special issue of journal Balcanica Posnaniensia. Acta
et studia 22/1 (2015), entitled “Ius Vallachicum“ and edited by Ilona Czamańska and
Marius Diaconescu, was entirely dedicated to the issue of European vlachs. The most
important papers are: I. Czamańska, The Vlachs – several research problems, 7–16;
M. Diaconescu, Census Valachorum in mid16th century upper Hungary, 17–28; M.
Luković, Zakon vlahom (Ius Valachicum) in the charters issued to Serbian medieval
monasteries and kanuns regarding Vlachs in the early ottoman tax registers (defters),
29–46; G. Jawor, Ethnic aspects of settlement in Ius Valachicum in medieval Poland
(from the 14th to the beginning of the 16th century, 47–55; D. Caciur, Considerations
regarding the Morlachs migrations from Dalmatia to Istria and the Venetian
settlement policy during the 16th century, 57–70; Ş. Stareţu, Medieval name and
ethnicity: Serbs and Vlachs, 81–97.
3
The term is considered to be IndoEuropean, denoting а stranger (e.g. the terms
Vlachus and Welsh should have the same origin), but there are also some doubts
expressed concerning this etymological approach. P. Skok, Etimologijski rječnik
hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika III, Zagreb 1973, 606–609; J. v. A. Fine, The Late
Medieval Balkans, Ann Arbor 1987, 12–13; Лексикон српског средњег века
(=ЛССВ), ур. С. Ћирковић, Р. Михаљчић, Београд 1999, 86–87 (Д. Динић
Кнежевић), 206–207 (М. Благојевић); V. A. Friedman, The Vlah Minority in
Macedonia : Language, Identity, Dialectology, and Standardization, Papers in Slavic,
Balkan, and Balkan Studies, eds. J. Nuoluoto, M. Leiwo, J. Hallaaho, Slavica
Helsingiensa 21 (2001) 26–27, 30–32; E. Миљковић, Власи у домаћој
историографији (1960–2010), Браничевски гласник 7 (2010) 5–22. Cf. M.
Pijović, Nekoliko misli o mogućem podrijetlu naziva Vlah, Studia mytologica Slavica
13 (2010) 199–210.
26
Legislation Concerning the Vlachs of the Balkans Before and After Ottoman Conquest: An Overview
carried the name of Latins or Romans, while the people in the hinterland
were usually called vlachs.4 Gradually, those vlachs came in contact with
the Slavic population, slavicised their language (fully or to a certain
extent) and began to mix with the people whose leaders had overrun the
Balkans and formed medieval states. This theory may very well be
plausible, but it cannot be undeniably confirmed due to the lack of
sources. In fact, the term vlach is much more frequently encountered in
the late Middle Ages than in the earlier periods. Maybe this was because
of the uneven distribution of extant sources, and maybe for other
reasons, which may include the nomadic nature of this population in the
earlier period.5 The name of this group, i.e. vlachs, gradually spread even
to the other parts of Eastern Europe and the Levant (in various forms
such as Valachi, Olahi, Morlachi, Karavlachi, the latter pair meaning
“black Vlachs”), along with the notion it carried.6
The 14th century was a turning point, since the vlachs became much
more visible in the politics and society of South Eastern Europe.
Although they carried the same name, we cannot know if various groups
of vlachs belonged to the same entity, ethnic or social, in different parts
of this European region. Wallachia emerges as the only state bearing the
name which derived from this group, but the term vlach was present all
around the wider area (from Slovenian lands to Bulgaria and from
4
К. Јиречек, Власи и Мавровласи у дубровачким споменицима, Зборник Константина
Јиречека I, Београд 1959, 191–204; Idem, Романи у градовима Далмације током
средњега века, Зборник Константина Јиречека II, Београд 1962, 1–366.
5
ЛССВ, 86–87 (Д. ДинићКнежевић), 286–287 (Д. КовачевићКојић); V.
Mažuranić, Prinosi za hrvatski pravnopovijestni rječnik, Zagreb 1908–1922, 1584–
1586; I. Botica, Prilog istraživanju najstarijega spomena vlaškoga imena u hrvatskoj
historiografiji, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 37 (2005) 35–46.
6
K. Kadlec, Valaši a valašské právo v zemích slovanských a uherských. S úvodem
podávajícím pehled theorií o vzniku rumunského národa, Praha 1916; V. Murvar.
The Balkan Vlachs: a typological study, Madison 1956; P. S. Nasturel, Les Valaques
de l’espace byzantin et bulgare jusqu’à la conquête ottomane, Les Aroumains, Paris
1989, 47–81; Z. Mirdita, Vlasi – polinomičan narod, Povijesni prilozi (=PP) 33
(2007) 249–269; A. Magina, From Custom to Written Law: Ius Valachicum in the
Banat, Government and Law in Medieval Moldavia, Transylvania and Wallachia,
eds. M. Rady, A. Simon, London 2013, 71–77; M. Diaconescu, Census Valachorum,
17–28; G. Jawor, Ethnic aspects of settlement in Ius Valachicum, 47–55; D. Caciur,
Considerations regarding the Morlachs migrations, 57–70.
27
Neven Isailović
Poland to Byzantine Greece), denoting populations, toponyms, areas,

specific type of legislation etc.7 In the Balkans, vlachs are mentioned
mainly in documentary sources. They are perceived as the “others”,
although they are generally slavicised, bearing mostly Slavic names and
using (or at least knowing) the Slavic language.8 Most of the people from
this group were still nomadic to some extent, but there were some of
them who already became sedentary.9
Did they represent an ethnic category in the 14th century? It is difficult
to say. They were listed as “different” in comparison with the Serbs and
the Croats, but it is rather unclear even what these two ethnonyms signified
when it comes to the preserved fragments of law.10 Was the population of
the Balkans divided between ethnic Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians etc. and
Vlachs? Or was it just a political division? If we incline to the theory in
which the difference was the matter of status, we should ask the following
question. Did the Southern Slavs denote the ruling class or maybe the
sedentary population that cultivated land, and did the vlachs represent
nomadic cattle rearers? Some sources suggest that each of these
interpretations might be true, but there is not enough evidence to make a
definitive conclusion.11 We can only be certain that legal sources from the
Balkans in the period between the early 14th and mid16th centuries are in
accord with the following. The term vlach was always connected with
breeding of horses and cattle, with warfare and with special status when
it comes to taxation and administrative autonomy.12
7
However, the presentday Romanian term for Wallachia is Țara Românească
(Romanian Land).
8
P. Skok, Etimologijski rječnik III, 606–609.
9
Р. Михаљчић, Закони у старим српским исправама. Правни прописи, преводи,
уводни текстови и објашњења, Београд 2006, 33, 41–42, 103–104, 128–131, 143,
147–148, 169–170, 177–178.
10
R. Lopašić, Bihać i Bihaćka krajina. Mjestopisne i poviestne crtice, Zagreb 1890,
296–298, br. IV; Idem, Hrvatski urbari. Svezak I, Zagreb 1894, 1–12; Đ. Šurmin,
Hrvatski spomenici (Acta Croatica). Knjiga I (od 1100. do 1499. godine), Zagreb 1898,
432–435; J. Šidak, Historijska čitanka za hrvatsku povijest I, Zagreb 1952, 78–81.
11
М. Благојевић, Србија у доба Немањића. Од кнежевине до царства: 1168–1371,
Београд 1989, 42, 44, 46, 48–50, 57, 120–121; Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 190–193, 201, 217.
12
С. Новаковић, Законски споменици српских држава средњега века, Београд
1912, according to the index of terms on pages 809–810.
28
If we do not take some solitary fragments into account, the earliest

laws on the vlachs are found in three surviving charters of Serbian rulers
– King Milutin’s charter issued to the Monastery of St. Stephen in
Banjska (from 1314/1316), King Dušan’s about the Church of St.
Nicholas in Vranje given to the Monastery of Chilandar on the Holy
Mountain of Athos (from 1343/1345) and the charter of the same ruler
(who was, by that moment, already Emperor Dušan) issued to the
Monastery of St. Archangels near Prizren (from 1348/1354).13 These
laws are deficient because they were applied solely to the estates of the
aforementioned monasteries and were probably adjusted to that
purpose. In the first two charters, the first category of the dependent
population was called “the people of the church”, while in the third
charter it carried the name of “the Serbs”. In all three documents, the
second category represents the vlachs.14 While the first category of men
cultivated land for the monastery and had various obligations connected
to that activity, the vlachs paid the socalled small tithe. Their
13
С. Мишић, Т. СуботинГолубовић, Светоарханђелска хрисовуља, Београд 2003;
С. МарјановићДушанић, Повеља краља Стефана Душана о поклањању цркве
Светог Николе у Врању манастиру Хиландару : 1343–1345. године, Стари
српски архив 4 (2005) 69–85; Повеља краља Милутина манастиру Бањска
(Светостефанска хрисовуља) I–II, прир. Ђ. Трифуновић, Београд 2011;
Зборник средњовековних ћириличких повеља и писама Србије, Босне и
Дубровника. Књига I 1186–1321, прир. В. Мошин, С. Ћирковић, Д. Синдик,
Београд 2011, 455–469, and index on page 553; Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 33, 41–42,
103–104, 128–131, 143, 147–148, 169–170, 177–178. Cf. Е. Миљковић, А.
Крстић, Трагови српског средњовековног права у раним османским канунима и
кануннамама, Средњовековно право у Срба у огледалу историјских извора.
Зборник радова са научног скупа одржаног 19–21. марта 2009, ур. С. Ћирковић,
К. Чавошки, Београд 2009, 308–311.
14
Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 29–42, 99–131, 142–148, 169–178. The charter of King
Milutin to the Monastery of Gračanica (1321) contains the law called the “Old Law of
the Serbs“ – Ibidem, 149–151, while the First (1330), Second (1330/1331) and Third
Chrysobull of Dečani (1343/1345), in their “Law of the meropahs“ and “Law of the
church metochion“, contain an article which prohibits the marriage between the Serbs
and vlach women. If the marriage did happen, those women would be given the social
status of meropah – agricultural population (Ibidem, 68, 75, 154, 157, 196–197) or the
man would be considered a vlach celator, which was already established in Milutin’s
charter to the Monastery in Banjska (Ibidem, 33, 84, 143, 163).
29
Neven Isailović
community was organised in groups of houses (i.e. katuns).15 Vlachs

from 50 houses yearly gave one ewe with lamb and one barren ewe.
Once in two years they gave a horse as well (or 30 perperas16 instead).
Each house also had to produce two lamb skins per year, as well as
cheese. Settled vlachs had to scythe the grass for three days.17 There
were a few categories of vlachs – soldiers (who fought), celators (who
kept the livestock), pokloniks (who gave woven cloth and two barren
rams as an additional tax in the autumn and spring, respectively) and
ubogi vlasi (“poor vlachs”) – probably those who were indigent or
incapacitated. All groups had to look after horses and cattle.18
Three chrysobulls of Dečani contain two articles concerning the
vlachs, respectively, and their content is virtually the same. The first
article denied the right to take a mare as a compensation for their service
to the vlachs who took care about mares, while those who were herding
sheep were given the right to take one ewe with a lamb per every 100
sheep each St. George’s Day.19 The other article, which was already
15
On medieval katuns see: Симпозијум о средњовjековном катуну oдржан 24. и
25. новембра 1961. г., ур. М. С. Филиповић, Сарајево 1963, especially the following
articles: М. С. Филиповић, Катун у нашој историографији, 9–14; Idem,
Структура и организација средњовековног катуна, 45–112; Д. Ковачевић
Којић, Средњовековни катун по дубровачким изворима, 121–140; Б. Ђурђев,
Територијализација катунске организације до краја XV века, 143–169. Also see:
ЛССВ, 286–287 (Д. КовачевићКојић).
16
Perpera (from Greek hyperpyron) was a unit, used in Dubrovnik, Serbia, Bosnia
and some other political entities in the Balkans, representing 12 silver coins i.e.
dinars, which was later equal to half of a ducat. See: ЛССВ, 441–444 (Р. Ћук).
17
Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 41–42, 103–104, 128–131, 147–148, 169–170, 177–178. In a
fragment of the socalled “Law of St. Simeon and St. Sava“, preserved in the Charter of
King Milutin to the Monastery of St. George near Skopje, vlachs settled on monasterial
land had to plow and reap for a day and also perform scything (Ibidem, 15, 139; ЛССВ,
208 (М. Благојевић); М. Благојевић, Закон Светога Симеона и Светога Саве, Сава
Немањић – Свети Сава. Историја и предање, Београд 1979, 129–166; Idem,
Немањићи и Лазаревићи. Српска средњовековна државност, Београд 2004, 191–246).
18
Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 41–42, 103–104, 128–131, 147, 169–170, 177–178. Also
see: С. Шаркић, Правни положај Влаха и отрока у средњовековној Србији,
Зборник радова Правног факултета 44/3 (2010) 37–51.
19
Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 68, 75, 84, 154, 157, 162–163. Cf. Ibidem, 116–120, 174–
175 (in the Charter for the Monastery of St. Archangels). Also see: ЛССВ, 38–39,
710–714 (М. Благојевић).
30
mentioned earlier, prohibited the Serbs to enter into marriages with

vlachs. Any vlach who married a Serb, if the marriage could not be
annulled, would be deprived of the possibility of becoming a soldier,
which was the most privileged category of vlachs, since the soldiers
were exempted from laborious wool processing.20 The vlachs were also
important transporters of goods, because they had wellbred horses.
They had to help the abbots of the monasteries to carry loads of grain,
wine, salt etc.21 From the other sources we know that they were essential
for trading, since they handled the transport of goods in the caravans.22
It is worth noting that fragments of the socalled Military Law, preserved
in the charters of King Milutin for the Monasteries of St. George near
Skopje (1300) and St. Stephen in Banjska (1314/1316), stipulate that no
one should take and use a soldier’s horse to use it as a pack horse.23
In Croatia, vlachs are first mentioned in the 1320s and that is why
Croatian historian from the 17th century Ivan Lucić from Trogir
concluded that they came from Bosnia during the reign of Croatian
magnates – the Šubići, to serve as their military aid. His ideas, though
not entirely reliable, may have held some truth.24 Since the 1350s vlachs
appear more often in Croatian sources, and from the 1370s almost
regularly. They are mentioned as groups of katuns dwelling in the areas
on the border with Bosnia, gradually settling.25 Some of them recognised
20
Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 33, 143, 84, 163.
21
Ibidem, 42, 103–104, 128–131, 147, 170, 178.
22
М. Динић, Дубровачка средњевековна караванска трговина, Југословенски
историјски часопис 3 (1937) 119–146; К. Јиречек, Трговачки путеви и рудници Србије
и Босне у средњем веку, Зборник Константина Јиречека I, Београд 1959, 205–303; E.
Kurtović, Konj u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo 2014, 197–293, 515–617.
23
Р. Михаљчић, Војнички закон, Зборник Филозофског факултета у Београду 12/1 (1974)
305–309; Idem, Закони, 22, 140; Зборник средњовековних ћириличких повеља I, 324, 465.
24
I. Lucius, De regno Dalmatiae, 281–286; I. Botica, Prilog istraživanju, 35–46.
25
V. Rismondo, Trogirsko i splitsko zaleđe u nekim dokumentima iz druge polovine XIV
i početka XV stoljeća, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 14–15 (1975–76) 494–
496; M. Ančić, Gospodarski aspekti stočarstva Cetinskog komitata u XIV stoljeću,
Acta historicooeconomica Iugoslaviae 14 (1987) 72–83; Idem, Registar Splitskoga
kaptola, Fontes 20 (2014) 35–41, 89–91, 120–121; A. Milošević, Stećci i Vlasi. Stećci
i vlaške migracije 14. i 15. stoljeća u Dalmaciji i jugozapadnoj Bosni, Split 1991; N.
Isailović, Između otpora i lojalnosti – niže plemstvo na područjima pod vlašću i
utjecajem Nelipčića nakon 1345. godine, PP 50 (2016) 270–271, 281–282, 284.
31
Neven Isailović
the authority of the king of Hungary (who also bore the title of the king
of Croatia), while the others were considered vlachs of individual
magnates. We know that Croatian magnates such as the families of
Nelipčić and Kurjaković had their own vlachs.26 There are interesting
data from the 1370s, partly supporting the aforementioned Lucić’s
claims. When Western Hum (previously a part of Bosnia) was
temporarily incorporated in Croatian Banate, a nobleman from this area
got the permission to “import” vlachs from Bosnia and Rascia (Serbia).27
Anyway, the number of vlachs became greater, they started spreading
the territory of their presence, and in the late 14th and early 15th centuries
there were complaints against them in the communes of Eastern Adriatic,
since their cattle, brought to the districts of coastal cities during the
winter, did some damage.28 Some of them took part in the warfare which
happened in Dalmatia and Croatia during the conflict between
Hungarian king Sigismund and pretender Ladislas of Naples supported
by the Bosnians and certain Croatian nobles. A few toponyms started
26
Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, Diplomatikai Levéltár (Mohács
Előtti Gyűjtemény) (=MNLOL, DL) 38517, 43163; R. Lopašić, Hrvatski urbari,
1–12; V. Klaić, Povjest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX. stoljeća II/2,
Zagreb 1901, 21; Idem, Acta Keglevichiana annorum 1322.–1527. Najstarije isprave
porodice Keglevića do boja na Muhačkom polju, Zagreb 1917; F. Šišić, Nekoliko
isprava iz početka XV stoljeća, Starine JAZU 39 (1938) 256–257, nr. 94; I. Jurković,
Vrhrički i hlivanjski plemeniti rod Čubranića do sredine 15. stoljeća, Zbornik
Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene znanosti HAZU 24
(2006) 49–50.
27
M. Ančić, Registar Splitskoga kaptola, 40–41.
28
F. Rački, Notae Joannis Lucii, Starine JAZU 13 (1881) 253, 259–260, 262; N.
Jorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à l’histoire des croisades au XVe siècle II, Paris
1899, 114; F. Šišić, Ljetopis Pavla Pavlovića, patricija zadarskoga), Vjesnik
Kraljevskog hrvatskoslavonskodalmatinskog zemaljskog arkiva 6 (1904) 41; Idem,
Nekoliko isprava, 184, nr. 32, 186, nr. 33; T. Smičiklas et al., Codex diplomaticus
Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae XVII, Zagreb 1981, 458–460; T. Smičiklas
et al., Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae XVIII, Zagreb
1990, 386, 388–389; Šibenski diplomatarij. Zbornik šibenskih isprava, ur. J. Barbarić
– J. Kolanović, Šibenik 1986, 30–31, 47–53; M. Ančić, Registar Splitskoga kaptola,
35–41, 89–91, 120–121. The commune of Dubrovnik also complained about the
vlachs entering its territory: Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма I–1,
Београд – Сремски Карловци 1929, 430, 499–501.
32
carrying vlach names as well and some groups of them permanently

settled in the Dalmatian hinterland.29 The Nelipčićs issued several
charters to their leaders (katunars or “good vlachs”), giving or
confirming them land in the County of Cetina, along with pastures on the
nearby mountains.30 The same practice was followed by the king in the
royal County of Knin.31 In 1430 Croatian nobles formed a defensive
league, partly because of their problems with certain vlachs.32 Once
again, we can see that vlachs are linked with cattle breading, their
nomadic way of life eventually turning into sedentary, and with serving
in the army. The law for the “good and honourable” vlachs of Cetina,
issued by Ivan (Anž) VI Frankapan in 1436, as a confirmation of the
law applied during the life of knez (count) Ivan and knez Ivaniš Nelipčić
of Cetina, gives us more details.33
The law confirms the rights of vlachs of Cetina which supposedly
derive from the 1370s and include the following legal stipulations: no
one could impose upon them their knez; they were entitled to remove a
bad knez; the settled vlachs paid a fixed tax and the unsettled served as
soldiers on horseback; one tenth of fines went to their knez; no one could
take their army horse for transporting goods; two thirds of soldiers were
going to active army, while one third was supplying them with food and
female horses; no Croatian could be imposed as their voivode; they had
an autonomous court in Sinj with two sessions a year; each year at the
29
Ć. Kalebić, Povijesni prilozi topografiji gradova i tvrđava u župi Cetini, Vjesnik
za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 50 (1928–1929) 304–305; L. Katić, Dvije
poljičke isprave iz XV. stoljeća, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III/8–9 (1963) 236–238, 241.
30
Arhiv Franjevačkog samostana na Trsatu, Miscellanea I–II; Đ. Šurmin, Hrvatski
spomenici, 136, 138–139, 156, 164–165, 280, 432–435; Š. Jurić, Neobjavljena listina
cetinskog kneza Ivana Nelipića, Arhivski vjesnik 19–20 (1976–1977) 233–236.
31
MNLOL, DL 43163; F. Šišić, Nekoliko isprava, 256–257, nr. 94.
32
MNLOL, DL 38517; D. Karbić, Hrvatski plemićki rod i običajno pravo. Pokušaj
analize, Zbornik Odsjeka za povijesne znanosti Zavoda za povijesne i društvene
znanosti HAZU 16 (1998) 110–111. Also see: J. Vončina, Četiri glagoljske listine iz
Like, Radovi Staroslavenskog instituta 2 (1955) 213, 216–221.
33
Arhiv Franjevačkog samostana na Trsatu, Miscellanea II; R. Lopašić, Bihać i
Bihaćka krajina, 296–298, br. IV; Idem, Hrvatski urbari, 6–11; Đ. Šurmin, Hrvatski
spomenici, 432–435. Also see: N. Klaić, Položaj vlaha u XIV i XV stoljeću u
hrvatskim zemljama, Simpozijum – Vlasi u XV i XVI vijeku (Sarajevo, 13–16. XI
1973), Radovi ANUBiH 73 (1983) 107–111.
33
Neven Isailović
feast of St. George in spring they gave one ewe or ram, a sheep with
lamb and cheese; they paid a fixed amount of filuria34 (each house paid
74 bolančas35, and on St. Marta’s Day in autumn a dinar36 for each head
of cattle); they could not participate in court processes with the Croats
and the Serbs; they did not pay certain taxes for the trafficking of goods,
nor for the use of pastures; a Croatian could have only one vlach as his
shepherd etc.37 As we can see, vlachs were exempted from field labour
and were considered legally “other” in comparison with the Croats and
Serbs. In which way, it is not exactly known, since we do not have the
laws for the other two groups of the population and we cannot determine
the differences by comparison. Unlike Serbian charters, it does not seem
that the Croats based on this law represented an agricultural population,
but rather a ruling or privileged class of the area. What seems to be the
same are basic obligations of vlachs and their links to the breading of
cattle and serving in the army as horsemen.38
There may have been some further customary or formal legislation
concerning the vlachs in preOttoman Bosnia and Serbia. First of all,
the region under the control of the Kosača family (today’s Herzegovina)
was filled with vlach kindred and katuns in the 15th century.39 Some of
34
Filuria (resmi filuri) from florinus, florenus (ducat). V. Mažuranić, Prinosi, 307–
308; ЛССВ, 242–243 (Р. Ћук); D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni i zakonski propisi iz XV i
XVI veka za smederevsku, kruševačku i vidinsku oblast, Beograd 1974, 143. It is
very interesting that the Bosnians, during their rule in Croatia in the 1390s imposed
the annual tax whose amount was one golden ducat per house. After the Bosnian
defeat, some local petty nobles from the County of Knin made an appeal to the
Hungarian royal administrators, and the tax was formally abolished (in 1396). T.
Smičiklas et al., Codex diplomaticus XVIII, 139–140, nr. 92.
35
A ducat consisted of 74 bolančas. V. Mažuranić, Prinosi, 77.
36
Ibidem, 238–239; ЛССВ, 152–154 (Р. Ћук). A dinar, a silver coin, equals solidus.
37
Arhiv Franjevačkog samostana na Trsatu, Miscellanea II; R. Lopašić, Bihać i
Bihaćka krajina, 296–298, br. IV; Idem, Hrvatski urbari, 6–11; Đ. Šurmin, Hrvatski
spomenici, 432–435.
38
Đ. Šurmin, Hrvatski spomenici, 432–435; Р. Михаљчић, Закони, 143, 147–148,
154, 157, 162–163, 169–170, 177–178.
39
Д. КовачевићКојић, Обавезе на вјерност двојице катунара војводи Сандаљу
Хранићу, Годишњак Друштва историчара Босне и Херцеговине (=ГДИ БиХ) 19
(1970–1971) 229–233; E. Kurtović, Seniori hercegovačkih vlaha, Zbornik radova
Hum i Hercegovina kroz povijest, ur. I. Lučić, Zagreb 2011, 647–695.
34
them also inhabited the other regions in Bosnia (such as the land of the
Pavlović family), as well as certain areas in Serbia and Croatia, mostly
marcher areas.40 They might have had a strong role in the armies of
Balkan states, and they were, by all means, highly involved in the
transfer of merchandise and raw materials along the roads of the region.41
They adopted a more sedentary way of life, although they were still
moving periodically (due to their profession), and it was easier for them
to resettle if needed or demanded by their masters. Maybe even before
the Ottoman conquest, many of their lands became hereditary baštinas42
(patrimonial land). Unfortunately, the lack of sources faces us with a lot
of uncertainties. It is, however, certain that there was a law concerning
the vlachs in Serbia, called (in the Turkish era) the Law of Despot
(Despot kanunu) or Despot’s Custom (Despot üslūbı). It was mentioned
in the early and mid16th century in the Sanjaks of Smederevo
(Semendire), Kruševac (Alaca Hisār) and, interestingly, in newly settled
northern areas of Bosnia (Bosna) i.e. Slavonian side of the nahiye Kobaš,
as well as Požega (Pojega) and Syrmia (Sirem), where it was marked by
filuria as the main tax.43 In Smederevo, the Turkish authorities labelled
40
С. Ћирковић, Удео средњег века у формирању етничке карте Балкана,
Работници, војници, духовници: друштва средњовековног Балкана, Београд
1997, 171–185; Д. БојанићЛукач, Власи у северној Србији и њихови први
кануни, Историјски часопис (=ИЧ) 18 (1971) 255–268.
41
See footnote 22.
42
Baština (Ottoman: baştina) was inheritable patrimonial possession. V. Mažuranić,
Prinosi, 45–48; ЛССВ, 31–34 (Р. Михаљчић, С. Ћирковић); Е. Миљковић – А.
Крстић, Трагови, 315–318; Д. Бојанић, О српској баштини и соћу у турским
законима, ИЧ 20 (1973) 157–180.
43
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (=BOA), Tapu Tahrir Defterleri (=TD) 201, p. 28;
BOA, TD 211, p. 130; D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 32, 140; A. Akgündüz, Kanunî
Devri Kanunnâmeleri, II. Kısım, Eyâlet Kanunnâmeler (I), vol. 5, İstanbul 1992,
328. Also see: Р. Тричковић, Поклон, ИЧ 35 (1988) 56–57; J. Mulić, Društveni i
ekonomski položaj Vlaha i Arbanasa u Bosni pod osmanskom vlašću, Prilozi za
orijentalnu filologiju (=POF) 51 (2001) 114–120; N. Moačanin, Town and Country
on the Middle Danube 1526–1690, Leiden – Boston 2006, 16–17, note 5; Г.
Томовић, Деспотов канун, Средњовековно право у Срба у огледалу историјских
извора. Зборник радова са научног скупа одржаног 19–21. марта 2009, ур. С.
Ћирковић, К. Чавошки, Београд 2009, 291–300; E. Miljković, Branislav Đurđev i
Despotov kanun, Naučno djelo Branislava Đurđeva, ed. Dž. Juzbašić, Sarajevo
2010, 101–108; Е. Миљковић, А. Крстић, Трагови, 313–314. The Ottomans also
35
Neven Isailović
it as a “bad custom” which should be removed from use, but we do not

know what this law specifically envisaged.44
The Ottoman authorities seemed to have adopted the vlach legislation
and used it to achieve two things – secure the defence of their newly
conquered areas by settling people along the border and lower the
chances of possible resistance of the population.45 Even if they did derive
from a specific ethnic or social group, being the “other” in comparison
with the Serbs, Croatians or Bulgarians, the vlachs of the early Ottoman
Balkans were a group determined exclusively by their status and their
taxation, not ethnicity.46 Many groups who were ready to be resettled
and acquire vlach privileges formally became vlachs, no matter what
their origin was. Initially they were mainly slavicised (some even Slavs),
Christian and speaking the Slavic language. They wanted to be exempt
from field labour and special taxes and sought to keep the privileged
implemented old Serbian mining laws. See: Е. Миљковић, А. Крстић, Трагови,

303–304, with older literature.
44
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 32, 140; Д. БојанићЛукач, Власи у северној Србији,
255–268. Also see: М. Динић, Власти за време Деспотовине, Зборник
Филозофског факултета у Београду 10/1 (1968) 237–244; М. Благојевић,
Крајишта средњовековне Србије од 1371. до 1459., Историјски гласник 1–2
(1987) 29–42; N. Isailović, Living by the Border: South Slavic marcher Lords in the
Late Medieval Balkans (13th–15th Centuries), Banatica 26/2 (2016) 110–111,
footnote 24.
45
Beside vlachs, the Ottomans also used the services of martoloses, voynuks and
derbencis. D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 140, 154, 174–175; M. Vasić, Martolosi u
jugoslovenskim zemljama pod turskom vladavinom, Sarajevo 1967; Idem, Socijalna
struktura jugoslavenskih zemalja pod osmanskom vlašću do kraja XVII vijeka,
Godišnjak Društva istoričara BiH 37 (1986) 63–68; О. Зиројевић, Турско војно
уређење у Србији 1459–1683, Београд 1974, 162–169, 176–189; E. Миљковић
Бојанић, Смедеревски санџак 1476–1560. Земља – насеља – становништво,
Београд 2004, 241–265; V. Aleksić, Medieval Vlach Soldiers and the Beginnings of
Ottoman Voynuks, Beogradski istorijski glasnik 2 (2011) 105–128; M. Kiprovska,
Ferocious Invasion or Smooth Incorporation? Integrating the Established Balkan
Military System into the Ottoman Army, The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans.
Interpretations and Research Debates, ed. O. J. Schmitt, Wien 2016, 79–102.
46
M. Vasić, Socijalna struktura, 61–63. Cf. S. Buzov, Vlaško pitanje i osmanlijski
izvori, PP 11 (1992) 41–60; V. Kursar, Being an Ottoman Vlach: On Vlach
Identity(ies), Role and Status in Western Parts of the Ottoman Balkans (15th18th
Centuries), OTAM 34 (2013) 115–161.
36
status. Their land became filurci land (according to the main tax they
paid), and their possessions, often transformed into proper baštinas,
were protected by the sultan or sanjakbeys. Afterwards, in some areas,
it was the status of land, and not its generally fluctuating population’s
origin, that determined the status of the people i.e. the social group living
on it.47 Some differentiations (according to religion, wealth, taxation)
occurred after this status was abolished in certain parts of the Balkans by
the mid16th century, though it partially survived in other (mainly
western) parts.48 But that is another subject. At this point we will just
summarily review the extant laws concerning the vlachs of the sanjaks
of Smederevo, Vidin, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Klis, Zvornik and the vilayet
of Montenegro (Crna Gora).49
It can easily be observed that many medieval legal norms were
transplanted into Ottoman kanuns. For instance, according to the law
from the late 15th century, in Smederevo, on Christmas, each vlach house
needed to give 45 aspras50 in money and a ram in value of 15 aspras. A
katun, consisting of 50 houses, had to give one piece of woven cloth51,
47
Ć. Truhelka, Historička podloga agrarnog pitanja u Bosni, Glasnik Zemaljskog
muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini (=GZM) 27 (1915) 123–197, especially 155–158.
48
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 45–48; E. МиљковићБојанић, Смедеревски санџак,
239–240; N. Moačanin, The PollTax and Population in the Ottoman Balkans,
Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West I, eds. C. Imber, K.
Kiyotaki, London – New York 2005, 79–83, 88–89; J. Mulić, Društveni i ekonomski
položaj, 129–134
49
Kanuni i kanunname za Bosanski, Hercegovački, Zvornički, Kliški, Crnogorski i
Skadarski sandžak, Sarajevo 1957; D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, passim; E. Миљковић
Бојанић, Смедеревски санџак, 190–196, 220, 227–241; N. Beldiceanu, I.
BeldiceanuSteinherr, Quatre actes de Mehmed II concernant les Valaques der
Balkans slaves, SüdostForschungen 24 (1965) 103–108; N. Beldiceanu, Sur le
Valaques des Balkans slaves a l’epoque ottomane (1450–1550), Revue des etudes
islamiques 34 (1966) 83–102; Idem, La région de TimokMorava dans les documents
de Mehmed II et de Selîm I, Le monde ottoman des Balkans (1402–1566), London
1976, 111–129.
50
Aspra (άσπρος) or akçe – in this period the term was denoting the same type of
money. V. Mažuranić, Prinosi, 9; D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 132; ЛССВ, 5–6 (А.
Фотић), 25 (С. Ћирковић).
51
Д. Бојанић, Шта значе подаци о сјеничким Власима у попису из 1455. године,
ИЧ 34 (1987) 97–103, 108–111. Cf. B. Đurđev, O naseljavanju Vlahastočara u
sjevernu Srbiju u drugoj polovini XV vijeka, GDI BiH 35 (1984) 9–34, especially 16–18.
37
Neven Isailović
two rams, cheese and ropes (in value of three aspras per house). On the
day of St. George in the spring each house paid 20 aspras i.e. the worth
of a ewe with a lamb. All together, they paid 83 aspras a year per house
(later it was raised to 90 aspras plus two for the surveyors).52 Five houses
gave one soldier to safeguard “dangerous places”, and 50 houses a
temporary servant to the sanjakbey. When an enemy land was under
attack, one soldier from each house went to the war. Their headmen –
knezes and premikurs53 – could not be removed from office without guilt
or reason and one tenth of fines went to them.54 The only difference,
when it comes to Braničevo and Vidin vlachs in the same period, was
that twenty houses formed a katun and that in the time of special need
(an enemy attack), all the vlachs served as horsemen. One tenth of their
fines went to their knezes. None of the vlachs in the aforementioned
sanjaks gave haraç, öşür or ispence55, although they did give some
amount of grain to support the needs of the sanjakbey. Their army horses
were never to be used for transport.56
In this part of the Balkans, the status of vlachs was abolished in the
1530s since the border moved further to the north and there seemed to
be multiple cases of abuse of this special status. The vlachs became
52
D. Bojanić, Jedan rani kanun za vlahe Smederevskog sandžaka, Vesnik Vojnog
muzeja 11–12 (1966) 145–160; Eadem, Turski zakoni, 12–13, 15–16, 27–34, 93–
96; Ö. L. Barkan, 894 (1488–1489) Yılı Cizyesinin Tahsilâtına Ait Muhasebe
Bilançoları, Belgeler I/1 (1964) 113; E. МиљковићБојанић, Смедеревски санџак,
229–232; Е. Миљковић, А. Крстић, Трагови, 304–315.
53
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 161–162; ЛССВ, 584 (М. Шуица); М. Благојевић,
Влашки кнезови, премићури и челници у држави Немањића и Котроманића
(XIII–XIV век), Споменица Милана Васића, прир. Р. Михаљчић, Бања Лука
2005, 43–77.
54
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 13, 16, 29–34; E. МиљковићБојанић, Смедеревски
санџак, 233–241. Also see: B. Đurđev, Nešto o vlaškim starešinama pod turskom
upravom, GZM 52 (1940) 49–67; Idem, О кнезовима под турском управом, ИЧ 1
(1949) 132–166; M. Vasić, O knežinama Bakića pod turskom vlašću, Godišnjak
Istorijskog društva BiH (=GID BiH) 9 (1957) 221–239; Idem, Кнежине и кнезови
тимарлије у Зворничком санџаку у XVI вијеку, ГИД БиХ 10 (1959) 247–278.
55
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 145–146, 158, 168, 172–173; ЛССВ, 773–774 (М. Спремић).
56
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 12, 15, 27; Д. БојанићЛукач, Власи у северној Србији,
255–268; Е. Љ. Миљковић, А. Крстић, Браничево у XV веку, Пожаревац 2007,
62–64.
38
reaya57, with all the due taxes.58 On the other hand, despite the efforts to
make the same change, the system survived in western sanjaks near the
border with the Habsburg lands. For instance, in Bosnia (Bosna) and in
Herzegovina (Hersek), vlachs paid the following on St. George’s day:
one ducat of filuria, one ram (i.e. 15 akçes59), one ewe with lamb (i.e. 12
akçes) per house. Every 50 houses gave two rams (60 akçes) and one
piece of woven cloth (100 akçes). Per each 10 houses, one horseman
went to a war campaign. Unmarried vlachs were exempt from taxation.60
Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis sanjaks witnessed widespread
transformation of vlach possessions in baštinas. Whoever lived on filurci
land for ten years was registered in defter as a vlach.61 The mentions of
the “filurci land” versus “Serb land” still occurred in Herzegovina in the
17th century.62 Finally, in the vilayet of Crna Gora (Montenegro), each
vlach house with baština paid filuria of 55 akçes in the early 16th century.
The lower amount may have been the consequence of rocky and barren
land, which was noted in the defters.63
Just a brief glance at these norms suggests that they are very similar
to the legislation which preceded the period of the Ottoman rule. Despite
some regional or local differences and specificities, it is, therefore, quite
possible to make the assumption that Ottoman legislation concerning
the vlachs was adopted and revised legislation of previous periods. It
was a wellexploited institution of conquered states, put to purpose of the
57
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 162–164.
58
D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 45–48; E. МиљковићБојанић, Смедеревски санџак,
239–240.
59
See footnote 50.
60
Kanuni i kanunname, 12–14; N. Filipović, Vlasi i uspostava timarskog sistema u
Hercegovini, Godišnjak ANUBiH 12 (1974) 127–221; N. Beldiceanu, Les Valaques
de Bosnie à la fin du XVe siècle et leurs institutions, Le monde ottoman des Balkans
(1402–1566), London 1976, 121–134; Idem, Românii din Herţegovina (sec. XIII–
XVI), Buletinul Bibliotecii Romane Freiburg serie noua 14 (18) (1987–1988) 83–
102; A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, Mostar 2008, 67,
69; J. Mulić, Društveni i ekonomski položaj, 120–139.
61
Kanuni i kanunname, 59, 67, 70, 89, 103–105, 118, 137.
62
Ibidem, 150. Filurci status, at least in Bosnia, survived even longer, well into the
19th century. See: Ć. Truhelka, Historička podloga, 157–158.
63
Kanuni i kanunname, 160, 171–172, 175–176.
39
Neven Isailović
Ottoman Empire, although, in the past, it may have been directed against
its expansionism. Trends which were already ongoing, such as turning
an ethnic, social or professional category into a category of status
measured by taxation and military obligation, were only brought to
perfection by the new rulers. The transitional period of the early Ottoman
rule in the Balkans, in such a way, passed without considerable
difficulties on the part of the conquerors.64
64
H. Inaldžik, Od Stefana Dušana do Osmanskog carstva, POF 3–4 (1953) 23–55;
J. Šidak, Historijska čitanka I, 134–143; О. Зиројевић, Турско војно уређење, 170–
176; Statuta valachorum : prilozi za kritičko izdanje, ur. D. Roksandić, Č. Višnjić,
prijevod izvornika Zrinka Blažević, Zagreb 1999.
40
Neven Isailović
OSMANLI FETHİ ÖNCESİ VE SONRASI BALKAN

EFLAKLARINA AİT KANUNLAR: GENEL BAKIŞ
Özet
Bu çalışma, Balkanlar’da Eflak nüfüsünün yasal statüsünü açıklayan

Orta Çağ ve erken Osmanlı dönemine ait kanunların incelenmesine
odaklanmaktadır. Eksikli veya eksiksiz Eflak kanunlarının araştırılması
vasıtasıyla Osmanlı hükümetinin Balkanlar’a gelmesiyle bu nüfüs
grubunun yasal statüsünde anlamlı değişimlerin meydana gelip
gelmediği tespit edilmeye çalışıldı. Bu bağlamda, özellikle karşılaştırma
olanağı sağlayabilmek için yeterli korunmuş kaynak sayısı olan
bölgelere, yani Hırvatistan’a, Bosna Hersek’e, Karadağ’a ve Sırbistan’a
odaklanıldı. Osmanlı mevzuatının bu konuda Orta Çağ mevzuatına
dayandığını ve onun devamı olduğunu söylemek yanlış değilse de, bu
mevzuatın artık daha geniş bir şekilde kullanılmaya başlandığının
farkında olmak gerekir. Aslında, Osmanlıların önceden etnik ve bir
meslek grubuna uygulanan kanunları daha geniş hatta askeri olarak
belirlenmiş bir gruba kökenden ve meslekten bağımsız olarak
uyguladıkları için zaten başlamış bir süreci sonuçlandırdıklarını
söylemek de mümkün. Gerçi mevzuat kapsamındaki bu değişimleri,
Osmanlı öncesi Balkanlar devletlerinin son hükümdarları bile çıkarmış
olabilir. Ancak, bu varsayımı destekleyecek yeterli kaynak mevcut değil.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Eflak, Balkanlar, Sırbistan, Bosna, Hırvatistan,
Osmanlı İmperatorluğu, Orta Çağ, erken Yeni Çağ, mevzuat, hukuk.
41
Neven Isailović
Невен Исаиловић
ЗАКОНОДАВСТВО О ВЛАСИМА БАЛКАНА

ПРЕ И НАКОН ОСМАНСКОГ ОСВАЈАЊА: ПРЕГЛЕД
Резиме
У фокусу рада је анализа законодавне грађе из средњег века и

раног османског раздобља којим је одређиван правни статус
влашког становништва на Балкану. Кроз истраживање фрагментарних
и целовитих закона о Власима/власима, покушало се утврдити да
ли је након успостављања османске власти на Балкану дошло до
значајнијих промена у правном третману ове групе становништва,
са посебним освртом на област која укључује данашњу Хрватску,
Босну и Херцеговину, Црну Гору и Србију, тј. на територију на
којој је сачуван материјал који дозвољава поређења. Иако не би
било нетачно рећи да је османска законодавна регулатива о овом
питању била у највећој мери заснована на средњовековној,
представљајући њен континуитет, мора се приметити да је њена
употреба проширена на један шири слој људи. Заправо, чини се да
је најумесније рећи да су Османлије довршиле већ започет процес
примењујући законе који су се раније односили на етничку и
професионалну скупину на ширу друштвену, па чак и војно
одређену групу, независно од њеног порекла и занимања. Ове
промене у законодавном оквиру су можда већ осмислили последњи
владари балканских држава позног средњег века, али не постоји
довољно извора који би могли одлучно да подрже ову хипотезу.
Кључне речи: Власи (власи), Балкан, Србија, Босна, Хрватска,
Османско царство, средњи век, рани нови век, законодавство, право.
42
UDC: 341.76(497.5:560)(044):[930.2:003.074”13/14”
Miloš IVANOVIĆ
CYRILLIC CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN THE COMMUNE OF RAGUSA
AND OTTOMANS FROM 1396 TO 1458*
Abstract: An important source for an overview of relations between the Commune

of Ragusa and the Ottoman Empire is Cyrillic correspondence of these states. In this
paper I analyze letters from the period between 1396 and 1458. Namely, the first
preserved document in the Serbian language dates from 1396, while the year 1458
marks the end of the research since Ragusa became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.
The Ragusan letters to Turkish officials had a similar form as documents which they
were sending to Serbian and Bosnian rulers and noblemen. Through their analysis it
is possible to determine what kind of reputation Ottomans had in the eyes of the
Ragusans. On the other hand, Ottoman letters combined patterns of Serbian and
Turkish diplomatics. The content of most of the letters referred to the status and
privileges of Ragusan merchants in the Ottoman territory. It should be noted that
Ragusans avoided contact with Sultans because they were afraid that he would impose
the payment of tribute to their commune. Therefore, they tried to resolve problems of
their citizens in communication with Ottoman military commanders and officials.
Keywords: Ragusans, Ottomans, correspondence, letters, Cyrillic, intitulatio,
inscriptio.
Cyrillic correspondence is an important source for understanding

RagusanOttoman relations. In this paper I will analyze letters from the
period between 1396 and 1458. The lower chronological limit is the first
preserved document of this correspondence originating from 1396,1
while the year 1458 is taken as the upper point of the research as Ragusa
*
This article is the result of the project No. 177029 of the Ministry of Education,
1
H. Šabanović, Turski dokumenti državnog arhiva u Dubrovniku, Prilozi za
orijentalnu filologiju 12–13 (1962–1963) 121.
43
Miloš Ivanović
then became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.2 The letters that Ragusans
were sending during this period are known only based on the book
Lettere e commissioni di Levante dal 1399 (there should be 1395) al
1423, in which they were registered by Slavic chancellor Rusko
Hristiforović.3 It contains total thirteen letters sent by Ragusan
authorities to different representatives of the Ottoman state and relating
to the period between 1396 and 1417. Ottoman Cyrillic letters from this
period are originals kept in the State Archive in Dubrovnik.4 This paper
analyses some diplomatic forms in all these letters. In this way, it is
possible to reach conclusions about the reputation and importance
enjoyed by some Ottoman commanders among Ragusans.5 It will also
be possible to examine, to an extent, the manner in which Ottoman
Cyrillic chanceries operated. The contents of the documents will also be
analysed, as well as the time of their creation.
The Commune of Ragusa entered into more serious contacts with
Ottomans after 1389 when they started to threaten their merchants in the
territory of Serbian local lords. The successors to Prince Lazar became
Ottoman vassals most probably during 1390.6 By no later than autumn 1392,
Vuk Branković also subjugated himself to Sultan Bayezid I (1389–1402).7
2
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска у XIV и XV веку, Београд 1952, 155–157; V. Foretić,
Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808, Prvi dio, Od osnutka do 1526., Zagreb 1980, 228.
3
М. Пуцић, Споменици српски I, Београд 1858, I; Енциклопедија српске
историографије, пр. С. Ћирковић, Р. Михаљчић, Београд 1997, 21.
4
More about the Turkish acts in the Dubrovnik Archive: Ć. Truhelka, Tursko
slovjenski spomenici dubrovačke arhive, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu
23/1 (1911) 1–3; H. Šabanović, Turski dokumenti, 121–147.
5
Significant aid can be found in the following papers: М. Шуица, Дубровачка
писма: огледало друштвенополитичких промена у српским земљама (1389–
1402), Годишњак за друштвену историју 2 (2011) 29–48; С. Станојевић,
Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, Глас Српске краљевске
академије 92 (1913) 162–199; М. Благојевић, Државност Земље Павловића,
Земље Павловића: средњи вијек и и период турске владавине, Зборник радова
са научног скупа, Рогатица, 27–29. јуна 2002, Бања Лука–Српско Сарајево
2003, 124–129; М. Пурковић, Етикеција и друштвени дух у старој српској
држави, Годишњак скопског Филозофског факултета 2 (1931–1933) 111–139.
6
В. Трпковић, Турскоугарски сукоби до 1402, Историјски гласник 1–2 (1959) 100–102,
107; М. Шуица, Вук Бранковић: славни и велможни господин, Београд 2014, 136.
7
С. Бојанин, Повеља Вука Бранковића којом ослобађа Манастир Хиландар
плаћања „турског данка”, Стари српски архив 9 (2010) 149–151; М. Шуица,
Вук Бранковић, 144.
44
Cyrillic Correspondence Between the Commune of Ragusa and Ottomans 1396–1458
It is noted that in spring 1392 authorities of Ragusa ordered to their

merchant Todor Gisla to go to the Sultan on the occasion of the capture
of Pirko Binčulić.8 However, as Vuk Branković disobeyed the Sultan, in
1396 the Ottomans captured his territories.9 Therefore it is logical why
Ragusans first established written communication with Ottoman military
officials in the above area. The Ragusans’ primary objective was to
facilitate the work of their traders in the territories controlled by the
Turks. The letters Ragusans sent to them had a similar form as
documents which they were sending to Serbian and Bosnian rulers and
noblemen. All letters that Ragusans sent to Ottomans contained a month,
day and year from Christ’s birth.
In the first such letter from March 1396 they marked an unnamed
kadi of the town of Gluhavica as a “respected friend” (“počtenomu
prijatelju”).10 Gluhavica was a mining town near contemporary Novi
Pazar.11 The contents of the letter show that Ragusans had established
even before communication with the kadi. Namely, they emphasise that
they received from him a document confirming the Sultan’s permit for
free trade in the Ottoman territory, subject to payment of the prescribed
customs.12 This is also a confirmation that, at the time, they had already
arranged their relations with the Sultan.13 Furthermore, we find out from
the letter that the kadi requested that all Ragusan traders should travel
through Gluhavica and pay customs duties there. They, however,
rejected his request.14 The mentioned way of addressing was used by the
8
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 14.
9
М. Пуцић, Споменици српски I, Примедбе, Београд 1858, I; М. Динић, Област
Бранковића: Српске земље у средњем веку, Београд 1978, 158–160; М. Шуица,
Вук Бранковић, 161–166.
10
М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији у Глухавици, Стари српски
архив 10 (2011) 118.
11
More about Gluhavuca: С. Ћирковић, Д. КовачевићКојић, Р. Ћук, Старо
српско рударство, Београд 2002, 44–45, 52–53, 82–83; Лексикон градова и
тргова средњовековних српских земаља: према писаним изворима, ред. С.
Мишић, Београд 2010, 82–83 (С. Мишић).
12
М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији, 118; И. Божић, Дубровник
и Турска, 14–15.
13
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 14–16.
14
М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији, 118–119.
45
Miloš Ivanović
Commune of Ragusa during 1395 and 1396 in communication with nun

Jevgenija, the widow of Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović.15 The same epithet
was used in 1398 for Bosnian nobleman Sandalj Hranić.16 Ragusans used
such method of addressing in their letters sent to the nobility and local
lords, whom they considered less influential.17 It can also be noted that
the salutation form (salutatio) was entirely modest in a letter to the kadi
and expressed only in the word “salute” (“pozdravljenije“).18 It is
possible to say that Ragusans somewhat adapted this diplomatic form to
the rank of the person whom they addressed.19
Different epithets are present in the five letters which the Ragusans
sent to udjbey Pasha Yiǧit Bey,20 commandant of March of Skoplje.
The topic of all these letters was the regulation of the position of
Ragusan traders in the territory of his influence. The issue of customs
was particularly underscored in them. First, in the letter from May 1398
he was for them a “much respected and powerful voivode Pašajit”
(“mnogopočtenomu i veleprêhrabrennomu vojevodi”).21 The next year
at the end of March or at the beginning of April, he was denoted as a
“much respected and grand voivode” (“mnogopočtenomu velikomu
vojevodi”).22 However, six months later the authorities of Ragusa called
him an “illustrious and noble grand voivode” (“slavnomu i vel’možnomu
15
Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма I–1, Београд–Сремски Карловци
1929, 180–182; М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 36–37, 44–45, 48; М. Благојевић,
Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет српске државе, Немањићи и Лазаревићи и
српска средњовековна државност, Београд 2004, 411.
16
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 255; М. Благоjевић, Државност Земље
Павловића, 128; М. Пурковић, Етикеција и друштвени дух, 114.
17
М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 35–36.
18
М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији, 118.
19
С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. IV Салутација, Глас Српске
краљевске академије 92 (1913) 202.
20
More about Yiǧit Bey: Г. Елезовић, Турски споменици у Скопљу, Гласник
Скопског научног друштва 1 (1925) 136–141, 144; Н. Исаиловић, А.
Јаковљевић, Шах Мелек (Прилог историји турских упада у Босну 1414. и 1415.
године), Споменица академика Симе Ћирковића, Београд 2011, 445–446, 456.
21
Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма I–2, Београд–Сремски Карловци
1934, 218.
22
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 219.
46
velikomu vojevodi”).23 It is from this letter that we find out that

Ragusans finally regulated the issue of customs with Feriz, kephale of
Zvečan. They delivered to him the text of the agreement as he did not
have a scribe. They asked him his diak (scribe) should write down the
agreement and send it to them.24 The formula “illustrious and noble”
was used by the Ragusans also in the letter which they sent to him in
December 1399, on the occasion of an attack of Albanian nobleman
Dimitrije Jonima at their traders.25 On the same day, they wrote to Sarhan
and kephale Feriz in relation to the same matter.26 The manner of
addressing which they used in the first letter to Pašajit is somewhat
particular. Namely, it has been observed that the epithets “much powerful”
(“veleprehrabreni“) and “greatly powerful” (“mnogoprehrabreni“) are seen
only in letters to Ottoman commanders.27 It is not entirely clear why
they used them only during 1398 and 1399.
Unlike the mentioned epithets, the formula “illustrious and noble”
was well known and the Commune of Ragusa used it to address the most
important Serbian and Bosnian local rulers. For example, Serbian local
ruler Vuk Branković was addressed in such way during 1395 and at the
beginning of 1396.28 Taking into account the forms of addressing in
documents it can be concluded that in the mentioned time in the
Ragusans’ eyes Vuk Branković enjoyed greater reputation among
Serbian lords than successors to Prince Lazar.29 Therefore, one can say
that for Ragusans Pasha Yiǧit Bey was on a par with Vuk Branković. It
is necessary to point out that Yiǧit Bey probably occupied the territories
of Vuk Branković in 1396.30 Some towns (Jeleč, Zvečan, Gluhavica) of
the mentioned area were incorporated in the March of Skoplje which
23
Ibidem, 220.
24
Ibidem, 219–220.
25
Ibidem, 220; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 21.
26
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 224–225.
27
С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 169.
28
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 142–143, 145; М. Шуица, Дубровачка
писма, 36, 37, 44–45; М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет српске
државе, 411.
29
М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 44–46; М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и
суверенитет, 411.
30
М. Шуица, Вук Бранковић, 163.
47
Miloš Ivanović
increased the power of Yiǧit Bey.31 On the other side, Ragusans may
have begun to show greater respect to Yiǧit Bey after they concluded an
agreement with his envoy kephale Feriz on the issue of trade tariffs in
October 1399.32 Also, in August 1398 the authorities of Ragusa used for
the first time the epithets “illustrious and noble” for nun Јеvgenija,33 whose
son Prince Stefan Lazarević was a vassal of Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I
(1389–1402).34 In the late 14th century, they used the same epithets for
Bosnian voivode Hrvoje Vukčić.35 At the time, Ragusans expressed
greater respect only to Bosnian King Stefan Ostoja (1398–1404; 1409–
1418), who was for them “most holy and high” (“prêsvêtlomu i
prêvisokomu”).36 The reason for this was certainly his high title.
It seems that the salutation in letters to Yiǧit Bey was also in line
with the rank that Ragusans bestowed on him in inscriptions. In May
1398, they sent to him ”most kind salutation” (“mnogoljubimo
pozdravljenije”), whereas in March or April of the following year they
sent to him “most cordial salutation” (“m’nogosr’dčno pozdravljenije”).37
They used such type of salutation from 1395 to 1398 in letters to Vuk
Branković, as well nun Jevgenija and her son Stefan Lazarević.38 In
October 1399, the Commune expressed to Yiǧit Bey “great adoration”
(“mnogo poklonjenije“), while two months later they wished him good
health and expressed “in everything kind adoration” (“v’ vsem’ ljubovno
pokonjenije“).39 In the late 14th century, Ragusans regularly used the
31
М. Динић, Област Бранковића, 172–173.
32
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 219–220; И. Божић, Дубровник и
Турска, 20.
33
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 186; М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 40, 46;
М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет српске државе, 411.
34
It was during 1389 that Prince Stefan successfully overcame the crisis in his
relations with Bayezid. For more information: М. Шуица, Завера властеле против
кнеза Стефана Лазаревића 1398. године, Историјски гласник 1–2 (1997) 7–24.
35
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 447–448; М. Благојевић, Државност
Земље Павловића, 127.
36
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 418, 429–430; С. Станојевић, Студије о
српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 172.
37
38
М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 44–45.
39
48
term “adoration” in letters to the Lazarevićs, Bosnian King Stefan Ostoja

and Bosnian voivode Hrvoje Vukčić.40 Given the above, one may say
that the Commune of Ragusa equalized the most reputable persons that
they addressed also through the form of salutations.
During the second half of 1399, the Commune of Ragusa also
communicated with Ottoman commander Sarhan (Saraža) around the
disputed customs. On the basis of Ragusans’ letters it seems that Sarhan
was a kind of a special emissary of Sultan Bayezid I. It seems that in
mid1399 he came to the area of interest for Ragusans.41 It is not clear
what his powers were and why the Sultan had sent him. It can be easily
seen that Ragusans addressed him in a similar way as Yiǧit Bey,
designating him as a grand voivode as well.42 In two letters from 28 of
July 1399 he was for them an “illustrious and powerful, furthermore
welldistinguished grand voivode“ (“slavnomu i mnogoprêhraben’nomu
pače velenaročitomu velikomu vojevodi“).43 We find out from one of
these documents that he guaranteed to them the freedom of doing
business. They addressed him in the same way in relation to damages to
be compensated to their looted traders. The solution to this issue was
earlier promised to them by Yiǧit Bey who, however, did nothing in this
regard.44 A few months later, in а letter from 10th December they called
him an “illustrious and noble grand voivode” (“slavnomu i vel’možno
velikomu vojevodi”).45 Obviously, Ragusans believed that he could
effectively help in solving problems of their merchants.
The salutation in all three Ragusans’ letters to Sarhan was different,
although it was basically similar to letters sent to Yiǧit Bey. In the first
letter of 28 July, a “most cordial and entirely kind salutation”
(“mnogosr’dačno i v’ vsem’ ljubimo pozdravljenije“) was expressed,46
whereas in the other letter compiled on the same day, a “most kind and
40
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 186–189, 191–192, 429–431, 448; М.
Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 46.
41
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 222; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 20.
42
43
Ibidem, 222–223.
44
Ibidem, 222–223.
45
Ibidem, 224.
46
Ibidem, 222.
49
Miloš Ivanović
entirely cordial adoration (“mnogoljubimo i v’ vsem’ srdačno

poklonjenije“) was expressed.47 In a document from December 1399,
this diplomatic formula was shorter and read as “most cordial adoration”
(“mnogosr’dčno pozdravljenije“).48 In short, it is possible to conclude
that the salutation was also consistent with Sarhan’s importance for the
Commune of Ragusa.
As already mentioned, on 10 December 1399 Ragusans also wrote to
Feriz, the kephale of Zvečan, whom they designated as an “entirely
cordial friend” (“v’ vsem’ sr’dčnomu prijatelju“).49 Since he was
subjugated to udjbey Pasha Yiǧit Bey, it is entirely understandable that
he was addressed with less prominent epithets than him. It has been
observed that the same inscription is found in Ragusans’ letters from
1400 to protovestiarios of Prince Stefan Lazarević Ivan and Bosnian
knez Đurađ Radivojević.50 When in 1388 they wrote to Novo Brdo
kephale Goislav and local citizens, the salutation read as a “kind
salutation” (“ljubovno pozdravljenije“).51 We believe that these
examples show that Ragusans adjusted this formula as well to the
position of the person whom they addressed.
After the Battle of Ankara, in December 1402 the Commune of
Ragusa wrote to Yiǧit Bey and Balaban with the aim that they ensure the
safety of their traders.52 It is worth adding that on the same day they
wrote to Đurađ Branković and his mother Mara on the same occasion.53
It can be noticed that Ragusans addressed Yiǧit Bey with words a “well
distinguished grand voivode” (“mnogonaročitomu velikomu vojevodi”).54
This is an epithet found only in this act.55 We believe it was consciously
47
Ibidem, 223.
48
Ibidem, 224.
49
50
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 412–413, 478; С. Станојевић, Студије о
српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 168, fot. 3.
51
52
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 221, 225.
53
М. Ивановић, Писма Дубровчана Мари и Ђурђу Бранковићу, Стари српски
архив 11 (2012) 117–119.
54
55
С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 169.
50
used, indicating that Yiǧit Bey enjoyed at the time lesser reputation than
before. Namely, he was not called as in 1399 “illustrious and noble”,
but they still used these epithets for nun Jevgenija.56 Somewhat lower
ranking is not seen in the salutation “much kind salutation”
(“mnogoljubovno pozdravljenije“).57 Balaban, about whom little is
known,58 is addressed as an “entirely cordial friend of ours” (“v’ vsem’
sr’dčnomu nam’ prijatelju”).59 No epithet was added to the word “salute”
(“pozdravljenije).60 He was thus designated in the same way as kephale
Feriz in 1399. It is not possible to ascertain whether he was subjugated
to some of more important commanders. Based on inscriptions, it is
possible to conclude that after the Battle of Ankara, Ottoman
commanders did not enjoy such high reputation among Ragusans as
before. Their influence on Ragusans’ trade activities diminished
significantly. This is probably one of the reasons why they rarely
conflicted with Turkish authorities.61 It is therefore not surprising that
until 1415 we do not have information about Cyrillic correspondence
between Ragusans and Ottomans.
From the middle of the second decade of the 15th century, Ottomans
began to occupy the area of presentday Albania. They first occupied
Krujë in 1415, and two years later they captured Vlorë, Kaninë, Pirg and
Berat.62 This area was of exceptional importance for Ragusans as they
exported from it large quantities of grain.63 It is therefore not surprising
that they quickly established contact with the local Turkish commanders.
The authorities of Ragusa wrote to Balaban Bey in December 1415 at the
time when he was governor (subaşi) of “Kroja and Albania”.64 It cannot
be determined whether he was the identical person with Balaban who
56
57
58
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 24, 36, 38, 40, 43.
59
60
Ibidem, 225.
61
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 32.
62
Историја српског народа II, Београд 1982, 95–96 (Ј. Калић); И. Божић,
Дубровник и Турска, 37–38; C. Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481, Istanbul
1990, 90.
63
64
51
Miloš Ivanović
was mentioned in 1402.65 The fact that they used for him only the epithet
“respected” (“počtenomu subaši“)66 shows that at the moment he was
still not an important person for them. Nonetheless, they were very
hospitable to him. They invited his people to freely come to Ragusa and
trade customsfree. They also allowed him to send grain and millet,
emphasizing that they would themselves take care about the unloading
and storage of goods.67 The envoys of Hamza Bey, the administrator of
estates captured by Ottomans in 1417,68 arrived to Ragusa in July of the
same year. They invited local traders to come to his area. He gave them
both his own and Sultan’s guarantees. In a letter of 9 August, they
thanked him, offering the freedom of doing business to his people, and
calling him an “illustrious and noble lord” (“slavnomu i velmožnomu
gospodinu“).69 At that time they used the same epithets for Serbian
Despot Stefan Lazarević (1389–1427), his nephew Đurađ Branković and
Bosnian lords voivode Sandalj Hranić and prince Petar Pavlović.70 They
ranked him with local rulers, attaching to him importance as to Pasha
Yiǧit Bey in the prior period. A different degree of reputation of Balaban
and Hamza Bey is not seen in the form of salutation which was similar
for both of them – “most cordial salute” (“mnogosrdčno pozdravljenije“)
or “much kind salute” (“mnogoljubimo pozdravljenije“).71 The above
document from 1417 represents the last preserved Cyrillic letter of
Ragusans to the Ottomans in the period before 1458.
At the end of this section, we must touch upon several other issues
relating to the letters analysed. As already mentioned, in October 1399
Feriz, kephale of Zvečan did not have a diak with him while compiling
a customs agreement. This is why Ragusans asked from Yiǧit Bey to
subsequently send to them the document with the text of the agreement.
The question is thus asked whether the agreement that he had to send
65
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 38, fot. 92.
66
67
Ibidem, 226.
68
Историја српског народа II, 96 (Ј. Калић).
69
Ibidem, 227.
70
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 163, 216–219, 221, 223–225, 288–289,
291–292, 530; М. Благојевић, Државност Земље Павловића, 128–129.
71
52
was to be in the Serbian or Ottoman language? Did perhaps Ottoman

commanders make copies of Ragusan letters in their language? It is hard
to give answers to these questions. It is probable that as in the subsequent
period, as we will see later, they had around them those who were well
versed in the Serbian language and Ragusan diplomatic practice.
Table: Letters of the Commune of Ragusa to Ottoman commanders (1396–1417)

Inscriptio (Serbian
Inscriptio
Date Recipient Church Slavonic
(English translation)
Latin transcription)
28.3.1396 Kadi of Gluhavica Počtenomu prijatelju Respected friend
Mnogopočtenomu i
Much respected and
26.5.1398 Yiǧit Bey veleprêhrabrennomu
powerful voivode
vojevodi
Mnogopočtenomu Much respected grand
30.3–5.4.1399 Yiǧit Bey
velikomu vojevodi voivode
Slavnomu i Illustrious and powerful,
mnogoprêhraben’nomu furthermore well
28.7.1399 Sarhan
pače velenaročitomu distinguished grand
Slavnomu i Illustrious and powerful,
mnogoprêhrabren’nomu furthermore well
28.7.1399 Sarhan
pače velenaročitomu distinguished grand
Slavnomu i
Illustrious and noble grand
7.10.1399 Yiǧit Bey vel’možnomu velikomu
voivode
vojevodi
Slavnomu i
Illustrious and noble grand
10.12.1399 Yiǧit Bey velmožnomu velikomu
voivode
vojevodi
Slavnomu i vel’možno Illustrious and noble grand
10.12.1399 Sarhan
V’ vsem’ sr’dčnomu Entirely cordial friend
10.12.1399 Kephale Feriz
prijatelju kephalei kephale
Mnogonaročitomu Welldistinguished grand
12.12.1402 Yiǧit Bey
V’ vsem’ sr’dčnomu Entirely cordial friend of
12.12.1402 Balaban
nam’ prijatelju ours
22.12.1415 Balaban Bey Počtenomu subaši Respected subaşi
Slavnomu i
9.8.1417 Hamza Bey Illustrious and noble lord
velmožnomu gospodinu
53
Miloš Ivanović
Their relations can also be traced on the basis of Ottoman Cyrillic

letters. In general, as determined by Vančo Boškov, these documents
combined the forms of Serbian and Turkish diplomatic practice.72 The
content of most of the letters referred to the status and privileges of
Ragusan merchants in the Ottoman territory. It should be noted that
Ragusans avoided direct contacts with Sultans73 Therefore, they tried to
resolve problems of their citizens in communication with Ottoman
military commanders and officials. Also, Ragusans often strived to
obtain from Sultans charters on the freedom of commerce by mediation
of Serbian rulers.74
Hence it is not surprising that the first letter of an Ottoman ruler to
Ragusans originates from 1430. In July that year Sultan Murad II (1421–
1451) wrote to them on the occasion of their war with his vassal Bosnian
lord voivode Radoslav Pavlović. The Sultan criticized them for not
sending envoys before, although they traded in his lands. He requested
that they should send their envoys to the Porte in order to face
Radoslav’s envoys for the purpose of ascertaining truth in the dispute.
He threatened to attack them if they failed to do it. He also noted that he
had sent his envoy Karadza who had to communicate his attitude and
explore the case.75 The envoys that they sent to him received from him,
on 9 December, a charter on the freedom of commerce in Serbian,
Turkish and Greek.76 After that, Ragusan envoys stayed at the Porte,
managing to receive the Sultan’s permit for the occupation of a part of
the territory of Radoslav Pavlović. In this regard, on 9 June 1431, the
Sultan sent a letter to the rector and the Ragusan nobility. With this letter,
he sent Ali Bey who had to deliver them the land.77 However, this was
72
V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis 19,
3–4 (1980) 220–229, 231–234.
73
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 50–52, 120, 125, 132, 135; М. Спремић,
Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић и његово доба, Београд 1994, 36–369, 371–372, 409–
412, 424.
74
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 15–16, 106–108, 118, 135; М. Спремић, Деспот
Ђурађ Бранковић, 368, 371, 411–412.
75
76
Ibidem, 229–231; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 53–54.
77
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 231; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска,
54–55.
54
not carried out. Left without Sultan’s support, in midOctober 1432

Ragusans reconciled with Radoslav Pavlović.78
More important for us is the diplomatic analysis of the above letters.
Both documents begin with the intitulatio as in letters of Serbian and
Bosnian rulers and lords.79 The intitulatio of the Sultan was a translation
from Turkish.80 The Ottoman ruler marked himself as a “Grand Lord and
Grand Emir, Sultan Murad Bey”.81 In his charter on the freedom of
commerce to the Ragusans, Murad II also stressed that he was son of Sultan
Mehmed I.82 The letters were addressed to the Rector (comes) and the
nobility of Ragusa.83 It is unknown why the Sultan omitted the Commune
from the form of inscriptio. Such phenomenon was almost commonplace
for Ottoman acts sent to Ragusa.84 On the other hand, Serbian and Bosnian
rulers and nobleman usually mentioned the Commune in their letters to
Ragusans.85 Numerous epithets are given to the Dubrovnik Rector in letters
of Sultan Murad II. In the first letter, he is denoted as a “much noble, much
respected, most sage and most adorned” (“mnogoplemenitem’ i
mnogopočtenim’, prêmudrêm’ i prêukrašenim’ knezem’“),86 while in the
second he is mentioned as “much noble, sage and worthy of any honour”
(“mnogoplêmenitomu i mudromu i v’sekoi često dostoinomu knezu“).87 It
was noted that as in other Ottoman acts, the nobility was left without an
epithet.88 Numerous epithets in inscriptio are seen in documents sent to
Ragusan authorities by their citizens and the Bosnian nobility. A difference
lies in the fact that epithets are not associated exclusively with the rector.89
78
79
V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 222.
80
Ibidem, 222.
81
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 227, 231.
82
Ibidem, 229.
83
Ibidem, 227–228, 231.
84
85
С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 182–183,
187, 193–194.
86
87
Ibidem, 231.
88
89
С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 176–177,
182–183, 186–187; V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 223.
55
Miloš Ivanović
In regard to the salutation, in the Sultan’s letter of 1430 it reads as:

“much honourable, kind salutation and joy to receive your nobility”
(“mnogočestno ljubovno pozdravljenije i radovanije da prime
plemenstvo vi“).90 A year later, this formula read: “great salutation and
greeting for your nobility” (“mnogo pozdravljenije i herêtisanije da ima
plemenstvo vi“).91 The words “radovanije” and “heretisanije” are not
seen in letters of Ragusans, Bosnian and Serbian rulers and the nobility.
Particularly interesting is the second term, which in fact originates from
the Greek word χαιρετισμός and means a salutation.92 It is thus assumed
that it appeared under Byzantine influence.93 The first letter contains the
month, day and year from Christ’s birth.94 The same was done in the
second letter, but the year was left out.95 Dating with the year from
Christ’s birth was practice in Ragusan and Bosnian acts.96 Ottoman
Cyrillic acts were usually dated only with a month and year, and more
rarely with a year.97 It should be added that both documents contain
tugra written after several initial lines.98
The Ottoman commanders also wrote to Ragusans in Cyrillic. The
earliest such letter was sent by the beylerbeyi of Rumili Shahin (Hadin)
pasha in June 1441.99 At that time relations between Ottomans and
Ragusans were strained. Namely, Despot Đurađ Branković (1427–
1456), who was Ottoman opponent at the time, resided in Ragusa. The
Commune refused to hand over the Despot to the Turks, but agreed to
send a mission to Shahin pasha.100 They asked from him to guarantee
90
91
Ibidem, 231.
92
Ђ. Даничић, Рјечник из књижевних старина српских. Дио трећи (Р–Ћ),
Београд 1864, 411.
93
94
95
Ibidem, 231.
96
С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. XVII Датирање, Глас Српске
краљевске академије 132 (1928) 30, 36, 42.
97
98
Ć. Truhelka, Turskoslovjenski spomenici, 4, 6, tabla 1.
99
100
И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 87–88; М. Спремић, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић,
256–257.
56
safety to their envoys. He did that by his letter of 13 June 1441, offering
to them as escort his man if they were to go before the Sultan.101 Shahin
addressed himself in the letter with a title of “pasha and lord of all the
Western lands” (“od bašije i gospodara svem zapadnim stranam“).102 As
in the case of Sultan’s letters, the intitulatio has the same form as in the
acts of Serbian rulers and nobleman. Particularly interesting is the use of
the term Western lands. This notion appears in the intitulatio and
signatures of Serbian Emperor Stefan Dušan (1331–1355). According
to historian Mihailo Dinić, this term designated an unspecified part of the
Byzantine Empire that was conquered by Stefan Dušan. Further, the
same author pointed out that the term was of Byzantine origin. For the
Byzantines the Western lands represented the European part of the
Empire.103 The Bosnian ruler Tvrtko I Kotromanić (1353–1391) included
Western lands in his title when he proclaimed himself King of Serbia
and Bosnia.104 It is seems that during the reign of his successors Western
lands began to designate the western parts of the Bosnian state.105 Taking
into account the above data, it can be assumed that Shahin used the term
Western lands to mark Rumelia. Unlike the Sultan, he mentioned the
Commune in the address of his letter.106 The term heretisanije had the
role of salutation.107 That he was to fulfil what he promised, Shahin
vowed before God, prophet Muhammad and in seven muşḥafs.108 This
term relates to the complete text of the Quran observed as a physical
object.109 It was believed that the Quran was published in seven different
101
102
Ibidem, 234.
103
М. Динић, Српска владарска титула за време царства, Зборник радова
Византолошког института 5 (1958) 10–11.
104
М. Динић, Српска владарска титула за време царства, 12; С. Станојевић,
Студије о српској дипломатици. II Интитулација, Глас Српске краљевске
академије 92 (1913) 125.
105
М. Динић, Српска владарска титула за време царства, 13.
106
107
Ibidem, 234–235.
108
Ibidem, 235.
109
The Encyclopedia of Islam, volume VII (Mif–Naz), Leiden–New York 1993, 668–
669 (J. Burton); Ђ. Даничић, Рјечник из књижевних старина српских. Дио други
(Л–П), Београд 1863, 97.
57
Miloš Ivanović
forms and that there were as many acceptable versions of its reading110,
which is why seven muşḥafs are mentioned. We should note that such
oath was not unusual in Ottoman documents.111 The document is dated
with a month and day.112 On its side there is a signature which is illegible
according to the first compiler of this document.113 At the same time,
this is the last letter which enters into the chronological framework of
our paper.
It has been observed that numerous forms characteristic for similar
Ragusan, Bosnian and Serbian documents were used in Ottoman Cyrillic
letters. It is therefore important to examine the question of who compiled
them. Great chancellor Đurađ is mentioned among those whom Ragusan
envoys had to bestow gifts upon at the Porte in 1430.114 A reasonable
assumption has thus been put forward that he was a Serbian scribe of
Murad II, and that he compiled the charter that the Sultan issued to them
in December 1430.115 It is entirely certain that he compiled two Sultan’s
letters to Ragusans which we have analysed. Shahin (Hadin) pasha
probably also had a person in charge of compiling Cyrillic documents.
Given the way in which he shaped some parts of the document from
1441, it seems that he was familiar, at least to some extent, with the
practice of Serbian and Bosnian chanceries.
The relations between Ottomans and the Republic of Ragusa were
significantly changed in October 1458. Ragusans had to agree to pay
tribute to the Sultan. In return, Mehmed II (1451–1481) issued to them
the charter on the freedom of commerce.116 That document was
extremely important for Ragusans because the next year Ottomans
110
J. Burton, The collection of the Qur’an, Cambridge 1977, 151–153, 194, 206–210.
111
See some examples in documents of Murad II, Mehmed II and Bayezid II: Љ.
Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 232, 239, 287; Reading the Middle Ages, Volume
II: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, c. 900 to c. 1500, ed. B.
Rosenwein, Toronto 20132, 456.
112
113
Ć. Truhelka, Turskoslovjenski spomenici, 7–8.
114
N. Iorga, Notes et extraits pour servire a l’ histoire des croisades au XVe siècle, vol.
II, Paris 1899, 286; V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 230.
115
116
58
seized the remains of the Serbian medieval state.117 Further, in the middle
of the seventh decade of the 14th century Turks become neighbours of
Ragusa after they conquered a part of territory of Duke Stefan Vukčić.118
These facts have been affected in a different tone of Sultan’s letter after
1458. Namely, it may be noted that Sultan Mehmed II often made threats
to the Ragusans.119 Also, he constantly imposed on them an increase in
the vassal tribute.120
The Cyrillic correspondence was an important form of
communication between the Commune of Ragusa and Ottomans. Owing
to it, we know more about the earliest period of development of
diplomatic relations between the two states. With some deviations,
Ragusans shaped their letters as those which they sent to Serbian and
Bosnian rulers and the nobility. The Ottoman Cyrillic letters to Ragusans
were composed under the strong influence of Serbian and Bosnian
diplomatic formulas. Based on the preserved letters, we can partly
familiarize ourselves with the beginnings of work of the Cyrillic
chancery of Ottoman sultans. More detailed research into this
correspondence for the period after 1458 could certainly yield significant
results in the field of knowledge about Ottoman diplomatics. Light
should be shed also on the influence of Serbian, Bosnian and Ragusan
diplomatics on its development.121
117
М. Спремић, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, 544–545.
118
More about that: С. Ћирковић, Херцег Стефан ВукчићКосача и његово доба,
Београд 1964, 263–264; V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika I, 232.
119
See: Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 251, 256, 259, 262.
120
Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 245, 247–249, 254, 260–261, 268–269; И.
Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 157.
121
Some remarks about that: V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 231–234.
59
Miloš Ivanović
Miloš IVANOVIĆ
1396 – 1458 YILLAR ARASINDA DUBROVNİK

TOPLULUĞUN OSMANLILARLA KİRİL ALFABESİYLE
YAZIŞMASI
Özet
Dubrovnik ve Osmanlılar arasında kiril harflerinde yapılan yazışmalar,

bu iki devlet arasında ilişkileri anlamak için önemli bir kaynaktır. Bu
yazışmadan günümüze ulaşan ilk belge 1396 tarihli olması çalışmanın
kronolojik alt sınırını (post quem) belirler. Dubrovnik Cumhuriyeti 1458
yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun vassalı olmaya başladı. İki siyası yapı
arasındaki ilişkilerin tarihinin önemli aşamalarından biri olan bu yıl,
çalışmanın zamandizimsel üst sınırı olarak seçildi.
Günümüze ulaşan mektuplara göre, Dobrovnikliler Osmanlı
hükümetinin temsilcileriyle ilk olarak bu sonuncuların Vuk Brankoviç
bölgesinin topraklarını 1396 yılında fethetmelerinden sonra iletişim
kurdu. Bu iletişim, en sık olarak önceden Vuk’un şehirleri olan Zveçan,
Yeleç ve Gluhaviçe’yi kapsayan Üsküp bölgesini ele geçiren Paşait
(Yığıt Paşa) ile gerçekleşiyordu. Dubrovnikliler, Paşanın denetimi
altında olan bölgedeki tüccarlarının statusü belirlemek adına ona sıklıkla
başvuruyorlardı. Gönderilen mektupların elkabı (inscriptio) incelendiğinde
Paşaya büyük saygı gösterildiğini görüyoruz. En güçlü Sırp ve Bosna’lı
soyluların isimlerine eklenen ‘slavni’ ve ‘velmožni’ sıfatları, Ekim 1399
tarihinde, Dubrovnik kançilaryası tarafından Paşanın ismine de eklendi.
Öte yandan, Paşaya tabi olan Zveçan yerel idarecisi (kephale) ve
Gluhoviçe kadısına ise daha az tumturaklı bir üslupla hitap ediyorlardı.
Dubrovniklilerin ilgilendiği bölgeye 1399 ortalarında gelen Sultan I.
Bayezid’in özel elçisi Sarhan’a (Saraja) hitap ettiklerinde de, Paşait’e
yazarken kullandıkları büyük voyvodalara ait elkabı kullandılar. Elçinin
elkabı için ilk önce olağan sıfatları kullandılar, 1399 Aralığından itibaren
ise ‘slavni’ ve ‘velmožni’ sıfatlarını da kullanmaya başladılar. Bu elkab,
Dubrovniklilerin Sarhan’ı Paşait kadar önemsediklerini gösteriyor.
Mektuplardaki dua (salutatio) kısımları da, Dubrovniklilerin hitap
60
ettikleri kişilerin rütbesine uygun olarak davrandıklarını gösteriyor.

Ancak, elkabdan farklı olarak bu rüknde bir düzen tespit edilemiyor.
Ankara muharebesinden sonra (1402) Balkanlar’daki Osmanlı etkisi, bir
süreliğine, zayıfladı. Bu durumun Osmanlı komutanlarına aynı yılın
sonlarında gönderilen mektuplara yansıtıldığını görüyoruz. Bu tarihten 1415
yılına kadar Osmanlılar ve Dubrovnikliler arasındaki kiril alfabesindeki
yazışmalar hakkında bir bilgimiz yok. 1414 yılında Türkler, Dubrovniklilerin
buğday ihraç ettiği ve bugünki Arnavutluk topraklarını fethetmeye başladığı
için tekrar yeniden çıkıyor. Avlona, Kanina, Pirga ve Berat komutanı olan
Hamza Bey’e 1417 yılında hitap ederken Dubrovnik kançilaryası, yine,
‘slavni’ ve ‘velmožni’ sıfatlarını kullandılar.
Osmanlılar tarafından kiril alfabesinde yazılmış mektupların
günümüze ulaşanlarının sayısı çok daha azdır. Dubrovnikliler Osmanlı
sultanı ile doğrudan iletişime girmekten kaçınmışlardı zira
cumhuriyetlerine sultanın haracı dayatmasından ürküyorlardı.
Dolayısıyla, vatandaşlarını ilgilendiren sorunları doğrudan sınırdaki
askeri veya “sivil” idarecilerle çözmeye çalışıyorlardı. Dubrovnikliler
Sırp hükümdarlarının arabuluculuğuyla ticari belgelerini sağlamaya
çalıştılar. 1430 yılında Bosna voyvodası Radosav Pavloviç’e karşı
sürdürdükleri savaştan dolayı II Murat ile iletişim kurdular. Bununla
alakalı olarak II Murat’ın gönderdiği 1430 ve 1431 yıllarına ait iki
mektup mevcut. Bu mektuplarda Sırp, Bosna ve Osmanlı diplomatika
sistemlerinin unsurlarının bir araya geldiği farkediliyor. 1441 yılında
Rumeli beylerbeyi Şahin Paşa tarafından Dubrovniklilere gönderilen
mektupta da aynı olgu gözlemleniyor. Bu mektubun ünvan kısmında
(intitulatio) Bizans kaynaklı “Batı Tarafı” terimi ibaresi var. Kiril
alfabesinde yazılmış metinlerde bu terim ilk olarak Sırp imparatoru
Duşan’ın adına yazılmış belgelerin ünvan kısmında ortaya çıktı ve sonra
Bosna hükümdarları tarafından da benimsendi. Sultan II Murat’ın kiril
belgeleri yazan özel katibi vardı. Osmanlı diplomatikasının tanınması
ve üzerinde etkili olan faktörlerin anlaşılması için 1458 sonrası
Osmanlılar ve Dubrovnik arasındaki yazışmalara dair daha detaylı
araştırmaların yapılması bu noktada önemli açılımlar getirebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Dubrovnikliler, Osmanlılar, mektuplaşma,
mektuplar, kiril alfabesinde yazılmış belgeler, ünvan, elkab.
61
Miloš Ivanović
Милош ИВАНОВИЋ
ЋИРИЛСКА ПРЕПИСКА ИЗМЕЂУ ДУБРОВАЧКЕ

КОМУНЕ И ОСМАНЛИЈА ОД 1396. ДО 1458.
Резиме
Важан извор за познавање дубровачкоосманских односа

представља њихова ћирилска преписка. Први сачувани документ у
оквиру ње потиче из 1396. која је зато одабрана за доњу хронолошку
границу овог истраживања. За горњу смо одабрaли 1458. када је
Дубровачка република постала вазал Османског царства што је једна
од преломних тачака у историји њихових односа.
Судећи по сачуваним писмима Дубровчани су најпре
успоставили контакт са представницима османских власти на тлу
области Вука Бранковића коју су Турци заузели током 1396.
године. Најчешће су комуницирали са Пашаитом (Јигитпаша)
заповедником скопског крајишта, у чији састав су ушли некадашњи
Вукови градови Звечан, Јелеч и Глухавица. Обраћали су му се како
би регулисали положај својих трговаца у области коју је
контролисао. На основу инскрипција писама које су му слали може
се закључити да је у њиховим очима уживао велики углед. Октобра
1399. први пут су за њега употребили епитете славни и велможни,
који се обично ишли уз имена најмоћнијих српских и босанских
великаша. Са далеко мање свечаног тона обраћали су се, пак, њему
подређеном звечанском кефалији као и глухавичком кадији.
Посебног изасланика султана Бајазита I (1389–1402) Сархана
(Саража) који је средином 1399. стигао на подручје од интереса за
Дубровчане означавали су, попут Пашаита, као великог војводу. За
њега су у инскрипцијама најпре користили специфичне епитете, да
би га децембра 1399. назвали славним и велможним. Очито је да
су сматрали да је и он имао утицај раван Пашаитовом. Чини се да
су и салутације у писмима биле у складу са рангом који су
Дубровчани приписивали особама којима су писали, мада се код
њих не може уочити правилност као код инскрипција.
62
Након битке код Ангоре 1402. османски утицај на Балкану је

ослабио што се запажа и у писмима њиховим командантима крајем
те године. Од тада па све до 1415. нема података о ћирилској
преписци између Османлија и Дубровчана. Тада се она поново
појављује, јер су Турци почели да запоседају подручја данашње
Албаније, одакле су Дубровчани извозили жито. Заповедника
Валоне, Канине, Пирга и Берата 1417. Хамзабега ословили су
епитетима славни и велможни.
Знатно је мање сачуваних османских ћирилских писама из овог
периода. Треба рећи да су Дубровчани избегавали да директно
комуницирају са султанима зато што су били уплашени да би могао
наметнути плаћање трибута њиховој заједници. Стога, су настојали
да реше проблеме својих грађана комуникацијом са османским
војним командантима и службеницима. Дубровчани су настојали
да посредством српских владара добију од њих повеље о слободи
трговине. Комуникацију са Муратом II успоставили су 1430.
поводом рата који су водили са босанским војводом Радосавом
Павловићем. У вези са тим сачувана су два писма која им је султан
упутио из 1430. односно 1431. године. Примећено је да су они
комбиновали елементе српског, босанског и османског
дипломатичког система. Исто важи и за писмо које је
Дубровчанима 1441. упутио румелијски беглербег Шахин у чијој
се интитулацији појављује појам Западне стране, који је
византијског порекла. Кад је реч о ћирилским документима он се
најпре јавио у титулатури српског Цара Стефана Душана, а затим
су га преузели босански владари. Султан Мурат II имао је посебног
канцелара који му је састављао ћирилске акте. Детаљнија
проучавања османскодубровачке преписке за период након 1458.
могла би донети значајне резултате на пољу познавања османске
дипломатике, те утицаја под којима се она развијала.
Кључне речи: Дубровчани, Османлије, преписка, писма,
ћирилица, интитулација, инскрипција.
63
UDC: 94(439:560)”13/15”:341.34
Adrian MAGINA
IN THE HANDS OF THE TURKS.

CAPTIVES FROM SOUTHERN HUNGARY
IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (14–16th centuries)
Abstract: In the second half of the 14th century the Ottoman Empire advanced into
the Balkans and reached the frontier of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom. By the end of
the century, the Ottoman pressure was felt increasingly more in the southern part of the
Kingdom. Turkish raids affected the territory between the Danube, Tisza and Mureş, the
region now called Banat. In those raids some of the inhabitants were taken into captivity
by the Ottoman troops and became slaves in the Empire. Although minor, this topic
contributes to better understanding of the early OttomanHungarian contact and relations.
The first known case comes from the second half of the 14th century when a noble young
woman from the Himfy family was captured and sold as a slave in the Greek islands. The
almost permanent conflict between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire in the 15–16th
centuries affected the southern territory of the Kingdom. The number of documents that
speak about captives is increasing, offering interesting data about their status, how or
when they were captured and, of course, the ransom they paid to be released.
Keywords: medieval Hungary, Ottoman Empire, captives, 14–16th centuries.
The words In the hands of the Turks (in manibus turcorum) are
usually found in documents or chronicles of the 15th century to express
a rather minor reality on which central European historiography has
rarely focused: Christian captives in the Ottoman Empire.
We may speak about captives from medieval Hungary in the Ottoman
Empire beginning with the second half of the 14th century, in the context
of political and territorial alterations in southeastern Europe. Having
conquered a part of the Balkans and turned the Serbian and Bulgarian
states into its vassals, the Ottoman Empire reached the Hungarian Kingdom
border area. The geographic proximity meant that territories of the
65
Adrian Magina
Hungarian Kingdom were exposed to the Ottomans’ attacks from that

time onwards. The areas near the Danube line, namely the southern
Hungarian counties, were to become the most affected areas of Hungary
in the case of a conflict with the Turks. Geographically, this is the
territory bordered by the Carpathians (eastward), the Tisza river
(westward), the Mureş river (northward), and the Danube (southward).
The plain area of that territory was called Temesköz (between the Timiş
river in Hungarian) in the Middle Ages, while the mountainous area was
known as the Banat of Severin, a military border entity. From the
administrative point of view, there were more counties (comitatus –
Latin; vármegye – Hungarian) within that territory: Arad and Cenad
(Csanád), both of them northward of the Mures river, Timiş (Temes),
Caraş (Krassó), Torontal and Keve. Banat is the present name of the
area (Банат; Bánság), imposed by the Austrian authorities after they
occupied the province in the early 18th century. Nowadays, this territory
of about 30,000 km2 is shared by Romania (about 60%), Serbia (39%),
and Hungary (1%).1
Given its geographic position, strong drainage and the resulting easily
flooded areas, the southern territory of the Hungarian Kingdom was less
populated.2 The largest part of the population lived in rural settlements,
while cities (civitates) and urban agglomerations (târg – Romanian;
mezöváros – Hungarian; oppidum – Latin) accounted for an incomparably
smaller percentage. The few cities with such legal status and of
demographical significance were located especially in the north of the
1
About different viewpoints of the present territory of Banat, see: V. V. Munteanu,
Contribuții la istoria Banatului [Contributions to the history of Banat], Timișoara
1990; V. Achim, Banatul în Evul mediu: studii [Banat in the Middle Ages: Studies],
București: Albatros, 2000; Банат кроз векове, слојеви култура Баната [Banat
through the centuries, layers of Banat culture], уредници Миодраг Матицки,
Видојко Јовић, Београд: Вукова задужбина, 2010; F. Pesty, A szörényi bánság
és Szörény vármegye története [The history of Banat and the County of Severin],
vol. I–III, Budapest: Athaeneum, 1877–1878; I. Petrovics, A középkori Temesvár.
Fejezetek a Begaparti város 1552 előtti történetéből [Medieval Timișoara. Chapters
in the history of the city on the Bega river before 1552], Szeged: JatePress, 2008.
2
On the medieval landscape of Banat and how it changed, see: A. Magina, From
swamp to blessed land: transforming medieval landscape in Banat, Banatica 25
(2015) 115–121.
66
In the Hands of the Turks Captives from Southern Hungary in the Ottoman Empire (14–16th Centuries)
province: Timişoara (the largest and the most important city there),
Lipova (on the Mureş river), Caransebeş and Lugoj (both of them in the
high area of the territory).3
The southern area of Hungary had to face a new reality in the second
half of the 14th century in light of the new political and geographical
circumstances, after the Balkan states fell under Ottoman rule. The
presence of troops of the Sublime Porte on the Danube line made the
Hungarian borderlands vulnerable as Hungary assumed an open anti
Ottoman politics through King Sigismund of Luxemburg. The effects
of such a political decision came rather immediately. The first Ottoman
raids in southern Hungary are reported at the end of the 14th century.
Initially those were only robbery campaigns in the counties near the
Danube line.4 They increased during the 15th century and reached the
northern side of the territory, nearby Timişoara. They periodically
continued up to the middle of the 16th century, when a large part of the
territory (the plain area including Timişoara) was conquered, integrated
into the Ottoman Empire and organized as the vilayet of Timişoara
(1552).5 Yet at the beginning of the 15th century the Hungarian royalty
set a defensive line of posts along the Danube in order to limit the effects
of those raids. That line included more royal fortifications that in a large
measure served the purpose they had been built for.6 Apart from the
3
The situation of the cities southward of the Mureş river, at: I. Petrovics, Towns and
central places in the DanubeTisza/TisaMaros/Mureș region in the Middle Ages,
Banatica 26/II (2016) 77–104; L. Magina, The memory of writing in Banatian
municipal institutions during the 15–17th centuries, Transylvanian Review 22, suppl.
4 (2013) 284–294.
4
M. Bódog, A törökök elsö betörései DélMagyarországba Zsigmond és Albert
királyok idejében. Keve és Krassó vármegyék megszünése (1393–1439) [The first
Turkish raids in southern Hungary in the age of kings Sigismund and Albert. The
dissolution of Keve and Caraș counties], Történelmi és Régészeti Értesitő 29, III–IV
(1913) 1–41.
5
P. Iambor, Cucerirea Banatului de către turci și transformarea lui în pașalâc [The
conquest of Banat by Turks and its transformation in Turkish province], Vilaetul
Timișoarei (450 de ani de la întemeierea pașalâcului) 1552–2002, Timișoara: Mirton,
2002, 7–26.
6
A. Magina, Border and Periphery. The southern frontier of medieval kingdom of Hungary
between Belgrade and Severin (14–16th centuries), Иницијал. Часопис за средњовековне
студије / Initial. A review of medieval studies 4 (2016) 141–164.
67
Adrian Magina
psychological impact, those raids caused material losses. In 1446, for

instance, more noblemen around Timişoara had to claim their property
in court as the documents they had were taken and destroyed by the
Ottomans.7 A similar situation is to be noted in the case of other nobles
from southern parts of the Kingdom, who lost their subjects and papers
after an Ottoman raid.8 Rural settlements seem to have been the most
troubled, tens of them totally disappearing or depopulated. On the Chery
estate for example, 62 villages of 82 were noted as depopulated on
account of the Ottoman raids (quas in maiori parte propter creberimus
et fere continuum Turcorum, Christiani nominis utrocissimorum hostium
insultum, desolates comperissent…in earum parte permissum Turcorum
ob insultum, iam in predia conversarunt).9 Trying to protect their goods,
the local nobility built many fortified residences to have a retreat in the
case of sudden attacks. Inhabitants were by far the most affected, while
the buildings could be rebuilt and the cattle restored.
The impact of Ottoman raids was so great that there were testimonies
at that time strictly connected to those raids. In 1539, for instance, a
7
P. Frigyes, Diplome privind istoria comitatului Timiş şi a oraşului Timişoara/
Oklevelek Temesvármegye és Temesvár város történetehez [Documents regarding
the history of Timiș County and the town of Timișoara], II: 1430–1470, ediţie, note
şi comentarii /Magyarázó jegyzetekkel kiadta Livia Magina, Adrian Magina, Cluj
Napoca: Editura Mega, 2014, 167, no. 134: quod litere et literalia eorum
instrumenta, quarum vigoribus possessio Symand vocata, per nobiles de Thelegd
pro iuribus dotalitiis et quartalitiis domine Elene, relicte Gabrielis, filii dicti Pose
data extitisset, per Turcos asportate et deperdite sint.
8
F. Pesty, A szörényi bánság, 59: in illis partibus inferioribus videlicet
Themesiensibus per sevissimos Turcos crucis Christi persecutores deuastatum, sew
depredatum existit, de quibus plures homines diverse conditionis et utriusque sexus
per eosdem Turcos in perpetuam seruitutem sunt deducti ipsorum iura seu literalia
iustrumenta pro parte ipsorum ab ipso domino Alberto Rege confecta et emanata
ipsum Castrum Dranko comitatumque necnon villas ad id pertinentes tangentia et
concernentia in ipsa guerra per ipsos Turcos ab eisdem forent deperdita et alienate.
9
Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Hungarian National Archive,
hereafter MNL OL], Diplomatikai Levéltár [Charters Archive, hereafter DL], no.
72186; about the special situation of Chery see A. Magina, Estate an fort Cheri in
the Middle Ages, Interethnic relations in Transylvania. Militaria Mediaevalia in
Central and South Eastern Europe, Zeno Karl Pinter, Anca Nițoi, eds., Sibiu 2015,
63–73.
68
noble woman remembered that a certain nobleman was a landlord when

she was a child (in the early 16th century); afraid of an Ottomans’ attack,
she took refugee in the nobleman’s fortress.10 There are some usual, even
not very frequent expressions in the papers in southern Hungary, as “at
that time that the Turks were mounting assails/pillages”.
I would like to come back to the issue I put forward in the title and
to focus on the people who were the most affected, as I have said above.
I will speak about war prisoners, various persons originating from
southern Hungary, who were captured during those Ottoman raids or
during the military actions south of the Danube. I may say from the very
beginning that my speech is founded exclusively on references from the
Hungarian Kingdom. I am not very familiar with the Ottoman sources
or with what was written in Turkey on the situation of war captives. In
Romanian historiography, this question was less tackled, frequently in
relation with persons originating from Walachia or Moldavia. There is
a limit in what I tried to analyze as all the cases I have focused on belong
to nobility, and our knowledge about common people from that area who
became prisoners in the Ottoman Empire is scarce. We cannot make any
estimation of the number of prisoners from Banat during the 14–16th
centuries. The late records (17–18th centuries) are the only ones we have
at our disposal and certainly they are of no avail as they refer to another
population and, moreover, they might be deeply exaggerated. A sample
in the matter refers to the Ottoman invasion into the Autonomous
Principality of Transylvania (1658) when a report of a Jesuit monk
estimated that 80,000 people had fallen prisoners there and moved to
presentday Banat; undoubtedly, this was an exaggeration.11
10
A. Magina, O ascultare de martori şi realităţi bănăţene întrun document din 1539
[A hearing and Banatian realities in a document from 1539], Analele Banatului, S.N.
22 (2014) 271: relicta condam Ioannis Therewk de Zwpan, iurata et examinata fassa
fuisset, scire veraciter, quod Michael Fodor, avus Francisci Fodor, castellum
erexisset prope Kys Themes et ipsa tunc puella existens dum fama Thurcarum audita
fuisset, tunc in illud castellum confugissent.
11
Atque praeter infinitam multitudinem multitudines omnis generis pecorsque, apud
Temesvarinum lustratorque ex utroque sexu octuaginta millia Christianorum in
luctosam, tyranicasque servitute ablegit. MNL OL, Magyar kamarai archivuma
[Hungarian Economic Archive] E 152 Collegium Cassoviense, Irregestrata: A
magyarországi és erdélyi jezsuitak érintő országgyulési és uralkodói döntésekkel
69
Adrian Magina
The first case of a person from the south of Hungary to fall into the
Ottoman captivity comes from the 14th century. Margaret Himfy was
that person, a young lady belonging to a very important noble family in
medieval Banat. Originating from western Hungary (county of Veszprém),
the family of Himfy was almost for a century one of the most
representative ones in the counties of Timiş and Caraş.12 The main
residences of that family in the south of the Kingdom were set at Remete
(a village that disappeared, archaeologically identified near Berzovia,
CaraşSeverin County, Romania), and Ersig (a small village today, nearby
Berzovia, CaraşSeverin County, Romania). It seems that according to
some Venetian papers, Margaret was Benedict Himfy’s daughter; this
nobleman was a very important person who was appointed a ban
(Hungarian military governor) in Bulgaria.13 According to other data
analyzed by historian Pál Engel, Margareta was a daughter of Nicholas,
the ban of Bulgaria’s brother, who was a lord of Caraş County in the
second half of the 14th century.14 Regardless of the branch she came from,
this member of the Himfy’s family is taken in historiography as the first
known captive from Hungary who fell into the Ottomans’ hands.
The data on her captivity come mainly from Venetian sources that
were known in excerpts since the end of the 19th century.15 Those papers
were retaken and reedited in the same brief shape by historian Mályusz
Élemer in the corpus he dedicated to King Sigismund’s era.16 The data
kapcsalatos iratok 1607–1659 [The documents of the assemblies and rulers

concerning the connection with Hungarian and Transylvanian Jesuits between 1607
and 1659], f. 51
12
On Himfy family: C. PopaGorjanu, Medieval Nobility in Central Europe: The
Case of Himfy Family, Budapest 2004, unpublished PhD.
13
B. Kumurovitz, I Lajos királyunk 1375. évi Havasföldi hadjárata (és török)
háborúja [The military campaign of king Louis I in 1375 Wallachia (and Turkish)
war], Szazadok 117 (1983) 919–982.
14
P. Engel, Középkori magyar genealógia [Medieval Hungarian genealogy], CD
version.
15
A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Történelmi Bizottságának Oklevélmásolatai
[Copies of documents of the historical comittee of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences], ismerteti Óváry Lipót, I füzet, Budapest 1890, 63–64.
16
E. Mályusz, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [The charters of Sigismund’s age], II/1–2,
Budapest 1958, no. 4024, 6189, 6407.
70
on the young Hungarian noble lady were put forward in the 1980s by
Hungarian historian Bernát Kumurovitz who analyzed one of the military
campaigns of Hungarian King Louis d’Anjou.17 According to him, the
young Himfy lady was taken captive during an Ottoman raid around 1375,
and was sold as a slave in the Greek isles market. Darvasio, a merchant of
Venetian origin from Candia, bought her and married her after; they had
descendants. Later, at the beginning of the 15th century (1405) Margareta
managed to contact her family in Hungary. Through Nicholas Marczali,
count of Timiş, the family ransomed her and her children, and after that her
husband also came to Hungary.18 If we accept Kumurovitz’s hypothesis,
Margaret Himfy would have really been the first Hungarian captive in the
Ottoman Empire where she stayed for around 30 years. Pál Engel has
recently amended Kumurovitz’s assertions saying that she spent in captivity
ten years at most, because the first Ottoman raids against southern Hungary
are documented after 1390.19 Most likely she was captured during the raids
in 1396 when Himfy family’s estates were attacked and a Pauline monastery
near the administrative seat of the Caraş County was destroyed (at
Mezősomlyó, a locality that disappeared, archaeologically identified near
Gătaia, Timiş County, Romania). The documents of the time noted that the
hereditary possessions of the Himfys were sacked by the Ottomans
(hereditares possessionibus temporibus inpacatis per nephandorum
Turcorum insultus prorsus et omnino existunt devastate).20 A part of the
local peasants ran away during those attacks, and the owners of right asked
for their return a few years later (1399).21 Even if her captivity was shorter
than initially estimated, Margaret Himfy remains the first known person in
the south of Hungary to have been captured by the Ottomans.
17
B. Kumurowitz, Havasföldi hadjárata.
18
Ibid., 942–945.
19
P. Engel, A törökmagyar háborúk első évei 1389–1392 [The first years of Turkish
Hungarian wars], Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 111, no. 3 (1998) (special issue
Memoria Rerum Sigismundi Regis) 568–569.
20
DL 52950, abstracted in Mályusz, Zsigmondkori, I, no. 4509, quoted by B.
Kumurowitz, Havasföldi hadjárata, 943, footnote 138.
21
DL 92112: iobagiones habens de ipsa terra nostra Temeskuz propter metum Turkorum
evasos eosdem unacum rebus suis universis restituat sine omni recusa permittatque
abire et in dictam terram nostram sub eundem nobilem eiusdem terre, cuius prefuit,
descendere libere et quiete, abstracted in E. Mályusz, Zsigmondkori, I, no. 6025.
71
Adrian Magina
No nominal references appear after this moment at the end of the 14th
century, concerning persons from southern Hungary who fell in the
Ottomans’ hands. The central and local authorities’ documents spoke
about numerous confrontations on the Danube line which, as in any war
of attrition, produced victims on both sides. Undoubtedly, various
persons were captured during the raids (some of them were involved in
the mentioned battles, some of them were captured from estates), but
their names have not been effectively recorded.22
The other known cases recorded in documents of the time are similar
enough to that of Margaret Himfy. Michael of Cerna is the next captive
about whom we have certain data; he was a Romanian nobleman, vice
ban of Severin. He fell into the Ottoman captivity together with his son,
Nicholas, on an unspecified date, on the occasion of a battle (in quadam
pugna cum Teucris, pro defensione regni habita, captus vix) (Kosovopolje,
1448, possibly). He managed to ransom himself and in 1453, after
liberation, he was donated the oppidum of Recaş. According to the paper
of donation for his father Michael, Nicholas died after a long and
agonizing captivity without enjoying the new estate (Nicolao, filio suo,
qui tandem ibidem longis captivitatis tormentis, vitam finivit).23 Other
nobles from the southern part of Hungary or Transylvania (county of
Hunedoara, Romania) fell in the Ottomans’ hands together with the two
above. When speaking about children or women, we can certainly assert
that they were captured during the raids in different areas. In the case of
men, they were captured rather during the frequent campaigns in the
Danube area in which nobles took part, according to their military
competences. A daughter of noble Zacharias of Măcicaş’24, a widow,
was most probably captured from the family’s estate during a raid, and
came into the Ottoman captivity (filia cuiusdam Zacharie de Matskas,
per sevissimos Turcas capta et abducta fuerat). The same destiny befell
Ladislaus Racoviţa, a member of one of the most representative
22
In 1464 one document mentions that ipso Allybeg et ceteris Turcis inibi victis et superatis
cum idem resumptis viribus suis, aliorsum videlicet in comitatum Themesiensem
divertisset et populum christianum in magno numero captum duceret. F. Pesty, Krassó
vármegye története [The history of Caraș County], III, Budapest 1882, 409.
23
F. Pesty, Diplome, 251, no. 219.
24
F. Pesty, Krassó, III, 443.
72
Romanian noble families, but we do not know if he was captured in his

residential area or in a battle that he took part in. Given his long Ottoman
captivity, he was called “pribeagul” (pribek – Hungarian [the wanderer]),
a nickname he handed down to his descendants and to his descendants’
descendants.25 Both originated from the Caransebeş countryside (north
east of presentday Banat), which means that the Hungarian defensive
system was highly vulnerable in the second part of the 15th century. The
Ottomans reached some limitrophe areas of Timişoara, the largest city in
the province, located at more than 100 km, in a crow line, from the Danube
border. Thus, Francisc Török (a significant name as it means “the Turk”
in the Hungarian language), a petty nobleman in the Arad County, was
captured in the early 16th century, during an attack on the Chery fortress;
he hardly succeeded to ransom at his turn.26 As I have already said, the
estate of Chery at a distance of a few kilometers from Timişoara was
devastated during the raids, with two thirds of its villages depopulated.27
We might note that the majority of captives could come back to their
families after paying ransom, in spite of the negative attitude towards the
Ottomans that the references present. I do believe that those raids were
certainly aimed at material profit, apart from their military and
psychological impact. And nothing was more profitable than capturing
certain members of the noble elites, those who had the financial power
to ransom themselves. In fact, it was much simpler to carry some notable
prisoners than thousands of peasants who made difficult the rapid
advancement of Ottoman troops which were frequently confronted in
the second half of the 15th century by the light Hungarian cavalry – the
hussars, most of them of Serbian origin.28
25
L. Boldea, Nobilimea românească din Banat în secolele XVI–XVI : origine, statut,
studiu genealogic [The Romanian nobility of Banat in the 14–16th centuries: origin,
status, genealogy], Reșița: Banatica, 2002, 322.
26
L. Haan, M. Zsilinszky, Békésmegyei oklevéltár, számos, hazánk beltörténetére
vonatkozó adatokkal [Charters of Békés County, with many data about our county’s
internal history], Budapest 1877, 124; A. Magina, Estate and fort Chery, 65.
27
See footnote 9.
28
On hussars and their role in the kingdom of Hungary see: Kovács S. Tibor, A
huszárfegyverek a 15–17. században [The Hussar weapons in the 15–17th centuries],
Budapest: Martin Opitz, 2010. For Serbian hussars see: Д. Бабац, Српски Хусар
[Serbian Hussar], Београд 2011.
73
Adrian Magina
The ransom to be paid was not small. Two hundred golden forints
(forinti CC doro) were paid, for instance, for Margaret Himfy, a
transaction made through her relatives and her family’s intimates.29
Excessively large, that price could include the children the noble woman
took with her when coming back to Hungary. This was nevertheless a
financially potent family, ready to pay any amount to liberate one of its
members. It seems that in the second half of the 15th century the ransom
became stable, of around 20 golden forints. Ita of Băieşti, a nobleman in
the Hunedoara County, paid 60 forints to ransom his wife and his two
children.30 But not all the elite’s members had such amounts in cash,
which was one of great difficulties at that time. They had to pledge or
sell their estates to get those large amounts. There is the case of the
widow of noble Zacharias of Măcicaş, who had to pledge her small
estate to ransom her daughter. Ladislaus Racoviţa’s mother did the same
and got the necessary money (160 gold florins) to bring her son back
home.31 Francisc Török also lacked the cash he needed, so he had to sell
what his father had been donated by duke John Corvinus, namely his
house and noble yard in Gyula.32 Ransom was to be paid at the price of
a noble estate, or of a house or yard in urban localities. It is the price
that later, in the second half of the 16th century, they used to sell or buy
serfs in the Banat area.33 To get such an amount was not a simple and
rapid procedure, but a long one with a series of longstanding
transactions. As cash lacked up to the moment of getting money by
selling or pledging, captives to be ransomed lingered for years, which
29
E. Mályusz, Zsigmondkori, II/1, no. 6407; B. Kumurowitz, Havasföldi hadjárata, 944.
30
I. Drăgan, Nobilimea românească din Transilvania între anii 1440–1514 [The
Romanian nobility in Transylvania between 1440 and 1514], București: Editura
Enciclopedică, 2000, 142.
31
J. Lugossy, Két magyar köriratú pecsét 1500 évböl [Two Hungarian written seals
from 1500], Magyar Történelmi Tár I (1855) 178: Dorotheam, relictam Jacobi
Rakovicza, dum ipse fuisset in captivitate Turcarum Jacobo Margay genitori praefati
nobilis Georgi Margay pro centum et sexaginta aureis impignorasse, velletque idem
praefatus Ladislaus Pribek eosdem centum et sexaginta aureos pro redemptione
possessionum impignoratarum annumerare et deponere.
32
L. Haan, M. Zsilinszky, Békésmegye, 124.
33
A. Magina, Pledges and debts. Prices of goods in Banat of the 16–17th centuries,
Banatica 26/II (2016) 386–387.
74
was the situation in almost all the cases I have pointed out. Falling into
captivity could have been a real calamity for the petty nobility which
could lose their entire wealth, and a landless noble might have lost even
his noble competences. Except for Margaret Himfy’s case, unfortunately
we do not know much about the ransoming procedures. In her case,
ransoming was intermediated by her relatives and friends’ contacts with
authorities in Venice, and her husband’s relatives directly paid the
ransom. It is almost impossible to point out how the families contacted
the Ottoman owners or how intermediation was carried out in the other
cases of captured nobles. These are the questions I have no answer to for
the time being. But it might have been a similar situation, the
intermediaries being those who were already cooperating with the
Ottomans. It is possible that new sources would appear (including the
Ottoman ones) which could explain the procedures I have described.
To sum up, I do believe that the theme of captives from the south of
Hungary may offer us a perspective of the relations between the
Ottomans and the Hungarian population, apart from the official relations
that the contacts between the rulers of the two states make visible. The
data concerning the captives are in the case of the southern area of the
Hungarian Kingdom an indication both of the war of attrition in the
Danube area and the Ottoman impact on the borderland society in
medieval Hungary.
75
Adrian Magina
Adrian MAGINA
TÜRKLERİN ELLERİNDE –
OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU’NDA GÜNEY
MACARİSTAN ESİRLERİ (1416. YÜZYIL)
Özet
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, 14. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Balkanlar’dan

geçerek Orta Çağ Macar krallığının sınırlarına ulaştı. Yüzyılın sonlarında,
Krallığın güney kısmında Osmanlı baskısı giderek artıyordu. Türkler,
bugün Banat olarak adlandırılan Tuna, Tissa ve Moreş nehirlerinin
arasındaki bölgeye akın ediyorlardı. Bu akınlar sırasında Osmanlı
askerleri yerlileri esir alıp İmparatorluk merkezine köle olarak
getiriyorlardı. Bu çalışma, konusunun önemi sınırlı olmasına rağmen
erken OsmanlıMacar ilişkilerinin daha iyi bir şekilde anlamasına katkı
sağlamayı amaçlıyor. Kaynakların bildirdiği ilk olayda, 14. yüzyılın
ikinci yarısında Himfi isimli genç bir soylu kadının, esir alındıktan sonra
Yunan adalarına köle olarak gönderildiğini görüyoruz. 15.16. yüzyıllarda
neredeyse kesintisiz MacarOsmanlı çatışmalarının Krallık’ın güney
bölgelerinde önemli bir etki bıraktı. Esirlerin durumlarını konu edinen,
dikkat çekici bilgiler içeren, ne zaman ve nasıl esir alındıklarını anlatan
ve de serbest bırakılmaları için ödenmesi gereken fidye miktarlarını
gösteren belgelerin sayısı da zamanla giderek artıyordu.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Orta Çağda Macaristan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu,
esirler, 14–16. yüzyıl.
76
Adrian MAGINA
У РУКАМА ТУРАКА –
ЗАРОБЉЕНИЦИ ИЗ ЈУЖНЕ УГАРСКЕ
У ОТОМАНСКОМ ЦАРСТВУ (14–16. век)
Резиме
У другој половини 14. века, Отоманско царство продирало је на

Балкан и досегло до граница средњовековног Угарског краљевства.
Крајем века, отомански притисак осећао се све више у јужном делу
Краљевства. Турци су упадали у област између Дунава, Тисе и
Мориша, која се данас зове Банат. У тим упадима, отомански
војници заробљавали би поједине житеље који су постајали робови
у Царству. Иако од мањег значаја, ова тема доприноси бољем
разумевању раних отоманскоугарских контаката и односа. Први
познат случај потиче из друге половине 14. века, када је млада
племкиња из породице Химфи била заробљена и продата као
робиња на грчким острвима. Скоро сталан сукоб између Угарске и
Отоманског царства у 15–16. веку имао је уплива на јужну
територију Краљевства. Све је већи број докумената који говоре о
заробљеницима и који садрже занимљиве податке о њиховом
положају, о томе како и када су заробљени и, наравно, о откупу
који су плаћали да би били пуштени.
Кључне речи: средњовековна Угарска, Отоманско царство,
заробљеници, 14–16. век.
77
UDC: 94:312(497.6:560)”14”
Emir O. FILIPOVIĆ
THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST

AND THE DEPOPULATION OF BOSNIA
IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Abstract: Using available contemporary sources and previous research results, this
paper deals with the way that the protracted Ottoman conquest of the Balkans affected
the population of the Bosnian urban areas and countryside during the fifteenth century.
The very first Ottoman incursions into Bosnia during the 1380’s were marked by
people fleeing and running away from potential negative consequences of such military
raids, and the process of depopulation continued, with varying intensity, even after the
fall of the Bosnian Kingdom in 1463. Due to the very nature of preserved sources, this
work is not an extensive statistical study or a detailed demographic overview of the
period in question. That means that this analysis will not be able to provide an exact
number or percentage of people who left Bosnia due to the Ottoman conquest, but it
will focus on, present and highlight those sources which talk about the tendency of
people to leave their homeland, run away and evade, either the Ottoman army, or the
changes brought by Ottoman rule in general.
Keywords: Bosnia, Ottoman conquest, resettlement, Ragusa, defter.
Few topics divide scholarly and popular opinion in the way that that
the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans does. Even after more than a
century of debate and discussion, binary models of positive/negative
perceptions still dominate existing views regarding the emergence and
rise of the Ottoman Empire. This is partly down to the fact that most
historians themselves have failed to restructure their approach to the
subject, continuing to produce competing narratives and often
diametrically opposing terminology and theories in order to describe the
processes. However, despite the vagueness and nuances in vocabulary
and concepts, as well as a reluctance on part of some modern scholars
79
Emir O. Filipović
to acknowledge it, there can be no doubt that the initial Ottoman territorial
expansion in the Balkans during the fourteenth and fifteenth century was
followed by war, violence, disorder and destruction, which stands in stark
contrast when compared to the more tranquil and prosperous periods of
the later centuries.1 The establishment of Ottoman power in the Balkans
was strongly opposed not only by the local ruling elites, but also by the
majority of the people who were uncertain of their destiny under a new
system of administration and government. Not feeling safe in the times
of war, which were followed by economic deprivation and famine, many
of them sought refuge in migrating to safer areas which were located
further away from the conflict zones in the border regions. Many
contemporary sources testify about the largescale movements of people
from the Bosnian Kingdom towards the coastal towns of Dalmatia, and
even further across the Adriatic Sea into Italy. Thus the Ottoman conquest
of Bosnia had a significant influence on the heavy depopulation of urban
areas and the countryside during the fifteenth century. This paper will
seek to shed some light on the available source materials and to provide
an insight into why some people migrated and why others remained in
Bosnia accepting to be integrated into the Ottoman administrative system.
Previous research and available sources
Among the many migrations and movements of people that affected

the Balkans from the settlement of Slavs and Avars in the early Middle
1
The problem of warfare, violence and mass devastation during the Ottoman conquest
of the Balkans and the way it has been dealt with by specialists in Mediterranean,
Byzantine, Ottoman and Balkan studies is discussed by Oliver Jens Schmitt, The
Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans – Research Questions and Interpretations, The
Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans. Interpretations and Research Debates, Vienna
2015, 12–13, 19, 25–27, 39. He argues that justified criticism and attempts to revise
the prevailing nationalist narratives have resulted in another extreme view which
ignores, marginalizes or underplays violence, as well as demographic, political and
sociocultural disruption in the Balkans caused by Ottoman warfare. This in turn
leads to scholars avoiding the term “conquest”, negating the consequences of military
activities and violenceinduced change, preferring to perceive the period in terms of
transition, transformation and integration.
80
The Ottoman Conquest and the Depopulation of Bosnia in the Fifteenth Century
Ages until the modern times, the Ottoman conquest stands out as having
the most significant impact on the ethnic and social structure of Bosnia.2
However, despite its obvious importance, the topic has not been
adequately examined in historiography. For example, in the proceedings
of a large conference held in 1989 which treated migration processes in the
history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this subject was not given the due and
separate attention it deserved.3 This is not to say that the issue has been
completely avoided or overlooked, since some historians have briefly
touched upon it in their various works.4 Nevertheless, no one has yet
dedicated a distinct research paper using all the existing sources in order
to highlight or estimate the influence that the Ottoman conquest had on the
depopulation of Bosnia during the fifteenth century. The failure to address
this issue properly gave rise to many wrong opinions, especially regarding
the ancestry of modern inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The available source materials for the study of this problem are
contemporary diplomatic reports kept in the communal archives on the
Dalmatian coast, especially in Dubrovnik, which testify about the arrival
of people from Bosnia to coastal areas in times of trouble in the
hinterland.5 While in some instances people migrated to the seaside due
2
For a general overview of migrations in Bosnia, from the Middle Ages to the twentieth
century, see: S. Pavičić, Bosna: Migracije, Migracijske i etničke teme 16/4 (2000)
333–357. The article was originally written for the Croatian Encyclopedia, published
in Zagreb in 1942, and thus has to be approached critically and treated with a great
degree of caution. For medieval migrations in general, see: Migrationen im Mittelalter.
Ein Handbuch, Michael Borgolte (ed.), Berlin 2014, with the literature listed there.
3
See: Migracije i Bosna i Hercegovina, Institut za istoriju – Institut za proučavanje
nacionalnih odnosa, Sarajevo 1990.
4
For instance: N. Filipović, Osvrt na položaj bosanskog seljaštva u prvoj deceniji
uspostavljanja osmanske vlasti u Bosni, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu 3
(1965) 63–75; Idem, Napomene o islamizaciji u BiH u XV vijeku, Godišnjak Centra
za balkanološka ispitivanja ANUBiH VII/5 (1970) 141–167; A. Handžić, O kretanju
stanovništva u regionu srednjeg toka Bosne (međuprostor Maglaj – Doboj – Tešanj)
od druge polovine XV do kraja XVI st., Migracije i Bosna i Hercegovina, Institut za
istoriju – Institut za proučavanje nacionalnih odnosa, Sarajevo 1990, 57–66.
5
D. DinićKnežević, Migracije stanovništva iz južnoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik
tokom srednjeg veka, SANU – Organak u Novom Sadu – Filozofski fakultet u
Novom Sadu, Novi Sad 1995.
81
Emir O. Filipović
to famine, economic or other social reasons,6 in a fair number of instances

the sources directly assert that the main motive or cause for their arrival
were the devastating incursions and raids of the Ottoman army.7
Some groups or individuals chose to return to their homes after the
danger had passed, some opted to remain in Dalmatia, while others even
went one step further by migrating across the Sea. This is confirmed by
documents found in the rich archival collections in Italy, mostly in the
Marches and Venice, which talk about a continuous influx of people
from the Balkans to the Apennine Peninsula during the fifteenth century.8
Using these sources certain historians have come to a liberal
approximation that during the late Middle Ages thousands of Slavs per
year settled in Italy,9 and that Croatia, for example, experienced in the
course of a little more than one century, from the fall of Bosnia in 1463
to the battle of Sisak in 1593, a population loss of around 60% of its
previous inhabitants.10
6
P. Živković, Gospodarske prilike kao osnovni uzrok migracijskih kretanja iz
primorja u zaleđe i obratno, Migracije i Bosna i Hercegovina, Institut za istoriju –
Institut za proučavanje nacionalnih odnosa, Sarajevo 1990, 49–50; D. Dinić
Knežević, Migracije stanovništva iz bližeg zaleđa u Dubrovnik u XIV veku,
Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis 1–2 (1974) 19–40.
7
H. Šabanović, Pitanje turske vlasti u Bosni do pohoda Mehmeda II 1463 g.,
Godišnjak Istoriskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 8 (1955) 37–51, provides an
outline of these attacks which is by no means extensive or comprehensive and needs
to be revised. See also: D. Kovačević, Prilog pitanju ranih bosanskoturskih odnosa,
Godišnjak Istoriskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 11 (1960) 257–263. Despite being
somewhat outdated and incomplete, F. Szakály, Phases of TurcoHungarian Warfare
before the Battle of Mohács (1365–1526), Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 33/1 (1979) 65–111, is still an instructive and useful overview of the
military and political history of the period.
8
F. Gestrin, Migracije iz Dalmacije v Italijo v 15. in 16. stoletju, Zgodovinski časopis
30/3–4 (1976) 269–277; Idem, Migracije iz Dalmacije u Marke u XV i XVI stoljeću,
Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 10 (1977) 395–404; Idem, Migracije Slovena u
Italiju kroz vekove, Istorijski časopis 31 (1984) 67–77; L. Čoralić, Migracije i život
iseljenika iz Bosne u Veneciji (XV–XVII st.), Bosna i Hercegovina i Svijet, Sarajevo,
1996, 115–123; M. Šunjić, Slaveni nastanjeni na području Ankonitanskog distrikta u 15.
stoljeću, Spomenica akademika Marka Šunjića (1927–1998), Sarajevo 2010, 35–52.
9
F. Gestrin, Migracije Slovena u Italiju kroz vekove, 69.
10
Claims made by I. Jurković, Klasifikacija hrvatskih raseljenika za trajanja osmanske
ugroze (od 1463. do 1593.), Migracijske i etničke teme 19/2–3 (2003) 147–174; Idem,
82
Although these estimations might seem exaggerated, especially if we

take into account the fact that we do not know the precise number of
people who lived in these areas prior to the Ottoman conquest, and
although specifying an exact figure of population losses on the basis of
limited, and quite often insufficient contemporary records is extremely
contentious, one should bear in mind that the Ottoman sources also give
evidence about the vast depopulation and desolation of Bosnian lands.
In fact, the early Ottoman defters constitute the most comprehensive
body of evidence for the study of historical demography in the 1400’s
and they provide us with first hand data about the situation that the
Ottoman administration encountered in the first decades of Ottoman rule
in Bosnia. For now, I shall only concentrate on numbers contained in
the two published defters, of the Bosnian sancak in 1468/69,11 and the
sancak of Herzegovina from 1477,12 since I believe that they are
informative enough for the present purpose and that they can serve as a
basis for a general assessment of the depopulation of Bosnia in the
fifteenth century. A more extensive analysis should also include data
from the other two fifteenthcentury Bosnian registers, from 1485 and
1489, but for the time being I will rely on research of these records which
were presented in the works of Nedim Filipović and Adem Handžić.13
While using these defters we should always be aware that they must
be approached critically and with a degree of caution. Despite giving
valuable and reliable statistical material, they are still a somewhat
problematic source for the study of demographic changes. One should
be careful with the conclusions that can be deduced from them since
they are not a census and do not include all the inhabitants of a certain
area. The information they provide ought to be doublechecked and it is
best to use and combine them with other available sources. Only then
Osmanska ugroza, plemeniti raseljenici i hrvatski identitet, Povijesni prilozi 31

(2006) 36–69.
11
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis Sandžaka Bosna iz 1468–69. godine, Mostar 2008.
12
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, Sarajevo 1985.
13
N. Filipović, Osvrt na položaj bosanskog seljaštva u prvoj deceniji uspostavljanja
osmanske vlasti u Bosni, 63–75; A. Handžić, O kretanju stanovništva u regionu
srednjeg toka Bosne, 57–66.
83
Emir O. Filipović
can a historian achieve a certain degree of control over the facts at his
disposal.14
Taking all of this into consideration, on the basis of the existing
sources I will, unfortunately, not be able to provide an extensive
statistical study or a detailed demographic overview of the period in
question. That means that this paper will not give an exact number or
percentage of people who left Bosnia due to the Ottoman conquest, but
it will focus on, present and highlight those sources which talk about the
tendency of people to leave their homeland, run away and evade, either
the Ottoman army, or the changes brought by Ottoman rule in general.
This will then, hopefully, create a clearer image of the way that
Ottomans implemented their power in Bosnia, the effects that this
caused, as well as what the authorities did to combat the evident
depopulation and displacement of former residents.
Ottoman military raids

and their effect on population loss in Bosnia
Ever since the Ottoman incursions into Bosnia began in the 1380’s,
there were numerous reports of people fleeing the proverbial “fear of
the Turk”.15 In fact, the first ever documented Ottoman raid on Bosnian
territory in October of 1386 was followed by considerable fear and panic
among the Vlachs and other communities from the domains under the
control of the Bosnian King. Sensing the distress of these people, the
Ragusan government deliberated and finally allowed the fleeing
14
E Miljković, Osmanske popisne knjige kao izvori za istorijsku demografiju: primer
nahije Kukanj, Glasnik Zavičajnog muzeja Pljevlja 10 (2015) 29–41. See also: G.
Boykov, The human cost of warfare: population loss during the Ottoman conquest
and the demographic history of Bulgaria in the late Middle Ages and Early Modern
Era, The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans. Interpretations and Research Debates,
Vienna 2015, 101–165.
15
Dž. Dautović, Metus Turchorum – Strah od Turaka u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni,
Osmansko osvajanje Bosanske kraljevine, Sarajevo 2014, 75–103. Cf. J. Kalić,
‘Strah turski’ posle Kosova, Sveti knez Lazar. Spomenica o šestoj stogodišnjici
Kosovskog boja 1389–1989, Beograd, 1989, 185–191.
84
populace to escape the uncertainty of the unguarded regions in the

hinterland and to come with their families and property to the fortified
town of Ston on the Pelješac peninsula.16 The same scenario was played
out in the autumn of 1388 and 1389, as well as in the summer of 1390.17
The Ottoman conquest of Skopje in late 1391, and the subjugation
of the Serbian magnate Vuk Branković shortly thereafter, opened up a
direct path to the Bosnian borders and the Ottoman attacks on Bosnia
became more frequent and stronger in intensity.18 Each of those raids
was followed by the displacement of people who sought refuge behind
the strong walls of the fortress of Ston.19 The threatened Bosnian nobles,
however, were allowed to enter the city and remain there until the danger
had passed.20
The Ottoman defeat at Ankara in 1402 allowed a short period of
respite from these attacks, but the offensive operations in Bosnia were
resumed almost as soon as sultan Mehmed I consolidated his power as
the sole ruler on the Ottoman throne. The aggressive assaults, mainly
targeting areas to the north and west of the Bosnian borders, continued
after 1414, and were everywhere followed by disorder, destruction, and
the taking of multitudes of people into captivity. Contemporary reports
16
“Pp. de permittendo quod recipiantur in Stagno familie, pastores, animalia et arnensia
Vlacorum et circumvicinorum propter eorum salvamentum terrore Teucrorum partes
discurentium” (23 October 1386), M. Dinić, Odluke veća Dubrovačke republike,
knj. II, Beograd 1964, 242, 298.
17
Đ. Tošić, Bosna i Turci od kosovske do angorske bitke, Zbornik za istoriju BiH 1
(1995) 85–97.
18
D. BojanićLukač, Kako turcite go prezele Skopje (1391), Muzej na grad Skopje –
Zbornik 2–3 (1965–1966) 5–10; M. Dinić, Oblast Brankovića, Prilozi za književnost,
jezik, istoriju i folklor 26/1–2 (1960) 26. See also: M. Šuica, Vuk Branković: slavni
i velmožni gospodin, Beograd 2014, 139–142.
19
For example in 1398: “Prima pars est de recipiendo in Stagno personas de foris
auffugentes timore Turchorum et aliorum exercituum volentes se reducere ad
saluandum in Stagno e recipere eorum familias et res ac homines armorum qui venire
voluerint” (26 January 1398), Dubrovnik State Archives (hereafter: DSA),
Reformationes, vol. 31, fol. 108.
20
For instance: “Prima pars es de respondendo Vladde matri Iurech Radiuoeuich
quod veniat in Stagnum et stet ad sui placitum, et si vult inde veniat Ragusium pro
eius maiori securitate et meliorum stacion” (23 December 1397), Ibidem, fol. 105v.
85
Emir O. Filipović
speak of tens of thousands of individuals being captured and enslaved.21

If the famed chronicler Ashikpasha Zade is to be believed, the booty
from such raids was so plentiful that it caused a significant drop in prices
on the slave market in Skopje.22
Even though these attacks from 1414 and 1415 were primarily
directed against the Kingdom of Hungary, consequences were
inevitably felt in Bosnia as well, because the Ottoman incursions caused
further divisions on the Bosnian political scene. In the following period
quarrelling Bosnian nobles sought to ally themselves to Turks as often
as possible, relying on their military support in their petty local
conflicts. Thus in April 1416 the Ragusan government was forced to
prohibit the arrival of the poor “who were fleeing the Turks” and who
were coming to Ragusa on ships in significant numbers.23 Despite that,
a larger influx of refugees came in October, when the government of
Ragusa again forbade the receiving of the poor and sick who were
arriving “de partibus Sclauonie vel aliunde”.24 Despite the extremely
harsh punishment defined for disrespecting the orders, which amounted
up to 15 days in prison, these preventive measures did not offset the
problem. In November of the same year it was again decided that no
refugees from the “Bosnian Kingdom or elsewhere” should be received
in the city. Furthermore, the existing ones were to be expelled from
21
See: N. Isailović – A. Jakovljević, Šah Melek (Prilog istoriji turskih upada u Bosnu
1414. i 1415. godine), Spomenica akademika Sime Ćirkovića, Beograd 2011, 441–
463.
22
G. Elezović, Turski izvori za istoriju Jugoslovena, Brastvo 26 (1932) 67–69. Cf. B.
Hrabak, Skopskiot pazar na robje vo XV i XVI vek, Glasnik na Institut za nacionalna
istorija 24/1 (1980) 151–161.
23
“Captum fuit quod deinceps nulla barca sive aliud lignum de Ragusio nullo modo
audeat vel presumant afferre intra civitatem istam nostram Ragusii aliquos ex istis
pauperibus qui fugiunt a Turchis sub pena voluntatis dominii et cridetur in locis
consuetis” (4 April 1416), DSA, Consilium Minus, vol. 1, fol. 78.
24
“Captum fuit de cridendo publice in locis consuetis quod nemo andeat vel
presumant conducere ad hanc ciuitiatem Ragusii per mare vel per terram nec recipere
in domum suam aliquem vel aliquam ex istis infirmis sive pauperibus venientibus de
partibus Sclauonie vel aliunde in pena standi diebus XV in carceribus comunis pro
quolibet et qualibet vice et in denariis ad beneplacitum dominationis” (4 October
1416), Ibidem, fol. 87v
86
Ragusa after they receive aid in the amount of two dinars in bread or
other foods.25
Similar situations occurred almost after every largescale Ottoman
attack against Bosnia – in 1426,26 from 1433 to ‘36,27 in 1438 and ‘39,28
25
“Captum fuit quod omnes inopes qui venerunt de regno Bossne et aliunde mendicantes a
duobus mensibus citra remoueantur a ciuitate et quod committatur vicecomitibus quod
habeant diligentem et bonam custodiam de non permittendo eos venire ad ciuitatem et
similiter portariis quod non permittant ipsos tales inopes intrare ciuitatem et talium expulsio
et remotio committatur officialibus cazamortuorum qui provideant talibus pellendis de grosis
duobus pro quolibet in pane vel alio prout ipsis videbitur et hoc intelligatur et de entibus in
districtu. (19 November 1416), Ibidem, fol. 92v. Cf. D. DinićKnežević, Migracije
stanovništva iz južnoslovenskih zemalja u Dubrovnik tokom srednjeg veka, 240–241.
26
See the letter from Ragusa to Emperor Sigismund, published in: L. Thallóczy – J.
Gelcich, Diplomatarium relationum Reipublicae Ragusanae cum Regno Hungariae,
Budapest 1887, 317, 319; and Emperor Sigisimund’s letter to Henry Beaufort, bishop
of Winchester, published in: N. Iorga, Acte si fragmente cu privire la istoria
romanilor, Vol. III, Bucuresti 1897, 80–81. These letters claim that a 4,000 strong
Turkish army, led by the marcher lord Ishak, entered Croatia and Slavonia on two
occasions, both times taking with them many thousands of inhabitants of both sexes.
27
The Burgundian knight Bertrandon de la Broqiuere states that somewhere near
Plovidiv in 1433 he saw “around fifteen people tied with thick chains around their necks,
and ten good women, that were recently seized in the Kingdom of Bosnia, during an
incursion conducted by the Turks”. Le Voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la
Broquiere, tr. Charles Schefer, Paris 1892, 199–200. In March of 1434 the count of
Spalato wrote to Venice that the Bosnian Kingdom had been devastated and occupied
by the Turks throughout the whole of the previous year, meaning that trade between
Bosnia and Dalmatia was forcefully obstructed. M. Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija (odnosni
u XIV. i XV. st.), Sarajevo 1996, 191. In August of 1435 the Ragusans informed Emperor
Sigismund that around 1,500 Turks, led by Ishak’s son Barak, arrived to the lands of
Duke Stjepan from where they attacked the surrounding areas. DSA, Lettere di Levante,
vol. 11, fol. 265. Barak remained in Bosnia at least until spring of the following year,
since in March 1436 the Ragusan citizen Maroje Đurković was instructed to look for
him around Podvisoki, Zenica or Vrhbosna, all of which must have been under direct
Ottoman control at the time. DSA, Lettere di Levante, vol. 12, fol. 18
28
In January of 1439 the Ragusan government wrote to its count of Ston: “Abiamo
recepute due lettere de vuy conte, per le quale ne advixata chome li Narentini se paregiano
parezarsi allo ladi della Ponta per pagura delli Turchi, et chome dubitati che li homini de
Humia e de Crayna se paregiarano nela Punta, et per lo simel chome li homini della
contrata de Dumno sono reduti alla marina per pagura deli Turchi che fano la via verso
della detta contrata” (24 January 1439), DSA, Lettere di Levante, vol. 12, fol. 119v. Cf.
S. Ćirković, Herceg Stefan Vukčić Kosača i njegovo doba, Beograd 1964, 31 n. 62.
87
Emir O. Filipović
from 1448 to ‘49,29 etc. – and the examples are far too numerous to
mention individually in this work. This ultimately resulted in the
Ragusan Republic experiencing a record increase in the number of
inhabitants at the end of the fifteenth century. Whereas the city and the
surrounding areas had an estimated 50–60,000 inhabitants at the beginning
of the century, by 1498 the number rose to almost 90,000.30 The impact
that these Bosnian settlers had on Ragusa is well shown by the fact that the
fifteenth and sixteenth century Ragusan chronicles projected the first influx
of Bosnian refugees into the very distant past, dating it to the year 1371.
They state that many people from Bosnia fled the Turks and came to their
29
The initial attacks targeted the lands and subjects of Duke Stjepan Vukčić: “Prima
pars est de scribendo comiti nostro Slani quia si causa interuenent quia subditi, et
homines voyuode Stipani metu Turchorum aufugerent cum animalibus et rebus ac
bonis suis et vellent se recipere ad Terras nouas debeat eis enuntiare et edicere quia
si volunt esse secum debeant se recipere vel Stagno vel in districtu Ragusii, quoniam
in teritorio Terrarum nouarum securi esse non poterunt” (10 March 1448) DSA,
Consilium Rogatorum, vol. 10, fol. l65v. Pietro Soranzo, count of Curzola writes in
March of 1448 to his superiors in Venice: “… come una grandissima quantitade di
Turchi sono intradi in la Bossina, e parme per quello se diuulga, che i uoia uegnir ai
danni del conte Stephano, non so se i abbia altra intention … Item el scriue al conte
Stefano à Narenta, e per tutti i suo luoghi, che tutti i se debbia redur alle fortezze in
auer, et in persona, in mode che tutti i uomeni potenti di Narenta, et dei altri luoghi
soi sono redutti alle Marine.” F. Radić, Prilog za povjest slavenskog juga god. 1448,
Starine JAZU 27 (1895) 227–228. Next year the count of Curzola, Francesco
Lombardo, wrote to the Signoria in Venice: “Per alias meas dominio vestro scripsi
qualiter applicuerat in Bosinam certa quantitas Teucrorum et intulerunt multa damna
et ceperunt multas personas et certa pars exercitus ipsorum Teucrorum cum illis quos
ceperant recessit et fuit in Romaniam secum ducens ipsos captivos. Alia pars
exercitus mansit pur in Bosina” (15 March 1449), Zadar State Archives, Korčulanski
arhiv, box 12, vol. 19, fol. 16v. Cf. M. Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija, 245; D. Lovrenović,
Na klizištu povijesti. Sveta kruna ugarska i Sveta kruna bosanska 1387–1463, Zagreb
– Sarajevo 2006, 316. I would like to use this opportunity to thank colleague Marko
Rimac from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, for
sending me images of this document.
30
This number was never surpassed later on and the population of the Republic was
three times greater at the end of the fifteenth century than in 1673/74. See: N.
Vekarić, The Population of the Dubrovnik Republic in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and
Seventeenth Centuries, Dubrovnik Annals 2 (1998) 7–28.
88
city with their families, carrying riches in gold and silver, and that all of
them had been accepted as Ragusan citizens.31
We should also bear in mind that between these interspersed Ottoman
assaults Bosnia was often a scene of combat among the conflicted
Bosnian nobles. In most cases these wars were either instigated by the
Turks, or were waged because of Turks. A German armourer, Jörg from
Nuremberg, who spent time in the service of Bosnian Duke Stjepan
Vukčić claimed that on one occasion the Duke’s own son Vladislav came
with a large Ottoman army and took away many people from his father.32
Duke Stjepan did indeed complain to Venice in 1466 that Vladislav
brought the Turks to his land and in just one day managed to seize and
abduct 30,000 souls from him, setting everything to fire and flames as
a “cursed and disobedient son”.33
This all meant that approaching the midfifteenth century, years of
war far outnumbered the years of peace in Bosnia. The almost constant
fighting debilitated the economy and had an extremely adverse influence
on the security of people and the quality of their life in general.34 Whole
31
“L’anno di Cristo 1371. Venne a Ragusa quest’ anno gran moltitudine di gente di
Bosna con famiglie loro, con gran havere d’oro e argento in glama; quali erano
cacciati da Turchi, et per non star più a pericolo, fuggirono; et furono creati per
cittadini di Ragusa”. Annales Ragusini Anonymi item Nicolai de Ragnina, Zagreb,
1883, 235.
32
“Item in dem LX iar do hete herczog Steffan ain son mit namen Ladislas ua der was
ein rechter haide vnd was albeg wider sien vatter vn gesellt sich zu den turken vnd
in kurczen zeyten kam er mit XL tausendt mannen vnd furte vil volks seinem aigen
vatter hinweg”, Jörg von Nürnberg, Geschicht von der Turckey, Memmingen, ca.
1482–83, 3v. See also: J. Džambo, ‘Geschicht von der Turckey’ Jörga iz Nürnberga
s izvješćem o propasti Bosne 1463. godine, Zbornik radova o fra Anđelu Zvizdoviću,
Sarajevo – Fojnica 2000, 239–258.
33
“E lui meno i Turchi in el mio paize per alcuni passi, dove mai avanti Turcho nesun
pote intrar; e in uno solo çorno de XXX. mille anime me feze menar via, metendo
tuto a fogo et a fiama come fiol maledeto et disobediente” (10 March 1466), Š.
Ljubić, Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke republike, vol. X,
Zagreb 1891, 354.
34
Desanka Kovačević, Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo, 1961, 67, 164.
The impact that the Ottoman military presence in Bosnia had on trade and economy
is well illustrated by an example of traders from two Bosnian towns – Prača and Foča.
Ever since the second half of the fourteenth century merchants from these two vibrant
trading communities made regular trips to Ragusa where they engaged in trade credit
89
Emir O. Filipović
communities were affected, many individuals were killed, some

enslaved, others sought to save themselves by running to the hills and
other unapproachable areas. Still, the largest number of them found refuge
by running away across the northern border to Hungary and elsewhere to
the West, but the documents we have about these courses of migration are
scarce and the process cannot be reconstructed in detail. One exceptional
document from 1437 explicitly states that numerous Serbs and Bosnian
heretics inhabited towns and villages of Syrmia north of the River Danube
for years, living together with other Christian residents.35
Far more information is available about people from Bosnia moving
to Dalmatia, to the islands in the Adriatic, and even further into Italy.36
In the July of 1454, for example, the commune of Spalato paid for one
ship to take 100 poor Bosnians to Apulia, and for another to take 76 of
them to the Marches. Two months later, communal records again contain
agreements with rich Ragusan dealers. The detailed and complete debt records of the
Dubrovnik archives register a two decade hiatus in the activities of these Bosnian
merchants during the period from 1448 to 1468, which roughly corresponds to the
time of establishment of Ottoman supremacy over the Bosnian Kingdom. See: E.
Kurtović, Trgovci iz Prače u knjigama zaduženja 1369–1524. godine, Građa Arhiva
Bosne i Hercegovine 6–7 (2015) 121; Idem, Hrebeljanovići, Balićievići i ostali
fočanski trgovci u periodu 1469–1524. godine, Zbornik u čast akademiku Desanki
Kovačević Kojić, Banja Luka 2015, 327–328.
35
Testimony of Ladislaus, count of the Posega county: “… fungimur perpetuo
mediante nostra consciencia testamur et pollicemur, quatenus maiorem partem
predictarum parcium Syrmie Rascianos inhabitare, licet tamen quedam civitates et
ville christiano nomine funguntur, tamen in quamplurimis Rasciani et eciam
Boznenses cum christianis mixtim commorantur; quedam ciuitates ac ville sectis
hereticorum Boznensium ac Huzytarum infecte per plurimos annos extiterunt …
ymmo ex altera parte Danubii quasi per spacium unius miliaris vel circa mixtim
Rasciani et Boznenses heretici cum christianis moram faciunt personalem” (25
February 1437), E. Fermendžin, Acta Bosnae potissimum ecclesiastica cum insertis
editorum documentorum regestis, ab anno 925 usque ad annum 1752, Zagreb 1892,
159. Cf. S. Ćirković, Seobe srpskog naroda u kraljevinu Ugarsku u XIV i XV veku,
Seobe srpskog naroda od XIV do XX veka. Zbornik radova posvećen tristagodišnjici
velike seobe Srba, Beograd 1990, 41–42. This document is also discussed by J.
Šidak, Heretički pokret i odjek husitizma na slavenskom Jugu, Zbornik Matice srpske
za društvene nauke 31 (1962) 5–24.
36
osmanske vlasti u Bosni, 65.
90
expenses of around 250 kilos of beans distributed to poor Bosnians who

were migrating to Apulia.37 And these were not isolated cases. Research
conducted in the Venetian Archives shows that the most intensive period
of settlement from Bosnia to Venice falls into the second half of the
fifteenth century, which is in complete concordance with the general
progression of migrations from the Balkans to Italy.38
And even though the Bosnian Kingdom was conquered in 1463 with
the beheading of the Bosnian King in Jajce, for the overall Ottoman
conquest this year does not represent such an extreme turning point. The
Turks were able to freely enter, pillage and plunder Bosnia as they
wished since the 1430’s,39 and from the fifth decade of the fifteenth
century they even fully controlled certain areas of the Kingdom which
previously belonged to certain Bosnian nobles.40 The Ottomanheld
stronghold of Hodidjed was located less than 40 km away from the
former royal residences in Visoki.41
Sultan Mehmed II’s conquest of Bosnia, however, did eliminate an
intermediary state and a hindrance in the direct fighting between the
Hungarians and the Turks. The effect this might have had on population
loss can be assessed by comparing it to the situation in Hungary after the
fall of the Serbian Despotate. Namely, in the beginning of 1462
Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus complained somewhat dramatically
to a Venetian ambassador that in the previous three years since the fall
of Smederevo Turks had abducted more than 200,000 people from his
37
M. Šunjić, Slaveni nastanjeni na području Ankonitanskog distrikta u 15. stoljeću, 36.
38
L. Čoralić, Migracije i život iseljenika iz Bosne u Veneciji (XV–XVII st.), 116.
39
E. O. Filipović, The Key to the Gate of Christendom? The strategic importance of
Bosnia in the struggle against the Ottomans, The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century:
Converging and Competing Cultures, Crusades – Subsidia 8, Routledge, London –
New York 2016, 151–168.
40
See: H. Šabanović, Krajište Isabega Ishakovića. Zbirni katastarski popis iz 1455.
godine, Sarajevo 1964.
41
A. Bejtić, Srednjovjekovni grad Hodidid bio je na Vratniku u Sarajevu, Radovi
ANU BiH 64, Odjeljenje društvenih nauka 20 (1979) 107–148, discusses the
ubication of the medieval fortress of Hodidjed with a review of literature and
previous opinions. See also: V. MušetaAščerić, Sarajevo i njegova okolina u XV
stoljeću. Između zapada i istoka, Sarajevo 2005, 124–132.
91
Emir O. Filipović
Kingdom.42 These numbers are unquestionably highly inflated and

implausible but the hostilities waged between Hungary and the Ottoman
Empire, which had especially intensified in the second half of the
fifteenth century and were predominantly conducted on Bosnian
territory, certainly turned Bosnia into a genuine zone of almost constant
war, with vast uninhabitable regions.43
The population of Bosnia at the time was also affected by the
Ottoman practice of sürgun which represented a kind of a state
controlled system of forced colonization, mass deportation and resettling
of entire communities. This process took place in both directions and
followed a general pattern of Ottoman methods of conquest.44
Furthermore, Hungarian King Matthias also tried to replace the
population loss in his Kingdom by colonizing the abandoned towns and
villages by settlers from Bosnia and Serbia.45
The Ottoman defters in a way register the consequences and the final
outcome of this situation. They portray a grim image of the conquered and
42
“Regia Majestas Hungarie dici nobis fecit, per medium Secretarij nostri, quem apud
eam tenemus, quod cum promissionibus Legatorum apostolicorum et cum spe
subsidij christianorum diu steterit in guerra cum Turcho, quodque ab annis tribus
citra arrepte et asportate sunt per Turcos ex locis et territorijs suis anime CC milla et
ultra…” (22 January 1462), I. Nagy – A. Nyáry, Magyar Diplomacziai emlékek –
Mátyás király korából (1458–1490), Vol. I, Budapest 1875, 112.
43
For a detailed overview of Ottoman raids undertaken from Bosnia on Croatia and
Slovene lands in this period see: B. Grgin, The Ottoman Influences on Croatia in the
Second Half of the Fifteenth Century, Povijesni prilozi 23 (2002) 87−104; I. Voje,
Vplivi Osmanskega imperija na slovenske dežele v 15. in 16. stoletju, Zgodovinski
časopis 30 (1976) 3−21; Idem, Problematika turskih provala u slovenačke zemlje i
organizacija odbrane u XV i XVI veku, Istorijski časopis 25−26 (1979) 117−131;
Idem, Migracioni procesi iz Bosne u slovenačkim zemljama za vrijeme turskih
provala u 16. stoljeću, Migracije i Bosna i Hercegovina, Institut za istoriju – Institut
za proučavanje nacionalnih odnosa, Sarajevo 1990, 89–99; V. Simoniti, Tuki so v
deželi že. Turški vpadi na slovensko ozemlje v 15. in 16. stoletju, Celje 1990.
44
H. Inalcik, Ottoman Methods of Conquest, Studia Islamica 2 (1953) 122–129. The
1489 defter of the Bosnian sancak mentions cases that some individuals were even
exiled from Bosnia to Istanbul. This happened to a Radosav, son of Radonja, whose
deserted patrimony was given to a certain Sahin as a çiftlik. See: F. Kasumović,
Osmanska agrarna politika i nadmetanje za zemlju u Jugoistočnoj Evropi, Anali
Gazi Husrevbegove biblioteke 35 (2014) 120 n. 64.
45
S. Ćirković, Seobe srpskog naroda u kraljevinu Ugarsku u XIV i XV veku, 43.
92
devastated land.46 These conclusions are based on the fact that, for instance
the earliest defter from 1468/69, records a significant number of villages
as “abandoned” or “deserted”.47 Aside from the villages, the defter also
records a number of deserted or desolate pieces of land referred to as
mezraa. This Turkish administrative term, which evades simple definition,
was usually applied to a field, or an area which could be cultivated, in
other words it was an arable piece of land. A mezraa could have had its
territory, borders, clear signs of previous settlement, i.e. a graveyard, a
well, fields etc., and the size of each mezraa varied greatly.48
The extent of the depopulation of Bosnia can perhaps be evaluated
through the prism of the fact that this defter contains a special list of 265
deserted villages conveniently grouped at the end of the record.49 If we
add to them the 138 other deserted villages that are mentioned in the text
of the register, we come to a total number of at least 403 abandoned
villages in the Bosnian sancak in 1468/69. The defter also mentions
altogether 101 abandoned mezraa. If this number is also complemented
by the number of 108 çiftliks recorded in the possession of Muslims,
which were mostly created from empty villages and mezraas, we arrive
to a number greater than 500 deserted villages on the Ottoman held
territory of the erstwhile Bosnian Kingdom by 1468/69.50 This number is
impressive even by modern standards. However, to provide some context,
we should also say that the whole defter mentions around 2,000 villages.
The defter from the Herzegovina sancak lists 110 deserted villages with
57 deserted mezraas in 1477,51 and this is not taking into account the
abandoned patrimonies, vineyards, mills, fields of walnut trees, cherries
46
47
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis Sandžaka Bosna iz 1468–69. godine, passim.
48
An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol. I: 1300–1600, H.
Inalcik (ed.), Cambridge 1997, 162–167. For an example how the term mezraa was
previously misused in historiography see: G. Boykov, The human cost of warfare, 105.
49
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis Sandžaka Bosna iz 1468–69. godine, 246–257.
50
These calculations are taken from: N. Filipović, Osvrt na položaj bosanskog
seljaštva u prvoj deceniji uspostavljanja osmanske vlasti u Bosni, 65.
51
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, passim. See also: M.
Krešić, Depopulacija jugoistočne Hercegovine izazvana turskim osvajanjem,
Povijesni prilozi 39 (2010) 107–123.
93
Emir O. Filipović
and figs, which are also inscribed in the defter, even though their number
does give an impression of the overall desolation of the country.
The biggest challenge in assessing the scope of the depopulation lays
in the fact that for these particular areas there is a distinct lack of source
materials that would allow us to reconstruct the situation prior to the
changes induced by the Ottoman conquest and compare it to the
information contained in the defters. In the territories adjacent to Bosnia,
where the existing documents allow such an approach, research has shown
that, for instance, almost half of the known settlements in the area of
Braničevo in eastern Serbia were left without any inhabitants during the
course of border warfare and the Ottoman subjugation of Serbia,52 and
that in the county of Vukovska in Slavonia almost 70% of medieval
villages were uninhabited by the second half of the sixteenth century.53
The defters do not give us any information about why or how, or
indeed when these villages were abandoned. This might have happened
before, or even after the Ottoman conquest, because of it, or because of
some other factors. We must not generalize, simplify and throw the
blame exclusively at the Ottoman expansion, because, it has to be taken
into consideration that the conquest of the Balkans was a lengthy and
protracted process during which not everybody migrated, not everybody
left their homes, and for every abandoned village, there are two or three
that were not. Not knowing how many people lived in the villages
recorded as inhabited by the Ottomans, we are not in a position to speak
about the degree to which they were depopulated. Certainly, many other
sources testify about the continuation of normal life and circumstances
in certain communities, even after the Ottoman conquest. This must have
been a consequence of the fact that in those areas Ottomans were present
for decades previously, and that the people learned to live in the new
conditions. Many were just satisfied for the perceived stability that the
Ottoman state brought them after years of war and insecurity.
52
A. Krstić, Osmansko prodiranje i demografske promene u Braničevu (1389–1459),
Braničevo u istoriji Srbije, Požarevac – Beograd 2008, 189–202.
53
P. Engel, A török dúlások hatása a népességre: Valkó megye példáya, Századok
134/2 (2000), 267–321. See also: F. Szakály, Die Bilanz der Türkenherrschaft in
Ungarn, Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 34 (1988) 65–66, 71.
94
Nevertheless, elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in border regions,

certain individuals and groups refused to come to terms with the newly
established Ottoman government. Available sources from the second
half of the fifteenth century speak of the common practice of fleeing
which was widespread among the recently subjugated population.54 In
September 1472 Sultan Mehmed II threatened Ragusans that they must
not hide any Vlachs, nor allow them to flee across their land, ordering
that all those who arrive to Ragusan territory should be caught and
handed over to his commander Hamzabeg.55 But these threats could not
contain the people who kept running away. Villagers from threatened
areas began migrating to Italy in such large numbers that the Count of
Spalato in 1493 forbade the owners of barges to transport them.
However, he changed his mind shortly after and allowed everything to
proceed as usual, because he thought that it was better for these people
to migrate to Italy and remain Christians, than to stay under the Turks
and become infidels.56 Similarly, Sultan Bayazid II wrote to the
Ragusans in October of 1497, stating that the emin of Novi was
complaining that many of his subjects were fleeing to Ragusan territory.
54
For instance two men from “Subtus Clobuch partium Bosne” were charged in 1468
with seizing almost a whole family and selling the captives as slaves to the Turks,
as well as with robbing their house, while the population was fleeing to Ragusa trying
to evade the “fear of the Turks”: “… quas matrem et sorores et etiam dictum eius
fratrem predicti querelati asduxerunt et vendiderunt eos Turchis … Item derobarunt
omnes res que erant et fuerant tunc in domo eorum, et hoc dum predicti derobati
irent fugientes propter metum Turchorum versus Ragusium …” (28 August 1468),
M. Dinić, Iz Dubrovačkog arhiva, Knjiga III, Beograd 1967, 144. See also: V.
Atanasovski, Pad Hercegovine, Beograd 1979, 47, 113, 118. The chaos and
uncertainty brought about with the arrival of Ottoman armed forces caused many
people to intensify their activity in the seizing of people and selling them as slaves
to the Turks. In the Ragusan Latin sources they are frequently referred to as “robci”,
which is a Slavic term meaning slavers, or “predones hominum”. A. Babić, Društvo
srednjovjekovne bosanske države, Društvo i privreda srednjovjekovne bosanske
države, Sarajevo 1987, 72. In many cases it is directly stated that their intended
customers were Turks or that they cooperated with them in the abduction of people:
E. Kurtović, Vlasi Bobani, Sarajevo 2012, 84, 86 n. 229; M. Dinić, Iz Dubrovačkog
arhiva, III, 151–152.
55
Lj. Stojanović, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knj. I/2, Beograd – Sr. Karlovci 1934, 251.
56
M. Šunjić, Slaveni nastanjeni na području Ankonitanskog distrikta u 15. stoljeću, 36.
95
Emir O. Filipović
Thus the Sultan ordered that all those fugitives who were inscribed in the
emin’s lists should be returned.57
The 1489 defter also registers a significant number of runaway
peasants, and it can be concluded that this was a common occurrence
which affected a large number of villages. In quite a few instances the
inhabitants of the whole village fled. The fleeing was mostly intensive
in the border areas of the Ottoman territories, and it can be said that it
did not only have an economic rationale, but that it was also motivated
by social, political and religious reasons.58
The other thing that can be discerned from the 1489 defter is that a
large number of villages which were previously recorded as deserted,
had in the meanwhile been populated. The lack of sources does not allow
us to precisely detect how this resettlement was carried out, but it can be
assumed with a degree of certainty that the majority of abandoned and
unoccupied areas were mostly colonized by Vlachs.59 The resettlement
of the newly acquired territories which were depopulated in the constant
conflicts was an important issue for the Ottoman state, and was thus
carried out with great organization and on the basis of rich experience
that the Ottoman authorities acquired in these kinds of matters in their
conquest of the Balkans.
This is also visible in the Herzegovina sancak where certain
respectable Vlachs received vast lands that were previously deserted,
under the condition that they resettle those places. A case in point is
Pavle, son of Grgur, who was entrusted with 14 deserted villages in the
nahiye of Livno, in the border regions. In that way the Ottomans solved
the issue of resettlement of unoccupied areas and the upkeep of a fortress
on their western borders.60 Thus these sensible practices allowed for a
quick repopulation of the abandoned and uninhabited territories.
Vlachs were particularly suitable for colonisation since they
represented a mobile and especially vital group in the region. Of course,
any mention of the settling of Vlachs in certain places must imply that
57
Lj. Stojanović, Stare srpske povelje i pisma, knj. I/2, 323–324.
58
N. Filipović, Napomene o islamizaciji u BiH u XV vijeku, 155–156.
59
Ibidem, 152.
60
96
those areas in question were previously discarded and deserted. A good

example is the region of Maglaj and Tešanj. The 1489 defter gives a
number of around 900 Vlach households which were settled in the area
around Maglaj during the preceding decade.61 This is quite a substantial
number and allows us to ponder the extent of the depopulation in a
region where around 900 households could be settled without much
difficulty.
Conclusion
All the available source groups confirm that Bosnia suffered

extensive depopulation during the century of conquest and
implementation of Ottoman power in the region, but due to the
particularities and limitations of the documentary materials it is
extremely difficult to express this process in meaningful statistical data,
numbers and percentages. Precise evaluation of the degree of human
loss is made even more problematic by the circumstance that it is
virtually impossible to reconstruct the demographic image of Bosnia
prior to the Ottoman conquest. This uncertainty then leaves room for
diverse interpretations, extreme and opposing views regarding key issues
concerning the consequences and changes which were brought about
with the establishment of Ottoman rule in the country. And while a
historian should always be careful in his approach to such sensitive
issues, producing a more balanced assessment of the Ottoman legacy in
the Balkans, and Bosnia in particular, he must not disregard the basic
fact that both the expansion and contraction of Ottoman borders
generated and stimulated movement of people
61
A. Handžić, O kretanju stanovništva u regionu srednjeg toka Bosne, 60.
97
Emir O. Filipović
Emir O. FILIPOVIĆ
15. YÜZYILDA OSMANLI FETHI

VE BOSNA’DA NÜFUSUN AZALMASI
Özet
Balkanlar’da Osmanlı idaresinin kurulmasına sadece yönetici yerel

elitler değil, yeni idari ve siyasi sistemde kaderi belirli olmayan nüfusun
çoğunluğu da karşı çıktı. İktisadi zayıflığı ve açlığı getiren savaş
zamanlarında güvende hissetmeyen birçok kişi daha güvenli ve savaş
alanlarından uzak olan sınır bölgelerinde kurtuluşu aradı. Birçok çağdaş
kaynak, Bosna krallığından Dalmaçya sahil şehirlerine, hatta Adriyatik
denizini aşarak İtalya’ya kadar uzanan büyük nüfus hareketlerini
kaydetmektedir. Bu yüzden, 15. yüzyılda Bosna’nın şehir ve
köylerindeki büyük nüfus azalmasında Osmanlı ilerlemesinin önemli bir
etkisi vardı. Bu çalışma, mevcut kaynakları kullanılarak, bazı insanların
niye göç etmeyi tercih ettiğini, bazılarının ise niye Bosna’da kalarak
entegrasyonu ve Osmanlı idari sistemini kabul etmeyi seçtiğini
açıklamayı hedeflemektedir.
Mevcut tarihi kaynaklar, söz konusu dönemin kapsamlı bir
demografikistatistiksel dökümünü vermeye olanak tanımıyor.
Dolayısıyla, bu çalışmada, Osmanlı fetihleri sonucunda Bosna’dan
ayrılan insan toplulukları üzerine kesin rakam ve yüzdeler verilemedi.
Buna mukabil, bu çalışma, insanların kendi evlerini terk etme ve
Osmanlı ordusundan veya genel olarak Osmanlı idaresinden kaçma
eğilimini açıklayan kaynaklara odaklanmaktadır. Bu kaynaklar
Osmanlıların Bosna’da nasıl bir idare kurduklarını, bunun sonuçları ve
yeni idari kurumların bariz olan nüfus azalmasını önlemek için aldığı
tedbirler hakkında net bir resim çiziyor.
İncelenmiş tüm kaynak grupları, Osmanlı fethi ve idaresinin
kurulduğu yüzyıl sırasında Bosna’nın nüfusunun büyük ölçüde azaldığı
hipotezini desteklemektedir. Ancak, kaynakların içerdiği veriler sınırlı
olduğundan istatistik bilgileri, rakamları ve yüzdeleri kullanılarak bu
sürecin sayısal düzlemde ifade edilmesi oldukça zordur. Bu karışık
98
durum, insan kaybı sayısının kesin bir şekilde değerlendirilmesini o

kadar zorlaştırıyor ki Osmanlı fethinden önceki Bosna’nın demografik
durumunun incelenmesini de neredeyse imkansızlaştırıyor. Bu
belirsizlik, Bosna’da Osmanlı idaresinin kurulmasının getirdiği sonuç
ve değişimleri ilgilendiren temel sorunlarla ilgili aşırı uçlardaki ve
birbirine zıt yorumlama biçimlerine neden oluyor. Tarihçilerin, bu konu
örneğinde olduğu gibi, hassas meselelerle uğraşırlarken dikkatli olmaları
gerekir ve Balkanlarda, özellikle Bosna’da Osmanlı mirasının nesnel bir
değerlendirmesini yapmağa uğraşanların yine de şu temel olguyu
gözardı etmemeleri gerekir: Nüfus hareketleri, Osmanlı sınırlarının hem
yayılması hem de daralmasına bağlıdır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Bosna, Osmanlı fethi, nüfusun azalması,
Dubrovnik, defter
99
Emir O. Filipović
Емир О. ФИЛИПОВИЋ
ОСМАНСКО ОСВАЈАЊЕ
И ДЕПОПУЛАЦИЈА БОСНЕ У 15. ВЕКУ
Резиме
Успостави османске власти на Балкану жестоко су се

успротивиле не само локалне владајуће елите, него и већина
становништва чија је судбина била неизвесна у оквиру новог
административног и политичког система. Не осећајући се сигурним
у време рата, које је било праћено економским слабљењем и глађу,
бројни су тражили спас у бегу према сигурнијим крајевима
удаљеним од ратних зона у пограничним областима. Многи
савремени извори сведоче о великом кретању људи и појединаца
из Босанског краљевства према приморским градовима Далмације,
па чак и даље преко Јадранског мора у Италију. Стога је османско
освајање имало значајан утицај на велику депопулацију градских и
сеоских средина у Босни током 15. века. Циљ овога рада био је да
на основу доступних извора осветли околности због којих су неки
мигрирали а други одлучили да остану у Босни, прихвативши
интеграцију у османски административни систем.
Због врсте расположиве изворне грађе овај текст не представља
екстензивну статистичку студију или детаљан демографски преглед
разматраног раздобља. То значи да у раду нису дате прецизне бројке
или постотак људи који је напустио Босну због османског освајања,
него је његова пажња првенствено усмерена према томе да представи
оне изворе који говоре о тенденцији људи да напусте своје домове, да
беже и избегну, или османску војску или уопштено промене које је
доносила нова османска управа. То би требало да створи јаснију
слику начина на који су Турци успостављали своју власт у Босни,
последица које су тиме изазване, као и поступака које су нове
административне структуре предузимале с циљем супротстављања
очитој депопулацији и расељавању бивших становника.
100
Све анализиране изворне скупине потврђују да је Босна

претрпела екстензивну депопулацију током столећа освајања и
успоставе османске власти у региону, али због посебности и
ограничења извора веома је тешко изразити овај процес у
статистичким подацима, бројкама и постоцима. Прецизна
евалуација степена људских губитака је отежана због околности да
је готово немогуће реконструисати демографску слику Босне пре
османског освајања. Ова несигурност онда оставља простор за
разне интерпретације, екстремне и супротстављене ставове у
погледу кључних питања везаних за последице и промене које су
наступиле успостављањем османске власти у земљи. И док би
историчар увек требало да буде пажљив у свом приступу таквим
осетљивим темама, креирање објективне оцене османског наслеђа
на Балкану, и посебно у Босни, не сме занемарити основну
чињеницу да је покретање људи било проузроковано како
сужавањем, тако и ширењем османских граница.
Кључне речи: Босна, Османско освајање, расељавање,
Дубровник, дефтер.
101
UDC: 94:316.343058.12(497.6)”14”
Srđan RUDIĆ
BOSNIAN NOBILITY AFTER THE FALL

OF THE KINGDOM OF BOSNIA IN 1463*
Abstract: Based on sources and literature, the paper elaborates on the destiny of a
part of the Bosnian nobility after the fall of the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. During
the Turkish campaign in 1463, the upper stratum of the Bosnian nobility, with rare
exceptions, mainly disappeared from the historical scene. A similar destiny befell a
significant number of members of the lower nobility who were killed, executed, taken
into captivity or fled Bosnia to the territories of the surrounding countries. Some of
them, mainly members of the petty nobility, entered into the Turkish service and
became part of the Turkish feudal system. In time, some of them accepted Islam.
Keywords: Bosnia, Kingdom of Bosnia, 15th century, 1463, nobility, Islamisation.
The medieval Kingdom of Bosnia came into closer contact with the
Ottoman state by the middle of the ninth decade of the 14th century. The first
known Turkish incursion into the territory of the Kingdom of Bosnia took
place in 1386. Two years later, there was the first great conflict between the
Bosnian and Turkish army, when the Bosnian troops commanded by
voivode Vlatko Vuković defeated the Turkish troops led by Lala Şahin
Pasha. In June 1389, the troops led by voivode Vlatko Vuković, sent by
Bosnian King Tvrtko I to his ally Prince Lazar, took part in the Battle of
Kosovo. In the period from the late 14th century until the middle of the
second decade of the 15th century, Turkish troops were occasionally making
incursions into the territory of the Kingdom of Bosnia, mainly on invitation
of the nobility who used them for mutual clashes.
*
103
Srđan Rudić
The Turkish influence in Bosnia became dominant after 1415.1

Bosnian rulers, as well the major magnate families – the Kosačas and
Pavlovićs – from then until 1463 and the fall of the medieval Kingdom
of Bosnia were paying, with shorter interruptions, the haraç tax to the
Sultan. The King and the local landowning magnates were in vassal
relations both with the Hungarian King and the Turkish Sultan.2 The
Turks continued with occasional incursions into Bosnia which was riven
by conflicts among the local magnates, even after it became a tributary
Turkish province.
In the years before the fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia, the Turks
gained positions in its territory. By the mid15th century they seized the
town of Hodidjed in the Vrhbosna župa. In 1448, and not later than 1451,
they established there their administrative unit “Hodidid Vilayet“. After
the fall of the Serbian Despotate in 1459, Turkish troops from Vrhbosna
began to make forays into the territory of the Kingdom of Bosnia. They
captured the town of Višegrad where a kadi is mentioned in early 1462.
They expanded further the territories under their control towards Fojnica
and Kreševo – in 1459, a Turkish sklav is mentioned in Fojnica, while
in early 1462 Isabey Ishaković held some mills on the Željeznica river
in the Visoko župa.3
In older historiography the year 1463 was often taken as the year
when the medieval Bosnian state definitively disappeared.4 As if it was
forgotten that a part of the state remained in the hands of the Kosača
1
С. Ћирковић, Две године босанске историје (1414 и 1415), Историски гласник
3–4 (1953) 29–42; М. Спремић, Турски трибутари у XIV и XV веку, Прекинут
успон, српске земље у позном средњем веку, Београд 2005, 302–303; Н. Исаиловић,
А. Јаковљевић, Шах Мелек (Прилог историји турских упада у Босну 1414. и
1415. године), Споменица академика Симе Ћирковића, Београд 2011, 441–462.
2
It is not known whether the lower noble families also paid haraç. М. Спремић,
Турски трибутари у XIV и XV веку, 302–314.
3
H. Šabanović, Pitanje turske vlasti u Bosni do pohoda Mehmeda II 1463. g.,
Godišnjak Istoriskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 7 (1955) 37–50; H. Šabanović,
Bosansko krajište 1448–1463, Godišnjak Istoriskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 9
(1958) 177–220. A summary defter of the Hodidjed vilayet was compiled in 1455.
H. Šabanović, Krajište Isabega Ishakovića, zbirni katastarski popis iz 1455. godine,
Sarajevo 1964, 14–18, 60–66.
4
E. Filipović, Historiografija o padu Bosanskog Kraljevstva, Stjepan Tomašević (1461.–
1463.) – slom srednjovjekovnoga Bosanskog Kraljevstva, Sarajevo 2013, 11–28.
104
Bosnian Nobility after the Fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia in 1463
family, persevering for another twenty years or so. It is only with the
fall of this part that we can talk about the final collapse of the medieval
Bosnian state.5 As Sima Ćirković writes: “A picture is created that the state
idea disappeared in Bosnia and that the Bosnian nobility was fully uprooted
with the decapitation of the last Bosnian king from the Kotromanić family
and the siege of towns by the Turks”, as well as that from then onwards only
the Hungarian Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire were entering into
conflicts in the territory of Bosnia. However, the domestic forces consisting
of the court, the nobility and the church “did not disappear altogether at
least for a shorter time” even after that year.6
According to Mavro Orbini, Sultan Mehmed said that Bosnia would
not have fallen so easily had the magnates been unanimous and united,
and that it collapsed due to their discord and disunity.7 The assessment
that Bosnia fell easily and practically without any struggle because of the
discord of its nobility was accepted in older historiography as definitive.
The phenomena such as the weaknesses and limits of the royal authority,
discords among the nobility, rebellions, accepting foreign military aid
and foreign rulers, doubtlessly influenced the weakening and fall of the
Kingdom, but they were not characteristic of the medieval Bosnian state
only. The Kingdom of Bosnia collapsed primarily due to the pressure
put by the Turks, which was reflected in constant incursions, lootings,
pillages, propaganda, which lasted for almost eight decades. The
Kingdom of Bosnia lacked force to oppose a powerful state in full swing
– after all, not even much more powerful states were capable of it.8 Not
even in that fateful 1463 year was everything over. Moreover, not all
parts of the Kingdom of Bosnia experienced the same destiny. Unlike the
King’s land and the Pavlovićs’ territory whose magnates were no longer
mentioned in sources, Herzog Stefan Vukčić Kosača kept a significant
5
In December/January 1481/82, the Turks seized the town of Novi in the Bay of
Kotor as the last stronghold of the Kosača family. В. Атанасовски, Пад
Херцеговине, Београд 1979, 134–138.
6
С. Ћирковић, Властела и краљеви у Босни после 1463. године, Историски
гласник 3 (1954) 123.
7
M. Orbini, Il regno de gli Slavi, Pesaro 1601, 377.
8
For an overview of some assessments of causes of the fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia
see: M. Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija (odnosi u XIV. i XV. st.), Sarajevo 1996, 380–388.
105
Srđan Rudić
part of his territories, while a part of the erstwhile Kingdom of Bosnia

fell into the hands of the Hungarian King.9
The fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia in 1463 and the decapitation of
King Stefan Tomašević did not destroy the idea of its existence. The
following two decades saw several attempts at its restoration. Somewhat
before 12 August 1463, a group of Bosnian nobles appeared in Venice
asking for help in restoring the Kingdom of Bosnia. In their names and
on behalf of other nobles, they said they wanted the Venetian rule only,
as otherwise they would subjugate to the Turks. They asked from the
Venetians to dispatch envoys to the Herzog and other magnates.10 This
mission probably consisted of people without greater significance. It is
unclear whether those were emigrants or a group coming from Bosnia.
It is certain that they were imbued with antiHungarian mood and
fostered links with Bosnia and a part of the nobility.11 Herzog Stefan
Vukčić Kosača, with some Bosnian nobles, was also proposing to Venice
to take an action for the liberation of Bosnia.12
The Turks restored the Kingdom of Bosnia in 1465 when they
enthroned vassal king Matija Šabančić, the son of Radivoj Kotromanić,
the uncle of the last Bosnian king. This Sultan’s move can be understood
as a concession to the local petty nobility with antiHungarian mood.
Matija Šabančić was mentioned in 1471 for the last time. In the same
year, Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus appointed Nikola Iločki King
of Bosnia, with the primary aim to tie him for himself as the main
opponent and leader of opposition in Hungary. The Sultan responded by
enthroning Matija Vojsalić from the Hrvatinić family in March or April
1476. Matija Vojsalić was not satisfied with his enthronement by the
Turks, but asked for recognition from the Hungarian King as well. The
9
E. Filipović, Minor est turchorum potentia, quam fama feratur... Contributions to
the history of Bosnia in the second half of 1463, Пад босанског краљевства,
Београд–Сарајево–Бања Лука 2015, 195–226.
10
Š. Ljubić, Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke republike X,
Zagreb 1891, 261.
11
С. Ћирковић, Властела и краљеви у Босни после 1463 године, 124–125.
12
Ј. Радонић, Ђурађ Кастриот Скендербег и Арбанија у XV веку, Споменик
Српске краљевске академије 95 (1942) 115; С. Ћирковић, Ђурађ Кастриот
Скендербег и Босна, Симпозијум о Скендербегу, Приштина 1969, 55, нап. 25.
106
Sultan’s reaction was the siege of Matija’s towns. Owing to Hungarian

help, the siege ended somewhat before 3 July 1476. It is not known what
happened with Matija Vojsalić and his nobility. The mood obviously
changed in Bosnia and Turkish policy that relied on the lower nobility
no longer yielded results. When Nikola Iločki died a year later, all
attempts at restoring the Kingdom of Bosnia stopped.13
The upper layer of the Bosnian nobility mainly disappeared from the
historical scene during the Turkish campaign in 1463. This is evidenced
also by the first Turkish defters of the territories that used to make up the
largest part of the Kingdom of Bosnia and Herzog’s land. We do not find
in them members of the higher Bosnian nobility. Their names have been
preserved only in the names of individual vilayets – the Pavlović vilayet,
Kovačević vilayet, Hersek vilayet (Herzegovina). Of families playing a
significant role during the existence of the medieval Bosnian state, the
Kosačas and Vlatkovićs held their positions for several more decades.
There is no doubt that in 1463 a significant part of the nobility lost
their lives in clashes with the Turks or were taken captive and executed.14
Contemporary sources write about the liquidation of King Stefan
Tomašević and his brother Radivoj, but bring were little data about the
killed nobility.15 Konstantin Mihailović, a member of the campaign in
13
С. Ћирковић, Властела и краљеви у Босни после 1463 године, 123–131. Hazim
Šabanović believes that the “restored Kingdom of Bosnia” stretched between
Vranduk, Travnik and Maglaj, with a probable seat in Vranduk. H. Šabanović,
Bosanski pašaluk, Sarajevo 1959, 49, 119. According to Adem Handžić, the main
fortifications of this “kingdom” were the towns of Maglaj, Dobor and Tešanj, while
other towns were located further north. He believes that Vranduk was not a part of
this “statelet”. A. Handžić, Nahija Brod krajem XV i početkom XVI vijeka, Radovi
sa simpozijuma „Srednjоvjekovna Bosna i evropska kultura“, Zenica 1973, 385; A.
Handžić, Tuzla i njena okolina u XVI veku, Sarajevo 1975, 38–41. According to
Jelena Mrgić, the territory of the “Bosnian King” covered the towns of Vranduk,
Žepče, Maglaj, Doboj and two other unidentified towns. Ј. Мргић, Северна Босна
13–16. век, Београд 2008, 147.
14
С. Рудић, Прилог познавању страдања босанске властеле након пропасти
краљевства, Пад босанског краљевства, Београд–Сарајево–Бања Лука 2015, 274–279.
15
Along with Radivoj, one of his sons may have been executed. S. Andrić, O obitelji
bosanskog protukralja Radivoja Ostojića (prilog rasvjetljavanju bračnih veza posljednjih
Kotromanića s plemstvom iz dravskosavskog međurječja), Stjepan Tomašević (1461.–
1463.) – slom srednjovjekovnog Bosanskog Kraljevstva, Sarajevo 2013, 124.
107
Srđan Rudić
1463, noted the execution of voivode Tvrtko Kovačević.16 Dursunbey,

who also took part in the conquest of the Kingdom of Bosnia, notes that
Kovačević and Pavlović were captured and brought before the Sultan
tied, but he says nothing about their destiny.17 A contemporary of these
events – Aşıkpaşazade writes that Kovač’s son and Pavlović’s son were
in the Sultan’s hands and that they were executed.18
The fact that the Bosnian nobility perished en masse is attested by a
document created in Šibenik in December 1464, which notes: “Rege
Stephano et multis primatibus Bosne proditorie captis et immolatis in
fide Christi domini perseverantibus”.19 Pope Pius II, the contemporary
of the disappearance of the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia, says that the
King was beheaded, with many members of the higher nobility perishing
together with him.20
Later writers also bring new data about deaths of the Bosnian nobility.
Jakov Lukarević from Dubrovnik says that “Iuan Paulouich Signor di
Tribunio, Sanco Couaceuich, et Buthio Diunich” perished.21 Mavro
Orbini writes that after the decapitation of King Stefan Tomašević,
Sultan Mehmed issued a public proclamation ordering that all magnates
who wanted to keep their lands and estates had to come before him;
however, those who believed him and came were killed.22 “A short
description of Zeta and Montenegro”, created in the second half of the
16
Константин Михаиловић, Јаничарове успомене или Турска хроника, Споменик
Српске академије наука 107 (1959) 50–51, 130–131.
17
Tursun Bey, Târîhi Ebü’lFeth, haz. M. Tulum, İstanbul 1977, 128.
18
Âşık Paşazâde, Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi, haz. K. Yavuz – M. A. Yekta Saraç,
İstanbul 2003, 518.
19
M. Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija (odnosi u XIV. I XV. st.), 383.
20
Pii secvndi, Commentarii rervm memorabilivm, qvae temporibvs svis contigervnt
a R. D. Ioanne Gobellino, Vicario Bonnen, iamdiu compositi, & a R. P. D. Francisco
Bandino Picolomineo, Archiepiscopo Senensi ex vetusto originali recogniti, Prostat
Francofurti in Officiana Avbriana, 1614, 311.
21
J. Luccari, Copioso ristretto de gli anali di Rausa, Venetia 1605, 109. Based on
Laonicus Chalcondyles’s writing, Mihailo Dinić believed that Tvrtko Stančić was
also killed in the 1463 campaign. Laonicus Chalcondyles, Historiam libri decem,
Bonnae 1843, 543; М. Динић, За историју рударства у средњовековној Србији
и Босни I, Београд 1955, 44.
22
M. Orbini, Il regno de gli Slavi, 376–377.
108
18th century by an anonymous author, does not mention the liquidation

of the Bosnian nobility, but brings some details that are partially
congruent with Mavro Orbini’s writing. According to this text, diplomas
and privileges were presented to the Sultan in Jajce by noble families,
promising an award and honour. The Sultan, however, ordered that all
privileges be burnt. Only those who would receive Islam could have
their old family surnames and use their estates and titles.23
The destiny of nobles who survived the year 1463 was different.
Some of them were taken captive.24 Pope Pius II writes that when Bosnia
fell, the Turks were raping women and maidens, destroying churches,
humiliating the clergy and taking all magnates into captivity to Asia.25
According to Dursunbey, after the surrender of Jajce, the Sultan ordered
that the captives be displayed – he give away some of them, while
allowing others to stay in the town.26 Laonicus Chalcondyles writes that
the Sultan did not apply the same treatment during the seizure of towns.
After Bobovac fell, the Sultan ordered that some captives stay in the
town. He gave away some of them to his magnates and sent others to
Constantinople. He acted similarly during the conquest of Ključ. Unlike
these two towns, in Jajce (which surrendered without struggles) the
Sultan chose for himself children of some magnates, while giving other
children to his people.27
During the 1463 campaign, the Turks also managed to capture the
children of former King Stefan Tomaš and Queen Katarina – Katarina
and Žigmund. Katarina was probably given to the care of Isabey, the
son of Krajina voivode Ishak. It seems that she was buried in Skopje.28
Žigmund is mentioned in 1473 as a member of the Sultan’s personal
23
С. Радовановић, Кратки опис Зете и Црне Горе, Београд 1970, 171–173; Б.
Шекуларац, Кратко опис о Зети и Црној Гори, Подгорица 1998, 166–167.
24
краљевства, 279–280.
25
Pii secvndi, Commentarii rervm memorabilivm, qvae temporibvs svis contigervnt
a R. D. Ioanne Gobellino, Vicario Bonnen, iamdiu compositi, & a R. P. D. Francisco
Bandino Picolomineo, Archiepiscopo Senensi ex vetusto originali recogniti, 311.
26
Tursun Bey, Târîhi Ebü’lFeth, 128.
27
Laonicus Chalcocondylas, Historiam libri decem, 536, 537, 539.
28
Г. Елезовић, Краљ К`зи, Браство 30 (1939) 49–69; М. Филиповић, Краљ К’зи,
Југословенски историски часопис 1–2 (1939) 215–217.
109
Srđan Rudić
guard at the time of the Turkish campaign against Uzun Hasan. He

received Islam before his mother’s death in 1478. By the end of the
following decade he is mentioned as the bay of the sanjak Karasi in Asia
Minor under the name of Ishak Bey Kraloğlu. He took part in the Battle
of AgaCayiri in August 1488, whereafter he was declared one of the
culprits of the defeat and was sent to Constantinople tied. We do not
know his destiny, but in all probability he was alive even after the Battle
of Krbava Field in 1493.29
The Kosača family continued to offer resistance to the Turks even
after the collapse of the Kingdom of Bosnia. Mavro Orbini writes that
while pillaging the Herzog’s land the Turks suffered losses as well,
because they were attacked by the “locals” who had withdrawn into the
mountains, availing of any opportunity to suddenly attack Turkish
troops.30 Though the territories controlled by the Kosača family were
reduced, an increasingly greater number of individuals from the ranks of
the nobility appeared in the service of Herzog Stefan Vukčić. It may be
assumed that a part of the nobility withdrew from the territories captured
by the Turks to the territories still controlled by the Kosačas.31
In time, the circle of the nobility gathered around the Kosača family
was being reduced, in response to further Turkish conquests and the
realisation that the old order could not be restored. Even the members of
this not so long ago the most powerful family of the Kingdom of Bosnia
were leaving the territories which they held and were entering into the
service of the neighbouring rulers. In 1469, Vladislav, the oldest son of
Herzog Stefan Vukčić, received from the Hungarian King estates in
Slavonia where he continued to reside permanently. Herzog’s middle
son Vlatko was for some time subjugated to the Sultan, after the
surrender of Novi in December 1481, but eventually moved to the island
of Rab, wherefrom his family went to Venice. Herzog’s youngest son
29
A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium I, Romae 1863, 509; Ј.
Радонић, Donado da Lezze и његова „Historia Turchesca”, Годишњица Николе
Чупића 32 (1913) 327; A. Olesnicki, Bošnjak Hadum Jakub, pobjednik na
Krbavskom polju g. 1493, Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 264
(1938) 137–139, 148; Г. Елезовић, Краљ К`зи, 64–67;
30
M. Orbini, Il regno de gli Slavi, 376
31
В. Атанасовски, Пад Херцеговине, 150.
110
Stefan entered into the Turkish service in the first half of 1474, received
Islam and the name Ahmed Pasha.32
Some Bosnian nobles entered into the service of Hungarian King
Matthias Corvinus, who in early October 1463 launched a campaign
against the Turks in Bosnia. The Kosačas provided him with
considerable aid. In early December King Matthias received Vladislav
Kosača into the ranks of Hungarian magnates.33 During the siege of Jajce
late that year, a part of the Bosnian nobility were active participants on
the Hungarian side.34 Known by names are members of the Obradović
(Banović) family from eastern Bosnia – Radič, Vučihna and Jovan, as
well as Ivan Čubretić of Pavle. King Matthias Corvinus bestowed on
them gifts for the services provided.35 Voivode Ivaniš Vlatković, at the
time the most powerful Bosnian noble along with the Kosačas, entered
into the service of the Hungarian King as well. King Matthias Corvinus
awarded him – a document created in August 1466 mentions “Chekel”
as his estate.36
Numerous members of Bosnian noble families managed to flee the
country, some of them just before the calamity that befell the Kingdom.37
According to known data, most of them sought refuge on the banks of
32
About the Kosača family after the death of Herzog Stefan Kosača in 1466 see: В.
Атанасовски, Пад Херцеговине.
33
L. Thallóczy, Studien zur geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im mittelalter,
München und Leipzig 1914, 418–422; С. Ћирковић, Херцег Стефан Вукчић
Косача и његово доба, 258.
34
Ђ. Тошић, Ослобађање Јајца од Турака крајем 1463. године, Радови Филозофског
факултета у Српском Сарајеву 2 (2000) 217–226; Ђ. Тошић, Учешће Косача у
ослобађању Јајца од Турака 1463. године, Српска проза данас, Косаче – оснивачи
Херцеговине, Билећа, Гацко, Београд 2002, 464–475; Đ. Tošić, Bosanska vlastela u
oslobađanju Jajca od Turaka 1463. godine, Stjepan Tomašević (1461.–1463.) – slom
srednjovjekovnog Bosanskog Kraljevstva, Sarajevo 2013, 99–108.
35
E. Laszowski, Prilozi za povijest bosanskih porodica, Vjesnik Kr. hrvatsko–
slavonsko–dalmatinskoga Zemaljskog arkiva 19 (1917) 118–119; E. Laszowski,
Prinos historiji bosanskih porodica, Vjesnik Kr. Državnog arkiva u Zagrebu 7 (1937)
29–34; М. Шуица, Босанска властеоска породица Бановићи, Историјски
гласник 1–2 (1993) 32.
36
L. Thallóczy, Studien zur geschichte Bosniens und Serbiens im mittelalter, 429.
37
краљевства, 281–286.
111
Srđan Rudić
the Adriatic. Any trace of the majority of them was soon lost in sources.
In late April 1463, Ana – the widow of voivode Pavle Klešić came to
Zara. She withdrew to the convent of St Nicholas.38 A part of the
Vladimirić family, brothers Juraj and Radić, and Radivoj – the son of
their brother Radoje, also settled in Zara after leaving their estates. They
were in Zara already in May 1463.39 According to a Venetian report,
knez Radič, the brother of the Bosnian King, moved to the island of Krk
with his wife and children.40 Numerous Bosnian nobles found refuge
also in the territory of Dubrovnik. In midJuly 1463, it was expected that
Vladislav Kosača and Queen Katarina would arrive in the territory of
Dubrovnik. In the same month it was decided that the Ljubibratićs
should move to Šipan. In early August, the wife of Pavle Marković
found shelter in Pelješac.41 In 1464, the son and daughter of Ivaniš
Kovačević are mentioned in Dubrovnik. It seems that the widow of
voivode Tvrtko Kovačević also found refuge in Dubrovnik.42 According
to the writing of Jakov Lukarević, the inhabitants of Dubrovnik first
rescued and then maintained the following members of the nobility:
“Dabissa di Latiniza Signor di Srebarniza, Caterina sorella di Radoslau
Paulouich moglie di Radiuoy fratello del Rè Tomaso, con Gliubiscia suo
figliuolo, Teodora moglie del Signor di Tribunio, Stoian Nasach, e
Radibrat“.43 The next group of the nobility that fled to Dubrovnik
consisted of: “„Barbara figliuola d’Ivan Vulatkovich, Giorgio Dobrotich
di Srebarniza, che poi fece un Trattato della natura de’Spiriti Celesti,
che dedicò al Senato di Rausa, Buoso Velimisoglich, Nicola Kraucich,
38
M. Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija (odnosi u XIV. I XV. st.), 362.
39
M. Šunjić, Bosna i Venecija (odnosi u XIV. I XV. st.), 318; С. Рудић, Владимирићи,
Зборник радова у част академику Десанки КовачевићКојић, Бања Лука 2015, 377.
40
V. Solitro, Documenti storici sull’Istria e la Dalmazia, Venezia 1844, 69–73; S.
Ljubić, Commissiones et relationes Venetae I, Zagrabiae 1876, 88–90; С. Рудић,
Извештај Антуна Винћигуере као извор за историју средњовековне Босне,
Зборник за историју Босне и Херцеговине 5 (2008) 152–153.
41
С. Ћирковић, Херцег СтефанВукчић Косача и његово доба, 263; Д. Динић
Кнежевић, Миграције становништва из јужнословенских земаља у Дубровник
током средњег века, Нови Сад 1995, 250.
42
М. Динић, За историју рударства у средњевековној Србији и Босни I, 42–43,
нап. 25.
43
J. Luccari, Copioso ristretto de gli anali di Rausa, 109.
112
Ostoia, Ruscicich, Sanko Knesnich, Vuladislau Copcich, et due fratelli

Vilicchi”.44 It is questionable whether the data brought by Lukarević can
be used without doubting their accuracy. However, it is indisputable that
a large number of Bosnian nobles, both known and unknown to us,
found refuge in the territory of the Republic of Ragusa.
In 1463, Bosnian queens Katarina and Jelena stayed in the Republic of
Ragusa.45 In December 1466, Queen Jelena was in the convent of St Stephen
near Split. She then went to the Porte. The Sultan received her and provided
her with regular annual allowance. After 1498, she left Constantinople and
moved to Thrace where her uncle Manuel II Palaiologos lived. She died
there somewhat after 1500.46 In late 1466 or early 1467, Queen Katarina
sailed to Ancona, and then to Rome, where she enjoyed assistance of the
Pope who, on account of the crusades against the Turks, bestowed on her
monetary allowance. She died in 1478. Queen Katarina had a sort of a court
in Rome, consisting of noblemen and noblewomen who had fled Bosnia
together with her. There were Radič Klešić of Ivan, Juraj Čubranić of Nikola,
Abraham Radić, Paula Mirković of Mirosav, Jelena Semković of Ivan and
Mara Mišljenović of Juraj. After Katarina’s death, members of her court
enjoyed monetary assistance meted out by the Pope.47
Not only Queen Katarina and her courtiers found shelter in Italy. The
number of those seeking refuge across the Adriatic was certainly not
small as it seemed to them that only there could they be safe from the
Turkish danger. The letter of Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga of 12 June
1463 notes that a ship from Šibenik packed with people fleeing the Turks
arrived to Ancona. Four noblemen on the ship reported that Bosnia had
44
J. Luccari, Copioso ristretto de gli anali di Rausa, 139.
45
F. Rački, Dubrovački spomenici o odnošaju dubrovačke obćine naprama Bosni i Turskoj
godine razspa bosanske kraljevine, Starine Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti
6 (1874) 9–10; Ć. Truhelka, Dubrovačke vijesti o godini 1463., Glasnik Zemaljskog
muzeja u Sarajevu 22 (1910) 19/20; Д. Ковачевић, Пад босанске средњовјековне
државе према дубровачким изворима, Годишњак Друштва историчара Босне и
Херцеговине 14 (1963) 217–218. Z. Janeković Römer, Kraj srednjovjekovnog Bosanskog
Kraljevstva u dubrovačkim izvorima, Stjepan Tomašević (1461.–1463.) – slom
srednjovjekovnoga Bosanskog Kraljevstva, Sarajevo 2013, 56–58.
46
Ђ. Тошић, Посљедња босанска краљица Мара (Јелена), Зборник за историју
Босне и Херцеговине 3 (2002) 29–60.
47
Ђ. Тошић, Босанска краљица Катарина (1425–1478) Зборник за историју
113
Srđan Rudić
been captured by the Turks, that all areas were in fear and that many
people left their homes, escaping captivity.48 In 1472, honourable knight
(počteni vitez) Pribislav Vukotić, a nobleman of the Kosača family,
settled in Padua.49
Some nobles, despite the fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia, remained in
the country. Some found shelter with the Roman Catholic Church.
Documents of the Franciscan monastery in Fojnica testify that many
noble families found refuge in the monastery. Among others, there were
the Alaupovićs, Radijelovićs, Sitnićs, Vučemilovićs (Vučevićs).50 Members
of some noble families, such as the Bjelavićs, Masnovićs and Čubretićs
are seen later as members of the Franciscan order.51
Following the downfall of the Kingdom, some Bosnian nobles
entered into the Turkish service, i.e. they embraced the new order and
actively participated in it. New masters were lenient towards those who
had not taken arms against them, and were making them part of their
feudal system. During the 15th century, the Turks were taking over the
Christian petty nobility in large numbers, distributing to them timars on
the condition that they remained faithful to the Sultan. The earliest
defters compiled by the new authorities in the territory of Bosnia and
Herzog’s land contain a significant number of Christian sipahis.
Even during the 1463 campaign, some noblemen were surrendering
to the Turks without struggle the towns that they commanded.
Information about this can be found in the defter of the Bosnia sanjak
from 1468/69. This defter records the timars of IsaBalija – there is a
note next to his name that he surrendered the Samobor fortress and
converted to Islam, as well as the timar of Pavo Grgurić who surrendered
the fortresses of Hum (near Livno) and Travnik, of Jusuf who
surrendered the fortress whose name is not mentioned and who became
a Muslim, and Ungurus (Madžar) Mahmud who surrendered the fortress
48
M. Šunjić, Trogirski izvještajii o turskom osvojenju Bosne (1463), Glasnik arhiva
i Društva arhivskih radnika Bosne i Hercegovine 29 (1989) 144.
49
С. Ћирковић, Почтени витез Прибислав Вукотић, Зборник Филозофског
факултета у Београду 10–1 (1968) 259, 271.
50
M. Batinić, Franjevački samostan u Fojnici od stoljeća XIV.–XV., Zagreb 1913, 15.
51
С. Рудић, Властела Илирског грбовника, Београд 2006, 105, 182, 236.
114
of Novi (on the Sava river).52 According to the writing of Pope Pius II,
former Manichean Radak surrendered Bobovac to the Turks.53 The same
defter of 1468/69 records the timars of knez Ivaniš and Stipan who
surrendered the Doboj fortress. The timars were recorded in 1477 and
are related to the fall of the “state” of Matija Vojsalić.54 Herzog Stefan
Vukčić was saying that during the 1463 campaign many castellans also
in his country surrendered to the Turks towns without struggle, together
with all their inventories and wealth.55 Unlike the Bosnian defter of
1468/69, the Herzegovina defter of 1477 contains only one case of a
nobleman bestowed with a timar after he surrendered to the Turks the
fortress under his command – this was Radoj, Rupčić’s son, who
surrendered the fortress of Sokol.56
Defters offer a plenty of information mainly about the petty nobility
who accepted the Turkish rule and fit into the new order. For the sake of
illustration, according to the defter of the Bosnia sanjak from 1468/69, the
Trebinje nahiye was in the hands of Herzog’s son. It contained 17 timars,
15 of which were held by Christian sipahis.57 The largest Christian timar
in the Bosnia sanjak belonged to mentioned Pavo Grgurić. It was located
in the Neretva nahiye and yielded income of 16161 akçe.58 As of 1477,
52
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, Mostar 2008, 100,
125, 159, 185.
53
Pii secvndi, Commentarii rervm memorabilivm, qvae temporibvs svis contigervnt a R.
D. Ioanne Gobellino, Vicario Bonnen, iamdiu compositi, & a R. P. D. Francisco Bandino
Picolomineo, Archiepiscopo Senensi ex vetusto originali recogniti, 311. According to
contemporary sources, the Turks captured Bobovac by force. Tursun Bey, Târîhi Ebü’l
Feth, 123; Константин Михаиловић, Јаничарове успомене или Турска хроника, 50,
130; M. Šunjić, Trogirski izvještajii o turskom osvojenju Bosne (1463), 146.
54
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, 78.
55
С. Ћирковић, Херцег Стефан Вукчић Косача и његово доба, 253.
56
He had his old inherited estate in the Čurevo village near Sokol. A. Aličić,
Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, Sarajevo 1985, 258.
57
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, 151–154.
58
Pavo Grgurić was a timariot from 1463 to 1477. The defter states that he was
captured, whereafter his timar was given to another person. It is not known who
captured him or what his destiny was like. Pavo Grgurić also governed the fortress
of Hum and, together with other guards, held a timar in the Livno nahiye which
consisted of 14 derelict villages. A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz
1468/69. godine, 100, 195.
115
Srđan Rudić
Filip also had a timar yielding 9544 akçe.59 During the ninth decade, there
were large Christian feudatories as well. Knez Petar, Obrin’s son, had a
ziamet in the Neretva nahiye worth 40325 akçe.60
According to the 1477 defter, in the Herzegovina sanjak the timar of
Vukac, Obren’s son, in the Sokol nahiye with the income of 5956 akçe,
was particularly prominent. In the same nahiye, mentioned Radoje,
Rupčić’s son, also held a timar, with an income of 4208 akçe. Sanke,
the teacher of Herzog’s son, held a timar in the Dubištica nahiye with an
income of 3350 akçe.61 Timars of some Vlach chiefs were much larger
– the timar of voivode Grgur in the Zagorje nahiye yielded income of
7323 akçe, and the timar of Vukić, Vlađo’s son, in the Črešnjeva nahiye
7975 akçe.62 At the same time, knez Herak Vraneš held in the Popovo
nahiye a timar with an income of 28970 akçe.63
The defter of the Bosnia sanjak from 1468/69 also contains
interesting notes about some Christian timariots. The following is noted
for Vladoje, Šegoj’s son: “He is an honourable and brave Christian“.64
For brothers Tvrtko and Jovan, Čavlija’s sons, it says they “were worthy
Christians, remaining honest and faithful to our ruler“.65 The nobles who
accepted the Turkish rule, regardless of whether those were Christians
59
60
N. Filipović, Pogled na osmanski feudalizam (s posebnim obzirom na agrarne
odnose), Godišnjak Društva istoričara Bosne i Hercegovine 4 (1952) 104.
61
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, 258–260, 264–267,
278–280.
62
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, 377–381, 390.
63
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, 331–364. Some Vlach
chiefs in Herzog’s land became part of the feudal stratum even before the Turks’ arrival.
The Turks understood the importance of the Vlachs for the stability of their power and
began to grant timars to prominent Vlach chiefs who thus became equal partners to local
feudatories. Over time, their status was growing stronger at the expense of the earlier
nobility. As a consequence, a significant number of domestic feudatories embraced Islam,
while there is no confirmed example of Islamisation among the Vlach chiefs. N. Filipović,
Vlasi i uspostava timarskog sistema u Hercegovini (I), Godišnjak Akademije nauka i
umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine knj. 12, Centar za balkanološka istraživanja knjiga 10,
Sarajevo 1974, 127–221; О исламизацији влаха погледати: N. Filipović, Islamizacija
vlaha u Bosni i Hercegovini u XV i XVI vijeku, Radovi 73 (1983) 139–148.
64
65
116
or new Muslims, and became part of the Turkish feudal system, were
not always faithful to their new rulers. The defter of the Bosnia sanjak
from 1468/69 also brings data about the disobedience of some timariots
in respect of the central authorities. Some timariots lost their estates
when they failed to respond to the invitation to the military campaign
against Uzun Hasan. Those were, for instance, Balaban Boljetić,
Hadžija, Mirahor’s brother, Brajak Podrpan, Župan Radič, Radosav, the
son of Stepko.66 Though rare, there were also cases of fleeing to the other
side. It is not clear from the defter text whether those were Islamised
nobles or not. In any case, it was noted that Mahmud Diraz “went to the
infidels“.67 Musa and Isa who fled to Hungary also lost their timars.68
After and during the fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia, members of the
Kosača family also occasionally cooperated with the Turks. The first
Turkish incursions in 1463 were directed against Herzog Stefan Vukčić.
A part of the Sultan’s army took part in them, aiming to bring to power
Herzog’s son Vladislav. Before his death, Herzog was saying that
Vladislav had brought the Turks to Bosnia via the paths that they
themselves could have never passed.69 All three sons of Herzog Stefan
Vučkić occasionally cooperated with the Turks after his death.70 As
already mentioned, according to the defter of the Bosnia sanjak from
1468/69, the Trebinje nahiye was in the hands of Herzog’s son whose
name was not given.71 In the 1470–1472 period and some time after the
surrender of Novi, Herzog Vlatko was also recognising the Turkish
rule72. By the middle of the year 1470, Sultan’s envoys intervened with
Dubrovnik inhabitants to pay to Herzog Vlatko and his brother knez
66
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, 40, 85, 116, 145, 158.
67
68
69
Š. Ljubić, Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke republike X,
354; С. Ћирковић, Херцег Стефан Вукчић Косача и његово доба, 252.
70
Погледати: В. Атанасовски, Пад Херцеговине.
71
Аhmed Aličić believed that this was Vladislav and that this note confirms the
existence of dual power between the Ottomans and Vladislav Kosača in the Trebinje
nahiye, or that Vladislav recognised the rule of the Ottomans. A. Aličić, Sumarni
popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, 151.
72
В. Атанасовски, Пад Херцеговине, 64–85.
117
Srđan Rudić
Stefan all inheritance of their father Herzog Stefan Vukčić.73 We have

already mentioned that Stefan entered into the Sultan’s service in 1474.
Some members of the noble family Vlatković from Hum also recognised
the Turkish authority and entered into the Turkish service. Andrija
Vlatković was the best known – in late 1481 he was mentioned as a
voivode in the service of the Herzegovina sanjakbey. He received from
the Turks the confirmation of his old inherited estates in the nahiyes of
Vrgorac, Ljubuški and Primorje, which was named after him Avgustin’s
land or Fragustin. The Hungarians captured and killed him upon the
order of King Matthias Corvinus in 1488.74 In the 1508–1510 period,
his cousin, knez and voivode Petar Pavlović received for administration
from the Turks Krajina and Avgustin’s Hum land.75
Immediately after the fall of the Kingdom of Bosnia, we see the first
Islamised members of the domestic mobility. Islamisation of the Bosnian
nobility began several decades earlier, with the consolidation of the
Turks in the territory of the medieval Bosnian state.76 The reasons for the
conversion to Islam were economic privileges granted to new Muslims,
chaotic social and political circumstances that the Turks found in Bosnia,
the wish to climb the social ladder and other.77 A number of prominent
73
Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма I–2, Београд – Сремски
Карловци 1934, 275–276; В. Атанасовски, Пад Херцеговине, 61.
74
D. Korać, Vjerske prilike na području knezova Jurjevića – Vlatkovića, Radovi Zavoda
za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru 49 (2007)
233–235; Ђ. Тошић, Андрија (фра Августин) Влатковић – (не)свакидашњи
примјер хумског великаша, Наука и идентитет. Филозофске и природно
математичке науке. Зборник радова са научног скупа (Пале, 21–22. мај 2011),
Пале 2012, 61–67; D. Korać, Vjera u Humskoj zemlji, Mostar 2008, 150–153.
75
С. Рудић, Петар Павловић – војвода Хумски и Крајине, Зборник за историју
76
According to the 1455 defter, Husein, Rajko’s son, held a timar in the Hodidjed
vilayet. In the same vilayet, on 20 July 1463 a timar was given to Ismail from Bosnia,
on the condition that he should serve in the town of Hodidjed. H. Šabanović, Krajište
Isabega Ishakovića, zbirni katastarski popis iz 1455. godine, 62, 64.
77
About the issue of Islamisation of the Bosnian nobility see: В. Чубриловић, Порекло
муслиманског племства у Босни и Херцеговини, Југословенски историски
часопис 3–4 (1935) 368–403; А. Соловјев, Нестанак богомилства и исламизација
Босне, Годишњак Друштва историчара Босне и Херцеговине 1 (1949) 42–79; Н.
Филиповић, Поглед на османски феудализам (с посебним обзиром на аграрне
118
Turkish dignitaries traced their origin to the medieval Bosnian nobility.

It is striking that among them there were almost no members of the upper
layer of the medieval nobility. Islamisation took place mainly among
the petty noble families that did not play an important role in the
Kingdom of Bosnia. However, there were several exceptions. Certainly
the most prominent Islamised Bosnian nobleman was Ahmedpasha
Herzegović, the youngest son of Herzog Stefan Vukčić Kosača.78 There
was also Sinanpasha Borovinić who originated from the family that had
kinship links with the Pavlovićs.79 We could also add to them Mehmed
bey and Halilpasha Obrenović, whose ancestors were probably
mentioned in the 14th century as witnesses on charters of Bosnian rulers.80
односе), Годишњак Друштва историчара Босне и Херцеговине 4 (1952) 5–146;

N. Filipović, O nastanku feudalnih posjeda muslimanskog bosanskog plemstva,
Pregled 5 (1953) 386–393; A. Handžić, O islamizaciji u sjeveroistočnoj Bosni u XV
i XVI vijeku, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 16–17 (1966–67) 5–48; N. Filipović,
Napomene o islamizaciji u Bosni i Hercegovini u XV vijeku, Godišnjak Akademije
nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine 7, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 5,
Sarajevo 1970, 141–167; B. Zlatar, O nekim muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama
u Bosni u XV i XVI stoljeću, Prilozi 14 (1978) 81–139; С. Рудић, Прилог познавању
неких исламизованих босанских породица, Споменица академика Симе
Ћирковића, Београд 2011, 425–439.
78
For more than three decades, Ahmedpasha was one of the most prominent persons
in Turkey. He was grand vizier five times. He died in 1517. We do not know
anything about the destiny of his descendants – he had three sons and three
daughters. В. Атанасовски, Пад Херцеговине, Београд 1979, 189–219; B. Zlatar,
O nekim muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u Bosni u XV i XVI stoljeću, 90–92.
79
Sinanpasha held the position of the sanjakbey of Bosnia (twice), Herzegovina
and Smederevo, and of the beylerbey of Rumelia and Anatolia. He was finally raised
to the rank of grand vizier. He lost his life in 1517. In the early 16th century, Kasum
bey, Feridbey and his son Bayezid are mentioned. С. Рудић, Боровинићи,
властеоска породица из источне Босне, Земља Павловића, средњи вијек и
период турске владавине, Бања Лука, Српско Сарајево 2003, 274–275.
80
The Obrenovićs were a medieval family from the environs of Konjic. Mehmedbey
was the sanjakbey of Morea and Herzegovina. He was also Sultan’s kapicibasha. He
had two brothers – Halil and Hamzo. Halilpasha served as the Rumelia beylerbey
for some time. In 1485 and 1489, in the environs of Višegrad, Hamzabey held a
part of the Višegrad ziamet with the income of over 73000 akçe. Their father was
Petar Obrenović. B. Zlatar, Neki podaci o sandžakbegu Mehmedbegu Obrenoviću,
Prilozi 10/2 (1974) 341–346; П. Анђелић, Barones regni и државно вијеће
средњовјековне Босне, Прилози 11–12 (1975–1976) 40, нап. 52; B. Zlatar, O nekim
119
Srđan Rudić
Many Islamised individuals who reached high positions in the Ottoman

Empire originated from petty and poor Christian noble families, such as
Sokollu Mehmed pasha and a number of his relatives.81 Members of the
Boljanić family – Sinanpasha and Husejnpasha Boljanić82 also reached
high positions, as well as Ibrahim Novošeherlija.83
The first Turkish defters of the Bosnia sanjak offer insight into the
beginnings of Islamisation of the nobility. The process was sporadic,
but yet visible at the time. The defter of the Bosnia sanjak from 1468/69
records several dozens of members of the medieval petty nobility who
embraced Islam. Some of them have the designation of “a new Muslim”,
for some of them it is noted that they had a Christian father or brother,
while some kept their Christian surnames. For instance, in the Neretva
nahiye, the timar of Čavlija’s sons Radivoj, Križan and Dragnić was
recorded. A note from late May 1474 suggests that Radivoj and Križan
became Muslims and received the names of Sulejman and Timurhan.84
In the Bistrica nahiye, timars were held by Hasan, Alija and Husein,
Borovina’s sons.85 Jusuf Radisalić enjoyed a timar in the Goražde
muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u Bosni u XV i XVI stoljeću, 103–104; С. Рудић,

Прилог познавању неких исламизованих босанских породица, 434–435; Д.
Амедоски, Вакуфнама Мехмедбега Обреновића из 1516. године, Пад босанског
краљевства 1463. године, Београд–Сарајево–Бања Лука 2015, 291–309.
81
Mehmed pasha was a grand vizier during the rule of three sultans: Suleiman the
Magnificent, Selim II and Murad III. Mehmed’s brother or close cousin Makarije
was the hegumen of Hilandar and the first patriarch after the restoration of the
Patriarchate of Peć in 1557. Р. Самарџић, Мехмед Соколовић, Београд 1975; B.
Zlatar, O nekim muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u Bosni u XV i XVI stoljeću,
111–118.
82
They originated from the Boljanić village in Herzegovina. Sinanbey was the
Bosnian sanjakbey in 1562. In the 1563–1580 period, he was appointed sanjakbey
of Herzegovina three times. Husejnpasha was the sanjakbey of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and later served as a beylerbey in Egypt, Diyarbakır, Baghdad and
Bosnia. B. Zlatar, O nekim muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u Bosni u XV i XVI
stoljeću, 129–130.
83
He originated from Novi Šeher. He was the beylerbey of Rumelia. He served as a
grand vizier four times. B. Zlatar, O nekim muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u
Bosni u XV i XVI stoljeću, 135–136.
84
85
A. Aličić, Sumarni popis sandžaka Bosna iz 1468/69. godine, 137–138.
120
nahiye.86 By the middle of the ninth decade, timars of three Dragalj’s

sons are mentioned: Mahmud and Pavko in the Hrtar nahiye in the area
of the Pavlovićs, and Sinanbey in the Osad nahiye in the area of the
Kovačevićs of 72681 akçe. Already mentioned Petar, Obrin’s son, had
a ziamet worth 40325 akçe in the Neretva nahiye, while his brother
Hamzabey enjoyed a part of the Višegrad ziamet worth 73685 akçe. In
the Bosnia sanjak, timars were also held by Milovac, Radovina and
Radin, cousins of Alipasha.87
The defter of the sanjak of Herzegovina from 1477 records a
significantly smaller number of individuals who definitively changed
their faith compared to the defter of the Bosnia sanjak from 1468/69.
For instance, only several of them are designated as “new Muslims”.
There is also a far smaller number of Muslims with Christian surnames
or it is noted that their cousins were Christians. For the sake of
illustration, of brothers Hasan and Mahmud Garovčić, the former held
a timar yielding 3448 akçe in the Dubištnica nahiye88. In the Sokol
nahiye, Mahmud and his father Radak held a chiflik. In this chiflik, the
lands that they held from the Herzog’s time were recorded.89
Apart from the defters, some headstone inscriptions are a significant
source for exploring the process of Islamisation of the medieval nobility.
In Petrovo polje near Rogatica there is a headstone of Mahmut
Branković dated to 1471–1459 with the inscription: “I pogibé na boõ
déspotovú. A si bil(i)gý Mahmúta Brankovi}a na vsoi ba{tiné na
Pétrovú polú. Da é blag(o)s(l)ovéna rúka koä sié~é i pisa”.90 In
Čadovina, also in the environs of Rogatica, there is a headstone of Hasan
86
87
Н. Филиповић, Поглед на османски феудализам (с посебним обзиром на
аграрне односе), 104–105.
88
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, 275–278.
89
A. Aličić, Poimenični popis sandžaka vilajeta Hercegovina, 256–7.
90
Љ. Стојановић, Стари српски записи и натписи I, Београд 1902, 97; M. Vego,
Zbornik srednjovjekovnih natpisa Bosne i Hercegovine IV, Sarajevo 1970, 37; Г.
Томовић, Морфологија ћириличких натписа на Балкану, Београд 1974, 118–
119; B. Zlatar, O nekim muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u Bosni u XV i XVI
stoljeću, 98. The Brankovićs belonged to the medieval petty nobility. They were in
the service of the Pavlović family.
121
Srđan Rudić
Radilović dated to the 15–16th century with the inscription: “Hasan i

Ahmata dova Radilovi}a sina. I òto stari Hasana úmrýé. I ~to
bié{é òvo: éré bi{é úzúrý hý~ovéké a õna~é õúnaka . I toi ne rovo
brata Ahmata véliké `alosti radi pisa{é. I da é blaŠgo¹sovŠé¹ný tko
}é proiti. I proklétý Šk¹òi Š}é¹ privaliti”.91
Numerous sipahi Muslim families in the territory of the former
Kingdom of Bosnia in the 14th and 15th centuries traced their descent
from the medieval Bosnian nobility. The following families belonged to
the medieval nobility: the Alajbegovićs, Arnautovićs, Atlagićs,
Bajezidagićs, Boljanićs, Borovinas, Borovinićs, Brankovićs, Gazi
Husrevbeg, Hercegovićs, Juriševićs, Katušićs, Kopčićs, Malkočs,
Novošeherlijas, Ljubovićs, Ljubunčićs, Obrenovićs, Popovićs,
Predojevićs, Resićs, Rustempašićs, Sokolovićs, Stančićs, Starčićs,
Vilićs, Vlahovićs, Vraneševićs, VukovićDesisalićs.92 Of course, this is
not an exhaustive list of the Islamised Bosnian medieval nobility.93
91
M. Vego, Zbornik srednjovjekovnih natpisa Bosne i Hercegovine IV, 23. This family is
not mentioned in medieval records. E. Laszovski, Radijelovići, bosanska velikaška
porodica, Napredak, glasilo hrvatskog kulturnog društva „Napredak” u Sarajevu, god. VIII,
br. 6 (lipanj 1933) 66–68; С. Рудић, Властела Илирског грбовника, 204–205.
92
B. Zlatar, Kopčići i Vilići, Prilozi 13 (1977) 322–327; B. Zlatar, O nekim
muslimanskim feudalnim porodicama u Bosni u XV i XVI stoljeću, 81–139; Х.
Шабановић, Босански намесник Ферхадбег Вуковић Десисалић, Зборник
радова Филозофског факултета у Београду 4–1 (1957) 113–127; С. Рудић,
Прилог познавању неких исламизованих босанских породица, 436–437.
93
Vasa Čubrilović believed that the following families descended from the medieval
nobility: the Kovačevićs, Todorovićs, Sijerčićs, Ljubovićs, Sulejmanpašićs, Vilićs,
Kregićs, Brankovićs, Kovčićs, Turhanovićs, Filipovićs, Kulenovićs, Sokolovićs,
Opukovićs. В. Чубриловић, Порекло муслиманског племства у Босни и
Херцеговини, 374, 386, 388. According to Alexander Soloviev, it is not possible to
claim that Bosnian beys were mainly the descendants of the Christian medieval
nobility. If there were such cases, they descended from the petty nobility, such as the
Brankovićs, Radilovićs, Sijerčićs. А. Соловјев, Нестанак богомилства и
исламизација Босне, 52. Ivan Frano Jukić believed that the following families
descended from the Christian nobility: the Rajkovićs, Babićs, Bakovićs, Bosnićs,
Cerićs, Čekićs, Dugalićs, Dvagićs, Filipovićs, Glumčićs, Ljubovićs, Ljubunčićs,
Kopčićs, Kresoevićs, Kulenovićs, Kukavičićs, Skorbovićs, Repovacs, Šaranovićs,
Vojnikovićs, Vidaićs, Sokolovićs, Zlatarovićs, Ždralovićs. I. F. Jukić, Zemljopis i
poviestnica Bosne, Zagreb 1851, 142, nap. 4.
122
This paper elaborates on the destiny of a part of the nobility of the

medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. More thorough archive research would
certainly widen the circle of families subject to our analysis and
contribute to the better understanding of the processes unfolding in the
territory of the former Kingdom of Bosnia after 1463.
123
Srđan Rudić
Srđan RUDIĆ
BOSNA KRALLIĞI’NIN 1463. YILINDA YIKILMASINDAN

SONRA BOSNA’DA SOYLULAR TABAKASI
Özet
Bu çalışmada, kaynaklar ve araştırma eserleri kullanılarak Ortaçağ

Bosna Krallığı’nın yıkılmasının ardından Bosna’da soylular arası
ilişkilerin dönüşümü incelendi. 1463 yılındaki Osmanlı seferi esnasında
Bosnalı soyluların üst tabakasının çoğunluğu tarih sahnesinden silindi.
Bunların bir kısmı Türklerle çatışmalarda hayatlarını kaybetti, bir kısmı
da ya esir alındı ya da idam edildi. Hayatlarını kaybedenler hakkındaki
bilgiler neredeyse yok mesabesindedir. Kaynaklarda, kral Stefan
Tomaşeviç ve dayısı Radivoye’nin yanısıra, asil sınıfının Kovaçeviç ve
Pavloviç gibi sadece bir kaç mensubundan bahsediliyor. Kaynaklara göre
soylularn bir kısmı da esir düşüp köleleştirildi – bunların arasında, eski
kral Stefan Tomaş’ın çocukları Katarina ve Jigmund da vardı. Ancak,
krallığın yıkılışı, Osmanlılara karşı direnişin sona erdiği anlamına
gelmiyordu. Kaybedilen bölgelerden kaçan vasalların bir kısmı
Kosaça’ların topraklarına gidip Novi’nin 1481 yılında yitirilmesine kadar
savaşmayı sürdürdü. Obradoviç, Çubretiç, Vlatkoviç gibi bazı vassal
ailelerinin mensupları Macar kralı Matiyas Korvinus’un hizmetine
girerek Osmanlılara karşı mücadeleye devam etti. Soylular tabakasının
bir çok mensubu Bosna’dan kaçmayı başararak Adriyatik sahilinde,
bilhassa Dubrovnik’te, kurtuluşu ararken, bazıları da, örn. tacından olmuş
kraliçe Katarina gibi, Apenin yarımadasına sığındı.
Bosna Kralığı’nın yıkılmasından sonra soyluların bir kısmı bu
bölgede kalarak “fatihlerin” hizmetine girdi. Kosaça ve Vlatkoviç
ailelerinin bazı mensupları da ara sıra Osmanlı tabiyetine girdi. 1468/69
yıllarında Bosna sancağına ait ve 1477 yılında Hersek sancağına ait ilk
tahrirler, yeni idarecileri kabullenen minör hıristiyan soylular hakkında
pek çok bilgi veriyor. Örneğin bu defterler sayesinde, Bosna krallığının
ilgasından hemen sonra ilk yerli müslümanlaşmış eski dönem soylularını
görebilmekteyiz. İslamlaşma, bir kaç nadir istisna dışında (İshak
Kraloğlu, Ahmed Paşa Hersekoğlu, Sinan Paşa Borovinoğlu, Mehmed
124
Bey Obrenoviç, Halil Paşa Obrenoviç), genel olarak Orta Çağ Bosna
Krallığı’nda önemli rol oynamayan küçük asilzade ailelerini kapsadı.
XV. ve XVI. yüzyıllar boyunca eski Bosna Krallığı topraklarında olan
bir çok sipahi müslüman ailenin kökenleri, bu metinde gösterildiği üzere,
Orta Çağ Bosna Kralığı’nın soyluluk düzenine dayanmaktaydı.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Bosna, Bosna krallığı, 15. yüzyıl, 1463, soylular,
islamlaşma.
125
Srđan Rudić
Срђан РУДИЋ
БОСАНСКА ВЛАСТЕЛА НАКОН ПАДА

БОСАНСКОГ КРАЉЕВСТВА 1463. ГОДИНЕ
Резиме
У раду је на основу извора и литературе обрађена судбина

босанске властеле након пропасти средњовековног босанског
краљевства. Током турског похода 1463. године горњи слој
босанске властеле углавном је нестао са историјске сцене. Део
припадника властеоског слоја је погинуо у сукобима са Турцима
или био заробљен и погубљен. Подаци о погинулој властели су
ретки, скоро да их и нема. У изворима се поред краља Стефана
Томашевића и његовог стрица Радивоја, помиње тек неколико
настрадалих припадника властеоског слоја, попут Ковачевића и
Павловића. Извори сведоче да је део властеле био заробљен и
одведен у ропство – међу њима су били и Катарина и Жигмунд,
деца бившег краља Стефана Томаша. Ипак, пад краљевства није
значио и престанак пружања отпора освајачима. Косаче, на чију
област се повукао део властеле са територија које су заузели Турци,
су наставиле да се боре све до пада Новог под турску власт крајем
1481. године. Део властеле, попут чланова породица Обрадовић,
Чубретић, Влатковић, наставио је борбу против Турака у служби
угарског краља Матије Корвина. Бројни припадници властеоског
слоја успели су да избегну из Босне – највећи број њих спас је
потражио на обали Јадрана, пре свега у Дубровнику. Неки су, попут
бивше краљице Катарине и њене пратње, спас потражили на
Апенинском полуострву.
Део властеле је након пада босанског краљевства остао у земљи
и ступио у службу освајача. Турску власт су повремено признавали
и поједини чланови породица Косача и Влатковић. Први турски
пописи санџака Босна из 1468/69. године и санџака Херцеговина
из 1477. године доносе бројне податке о ситној хришћанској
властели која је прихватила турску власт и укључила се у нови
поредак. Непосредно по паду босанског краљевства срећемо и прве
126
исламизоване припаднике домаћег племства. Исламизација је, уз

ретке изузетке (Исхак Краљ Огли, Ахмедпаша Херцеговић, Синан
паша Боровинић, Мехмедбег Обреновић, Халилпаша Обреновић)
углавном захватила ситне властеоске породице које током
постојања средњовековне босанске државе нису имале значајнију
улогу. Бројне спахијске муслиманске породице које током XV и
XVI века срећемо на територији некадашњег босанског краљевства
водиле су порекло од средњовековне босанске властеле.
Кључне речи: Босна, Босанско краљевство, 15. век, 1463,
властела, исламизација.
127
UDC: 94(497.11:439:560):316.343058.12(497.11)”14”
Aleksandar KRSTIĆ
“WHICH REALM WILL YOU OPT FOR?” –

THE SERBIAN NOBILITY BETWEEN
THE OTTOMANS AND THE HUNGARIANS
IN THE 15TH CENTURY*
Abstract: Serbian rulers were both the vassals of the sultan and the Hungarian king
from the beginning of the 15th century until the fall of the medieval Serbian state (1459).
The interweaving of the Ottoman and Hungarian influence in Serbia reflected also on the
Serbian nobility. Thus, like the ruling despots, some of the leading Serbian aristocrats
received possessions in Hungary. This did not prevent some of them to enter into the
sultan’s service in order to preserve their positions and possessions, especially during
the periods of increased Ottoman expansion in Serbia (for example in 1439). Entering the
military service of conquerors was even more commonplace among the small nobility in
those areas that came under the Ottoman rule. This tendency became even more evident
after 1459, when the Ottoman authorities included numerous Serbian petty noblemen, as
well as some of the high nobility, in their military organization as Christian sipahis,
especially in the border regions of northern Serbia (sancak of Smederevo). However,
many of them crossed to the Hungarian side. The Serbian despots and noblemen in
Hungary participated in the defence of the southern Hungarian border and fought against
the Ottomans, but they also struggled in Central Europe at the service of Hungarian kings.
Keywords: Serbia, Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Serbian despots, the Branković
family, the Jakšić family, Miloš Belmužević, 15th century, Serbian nobility, Dmitar
Mrnjavčević.
The question from the title, which was put before Prince Lazar (1371–
1389) in the Serbian ecclesiastical literature and epic poetry, refers to the
choice between submitting to the Ottomans and the Christian martyrdom
*
129
Aleksandar Krstić
through the struggle with the overwhelming enemy.1 However, for

Lazar’s successors after the battle of Kosovo (1389), the said question
could primarily denote the dilemma about the realpolitik which should
be chosen. Thus, the advance of the Ottomans into the Balkans and the
Danube region caused a major change in the SerbianHungarian
relations at the beginning of the 15th century. The policy of cooperation
with Hungary in the years that followed the battle of Ankara (1402)
helped Despot Stefan Lazarević (1389–1427) to consolidate his state.
However, very soon it became evident that even the weakened Ottoman
Empire, dragged into the conflicts between the sons of Sultan Bayezid,
still gripped its positions in the Balkans and that it was not possible to
break off the relations with the Turks.2 Therefore, Despot Stefan and,
later, his successor Despot Đurađ (George) Branković were at the same
time vassals to both the sultan and the Hungarian king, which put them
in very unusual and contradictory positions. This policy could work only
until the Ottoman Empire renewed its power and entered in direct
clashes with Hungary. Already in the last years of the rule of Despot
Stefan, since 1425, the Serbian state had experienced repeated Ottoman
attacks because of the cooperation with Hungarians.3 During the rule of
Despot Đurađ Branković (1427–1456) these contradictions were further
increased, and in his attempt to maneuver between the two conflicting
powers, the Serbian monarch brought upon himself the mistrust of both
sides. As the result, the Ottomans occupied Serbia for the first time in
1439. Despot Đurađ temporarily managed to renew his state in 1444
with the assistance of the Hungarians and to continue the policy of
1
V. Karadžić, Srpske narodne pjesme II, Beč 1845, 295–296; R. Mihaljčić, Lazar
Hrebeljanović. Istorija, kult, predanje, Beograd 2001, 145–148, 241–250, 272–275;
J. Ređep, Kosovska legenda, Beograd 20072, 25–36, 97–98.
2
M. Purković, Knez i despot Stefan Lazarević, Beograd 1978, 74–75, 82–91, 100–
102, 104–109; Istorija srpskog naroda II, ed. J. Kalić, Beograd 1982 (hereinafter:
ISN II), 70–90 (J. Kalić); J. Kalić, Srbi u poznom srednjem veku, Beograd 20012,
79–108; A. Veselinović, Država srpskih despota, Beograd 20062, 106–107, 115–
120; S. Ćirković, The Serbs, Oxford 2004, 89–91, 101–103; J. V. A. Fine, The Late
Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman
Conquest, Ann Arbor 2009, 501–510.
3
ISN II, 209–212, 216 (J. Kalić); J. Kalić, Despot Stefan Lazarević i Turci, Istorijski
časopis (=IČ) 29–30 (1982–1983) 7–20.
130
“Which Realm Will You Opt For?” ...
double vassalry towards the sultan and the Hungarian crown. However,
it turned out that Hungary was not capable to protect Serbia and to
prevent its final fall under the Ottoman rule in 1459.4 The interweaving
of the Ottoman and Hungarian influence in Serbia in that dramatic period
of struggling for the survival of the Serbian state reflected also on the
Serbian nobility. In the decades that followed the Ottoman conquest of
Serbia, many of Serbian noblemen and members of other social groups
entered Ottoman military service, while others believed that it was
possible to renew the state relying on Hungary. Since it has been written
about Christian sipahis on several occasions,5 I will focus primarily on
the connections between Serbian nobility and Hungary in the 15th
century, in the context of the Ottoman conquest of the Serbian lands.
It was not by chance that the sons of King Vukašin, brothers Andrijaš
and Dmitar Mrnjavčević, were the first Serbian dynasts who sought
refuge in Hungary in 1394. They were among the first to feel the power
and unrelenting pressure of the Ottomans, as they were, together with
their eldest brother King Marko, Ottoman vassals since 1371, after their
father and uncle were killed in the battle by the river Maritsa. At the
same time, their land in western Macedonia was far enough from
Hungary and its expansionist policy towards the southern and south
eastern neighbors, which had contributed that the rulers of Bosnia,
Serbia, Bulgaria and Wallachia often perceived this kingdom rather as an
enemy than as an ally against the Turks. While Andrijaš disappeared
4
The most complete monograph of that period is: M. Spremić, Despot Đurađ
Branković i njegovo doba, Beograd 1994; see also: ISN II, 218–229, 241–267, 289–
313 (M. Spremić, J. Kalić); J. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 526–534, 548–550,
554–556, 568–577; S. Ćirković, The Serbs, 103–108.
5
H. Inalcik, Od Stefana Dušana do Osmanskog carstva, Prilozi za orijentalnu
filologiju 3–4 (1952–1953) 23–55; B. Đurđev, Hrišćani spahije u severnoj Srbiji u
XV veku, Godišnjak Društva istoričara BiH (=GDBIH) 4 (1952) 165–169; O.
Zirojević, Tursko vojno uređenje u Srbiji (1459–1683), Beograd 1974, 158–162; N.
Lemajić, Srpska elita na prelomu epoha, Sremska Mitrovica–Istočno Sarajevo 2006,
37–60; E. Miljković, Hrišćani spahije u Smederevskom sandžaku u drugoj polovini
XV veka, Moravska Srbija, istorija, književnost, umetnost. Zbornik radova, ed. S.
Mišić, Kruševac 2007 (=Moravska Srbija), 85–90; Eadem, The Christian Sipahis in
the Serbian Lands in the Second Half of the 15th century, Beogradski istorijski
glasnik 1 (2010) 103–119.
131
Aleksandar Krstić
without a trace in Hungary, which suggests the possibility that he was

killed in the battle at Rovine in 1395 or in the battle of Nicopolis in 1396,
Dmitar stayed in the service of King Sigismund of Luxembourg. He was
appointed castellan of Világosvár and count of Zarand County before
1404, probably in 1401. As a Hungarian dignitary, Dmitar took part in
Sigismund’s military campaigns against Bosnians and Ottomans (1407–
1410). He was killed in one of them, most likely in 1409, when the
Hungarian king sent military assistance to Despot Stefan Lazarević
against his brother Vuk and Emir Suleyman.6 A different orientation of
the closest relatives – namely, the eldest brother, King Marko, was killed
in the battle at Rovine in 1395 as a loyal vassal of Sultan Bayezid7 –
will also be characteristic for some later cases, for example for the
Branković family on the eve of the final Ottoman conquest of Serbia.8
It is not known if the Mrnjavčević brothers were followed by anyone of
their nobility. Overall, there were very little preserved data on the
nobility from the southern Serbian regions, which were the first to come
under the Ottoman rule, who moved to Hungary.9 I will draw attention
to brothers George and Vukašin from the Orbonász (or, in Serbian:
Arbanas) family from the Krassó County in southern Hungary, who have
not yet been noticed in Serbian historiography. It is believed that the
brothers came from the Serbian noble family which arrived in Hungary
6
S. Ćirković, Poklad kralja Vukašina, Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta. Beograd 14/1
(1979) 156–161; P. Rókay, A szerbek betelepülése Magyarországra a XV században,
A szerbek Magyarországon, Szeged 1991, 54; A. Fostikov, O Dmitru Kraljeviću,
IČ 49 (2002) 47–65. About the fightings in Serbia in 1409 see: ISN II, 79–82 (J.
Kalić); J. Kalić, Srbi, 88–89; M. Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 58; А. Veselinović,
Država, 117–118; S. Ćirković, The Serbs, 90–91.
7
ISN II, 53–55 (S. Ćirković); Idem, The Serbs, 86; C. Imber, The Ottoman Empire
1300–1481, Istanbul 1990, 45; J. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 424.
8
I will discuss that later.
9
The Macedonia settlement and the family Dancs of Macedonia were recorded in
the Temes County in the first half of the 14th century, so they were not connected with
the Ottoman penetration into the territory of Macedonia: L. Boldea, Un secol din
evoluţia unui domeniu feudal al Banatului de Câmpie: domeniul familiei nobile
Danciu de Macedonia, Analele Banatului, serie nouă: Arheologie – Istorie 18 (2010)
124. About the nobility in the lands belonging to the Mrnjavčević brothers see: M.
Šuica, Nemirno doba srpskog srednjeg veka, Beograd 2000, 35–53.
132
somewhere from Albania.10 They appear in the sources during the first
half of the 15th century. The highlight of George’s career was in 1441 and
1442, when he held the position of the count of Temes. Some documents
show that his brother Vukašin helped him in maintaining administrative
and judicial duties at that time.11
Becoming the vassal of the Hungarian crown in 1403/1404, Despot
Stefan received Mačva and Belgrade from King Sigismund, and since
1411 he also got a number of estates across Hungary. The Serbian ruler
was thus included in the rank of Hungarian barons, with rights and
obligations that stemmed from that status.12 The intensive Serbian
Hungarian cooperation also had an impact on the Serbian nobility. It is
often asserted in historiography that beside his Hungarian familiares,
Despot Stefan also appointed Serbs as officials at his estates in Hungary.
Thus, certain “Nikola Peret(n)ić” was mentioned as the despot’s official
in Apatin in the Bodrog County, and Brajan as the vicecount of the
Torontal County in Banat (both in 1417).13 However, the named
Nicholas, the son of Benedict, was actually one of the Hungarian
10
P. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája 1301–1457, Budapest 1996, I, 205;
II, 178; I. Petrovics, John Hunyadi, Defender of the Southern Borders of the
Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, Banatica 20–2 (2010) 71.
11
Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltárа, Budapest, Diplomatikai levéltár
(henceforth: MNLOL, DL), 55238, 55248, 74494, 55248; P. Engel, Ibidem; I.
Petrovics, Ibidem.
12
J. Radonić, Sporazum u Tati 1426. i srpskougarski odnosi od XIII do XVI veka,
Glas Srpske kraljevske akademije 187 (1941) 158–160; J. KalićMijušković,
Beograd u srednjem veku, Beograd 1967, 83–84; M. Purković, Knez i despot, 73–75,
86–87, 100–102; ISN II, 71–72, 74, 85–87, 322–323 (J. Kalić, S. Ćirković); S.
Ćirković, “Crna Gora” i problem srpsko–ugarskog graničnog područja, Valjevo –
postanak i uspon gradskog središta, Valjevo 1994, 63–66, 74–75; A. Veselinović,
Država, 115–116; P. Engel, Archontológia I, 210, 283–284, 369–370, 399, 438–
439, 444–445; A. Krstić–M. Ivanović, The Chancery of Emperor Sigismund of
Luxembourg and Serbian Despots Stefan Lazarević and Đurađ Branković,
Proceedings of the international conference The Court and Chancery of Emperor
Sigismund as a Political Centre and as a Social System held in Brno 18–21
November 2015, in publication.
13
A. Ivić, Istorija Srba u Vojvodini od najstarijih vremena do osnivanja potiskopomoriške
granice (1703), Novi Sad 1929, 10; D. Popović, Vojvodina u tursko doba, Vojvodina I.
Od najstarijih vremena do Velike seobe, Novi Sad 1939, 155; K. Jireček, Istorija Srba
II, prevod i dopune J. Radonić, Beograd 1952, 357; ISN II, 324 (S. Ćirković).
133
Aleksandar Krstić
familiares of Despot Stefan. His surname was not Peretić or Peretnić, but
he had the noble title “de Perethnich”.14 This petty nobleman most
probably came from the Valkó County in western Srem, where a
settlement named Peretinac existed and where his possessions should be
located.15 Furthermore, “Brayan [despoti] Rascie vicecomes et јudices
nobilium comitatus de Thurontal” did not issue their document in 1417,
but in 1447, which means that this Serbian nobleman was not in the service
of Despot Stefan, but of Despot Đurađ.16 In fact, the only official of Despot
Stefan in Hungary for whom we may assume that he was of Serbian origin
was Nicholas Raacz (Raach), the castellan of Munkacs (Mukačevo in
western Ukraine). He was mentioned at that position in 1424, and he was
also at the same duty during the first years of reign of Despot Đurađ
(around 1430).17 Serbian officials appeared at the despot’s estates in
Hungary more frequently during the rule of Đurađ Branković, precisely at
a time when the Hungarian kings, pressured by the domestic nobility,
adopted decrees that prohibited the Serbian despot and other magnates to
give the official positions in Hungary to foreigners.18 Thus in 1441, the
castellan of Vilagosvár was certain voivode Stepan,19 аnd between 1450
and 1453 Vlatko was at the same position, while his deputy was Brajislav.
14
I. Nagy, A zichi és vásonkeői gróf Zichycsalád idősb ágának okmánytára. Codex
diplomaticus domus senioris comitum Zichy de Zich et Vasonkeo VI, Pest 1894, 463–467.
15
D. Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában II, Budapest
1894, 342.
16
MNLOL, DL 55345 (March 1, 1447); F. Pesty–T. Ortvay, Oklevelek Temesvármegye
és Temesvárváros történetéhez I (1183–1430), Poszony 1896, 531–532, wrongly
dated this document in March 3, 1417; for correct dating see also: P. Engel,
Archontológia I, 210, n. 304.
17
MNLOL, Diplomatikai fényképgyűjtemény (=DF) 221558 (1424), DL 12252
(1430); B. Iványi, A római szent birodalmi széki gróf Teleki–család gyömrői
levéltára, Szeged 1931, 118; P. Engel, Archontológia I, 369–370; A. Krstić,
Dokumenti o ugarskim posedima despota Đurđa datim u zalog Jovanu Hunjadiju
1444. godine, Mešovita građa (Miscellanea) 32 (2011) 127.
18
F. Dőry, G. Bonis, V. Bácskai, Decreta Regni Hungariae. Gesetze und
Verordnungen Ungarns 1301–1457, Budapest 1976, 293; ISN II, 324–325 (S.
Ćirković); M. Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 216–217.
19
F. Pesty, L. Magina, A. Magina, Diplome privind istoria comitatului Timiş şi a
oraşului Timişoara. Oklevelek Temesvármegye és Temesvár város történetéhez II
(1430–1470), ClujNapoca 2014, 112–117; P. Engel, Archontológia I, 459.
134
Groups of Serbs settled at the Vilagosvár estate at the same time.20 Beside
aforementioned Brajan, in the middle of the 15th century the duties of Torontal
vicecounts were also performed by the Serbian familiares of the despot:
Desimir and Juga (in 1448) and No(v)ak (in 1450).21 The increased presence
of Serbian noblemen at the despot’s possessions in Hungary from the 1440s
may have been caused, on the one hand, by the growing Ottoman pressure
and the reduction of the despot’s territory (which led to the reduction in the
number of available possessions in Serbia). On the other hand, at the time of
internal turmoils in Hungary and his conflicts with the Hunyadi family,
Despot Đurađ needed to have reliable men at his Hungarian estates.
Although, therefore, Serbian noblemen were not significantly present
on the Hungarian estates of Despot Stefan Lazarević, some of the leading
Serbian aristocrats received possessions in Hungary at that time. During
the reign of Despot Stefan, the great čelnik Radič got from King
Sigismund the castle Kupinik and some other possessions in Srem.22
Radič, together with the protovestiarios Bogdan, also held two possessions
at the territory of presentday Banat, in Temes and Keve (Kovin) counties
before 1438. Those possessions were then sold to the Talovac brothers.23
A certain Serbian aristocrat Vladislav, unknown from other sources, also
20
L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország melléktartományainak oklevéltára II. A
Magyarország és Szerbia közti összeköttetések oklevéltára 1198–1526, Budapest
1907, 172–174; K. Jireček, Istorija Srba II, 357; ISN II, 324 (S. Ćirković); D. Dinić
Knežević, Slovenski živalj u urbanim naseljima srednjovekovne južne Ugarske,
Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju 37 (1988) 11; P. Engel, Archontológia I, 458–459.
21
MNLOL, DL 44588, 55368; A. Magina, Câteva documente privind comitatul
Torontal în prima jumătate a secolului al XVlea, Banatica 22 (2012) 75–76, where
Desimir’s name is transribed Dezenit instead of Dezemir; F. Pesty, L. Magina, A.
Magina, Diplome, 210–211. Cf. P. Engel, Archontológia I, 210.
22
C. Pavlikianov, The Mediaeval Slavic Archives of the Athonite Monastery of
Kastamonitou, Cyrillomethodianum 20 (2015) 164, 170–171; G. Babić, Društveni
položaj ktitora u Despotovini, Moravska škola i njeno doba, Naučni skup u Resavi
1968, Beograd 1972, 147; V. Tošić, Veliki čelnik Radič, Zbornik za istoriju MS 13
(1976) 11–12; M. Živojinović, Le grand čelnik Radič, Κλητόριον εἰς μνήμην Νίκου
Оἰκоνоμίδη, Athens – Thessaloniki 2005, 394.
23
L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 124–126; M. Spremić, Despot
Đurađ, 204; M. Živojinović, Le grand čelnik Radič, 394–395; S. Ćirković, O ktitoru
Kalenića, Zograf 24 (1995) 64–65; M. Ivanović, Sveta Gora kao utočište za vlastelu
iz Srpske despotovine, Naš trag 3–4 (Velika Plana 2013) 362–367.
135
Aleksandar Krstić
had a possession in the Keve County in 1429. A decade later, the same
possession belonged to Serbian voivode Mihailo, who had two
possessions in the Arad County, too.24 During the first Ottoman conquest
of Serbia in 1439, this nobleman apparently switched sides and fought
with the Ottomans against the Hungarians. Therefore King Albert (in
1439) and Wladislas I Jagiełło (in 1440) took away his possessions in
Hungary.25 The identity of that voivode Mihailo could not be reliably
determined. He may be identical with the later grand voivode Mihailo
Angelović, who, as the brother of Mahmud Pasha Angelović, was the
leader of the proOttoman and antiHungarian party in Smederevo
before the fall of the Serbian state in 1458. Recently, I published a
document from which it can be seen that in 1450 one “voivode Mihailo
named Čelnik“, which apparently refers to Angelović, had possessions
in Hungary at that time.26 Namely, he is mentioned in the document with
the noble title “de Uhad“, which refers to the disappeared settlement
Ohad (Ohat) in the territory of presentday Romanian Banat. It is also
indicative that the said voivode or čelnik Mihailo was designated as one
of the main opponents of Hunyadi among the despot’s men.27
Voivode Mihailo was not the only Serbian aristocrat with strong ties
to Hungary, who sided with the Ottomans at the time of the first fall of
the Serbian state in 1439. Protovestiarios Bogdan, who was one of the
highest dignitaries of the Serbian state at the time of Despot Stefan
24
G. Vitković, Prošlost, ustanova i spomenici ugarskih kraljevskih šajkaša, Glasnik
Srpskog učenog društva (=Glasnik SUD) 67 (1887) 10–13; I. Magdics, Ráczkevei
okmánitár, Szekesfehervár 1888, 9–11; F. Pesty, L. Magina, A. Magina, Diplome,
100–101, no 74; D. DinićKnežević, Slovenski živalj, 27; A. Krstić, Iz istorije
srednjovekovnih naselja jugozapadnog Banata (15. vek – prva polovina 16. veka),
Zbornik MS za istoriju 73 (2007) 35; Idem, Prilog biografiji velikog vojvode Mihaila
Anđelovića, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 52 (2015) 367.
25
MNLOL, DL 13440, 39125; F. Pesty, L. Magina, A. Magina, Diplome, 100–101,
no 74; D. DinićKnežević, Slovenski živalj 32; A. Krstić, Prilog biografiji, 367–368.
26
Serviciul Judeţean Cluj al Arhivelor Naţionale ale României, colecţia Kemény
József, Diplomatarium autographum, in custody of Biblioteca Centrală Universitară
„Lucian Blagaˮ ClujNapoca, colecţii speciale, colecţia Kemény, nr. 104; A. Krstić,
Prilog biografiji, 371–373.
27
A. Krstić, Prilog biografiji, 365–366.
136
Lazarević and during the first part of reign of Đurađ Branković,28 did
the same. In October 1439, two months after the surrendering of
Smederevo, he sought and received, from some high Ottoman military
commander in Serbia, the confirmation of his “timar”, i.e. of the estates
which he possessed during the rule of Despot Đurađ. In return, Bogdan
promised to wage war with the Ottoman army, which indeed was the
obligation of a timar holder. If he wanted to go to Mount Athos, the
Serbian aristocrat would be allowed to transfer the timar to his brothers
Petar and Božidar, together with his military obligations towards the
Ottomans.29 Soon, Bogdan most probably became a monk on Mount
Athos, in the Xeropotamou Monastery. At that time, the great čelnik Radič
was already a monk at Athos in the monastery of Castamonitou, but he
used his connections with the highest Ottoman officials to keep the
property in Serbia, which he left to his monastery, and to secure his
financial transactions with some laics before the Ottoman court.30 The
above examples, although fragmentary, show that members of the Serbian
elite at the time of the despots, like their rulers, collaborated with the two
neighboring powers between which the Serbian state was squeezed.
It remains unknown for now whether King Sigismund and his heirs
donated to the Serbian nobility possessions at the request of the despots,
or they established direct relationships with the most eminent Serbian
aristocrats? It is also interesting that at the time when Despot Đurađ
resided in exile in Hungary in 1442, there were groups of Serbs who
were not in despot’s, but in the direct service of the Hungarian king. At
the head of one such group, which settled at the possessions of the
Garamszentbenedek abbey in the counties Csongrád and Outer Szolnok,
were voivode Jacob and “the captains or judges” George, Paul and
Radoslav (Radislo). Comparing the document from November 1442, in
which they were mentioned, with the one from September 1443, we can
28
S. Ćirković, O ktitoru Kalenića, 61–67; Bogdan, Srpski biografski rečnik
(hereinafter: SBR) 1, Novi Sad 2004, 593–594 (S. Ćirković).
29
I. Kolovos, A Biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou
(Mount Athos), Hilandarski zbornik 11 (2004) 297–299, 303.
30
E. Zachariadou, Worrisome wealth of the čelnik Radič, Studies in Ottoman history
in honour of professor V. L. Ménage, ed. C. Heywood and C. Imber, Istanbul 1994,
383–397.
137
Aleksandar Krstić
conclude that these Serbs did not arrive there directly from Serbia, but
from the southern Hungarian frontier at the Danube, from the
surroundings of the fortresses Haram and Tornište in presentday
Banat.31 It is believed that voivode Jacob was probably the same person
with voivode Jakša, who in 1453 led the Serbian auxiliary detachment
during the conquest of Constantinople, and who was the founder of the
Jakšić family.32
After the death of Despot Đurađ and before the fall of the Serbian
state, in 1457 and 1458, there were rather sharp divisions in the Serbian
ruling circles: one group considered that the state could be saved with the
Hungarian support, while the other believed that the disaster could be
avoided with further cooperation and compliance with the Ottomans.
This conflict of two political conceptions was connected with the strife
in the Branković dynasty. Despot Lazar and his elder brother Stefan were
on the one side, and on the opposite side there were the eldest brother
Grgur (Gregory) and sister Mara, the former sultana, who, together with
their maternal uncle Thomas Cantacuzenos, fled to the Ottomans after
the death of their mother Despina Irina in May 1457.33 It should be noted
31
MNLOL, DL 13691, 13745; I. Gyárfás, A jászkúnok története III (1301–1542),
Szolnok 1883, Oklevéltár, 613–614, no 136; Gy. Benedek–M. Zádorné Zsoldos,
JászNagykunSzolnok megyei oklevelek 1075–1526, Szolnok 1998, 267–268; S.
Ćirković, “Rasciani regales” Vladislava I Jagelonca, Zbornik za istoriju MS 1
(1970) 79–82; A. Krstić, Srpski gradovi i trgovi u ugarskoj građi iz vremena „Duge
vojne“ (1443–1444), IČ 65 (2016) 117–118, n. 13. H(a)ram was the fortress and the
town placed at Stara (Banatska) Palanka, at the confluence of the Danube and the
river Karaš/Caraş. Tornište (Tornistye, Tornisca) was the fortress situated in Pančevo,
at the confluence of the Danube and the river Tamiš/Timiș: A. Krstić, Iz istorije
srednjovekovnih naselja, 39–44. Sima Ćirković believed that these Serbs came from
Serbia: S. Ćirković, Seobe srpskog naroda u Kraljevinu Ugarsku u 14. i 15. veku,
Seobe srpskog naroda od 14. do 20. veka, Zbornik radova posvećen tristagodišnjici
seobe Srba, Beograd 1990, 42.
32
S. Ćirković, “Rasciani regales”, 80–81; M. Spremić, Porodica Jakšić u Banatu,
Banat kroz vekove. Slojevi kultura Banata, ed. M. Maticki–V. Jović, Beograd 2010,
33–34.
33
Lj. Stojanović, Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, Sremski Karlovci 1927, 241; M.
Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 504–506; Idem, Despot Lazar Branković, Zbornik radova
Vizantološkog instituta 50 (2013) 905–906; M. Popović, Mara Branković. Eine Frau
zwischen dem christlichen und dem islamischen Kulturkreis im 15. Jahrhundert, Mainz,
138
that the two brothers, who suffered a great trauma in their youth, when
they were blinded by order of Sultan Murad II in 1442, later had a
completely different attitude towards the Ottomans. Grgur naively
believed that he could ascend the Serbian throne with the Ottoman help,
why he, together with his illegitimate son Vuk, participated in the
campaign of grand vizier Mahmud Pasha Angelović in Serbia in the
spring and summer of 1458. At that time, Vuk Grgurević took part in
the Ottoman incursions on the Hungarian territory in Srem and southern
Banat.34 Unlike his brother, Stefan was not only the implacable enemy
of those who deprived him of the eyesight, but he was also unyielding
towards the Hungarians. That is why he, after had been expelled from
Smederevo, could not find shelter in Hungary. After he had sojourned in
Albania at Scanderbeg, where he had married Angelina, the daughter of
lord Gjergj Araniti and Maria Muzaka, Despot Stefan moved to Venice.
He stayed in the city in 1461/1462, and then settled in Belgrado in Friul
around 1465, where he lived with his family in poverty and where he
died in 1476.35
We now know very little about the fate of the Serbian nobility after
the final collapse of the Serbian state in 1459. A part of the nobility
Ruhpolding 2010; I used the Serbian edition: M. Popović, Mara Branković: žena
između hrišćanskog i islamskog kulturnog kruga u 15. veku, Novi Sad 2014, 140–142.
34
Lj. Stojanović, Rodoslovi i letopisi, 243; V. Makuscev, Monumenta historica
Slavorum meridionalium vicinorumque populorum II, Beograd 1882, 218; S.
Ćirković, O despotu Vuku Grgureviću, Zbornik za likovne umetnosti MS 6 (1971)
284–285; K. Mitrović, Vuk Grgurević između Mehmeda II i Matije Korvina,
Braničevski glasnik 2 (2004) 22–23, 25; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići,
Istraživanja 4 (1975) 6–7; M. Spremić, Srpski despoti Sremu, 47–48; A. Krstić, Pad
Srbije iz ugla osvajača: Ašikpašazade i Dursunbeg, Pad Srpske despotovine 1459.
godine, ed. M. Spremić, Beograd 2011, 316.
35
I. Nagy–A. Nyáry, Magyar diplomacziai emlékek Mátyás kiraly korából (1458–
1490) I, Budapest 1875, 117; V. Makuscev, Monumenta historica II, 206–207; Lj.
Stojanović, Stare srpske povelje i pisma I–2, Beograd–Sremski Karlovci 1934, 161–
162; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 29–30; K. Jireček, Istorija Srba I, Beograd 1952, 388,
407–408; F. Babinger, Das Ende der Arianiten, München 1960, 11–14; D. Dinić
Knežević, Sremski Brankovići, 20–23; I. Božić, Beleške o Brankovićima (1460–
1480), Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta. Beograd 13–1 (1976) 117; ISN II, 374–376 (S.
Ćirković); M. Spremić, Despot Stefan Branković Slepi, Glas SANU 164, Odeljenje
istorijskih nauka 15 (2010) 118–120, 126–141.
139
Aleksandar Krstić
certainly perished in the battles during the conquest of Serbia. Thus,

after the surrender of Novo Brdo in 1455, Sultan Mehmed II, contrary
to his promise, executed prominent men in the city.36 Similar situations
surely happened in some other fortified cities, especially in those which
did not surrender, but were captured.37 On the other hand, the conquerors
were rewarded people who had surrendered their fortresses; among them
were also those from Novo Brdo.38 The same case happened three years
later, when Mahmud Pasha captured the fortresses of Resava and
Golubac.39 The Ottoman sources, primarily the tahrir defters, suggest that
the majority of those who joined the Ottoman military service as
Christians sipahis were members of the petty nobility.40 However, due to
the lack of data on the petty nobility before the Ottoman conquest of Serbia
in the saved sources, we cannot follow the later fate of individual persons
and families. As for the high nobility and aristocrats, it is indicative that
sources were silent about many of them after the establishment of the
Ottoman rule. However, unlike the conquest of Bosnia in 1463, when King
36
Konstantin Mihailović iz Ostrovice, Janičareve uspomene ili turska hronika, ed.
Đorđe Živanović, Spomenik SANU 107 (1959): 23, Konstantin Mihailović,
Memoires of a Jannissary, trans. B. Stolz, Ann Arbor 1975, 98–99; ISN II, 297–298
(M. Spremić, J. Kalić); M. Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 429–431.
37
About the conquest of Serbia in 1458–1459, based on comparing of the accounts
of Aşıkpaşazâde and Tursun Bey with the sources from Serbia, Hungary, Dubrovnik
and Italy, see: A. Krstić, Pad Srbije, 308–319.
38
Yorgi çelnik who handed over Novo Brdo, hold a joint timar with certain Turgud
in the vilayet of Keşişlik (southeast of Seeres) in 1455, with total revenue of 22968
akçes: A. Stojanovski, Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod.
Opširen popisni defter od XV vek, Skopje 1978, 295–298.
39
According to the defter of the Braničevo vilayet from 1467, fourteen individuals
from Resava and two from Golubac, who gave over these fortresses, were rewarded
with tax exemption: M. Stojaković, Braničevski tefter, Beograd 1987, 252–253; E.
Miljković, A. Krstić, Braničevo u XV. veku. Istorijskogeografska studija, Požarevac
2007, 80–82; A. Krstić, Pad Srbije, 310, 314. My colleague Tatjana Katić informed
me that she found fragments of a defter, which showed that the commander of
Golubac was also awarded with a timar. Unfortunately, his name was not preserved
in the document. I am very grateful to Tatjana Katić for this information.
40
Their revenues were regularly lower than the income of Muslim sipahis, and
sometimes several Christian sipahis held a joint timar with very low incomes. About
Christian sipahis see: H. Inalcik, Od Stefana Dušana do Osmanskog carstva, 31–
36, 43–46; E. Miljković, The Christian Sipahis, 103–119.
140
Stefan Tomašević and some male members of his family were executed,
but also some of the most powerful Bosnian lords such as the Pavlović
brothers and Tvrtko Kovačević,41 there were no explicit mentions of such
extermination of the highest nobility in Serbia.
Some of high ranking Serbian aristocrats stayed in the Ottoman
territory, although far away from Serbia. The destiny of grand voivode
Mihailo Angelović, the brother of Mahmud Pasha, was very interesting.
He gained the main position in the regency formed after sudden (and
presumably violent) death of Despot Lazar Branković on January 20,
1458, and he also had personal aspirations towards the Serbian throne.
After his supporters proclaimed him the despot, Mihailo Angelović
allowed an Ottoman detachment to enter the capital. That caused the
strong resistance of the inhabitants of Smederevo and Mihailo’s fall from
power on March 31. The great voivode was arrested, at first in
Smederevo, then in Hungary, and he and his supporters lost their
possessions, which were given to the followers of the winning party.
Among those who were deprived of the possessions after the upheaval
in Smederevo at the end of March 1458 was also Miloš Belmužević,
who later became one of the most prominent Serbian noblemen.42 After
he was released from the custody in Hungary, sometime between the
end of 1460 and the February 1463,43 Mihailo Angelović stayed in the
41
See the articles of E. Filipović, D. Mujadžević and Z. Janeković Römer in the
collection of papers Stjepan Tomašević (1461–1463), slom srednjovjekovnoga
Bosanskog Kraljevstva, ed. A. Birin, Zagreb–Sarajevo 2013, and the papers of E.
Kurtović, P. Dragičević, B. Babić and E. Filipović in Pad Bosanskog kraljevstva
1463. godine, ed. S. Rudić, D. Lovrenović, P. Dragičević, Beograd–Sarajevo–Banja
Luka 2015, where sources and earlier secondary works are quoted.
42
B. Ferjančić, Vizantinci u Srbiji prve polovine XV veka, Zbornik radova
Vizantološkog instituta 26 (1987) 207–211; M. Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 515–517,
520, 523, 528, 532, 537, 762; Idem, Borbe za Smederevo 1458–1459, Pad Srpske
despotovine 1459. godine, Zbornik radova SANU, ed. M. Spremić, Beograd 2011,
215–216; Mihailo Anđelović, SBR 6, Novi Sad 2014, 839–840 (М. Spremić); A.
Krstić, Novi podaci o vojvodi Milošu Belmuževiću i njegovoj porodici, Inicijal 1
(2013) 165.
43
T. Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs. The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir
Mahmud Pasha Angelović (1453–1474), Leiden–Boston–Köln 2001, 98.
141
Aleksandar Krstić
retinue of his brother, grand vizier Mahmud Pasha.44 Mihailo was still
connected to Serbia, at least during the first years, where he remodelled
the monastery of Nova Pavlica in 1464.45 The sources give us
contradictory information about the end of his life. According to one
contemporary report, Mihailo was a prominent Christian at the sultan’s
court and he was among the Ottoman dignitaries who were killed in the
battle against Uzun Hasan at Tercan in Anadolia in 1473.46 Another note
suggested that Mihailo Angelović went to a monastery after the
execution of Mahmud Pasha in 1474, and that he left this world as monk
Makarios in the Monastery of Eikosifoinissa on Mount Pangaion west
of Kavala sometime after 1486.47
If such a fate of Mihailo Angelović could be proven, it would suggest
that he was close to the former sultana Mara Branković (Despine Hatun
in Ottoman sources).48 She had the residence at her estate in Ježevo
(Ezova, now Dafni) southeast of Serres, which she received from Sultan
Mehmed II.49 Her sister Kantacouzene (Catherine), the widow of Count
Ulrich of Cili, joined Mara in Ježevo in 1469.50 During the second half
of the 15th century there were several Byzantine and Serbian noblemen
44
I. Božić, Kolebanja Mahmudpaše Anđelovića, Prilozi za književnost, jezik, istoriju
i folklor 41/3–4 (1975) 164–165; T. Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs, 220–221, 226–234.
45
There are different opinions about the possibility that the former great voivode
and/or members of his family were buried in the church of Nova Pavlica. Cf.: R.
Petrović, Otkriće u Novoj Pavlici, Saopštenja 15 (1983) 243–248; Idem, Otkriće
fresaka u Novoj Pavlici. Prilog proučavanja umetnosti XV veka, Raška baština 3
(1988) 138–150; A. Jurišić, Nova Pavlica, rezultati arheoloških radova, Beograd
1991, 10, 34–44, 102–103, 105, 110–112. In any case, Mihailo Angelović did not die
in 1465, but much later, which raises serious doubts about the proposed identification
of human remains found in Nova Pavlica.
46
G. Berchet, La Repubblica di Venezia e la Persia, Torino 1865, 135–137.
47
T. Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs, 98–99, n. 113, 100.
48
Mara Branković, who died in 1487, was most probably buried in the same
Monastery of Eikosifoinissa (Kosinitsa): Lj. Stojanović, Rodoslovi i letopisi, 255, nr.
802; M. Popović, Mara Branković, 154, 230–231.
49
R. Ćuk, Carica Mara, IČ 25–26 (1978–1979) 80–81, 93; M. Popović, Mara
Branković, 153, 184–206.
50
J. Ređep, Katarina Kantakuzina grofica celjska, Beograd 2010; M. Spremić,
Kantakuzina (Katarina) Branković, Mons aureus 30 (2010) 98–108; M. Popović,
Mara Branković, 167–175, 201–202, 209.
142
and clerics who were close to Mara Branković and stayed at her court.
Among them were brothers Đurađ and Oliver Golemović, the prominent
aristocrats of Mara’s father Despot Đurađ. Oliver, former kephalē of
Priština (around 1436) and despot’s governor in the “Land of
Branković“, i. e. Kosovo and Metohija (1448–1455), died in Ježevo in
December 1463. His brother Đurađ, who carried the title of čelnik from
1453 to 1457 and performed judicial and other duties, including the
diplomatic missions to the sultan’s court (1453, 1456),51 was still alive
in May 1466.52 Besides these aristocrats, there were also other members
of the nobility in the service of Mara Branković. In 1470, her noblemen
“vrač“ (physician) Beli, Kraimir and Branko were mentioned in one
document, and probably at least some of her Serbian envoys recorded in
the archive material belonged to the rank of nobility: Stefan Zahić
(1457), Novak Gojunović (1462), Đurko Krajković, Vojin Setrenić,
Stefan Belokosić, Dobrivoje Radmanić (1465), Nikašin (1474–1475).53
After the fall of the Serbian state some aristocrats sought refuge in
monasteries, especially at Mount Athos. It is well known that Prince
Grgur Branković died as monk German in the Chilandar monastery in
October 1459. It seems that the treasurer Radoslav also chose monastic
life. The donation charter issued to him by Despot Lazar in December
51
M. Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 328, 354, 402, 487, 547, 674, 722, 726–727; M.
Blagojević, Državna uprava u srpskim srednjovekovnim zemljama, Beograd 1997,
243–244, 275–277; Đurađ Golemović, SBR 3, Novi Sad 2007, 620 (S. Ćirković).
52
At that time, he was mentioned as one of the witnesses in the charter of Carica
(“empress”) Mara issued in Ježevo to the Athonite monasteries Chilandar and Saint
Paul. An underage son of the late Golemović got the income of 10,000 akçes from
Sultan Mehmed II in 1472: R. Ćuk, Povelja carice Mare manastirima Hilandaru i
Svetom Pavlu, IČ 24 (1977) 105, 114; Eadem, Carica Mara, 81; M. Popović, Mara
Branković, 198, 210–211.
53
Lj. Stojanović, Stare srpske povelje i pisma I–2, 197; I. Božić, Beleške o
Brankovićima, 112–115; R. Ćuk, Carica Mara, 71–72, 74–76, 81–82, 85–86; N.
Lemajić, Srpska elita, 44; M. Popović, Mara Branković, 154, 156–157, 159–160, 179,
199–200, 240–243. Stepašin, son of Branišat, a man from Mara’s entourage, got some
privileges from Sultan Mehmed II. His grandson from Kalenić in the sancak of Alaca
Hisar (Kruševac) enjoyed these privileges in the second half of the 16th century: M.
Vasić, Stanovništvo Kruševačkog sandžaka i njegova društvena struktura u XVI vijeku,
Kruševac kroz vekove, Kruševac 1971, 70–71, n. 145; V. Boškov, Mara Branković u
turskim dokumentima iz Svete Gore, Hilandarski zbornik 5 (1983) 192.
143
Aleksandar Krstić
1457 provided such a possibility, and the said document was found in the
treasury of the Vatopedi monastery.54 Monks Gerasim and Jovan Bagaš,
who may have come from the old Serbian noble family Bagaš from
Vranje, most probably lived in the monastery Chilandar in the second
half of the 15th century. They were also close to Mara Branković and her
circle.55 Nikon, the hegumen of the monastery of St. Paul on Mount
Athos in the late 15th century, was previously a nobleman at the court of
Despot Stefan the Blind. Monks Kozma and Joseph from Chilandar were
also of noble origin.56
On the other hand, a part of the elite of the fallen Serbian state
escaped to the neighboring countries. At first, some of them took refuge
in Bosnia, primarily supporters of Despina Jelena and her soninlaw,
the last Serbian despot Stefan Tomašević. Thus, yet in 1458, Bosnian
king Stefan Tomaš allowed logothete Stefan Ratković to settle in Bosnia
if Serbia could not be liberated.57 There were not many data about those
who had sought refuge in the territory of Dubrovnik or Venice, or in
Albania, as did blind Despot Stefan Branković. Indeed, at first there was
no information about the high Serbian nobility who went over to the
Hungarian side. This is probably partly a result of the fact that the despot’s
family, which had previously been in conflict with the Hunyadi family,
54
M. Lascaris, Actes serbes de Vatopédi, Byzantinoslavica 6 (1935–1936) 171–172,
183–184; R. Radić, Manastir Vatoped i Srbija u XV veku, Treća kazivanja o Svetoj
Gori, Beograd 2000, 94; M. Ivanović, Sveta Gora, 367–368.
55
As the representatives of Mara Branković, they testified in favor of the Chilandar
monastery in litigation with the Zograf monastery before the kadı of Gümülcine
(Komotini) in 1485: V. Boškov, Mara Branković u turskim dokumentima, 201–202,
204–205, 207–208; A. Fotić, Sveta Gora i Hilandar u Osmanskom carstvu XV–XVII
vek, Beograd 2000, 135–136, 283–284; R. Ćuk, Carica Mara, 90–92; M. Popović,
Mara Branković, 214–216; About the Bagaš family see: Đ. Sp. Radojčić, Feudalna
porodica Bagaši iz Vranja (XIV i početak XV veka), Vranjski glasnik 1 (1965) 19–23.
56
All three of them arrived to the court of Đorđe and Jovan Branković in Kupinik in
1495 and 1496 respectively, asking the despots to be the new ktetors of their
monasteries: K. Nevostrujev, Tri hrisovulje u Hilandaru, Glasnik SUD 25 (1869)
274–277; K. Mitrović, Povelja despota Đorđa, Jovana i Angeline Branković
manastiru Svetog Pavla, Stari srpski arhiv (=SSA) 6 (2007) 212, 217.
57
F. Rački, Prilozi za sbirku srbskih i bosanskih listina, Rad JAZU 1 (1867) 157; M.
Spremić, Despot Đurađ, 537–538; S. Mišić, Posedi velikog logoteta Stefana
Ratkovića, Moravska Srbija, 9, 14.
144
was deprived of all their possessions in the Kingdom of Hungary during

the tumultuous events before and after the surrender of Smederevo.58
However, when the constant raids of the akıncıs in the areas of southern
Hungary started, accompanied by devastation and depopulation,59 King
Matthias Corvinus, as a part of reorganization of the border defense
system, actively began to settle the Serbs in his realm and to encourage the
Serbian nobility to enter his service. Brothers Stefan and Dmitar
(Demetrius) Jakšić, the sons or stepsons of the said voivode Jakša Breščić,
crossed on the Hungarian side probably in 1464. In the second half of that
year, King Matthias donated them the town Nagylak with its villages in the
valley of the river Mureş. In subsequent years the Jakšić brothers gained
numerous estates, which were spread across Transylvania, Banat and
Western Srem.60 At the same time, after King Matthias achieved success
in Bosnia and managed to halt the Ottoman incursions into Srem and
Banat, the king’s former opponent, Despot Vuk Grgurević, also came in
his service. Vuk Grgurević was included in the range of Hungarian barons,
he received possessions in the southern parts of Hungary and King
Matthias officially accepted or confirmed his despot title.61
58
ISN II, 328–329 (S. Ćirković); Đ. Bubalo, Posedi srpskih despota u odbrambenim
planovima Kraljevine Ugarske 1458. i 1459. godine, Pad Srpske despotovine 1459.
godine, 235–238.
59
At the beginning of 1462, King Matthias complained that Turks took away at least
200,000 inhabitans of Hungary during last three years: I. Nagy–A. Nyáry, Magyar
diplomacziai emlékek I, 112; ISN II, 431 (S. Ćirković).
60
Stefan and Dmitar Jakšić got possessions in the Cluj (Kolozs) county in 1467, in
the Canad county in 1472, аnd they also received the castle Kórógy in the Valkó
county in 1476. A decade later, the brothers obtained possessions in the Arad county:
L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 258–259, 390; J. Radonić,
Prilozi za istoriju braće Jakšića, Spomenik SKA 59 (1923) 63–73; S. Borovszky, A
nagylaki uradalom története, Értekezések a történeti tudományok körébol 18,
Budapest 1900, 16–19; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 16, 26–28, 348–349; N. Lemajić,
Srpska elita, 88–89; M. Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 34–40.
61
V. Fraknói, Matyás király levelei I, Budapest 1893, 78. For different opinions about the
origin of Vuk’s despot title cf.: A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 16–17; B. Ferjančić, Despoti u
Vizantiji i južnoslovenskim zemljama, Beograd 1960, 198–199; A. Veselinović, Država,
93; S. Ćirković, O despotu Vuku, 286–287; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 7–
8; K. Мitrović, Vuk Grgurević, 24–30; M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, Srem kroz
vekove: slojevi kultura Fruške gore i Srema, ed. M. Maticki, Beograd–Beočin 2007, 48;
S. Ćirković, Postvizantijski despoti, ZRVI 38 (1999–2000) 399–400.
145
Aleksandar Krstić
King Matthias wanted Vuk Grgurević on his side, because the despot
was a brave warrior and a prominent person who could gather the Serbs
to fight against the Ottomans. Although he was actually a Hungarian
aristocrat, many Serbs regarded Despot Vuk, and later his relatives and
successors despots Đorđe and Jovan Branković, as legitimate Serbian
rulers.62 Indeed, the Serbian despot and his men distinguished
themselves in many battles with the Ottomans during the reign of King
Matthias Corvinus. At the end of 1470 or at the very beginning of 1471,
Despot Vuk attacked the Ottoman territory in Bosnia and reached
Srebrenica. Five years later, the despot and his forces had a significant
role in the siege and capturing of the Šabac fortress. After King Matthias
had finally seized Šabac on 15 February 1476, Despot Vuk and Voivode
Vlad Ţepeş (Draculea) penetrated up to the fortresses and towns of
Srebrenica, Kučlat and Zvornik, which they captured, burned and
robbed. In the summer of the same year, the Serbian despot and several
other Hungarian commanders, including Dmitar Jakšić, defeated the
Smederevo sancakbeyi Mihaloğlu Alibey at Požežena on the Danube
while returning from the akın into Banat. After that battle, in the fall of
1476, the Serbian captains and their warriors participated in the
Hungarian blockade of Smederevo, when three strongholds were erected
in its vicinity.63 Despot Vuk and one of the Jakšić brothers led the Serbian
light cavalry squadrons in the battle of Breadfield (Kenyérmező) in
62
For example, the Serbian annals recorded that Despot Vuk “ruled” 26 years (i. e.
from 1459 to his death), and scribes wrote books “in the time of the pious and Christ
loving lord Despot Vuk”. Srem was regarded as “the fatherland” of Đorđe and Jovan
Branković and “the glorious and wonderful land of the despots”: Lj. Stojanović,
Rodoslovi i letopisi, 101, 254; Idem, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi I, Beograd 1902,
111; III (1905), 151; ISN II, 454–455, n 34 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić, Srpski despoti
u Sremu, 48, 55.
63
L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 265–270, 389; Lj. Stojanović,
Rodoslovi i letopisi, 250–251; V. Fraknói, Matyás király levelei I, 356, 359; A.
Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum Decades, quatuor cum dimidia, Lipsiae 1771, 593–
595, 598; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 20–22; S. Ćirković, Srednji vek, Šabac u prošlosti I,
Šabac 1970, 98–102; О. Zirojević, Smederevski sandžakbeg Alibeg Mihaloglu,
Zbornik za istoriju MS 3 (1971) 17–18; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 10–
12; ISN II, 384–385 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 50–51.
146
Transylvania on October 13, 1479.64 At the very end of the same year,
the despot continued to fight against the Ottomans in Bosnia. Together
with the ban of Croatia and Slavonia and the ban of Jajce, the despot
penetrated to Vrhbosna (Sarajevo), burnt and devastated the city and its
vicinity and, in retreat, they clashed with Davud Pasha near Travnik.65
Despot Vuk and Jovan Jakšić with their troops also participated in the
second campaign of Paul Kinizsi in Serbia in November 1481. The
despot and the captain of Belgrade Ladislaus Rozgonyi defeated the
Ottoman flotilla on the Danube, which enabled the majority of the
Hungarian forces to cross the river. After Kinizsi and Jakšić beat and
killed the voivode of Golubac, the Christian army marched up to the city
of Kruševac (Alaca Hisar), which they demolished and devastated its
area. In the return, the Hungarian army took away tens of thousands of
Serbian inhabitants, who were settled in the Hungarian territory (mainly
in Banat).66 In September 1482, Despot Vuk was among the Hungarian
commanders who near Bečej successfully fought down another akın
from the Smederevo sancak into the territory of Banat. The last known
battle of Despot Vuk with the Ottomans occurred at the river Una in
October 1483, when he, the Croatian ban Matthias Geréb and Count
Bernardin Frankopan defeated the akıncı troops which were returning
from the raid in Croatia, Carinthia and Carniola.67 In the meantime, the
new Sultan Bayezid II (1481–1512) chose the Serbian despot as the
64
J. Długosz, Historie Polonicae Libri XII, tom. V, liber XII (XIII), Cracoviae 1878,
695–696; N. Jorga, Notes et extraits pour servir à l`histoire des croisades au XVe
siècle V, Bucarest 1915, 23–25; F. Szakály – P. Fodor, A Kenyérmezei csata (1479.
október 13.), Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 111–2 (1998) 324, 326, 345–347.
65
V, Makušev, Prilozi k srpskoj istoriji XIV i XV veka, Glasnik SUD 32 (1871) 204–
206; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 13; ISN II, 385–386 (S. Ćirković); M.
Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 52.
66
Lj. Stojanović, Rodoslovi i letopisi, 253, 296; V. Fraknói, Matyás király levelei II,
158, 185, 190, 196–197; K. Jireček, Istorija Srba I, 412; S. Ćirković, Golubac u
srednjem veku, Požarevac 1968, 27–28; Ј. KalićMijušković, Beograd, 198–199;
ISN II, 386–387 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 52; E. Miljković,
A. Krstić, Braničevo, 40; M. Ivanović–N. Isailović, The Danube in Serbian
Hungarian relations in the 14th and 15th centuries, Tibiscum 5 (2015) 386–387.
67
A. Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum Decades, 635, 637; N. Jorga, Notes et extraits V,
135–142; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 25; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 15, 17.
147
Aleksandar Krstić
mediator in his peace negotiations with the Hungarian king. The sultan’s
choice was understandable, because Despot Vuk was one of the most
influential frontier lords in Hungary with good connections on both
sides. The preserved diplomatic correspondence of Despot Vuk from
1482/1483, conducted in the Serbian language, shows that during these
peace negotiations he communicated with the sultan and with his old
rival Mihaloğlu Alibey, the sancakbeyi of Smederevo. The sancakbeyi
was also in contact with the Transylvanian voivode Stephen Batory
through the same despot’s envoy – priest Jovan. In order to encourage
Despot Vuk to mediate for peace, at one moment Sultan Bayezid II
tactically put forward the possibility of restoration of the Serbian state.68
King Mathias did not only engage the despots and other Serbian
warriors in the struggle with the Ottomans, but also sent them to his wars
against the Czechs, Poles and Germans. Despot Vuk and Dmitar Jakšić
proved themselves in the Bohemian warfare (1468–1471), as well as in
the war with Poland (1473–1474). During King Matthias’ conflict with
Emperor Friedrich III in 1477–1479, the Serbian detachments led by the
despot and Dmitar Jakšić fought in Lower Austria. The method of
warfare used by these Serbian units – the ravaging of enemy’s territory
and terrorizing the population – was characteristic for the combats on the
OttomanHungarian frontier, and it was commonly used by both
powers.69 Four thousand Serbs were also in King Matthias’ army in
Austria during the siege of Hainburg in 1482, while Despot Vuk, as it is
said before, with his hussars defended the south Hungarian frontier
towards the Ottoman Empire.70
68
Vuk signed his letters as “Despot Vuk and the captain of the Bosnian cities”: N.
Radojčić, Pet pisama s kraja XV veka, Južnoslovenski filolog 20/1–4 (1953–1954) 343–
367; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 15–16; ISN II, 387–388 (S. Ćirković); K.
Mitrović, Pet pisama despota Vuka Grgurevića, Braničevski glasnik 3/4 (2006) 71–82.
69
A. Bonfini, Rerum Hungaricarum Decades, 567, 576, 590–591, 607; D. Dinić
Knežević, Sremski Brankovići, 8, 12–13; ISN II, 382, 432–434 (S. Ćirković); M.
Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 37–38; S. Božanić, O ratu između Matije Korvina i Đorđa
Pođebrada u svetlosti kazivanja Bonfinija, Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom
Sadu (= GFNS) 37/1 (2012) 419, 421; S. Božanić–M. Kisić, O prvoj generaciji
Jakšića na tlu južne Ugarske – Stefanu i Dmitru u delu Rerum Hungaricarum
Decades, GFNS (2017), in publishing.
70
A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 25.
148
For his military merits, Despot Vuk received possessions from the
Hungarian monarch on several occasions. He got his first possessions in
Srem probably soon after arriving in Hungary in the second half of 1464.
We know that he resided in the castle of Kupinik (Kölpény) on the Sava,
which had been previously possessed by his grandfather Despot Đurađ,71
and he also held two other castles in Srem – Irig and Berkasovo
(Berekszó), the latter in pledge.72 In 1470, King Matthias rewarded him
with the castle of Feyérkő, i.e. Bela Stena in Križevci (Körös) County
in Slavonia. Probably at the same time, Despot Vuk acquired Tituševina,
the complex of possessions which laid partly in Križevci, partly in the
Zagreb County. In 1482, King Matthias donated him the castles
Komogojno (presentday Komogovina) and Gradisa (Gradusa) in the
Zagreb County with their appurtenances, as well as the castle Kostajnica
with its estate in the same county. Like other Hungarian barons, the
Serbian despot had his court and retinue, consisting of his familiares and
different officials.73
After the death of Despot Vuk Grgurević in April 1485, King
Matthias invited his relatives Đorđe and Jovan, who were in the service
of Emperor Friedrich III, to come to Hungary. Đorđe was appointed
despot, and the brothers received Vuk’s possessions in Srem, where they
arrived with their mother Angelina and the relics of their father Stefan
in February 1486.74 In return, Despot Đorđe was obliged to lead and to
71
V. Fraknói, Matyás király levelei I, 78; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 16–18; S. Ćirković,
O despotu Vuku, 285–287; ISN II, 376–377 (S. Ćirković).
72
J. Teleki, Hunyadiak kora XII, 303–304; Lj. Stojanović, Stare srpske povelje i
pisma I–2, 487; N. Radojčić, Pet pisama, 353–354.
73
For example, Despot Vuk’s castellan in Berkasovo was Stefan Vitez (Wythez) in 1482:
MNLOL, DL 18615. In the same year, Despot Vuk donated Bela Stena, Tituševina,
Komogojno and Gradisa to his wife Barbara Frankopan: A. Bonfini, Rerum
Hungaricarum decades, 576; M. Mesić, Gradja mojih razprava u „Radu“, Starine
JAZU 5 (1873) 120–125, 127; L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 293–
296; K. Jireček, Istorija Srba I, 411; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 8–10, 18–
19; ISN II, 377, 382, 447 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 49, 53–54.
74
Lj. Stojanović, Rodoslovi i letopisi, 42, 254–255, 297; Život arhiepiskopa Maksima,
ed. А. Vukomanović, Glasnik Društva srbske slovesnosti 11 (1859) 126–127; S.
Božanić, The Political and Cultural Life of Despot Đorđe Branković in Syrmia, The
cultural and historical heritage of Vojvodina in the context of classical and medieval
studies, Departmant of History, Faculty of Philosophy, Novi Sad 2015, 192–194.
149
Aleksandar Krstić
equip the detachment of 1000 light cavalrymen (hussars).75 Four years

after Despot Vuk’s demise, the first male generation of Jakšićs in
Hungary was dead, too. Dmitar was killed in Smederevo in November
1486, while he was returning from a diplomatic mission to the Ottoman
court.76 His elder brother Stefan died in the service of King Matthias in
Wien in January 1489. They had left numerous offspring and their sons
played a prominent role in Hungary and among the Serbs in the
Kingdom in the following decades.77 There were strong connections
between the Serbian nobility in Hungary, but they had not always acted
in conjunction. After the death of King Matthias in 1490, the Branković
brothers supported his illegitimate son John Corvinus, and then King
Maximilian Habsburg.78 The other Serbian aristocrats in Hungary (the
Jakšićs and Miloš Belmužević) immediately accepted Wladislas II
Jagiełło (1490–1512) as the king of Hungary and took part in his army
in struggles against the Habsburgs over Székesfehérvár and against Jan
Olbracht near Košice in November and December 1490. After the
Brankovićs had recognised the authority of the Jagiełłonian king in
75
Despot Đorđe and Jovan Branković also possessed Kostajnica in Slavonia: M. Mesić,
Gradja, 127; L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 291; Berkasovo in
Srem they held in pledge: J. Teleki, Hunyadiak kora XII, 303–304; K. Jireček,
Istorija Srba I, 412; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 31–32; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski
Brankovići, 28–29; ISN II, 445–446 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u
Sremu, 56, 58; S. Božanić, op. cit, 195–196.
76
King Matthias strongly protested to Sultan Bayazid II about the assassination of the
diplomatic envoy. Sultan Bayezid II tried to assure the king that he was not responsible and
punished the culprits for Jakšić’s death: Ivan Biliarsky, Une page des relations magyaro
ottomanes vers la fin du XVe siècle, Turcica 32 (2000) 296–299; : Lj. Stojanović, Rodoslovi
i letopisi, 120, 255; I. Nagy–A. Nyáry, Magyar diplomacziai emlékek III, Budapest 1877,
376; Oruç b. Âdil, Tevârîhi Âli Osmân, ed. F. Babinger, Hannover 1925, 134–135; G.
Taksin, Un izvor referitor la moartea lui Dmitar Jakšić – solul lui Matia Corvin la Bayezid
II, Anuarul Institutului de istorie şi Arheologie „A. D. Xenopol” XXII/2 (Iaşi 1985) 597–
603; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 28; O. Zirojević, Smederevski, 21; ISN II 445 (S. Ćirković); M.
Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 40–41.
77
M. Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 41–57.
78
I. Nagy–A. Nyáry, Magyar diplomacziai emlékek IV, Budapest 1878, 432; T. Gerevich–
E. Jakubovics–A. Berzeviczy, Aragoniai Beatrix magyar királyné életére vonatkozó
okiratok, Budapest 1914, 172–173; F. Šišić, Rukovet spomenika o hercegu Ivanišu Korvinu
i o borbama Hrvata s Turcima (1473–1496), Starine 37 (1934) 301–302, 308–309.
150
1491, all leading Serbian noblemen in Hungary were in Wladislas’ army

in the second battle near Košice against Jan Olbracht on December 24
of the same year.79
The weakening of Hungary during the reign of Wladislas II and
internal conflicts, which reflected on the ability of the Kingdom to
confront the Ottoman Empire, also influenced the Serbian nobility.
During the last decade of the 15th century, Đorđe and Jovan Branković,
who bore the despot title together with his brother since 1494, were in
conflict with the powerful duke Lawrence Újlaki for several years, and
also had clashes with some other lords. Moreover, the Branković
brothers were in dispute with the Archbishop of Kalocsa, because the
Serbs, relying on the benefits granted to the Orthodox Christians in the
Kingdom in the form of exemption from the church tithe in 1495,
refused to pay it.80 Nevertheless, Despot Jovan, who remained the only
holder of this title since his brother Đorđe became monk sometime
between August 1497 and July 1499, never stopped to hope that he will
regain his throne in Serbia through the struggle with the Ottomans.81 He
had a prominent role in the first OttomanHungarian war in the 16th
century (1501–1503). In July 1501, Despot Jovan and the ban of
79
Ludovici Tuberonis Dalmatae abbatis, Commentarii de temporibus suis, ed. V.
Rezar, Zagreb 2001, 66, 73; N. Isthuanffy, Regni Hungarici historia post obitum
gloriosissimi Mathiae Corvini regis, Coloniae Agrippinae 1724, 10; A. Ivić, Istorija
Srba, 33–36; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 29–30; ISN II 449–451 (S.
Ćirković); M. Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 41–43; Idem, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 57;
S. Božanić, Srpski velikaši u političkim previranjima oko izbora Vladislava II za
kralja Ugarske, Istraživanja 24 (2013) 151–166; Eadem, The Political and Cultural
Life of Despot Đorđe, 197–198.
80
MNLOL, DL 20056, 20057, 20598; C. Wagner, Epistolae Petri de Warda, Posonii
et Cassoviae 1776, 82–86, 124–126; L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és
Szerbia, 284–288, 292–293; N. Isthuanffy, Regni Hungarici historia, 24–26,
confused Despot Đorđe with Despot Vuk; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 37–39; D. Dinić
Knežević, Sremski Brankovići, 30–35; ISN II, 452–453 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić,
Srpski despoti u Sremu, 57–58, 60; S. Božanić, The Political and Cultural Life of
Despot Đorđe, 198–201.
81
Hrisovulja despota Ioanna Brankovića, despota srbskog, Glasnik Društva srpske
slovesnosti V (1853) 224–225; K. Nevostrujev, Tri hrisovulje u Hilandaru, 274–
277; V. Makuscev, Monumenta historica I, Varsaviae 1874, 313; D. DinićKnežević,
Sremski Brankovići, 35–36, 40–41; M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 60–61.
151
Aleksandar Krstić
Belgrade George More broke in Serbia, and in November started the

attack of the main part of the Hungarian army. In December 1501 and
January 1502, Despot Jovan and his forces penetrated from Belgrade to
northwest Serbia and Bosnia. The attacks were followed by the burning
of villages, taking away the booty, and removal of the population on the
Hungarian side.82 The Ottoman authorities, including Hersekli Ahmed
Pasha, tried to mediate for peace through Despot Jovan, as they did
through Despot Vuk before, but without success. Although he performed
the mediating missions, Despot Jovan was personally against peace with
the Ottomans. In July 1502, the despot had a successful clash with
Ottoman forces near Zvornik in Bosnia. Other Serbian warriors, led by
Marko and Dmitar Jakšić (the Younger) and Radič Božić, participated in
the Hungarian campaign on the Danubian border, around Braničevo,
Kladovo, Vidin and Nicopol.83 In September 1502, Despot Jovan sent his
brother Maksim, the former despot, to Venice, offering the joint struggle
against the Turks. This offer was politely declined, because Venice was
already preparing for peace at that time. Exhausted from fighting, Despot
Jovan died on December 10, 1502.84 As he had no male offspring, King
Wladislas II gave the despot dignity to the Croatian aristocrat Ivaniš
Berislavić, who got married to Jovan’s widow Jelena Jakšić. Although
the institution of the Serbian despot in Hungary continued to exist the
next 35 years, it had no longer that reputation and importance as before.85
82
The reports mentioned that the despot entered into Bossina, but it could refer to
Posavina in northwest Serbia: V. Makuscev, Monumenta historica I, 317–319; cf.
ISN II, 459–460, n 47 (S. Ćirković).
83
Miklós Istvánffy also mentioned Miloš Belmužević as one of the commanders in this
campaign, but he was dead at that time: N. Isthuanffy, Regni Hungarici historia, 31.
Cf. G. Pray, Annales regum Hungariae IV, Vindobonae 1767, 304; K. Jireček, Istorija
I, 414; ISN II, 460, n. 47 (S. Ćirković); M. Spremić, Porodica Jakšić u Banatu, 45.
84
M. Sanuto, I diarii IV, Venezia 1880, 457–458, 629; Lj. Stojanović, Rodoslovi i
letopisi, 258; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 38; ISN II, 460 (S. Ćirković);
85
B. Ferjančić, Despoti, 201–204; ISN II 460–461, passim (S. Ćirković); Idem,
Postvizantijski despoti, 400–401; N. Lemajić, Srpska elita, passim; M. Spremić, Srpski
despoti u Sremu, 63–71;S. Božanić, Srem u periodu od 1502. do 1526. godine,
Spomenica Istorijskog arhiva “Srem” 6 (2007) 72–87; Eadem, О despotici Jeleni, kćerki
Stefana Jakšića, u srpskoj istoriji, kulturi i tradiciji, Šesti međunarodni interdisciplinarni
simpozijum Susret kultura, Zbornik radova, knjiga II, Novi Sad 2013, 883–892.
152
In addition to the members of the Branković and Jakšić families,

voivode Miloš Belmužević distinguished himself in the Hungarian
service during the last two decades of the 15th century. In the 1470s, he
was one of the most significant Christian sipahis in the Smederevo
sancak. Miloš Belmužević was recorded as the timar holder in the first
preserved mufasal defter of the Smederevo sancak of 1476/1477, with
the timar which consisted of the revenues of the market place (pazar)
Jagodina, in total 8,583 akçes. This census was conducted immediately
after the OttomanHungarian warfare in northern Serbia in 1476, which
means that Miloš Belmužević dutifully fulfilled his military obligations
to the sultan during previous fighting.86 Voivode Miloš transferred to
Hungary most likely in 1480 or 1481, during the large Hungarian
campaigns in northern Serbia, followed by converting the mass of the
population across the Sava and the Danube.87 In his will, Miloš
Belmužević mentioned that he passed to the Hungarian side with the
guarantees provided by King Matthias and the Estates, and that he was
later wounded serving King Matthias in Silesia.88 Serbian historiography
has wrongly considered that it happened during the wars waged between
1468 and 1474, which contradicts the fact that he was recorded as the
sipahi in the Smederevo sancak in 1476/7.89 Now, we can say with
certainty that voivode Miloš was wounded during the Głogów War,
which was fought between King Matthias Corvinus and his Silesian
vassal, John II of Sagan, duke of Głogów in Lower Silesia in Poland, in
1488. Due to the participation of the Serbian warriors in this conflict, the
local people called it “the Serbian war”. Despot Đorđe Branković and his
detachment also participated in the fights in Silesia in 1489.90 The war
86
Başbakanlık Arşivi Istanbul, Tapu tahrir defteri, nr. 16 (1476), 223–224; B. Đurđev,
Hrišćani spahije u severnoj Srbiji u XV veku, GDBIH 4 (1952) 167; E. Miljković,
Hrišćani spahije u Smederevskom sandžaku u drugoj polovini XV veka, Moravska
Srbija, 87, 91; A. Krstić, Novi podaci, 168.
87
N. Lemajić, Srpska elita, 38, 201–202; A. Krstić, Novi podaci, 169–170.
88
А. Ivić, Nekoliko ćirilskih spomenika iz XVI i XVII veka, Vjesnik kraljevskoga
hrvatskoslavonskodalmatinskoga zemaljskoga arkiva 15/2 (1913) 93 (=N. Lemajić,
Srpska elita, 354).
89
A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 18; ISN II, 377–378, 381–382 (S. Ćirković).
90
I. Cureus, Gentis Silesiae annales, Witebergae 1571, 339–357, esp. 345–346, 356–357.
When this article was already prepared for publishing, I learned that Aleksandar Ivanov
153
Aleksandar Krstić
ventures of Belmužević, made in the vicinity of Székesfehérvár during

the war between Wladislas II Jagiełło and Maximilian Habsburg (1490–
1491), were well known. He also participated in the fighting against the
troops of the Polish prince Jan Olbracht at Košice in December 1491.91
The Hungarian monarchs generously rewarded Belmužević for his
merits on several occasions. Before his death, voivode Miloš enjoyed
22 possessions, of which three were in the Bács county (today Bačka in
Serbia), two in the Csanad and 17 in the Temes county (in the territory
of nowadays Romanian Banat and the Mureş valley).92 Miloš
Belmužević had the noble title „de Saswar“ according to the possession
which was located in the vicinity of Timişoara, and which he was given
by King Matthias after the Silesian war (1488/1489). The significant
presence of the Serbs at the former possessions of Belmužević in the
years and decades that followed his death indicates that he, as well as the
Jakšićs and other Serbian noblemen, had an important role in colonizing
of the Serbian refugees from the Ottoman Empire in Banat.93
Belmužević also took part in combats and skirmishes on the frontier,
which did not cease even during the truces. During one such intrusion
of the Ottoman warriors from Smederevo into the territory of Banat, on
Easter, most probably in 1499 or 1500, voivode Miloš was wounded and
his son Vuk was killed. In order to avenge his son, Miloš Belmužević
ravaged the surroundings of Smederevo in the summer of 1500 and died
several months later.94
concluded the same about the time of the Silesian warfare of Miloš Belmužević: A.
Ivanov, Ratovanje vojvode Miloša Belmuževića u Šleziji, Zbornik MS za istoriju 94
(2016) 21–27.
91
Ludovici Tuberonis Commentarii, 66, 73; N. Isthuanffy, Regni Hungarici historia,
10; A. Ivić, Istorija, 34; S. Božanić, Srpski velikaši, 154, 160–161.
92
A. Magina, Un nobil sârb în Banatul secolului al XVlea: Miloš Belmužević,
Analele Banatului, Serie nouă, Arheologie – istorie 18 (2010) 136–142; A. Krstić,
Novi podaci, 169, 171, 179, 182–183.
93
MNLOL, DL 26685; A. Magina, Un nobil sârb, 137.
94
Ludovici Tuberonis Commentarii, 134–136; M. Sanuto, I diarii III, Venezia 1880, col.
669–670. Left without a male heir, Belmužević got permission from king Wladislas II
to leave his estate to his mother Olivera, his wife Veronica and his underage daughter
Milica: L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 297–299; А. Ivić, Nekoliko
ćirilskih spomenika, 94; A. Magina, Un nobil, 142; A. Krstić, Novi podaci, 171–176.
154
In the second half of the 15th century and the first decades of the 16th
century, the Serbian population in Hungary was constantly increasing,
due to the organized and spontaneous migration from the Ottoman to
the Hungarian territory. The Serbs in Hungary represented a
substantially militarized social group. Serbian nobles and other warriors
served as light cavalry – hussars in the royal service and in the squads
of the despots, Jakšićs and Belmužević,95 then as crew in the river flotilla
(nazadistae, šajkaši), or in the border fortresses, including Belgrade.96
Not all Serbian nobles in Hungary in the second half of the 15th and the
first decades of the 16th century were noblemen before moving to that
kingdom – a number of warriors who distinguished themselves in the
military service were certainly awarded with nobility by the Hungarian
kings. Due to lack of data in the sources, it is not possible to determine
the difference between the old and the new nobility. Many noblemen
remain unknown, and some of them are known only by names.97 Some
were directly in the king’s service, and others appeared as the familiares
and officials of the Serbian aristocrats. Thus, Vuk Kolaković (Wok
Golachowigh) was the castellan of despots Đorđe and Jovan in Irig,
95
According to the contemporary Ragusan writer Ludovik Crijević Tuberon, Despot
Đorđe Branković and his brother Jovan rode to war against the Poles in 1491 with
600, the sons of Stefan and Dmitar Jakšić with 300, and Miloš Belmužević with
1000 hussars. The decree from 1498, which defined the military obligations of the
barons and counties, also mentioned the Serbian despot, who should equip 1000
horsemen for war, Stefan Jakšić of Nagylak (the Younger) and Miloš Belmušević,
who had to go to war with all his hussars: Ludovici Tuberonis Commentarii, 73;
Magyar törvénytár 1000–1526. évi törvényczikkek, Budapest 1899, 606, 608.
96
ISN II 436–438 (S. Ćirković); Idem, Počeci šajkaša, Plovidba na Dunavu i njegovim
pritokama kroz vekove, zbornik radova, ed. V. Čubrilović, Beograd 1983, 129–137.
97
For example, King Matthias rewarded the military merits of the knight (aulae miles)
Nicolas Proyka and his brother Rayko by donating them the predium Jenew (Ianova) near
Timişoara in February 1488. Marko Staniša of Varadia was the king’s representative
during Proyka’s introduction into possession, and Rayko and Nicolaus Lywbych de Sippzo
(Šipsov/Sipszó, near Timişoara), were presented among the neighboring noblemen: MNL
OL, DL 30225; A. Krstić, Novi podaci, 184, n. 83. While the Proyka brothers could be of
Serbian or Romanian origin, Marko Staniša, Rajko and Nikola Ljubić were certainly Serbs.
А litigation between Serbian noblemen in Šipsov from 1523 reveals that Dujo (Dwyo), the
father of the plaintiffs Ladislav and Jovan, as well as his brother Stanko (Zthanko), the
father of the defendants Radičko and Mihailo, got the disputed possession in Šipsov from
King Matthias after a campaign of Paul Kinizsi ad Thurciam: MNLOL, DL 26685.
155
Aleksandar Krstić
while their provisor curie in Kupinik was Dmitar Pozob (Demetrius

Pozop) in 1497. At the same time, the despots’ castellan in Jarak was
Damjan Belmužević (Belmosowigh), apparently a relative of voivode
Miloš Belmužević.98 In his will from 1500, voivode Miloš mentioned
the “servants” (sluge, i. e. the familiares), to whom he left some of his
possessions: Marko Radanović, Stefan Pribenović and certain Jova.99
Many of Serbian noblemen and warriors in Hungary were previously
in the Ottoman military service. The reasons for the transition from the
Ottoman to the Hungarian side could be multiple. The motives of
religious and ideological nature (which were, for example, evidenced in
the will of Miloš Belmužević)100 were often merged with practical ones,
which implied striving for a better position and social advancement.
Therefore already in the 1470s we have reported cases of crossings in the
opposite direction, from Hungary to the Ottoman Empire, i. e. to the
Smederevo sancak. For example, in the defter from 1467, it was stated
for three Serbs from Topolovnik in the area of Braničevo, one of whom
was a priest, that they were exempt from taxes and that they came from
Hungary and entered the Ottoman service under this condition. For thirty
Serb martolos, in the same defter, it was stated that they were foreigners
of noble origin or had come under oath, and that they performed their
military service as other Christian sipahis.101 However, such cases are
significantly rarer than migration in the opposite direction from the
Ottoman to the Hungarian territory.
In the second half of the 15th century Serbian nobility in Hungary
still kept the traditions of the fallen Serbian state and had strong
connections with the Orthodox Church. In Serbian tradition, Despot
Vuk was primarily remembered as the brave warrior – the “Fiery
98
MNLOL, DL 20598. The surname of the castellan of Jarak was transcribed
“Velmožović” in the earlier historiography: D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići,
35, 44; N. Lemajić, Srpska elita, 82; M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 60; S.
Božanić, The Political and Cultural Life of Despot Đorđe, 196, 201.
99
А. Ivić, Nekoliko ćirilskih spomenika, 94; N. Lemajić, Srpska elita, 205; A. Krstić,
Novi podaci, 181.
100
А. Ivić, Nekoliko ćirilskih spomenika, 93–94.
101
M. Stojaković, Braničevski tefter, Beograd 1987, 79, 259; Е. Miljković, A. Krstić,
Braničevo, 46, 127.
156
dragon Vuk”, but he was also attributed the patron’s activity, building
of the church of Saint Nicolas in Slankamen in Srem.102 His successors,
the legitimate descendants of Despot Đurađ Branković, had much
stronger ties with the Orthodox Church. Đorđe (Maksim) and Jovan
Branković and their mother Angelina helped the Athonite monasteries,
especially those whose ktetors were their ancestors – Chilandar, Saint
Paul, Esphigmenou.103 During the second decade of the 16th century,
Maksim and Angelina founded the monastery Krušedol on the
mountain Fruška Gora in Srem with the help of Jakšićs and Wallachian
Voivode Neagoe Basarab. Maksim Branković became the Orthodox
archbishop in Walachia, and after returning to Hungary, he was the
archbishop of Belgrade and the spiritual head of all Orthodox
Christians in Hungary (around 1513–1516). Because of their merits
and piety, the Orthodox Church canonized Stefan, Angelina, Jovan
and Maksim Branković.104
It is possible that some other monasteries on Fruška Gora in Srem or
in Banat were founded by the Serbian nobles. The earliest history of
102
R. Grujić, Duhovni život, Vojvodina I. Od najstarijih vremena do Velike seobe,
Novi Sad 1939, 355; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 20. According to S.
Ćirković, O despotu Vuku, 288–289, it is more probable that the citizens of
Slankamen erected the church with their own funds.
103
K. Mitrović, Povelja despota Đorđa Brankovića o prihvatanju ktitorstva nad
Hilandarom (1486, mart 20, Kupinik), SSA 5 (2006) 229–239; Eadem, Povelja
despota Đorđa, Jovana i Angeline Branković manastiru Svetog Pavla (1495,
novembar 3, Kupinik), SSA 6 (2007) 209–217; Eadem, Povelja despotice Jelene
Jakšić manastiru Hilandaru (1503, juni 11, Budim), SSA 7 (208) 196–203;
Hrisovulja despota Ioanna Brankovića, despota srbskog, Glasnik Društva srpske
slovesnosti V (1853) 224–225; F. Miklosich, Monumenta Ѕerbica spectantia
historiam Serbiae, Bosnae, Ragusii, Viennae 1858, 542–543; K. Nevostrujev, Tri
hrisovulje u Hilandaru, 274–277; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski Brankovići, 35–36; M.
Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 59–60; S. Božanić, The Political and Cultural Life
of Despot Đorđe, 194–195.
104
Život arhiepiskopa Maksima, ed. А. Vukomanović, 125–129; M. Stefanović, Žitije
majke Angeline, Arheografski prilozi 8 (1986) 134–137; D. DinićKnežević, Sremski
Brankovići, 39–40; M. Spremić, Srpski despoti u Sremu, 65–67; S. Tomin, Vladika
Maksim Branković, Novi Sad 2007, 24–43, 101–187; Eadem, Despotica i monahinja
Angelina Branković – Sveta majka Angelina, Mužastvene žene srpskog srednjeg
veka, Novi Sad 2011, 179–203; S. Božanić, Srem, 76–77.
157
Aleksandar Krstić
these monasteries is vague, and some of them are traditionally regarded

as the foundation of the Branković family.105 However, due to their
limited financial resources, it is hard to believe that tradition. Based on
the Ottoman documents from the time of Selim II, during the socalled
“sale of churches and monasteries”, it can be concluded that many of
the monasteries in Srem were built before the establishment of the
Ottoman rule.106 For the monastery of Fenek in Srem near Belgrade, it
can be argued with great certainty that it was founded by Serbian
nobleman Dmitar Potrečić, who had possessions in this area in the last
decades of the 15th century.107 Two Serbian Orthodox monasteries –
Bođani in Bačka and Bezdin in the Mureş valley in Romania, known
from the 16th century, were erected on Belmužević lands. It is
traditionally considered that the Jakšić brothers were the founders of both
monasteries, but it is possible that the original churches were built by
Miloš Belmužević. The erecting of the monasteries Hodoš (Hodoş
Bodrog) and Felnac in the Arad County are also attributed to the Jakšić
family.108 They were also the ktetors of Chilandar.109 The Serbian
noblemen in Hungary were also donors of other monasteries on the
105
S. Tomin, Vladika Maksim Branković, Novi Sad 2007, 78–89.
106
It was claimed that monks did not build these monasteries and that they held them
since the Ottoman conquest. Such formulation suggests that the monasteries were
constructed prior to 1526: B. Mc Gowan, Sirem Sancaği Mufassal Tahrir Defteri,
Ankara 1983, 105–106, 196–198, 229, 238, 240, 244, 246, 401; O. Zirojević, Posedi
fruškogorskih manastira, Novi Sad 1992, 13, 59, 68, 74, 76, 81, 86, 92, 103, 105,
109. On the “sale of churches and monasteries” see: A. Fotić, Konfiskacija i prodaja
crkvenih imanja u vreme Selima II (problem crkvenih vakufa), Balcanica 27 (1996)
45–77; Idem, The Official Explanations for the Confiscation and Sale of Monasteries
(Churches) and their Estates at the time of Selim II, Turcica 26 (1994) 3–54.
107
Z. Simić, D. Dimitrijević, S. Ćirković, Počeci manastira Feneka, Saopštenja 27–
28 (1995–1996) 79–86; A. Krstić, Vreme turske vlasti u Sremu, Srem kroz vekove:
slojevi kultura Fruške gore i Srema, ed. M. Maticki, Beograd–Beočin 2007, 96–97.
108
Lj. Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi II, Beograd 1903, nr. 2362, III (1905),
nr. 4963, VI (1926), nr. 10212; R. Grujić, Duhovni život, 357–358, 366–368; M.
Jovanović, Srpski manastiri u Banatu, Beograd–Novi Sad 2000, 111–112, 146; M.
Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 39, 44; A. Krstić, Novi podaci, 179–181. Cf. D. Ţeicu, Die
Ekklesiastische Geografie des Mittelalterlichen Banats, Bucureşti 2007, 79–80, 102–
103, 107–108.
109
K. Nevostrujev, Tri hrisovulje u Hilandaru, 278–283.
158
Ottoman territory. For example, “Cvetko, voevoda Belgrada” was

recorded in the pomenik (the commemorative book) of the Lesnovo
monastery in Macedonia.110 He is certainly the same person with Cvetko,
who together with some Marko and their families moved from the
Ottoman to the Hungarian side in 1502 and entered the service of Belgrade
ban George Kanizsai. One can see from Hungarian documents that Cvetko
was a wealthy man.111 Orthodox clerics were present in the households of
Serbian aristocrats as priests, but also as scribes and secretaries.112
At the same time, the Serbian noblemen, especially the most respected
ones such as the Jakšićs and Belmužević, were increasingly being
integrated into the environment of the Hungarian nobility. They created
family and marriage ties with the noble families of Hungarian and
Romanian origin and carried out usual activities of the county nobility.
This gradually led to their assimilation during the 16th century.113
To conclude, like their rulers and dynasts, who sought a chance of
survival sometimes in obeying and serving the sultan, and sometimes in
relying on his enemies, primarily Hungary, so the certain members of
Serbian nobility maintained relations with both powers. After the fall of
the Serbian state in 1459, the Kingdom of Hungary was one of the main
destinations for those members of the Serbian elite who could not or
would not remain under the Ottoman rule, and who decided to replace
their former military service in the Ottoman state with the one in the
countries of the crown of St. Stephen.
110
S. Novaković, Srpski pomenici XV–XVIII veka, Glasnik SUD 42 (1875) 11–12.
111
L. Thallóczy–A. Áldásy, Magyarország és Szerbia, 304, 308; A. Ivić, Istorija Srba, 45;
J. KalićMijušković, Beograd, 280, 283, 312–313; N. Lemajić, Srpska elita, 91.
112
N. Radojčić, Pet pisama, 353–354, 362; Lj. Stojanović, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi
I, 111; А. Ivić, Nekoliko ćirilskih spomenika, 94.
113
N. Lemajić, Srpska elita, 183–186; M. Spremić, Porodica Jakšić, 47–56; A. Krstić,
Novi podaci, 171, 175–178; A. Magina, Milica Belmužević: l’histoire d’une noble
dame du XVIe siècle, Inicijal 2 (2014) 145–162.
159
Aleksandar Krstić
Aleksandar KRSTIĆ
“HANGİ İMPARATORLUĞA KATILACAKSIN?” –

15. YÜZYILDA OSMANLI VE MACARLAR ARASINDA
SIRP SOYLULARI
Özet
Osmanlıların, Balkan yarımadasına ve Tuna bölgesine gelişi Sırp

Macar ilişkilerinde önemli bir değişime neden olup, iki tarafın yoğun bir
işbirliğine girmesine yol açtı. Mrnyavçeviç hanedanlığı mensuplarından,
Dmitar ve Andriyaş, 14. yüzyılın sonlarında Makedonya’daki bölgelerini
terk edip Macaristan’a geçtiler (1394). Andriyaş hakkında pek bir
bilgimiz yok. Dmitar ise, Vilagoşvar şehrinin kastellanı ve Zarand idari
bölgesinin jupanı olarak 1410’larda Macar kralının hizmetindeydi.
Ankara muharebesinden sonra (1402), Sırbistan ve Macaristan arasında
yoğun bir işbirliği başladı: despot Stefan Lazareviç (13891427), kral
Lüksemburglu Sigismund’un vassalı olup, Maçva ve Belgrad’ı aldı. 1411
yılından itibaren ise ona Macaristan topraklarında bir çok arazi verildi.
Gelecek onyıllar boyunca bir çok Sırp soylu Macaristan Krallığı’nın
topraklarında arazilere sahip oldu. Ancak, bu çifte vassallık durumu –
hem sultana hem de Macaristan Krallığı tacına – Sırp devletini çöküşten
kurtaramadı. Sırbistan’ın Osmanlı idaresine altına ilk girişi esnasında
(1439), önemli Sırp soylularından bazıları, Macaristan topraklarında
arazisi olanları da dahil olmak üzere, Osmanlı hizmetine girdi. Sırp
devletinin geçici toparlanmasından sonra, despot Curac Brankoviç’in
ikinci hükümeti esnasında (14441456) Macaristan’da olan despot
arazilerinde Sırplar da görevliler olarak bulunuyorlardı. Aynı zamanda,
Sırbistan’dan Macar topraklarına geçen nüfüs sayısı da giderek artıyordu.
1459 yılında Osmanlıların Sırbistan’ı tamamen fethetmelerinden sonra,
bu tür geçişlilikler daha da yoğunlaştı. Sırp asilzadelerinin bir kısmı,
hristiyan sipahi olarak fatihlerin hizmetine girerken, bazıları da
manastırlara çekildi ve diğer bir kısmı da komşu devletlerin topraklarına
sığındı. Osmanlı idaresi altında kalamayan veya kalmak istemeyen bir
çok Sırp soylu için Macaristan zamanla ana sığınma merkezi olmaya
160
başlayacaktı. 1459 yılından sonra Macaristan sınırlarında meydana gelen

devamlı Osmanlı baskısına karşılık, kral Matyas Korvinus, Sırpların
Macaristan topraklarına yerleşmesini destekliyordu. Sırp vassal sınıfı
mensubları ve diğer savaş erbabı da kralın hizmetine geçerek arazi
alıyorlardı. 1464 yılında Macar tarafına geçen despot Curac Brankoviç’in
torunu despot Vuk Grgureviç ile Stefan ve Dmitar Yakşiç kardeşler de
bunlar arasında en ileri gelenlerdendi. Sırp despotlar – Vuk (1485 yılında
ölümüne kadar) ve sonra da akrabaları Corce (14851497/9) ve Yovan
Brankoviç (14941502) – Macar baronları olmalarına rağmen, köken ve
şöhretlerinden dolayı Sırplar arasında meşru hükümdarlar ve halkın
reisleri olarak sayılıyorlardı. Despot Brankoviç ve Yakşiçlerin yanısıra,
Miloş Belmujeviç de Macaristan’da en şöhretli Sırp soylulardan biriydi.
Kariyeri Sırp despotlarının devletinde başlayan bu asilzade, 1470’ler
boyunca Semendire sancağının hristiyan sipahilerin ileri gelenlerinden
biriydi. Belmujeviç, 1480/1481 yılında Osmanlı topraklarına Macarlar
saldırısıyla tetiklenmiş büyük göç dalgası sırasında kuzey Sırbistan’dan
Macaristan’a geçti. Sırp despotları, Yakşiçler ve Belmujeviç, genel olarak
hussar isimli hafif suvarilerden oluşturulan Sırp askeri bölüklerinin
başındaydı. Sadece Osmanlılara karşı savaşmadılar, Matyas Korvinus ve
Vladislav II Yagellon’un Çeklere, Lehistanlılara ve Avusturyalılara karşı
açtığı savaşlara da katıldılar. Bu Sırp büyük soylularının yanısıra, bir
takım asker ve minör soylu sınıfından başka Sırplar da doğrudan Macar
kralının hizmetindeydi. 15. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Macaristan’da olan
minör Sırp asiller hakkındaki bilgiler yeterince korunmuş ve araştırılmış
değil. Bu çalışmanın yazarı bazı soylular hakkında yeni bilgiler getiriyor
ve bazı eski düşünceleri düzeltiyor. 15. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında
Macaristan’da olan Sırp asilzadelerinin Ortodoks kilisesiyle ve çökmüş
Sırp devletinin süregiden geleneğiyle güçlü bağlantıları vardı. Ancak,
Macar soylu ortamına da iyice dahil olmuşlardı. Bu durum, 16. yüzyıl
boyunca kademeli olan bir assimilasyonla sonuçlanacaktı.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sırbistan, Macaristan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu,
Sırp despotları, Brankoviçler, Yakşiçler, Miloş Belmujeviç, 15. yüzyıl,
Sırp soylular, Dmitar Mrnyavçeviç.
161
Aleksandar Krstić
Александар КРСТИЋ
„КОЈЕМ ЋЕШ СЕ ПРИВОЛЕТИ ЦАРСТВУ?” –

СРПСКА ВЛАСТЕЛА ИЗМЕЂУ ОСМАНЛИЈА И УГАРА
У 15. ВЕКУ
Резиме
Продор Османлија на Балканско полуострво и у Подунавље

изазвао је значајну промену у српскоугарским односима, и довео до
интензивне сарадње две стране. Још крајем 14. века, чланови
династије Мрњавчевић, Дмитар и Андријаш, напуштају своје области
на територији Македоније и прелазе у Угарску (1394). Док се
Андријашу губи траг, Дмитар је током прве деценије 15. века био у
служби угарског краља као кастелан града Вилагошвара и жупан
жупаније Заранд. После битке код Анкаре (1402) започиње
интензивна сарадња између Србије и Угарске: деспот Стефан
Лазаревић (1389–1427) постаје вазал краља Сигисмунда
Луксембуршког, добија од њега Мачву и Београд, а затим, почев од
1411. године, и бројне поседе широм Угарске. У наредним деценијама
и више српских великаша такође стиче поседе на тлу Краљевине
Угарске. Међутим, позиција двоструког вазалства – и према султану
и према угарској круни – није успела да заштити српску државу и
спаси је од пропасти. У време првог пада Србије под османску власт
(1439) неки од угледних српских великаша, међу којима и они који су
имали поседе на тлу Угарске, ступају у службу Османлија. После
привремене обнове српске државе, током другог дела владавине
деспота Ђурђа Бранковића (1444–1456), на деспотским поседима у
Угарској јављају се и Срби као деспотови службеници, а све више
становника из Србије прелази на угарску територију. Ова миграциона
кретања се још више интензивирају након коначног османског
освајања Србије 1459. године. Део српске властеле ступио је у службу
освајача као хришћани спахије, неки су се повукли у манастире, а
други су нашли уточиште у суседним државама. Временом, Угарска
ће постати главно уточиште за бројне српске племиће, који нису хтели
162
или нису могли да остану под османском влашћу. Суочен са сталним

османским притиском на границе Угарске након 1459. године, краљ
Матија Корвин је активно подстицао насељавање Срба у својој земљи.
Српска властела и други ратници ступали су у краљеву службу и
добијали поседе. Најзначајнији међу њима били су деспот Вук
Гргуревић, унук деспота Ђурђа Бранковића, као и браћа Стефан и
Дмитар Јакшић, који су са османске на угарску страну прешли 1464.
године. Иако су српски деспоти – Вук (до смрти 1485), а потом његови
сродници Ђорђе (1485–1497/9) и Јован Бранковић (1494–1502) – били
угарски барони, они су због свог порекла и угледа који су уживали,
међу Србима доживљавани као законити владари и предводници свог
народа. Поред деспота Бранковића и Јакшића, један од најугледнијих
српских великаша у Угарској био је Милош Белмужевић. Овај
властелин, који је своју каријеру започео у држави српских деспота, био
је током 1470их година истакнути хришћанин спахија у Смедеревском
санџаку. Белмужевић је прешао у Угарску 1480/1481. године, током
великих таласа пресељавања становника из северне Србије,
подстакнутих угарским продорима на османску територију. Српски
деспоти, Јакшићи и Белмужевић предводили су српске војне одреде,
састављене првенствено од лако наоружаних коњаника – хусара. Они су
војевали не само против Османлија, него су учествовали и у ратовима
које су угарски краљеви Матија Корвин и Владислав II Јагелонац водили
против Чеха, Пољака и Аустријанаца. Поред ових српских великаша,
један број српских ратника и ситних племића био је директно у служби
угарског краља. Подаци о ситној српској властели у Угарској током друге
половине 15. века нису у довољној мери сачувани ни познати. Аутор у
раду доноси неке нове податке о појединим племићима, и исправља
одређена ранија схватања. Српска властела у Угарској током друге
половине 15. века била је снажно везана за Православну цркву и за
традиције срушене српске државе, али је такође била добро интегрисана
у угарску племићку средину. То ће током 16. века постепено доводити до
њихове асимилације.
Кључне речи: Србија, Угарска, Отоманско царство, српски
деспоти, Бранковићи, Јакшићи, Милош Белмужевић, 15. век, српски
великаши, Дмитар Мрњавчевић.
163
UDC: 94:725.182(497.11)”14”
Machiel KIEL
THE OTTOMAN CASTLE OF RAM (HARAM)

IN SERBIA AND THE ACCOUNTS OF ITS
CONSTRUCTION, 1491
Abstract: The castle of Ram, in the past called Hram or Haram/Hiram, is one of the
best preserved latemedieval fortresses of Serbia. It is situated on a rocky foreland,
jutting out in the waters of the Danube, 36 km northeast from Smederevo. Its twin was
the castle of Kulič, guarding the place where the Morava flows in the Danube, only
eighth km east of Smederevo, but far less wellpreserved than Ram. After the
construction of the great ĐerdapDam in the Danube it largely disappeared in the
waters. The castle of Ram came into being in the stormy years of the second half of the
15th century, when the Danube was the border between two warlike states, the Ottoman
Empire and the great Kingdom of Hungary. Kulič could have had a medieval
forerunner, modernised by the Ottomans, used by them, and becoming the nucleous of
a small town with a sizable Muslim population and a number of religious and public
Ottoman buildings. In the second half of the 17th century, Evliya Çelebi described
Kulič as a flourishing town. Its existence in the preOttoman period, however, is neither
supported by the medieval sources, nor by archaeological evidence. Kulič was larger
than Ram, had a larger garrison, and more Ottoman public and religious buildings.
Keywords: Ram, Kulič, 15th century, the Ottomans, castle.
The castle of Ram, in the past called Hram or Haram/Hiram, is one

of the best preserved latemedieval fortresses of Serbia. It is situated on
a rocky foreland, jutting out in the waters of the Danube, as the crow
flies 36 km northeast from Smederevo. Its twin was the castle of Kulič,
guarding the place where the Morava flows in the Danube, only eighth
km east of Smederevo, but far less wellpreserved than Ram. After the
construction of the great ĐerdapDam in the Danube it largely
165
Machiel Kiel
disappeared in the waters. The castle of Ram came into being in the
stormy years of the second half of the 15th century, when the Danube
was the border between two warlike states, the Ottoman Empire and the
great Kingdom of Hungary. Kulič could have had a medieval forerunner,
modernised by the Ottomans, used by them, and becoming the nucleous
of a small town with a sizable Muslim population and a number of
religious and public Ottoman buildings. In the second half of the 17th
century, Evliya Çelebi described Kulič as a flourishing town. Its
existence in the preOttoman period, however, is neither supported by
the medieval sources, nor by archaeological evidence. Kulič was larger
than Ram, had a larger garrison, and more Ottoman public and religious
buildings (see below).
Fragments of the history of the two castles are recorded by a number
of Ottoman chroniclers, Oruç Edirnevi, Aşıkpaşazâde, Neşri,
Kemalpaşazâde, Hodja Sadeddin and also Tursun Bey and the Italian
Angiolello, the two last mentioned persons actually participating in the
struggle. The basic events around both castles are also described in
Hammer, G.O.R. and are mentioned in three short notes in the 15th
century Serbian sources.
This short presentation will briefly sketch out the events which led to
the construction of the castles, the question when the present work was
actually built, how the financing was organised, and who did the actual
work of building. If we leaf through the existing literature we can see
that a number of points need revision.
Older Literature
In his popular but serious work “Medieval Castles on the Danube”,

Aleksandar Deroko introduced Ram and its twin Kulič as follows:
“Farther down the Danube (from Smederevo), at the mouth of the
Morava is the castle of Kulič. These polygonal foundations belong
perhaps to the late Roman fortifications of Margum, which, like Serbian
Moravište, may also have been of importance in the Middle Ages, since
it is mentioned in that time.
166
The Ottoman Castle of Ram (Haram) in Serbia and the Accounts of its Construction, 1491
On a sandy island at the mouth of the Karaš river near the Rumanian
border, there was once old Haram, or in Hungarian Uj Palanka (=New
Palanka) which was cited in 1478 as Castrum Haram. Only a few stone
walls remain of it. The castle was an [irregular] quadrangular with round
corner towers.
High on the river bank opposite Haram stands the castle of Ram with
walls and towers in a good state of preservation. Historical sources
mention the site in 1128 when Byzantine troops defeated the Hungarians
in a battle nearby. It was fortified by Bayezid II (1480–1512) [correct is:
1481] about the time the Turks crossed the Danube into Hungary.
Although firearms were already in use, the castle is of a transitional type.
Its five towers, characteristic of strongholds built before the advent of
gunpowder, were equipped for cannon. On the plateau in front of the castle
are the remains of a Turkish caravanserai, around which a settlement,
today the village of Ram, developed.” In the German edition of the same
work it is said that the village “developed already in the 16th century”.1
Milorad PanićSurep’s in his “Cultural Monuments of Serbia” gives
other details and a greater background: “On a steep hillside above the
right bank of the Danube, stands the Ram fortress, mentioned as far back
as the early 12th century in fighting between the Byzantines and
Hungarians. The present construction was, in fact, raised by the Turks
at the end of the 15th, beginning of the 16th century. The interior of the
fortress was completely destroyed in 1788.
The entrance of the fortress, which is a regular pentagon with a tower
at each corner, was through the main tower – the donjon – on the eastern
side. On the side away from the river, it was girded by a low, narrow
wall, with a wide ditch in front of it. Ram differs from older medieval
fortresses in that it was built with artillery in mind, with apertures for
cannon in the walls and towers”.2
The “Enciklopedija Jugoslavije” has for Ram a few details more:
“Ram, a village in Serbia on the right bank of the Danube near Nova
Palanka, with 409 inhabitants in 1961. The medieval castle was built in
1
A. Deroko, Medieval Castles on the Danube, Beograd 1964, 21.
2
Yugoslavia, Cultural Monuments of Serbia, Milorad PanićSurep (ed.), Beograd
(Turistička Štampa) 1965, 59–60.
167
Machiel Kiel
1483 by Mehmed Pasha at the time of Sultan Bayezid II. Outside the
castle are the ruins of a caravansaray from the Turkish period, long 42.5
and wide 24 meters.3
New views, based on archaeological research and a detailed study of
the building itself, are given in a rich article of Gordana and Zoran
Simić. They concluded that the “Hram” mentioned in 1128 is not our
castle on the southern (right) bank of the Danube, but pertains to the
rectangular castle on the north (left) bank of the Danube, which was then
on the Hungarian territory. Our Ram did not exist in the 12–15th
centuries. Archeological research carried out by the mentioned couple in
the 1970s revealed that there were three different archaeological layers:
layer I was early Turkish, from the last decades of the 15th century, layer
II from the 16th century and the top level III from the 17th and 18th
centuries. The date of 1128 was handed down by the Byzantine historian
Johannes Kinnamos, secretary of two Byzantine Emperors, the first
being John II Comnenos, the man who vanquished the Hungarians in
1128 (d. 1143).
Another categorical statement about Ram was made by the Simićs.
There is enough archaeological evidence to show that the area of Ram
had been inhabited by the Romans – there are coins, pottery, gems,
fibulae and even a Latin inscription cut in the rocks below the castle. To
the northeast of the castle, 700 meters away, on the other side of the
valley, there are the foundations of the Roman castellum – Lederata –
still visible in the terrain. This place must have gone down during the
invasion of the Avars and Slavs. Lederata disappeared and even the old
name was forgotten. For the period between the 6th and 12th century
there is not a single piece of written evidence that a settlement existed
at the site of Ram.4 Life returned after the 12th century. The happy find
of a detailed (mufassal) register of the district of Braničevo from
1467/68 by Branislav Đurđev in 1952 and its complete publication by
Momčilo Stojaković in 1987 shows that at least from the mid15th
3
Enciklopedija Jugoslavije VII, Zagreb 1968: Ram.
4
G. Simić, Z. Simić, Grad Ram/La forteress de Ram, Saopštenja 16 (1984) 31–55
(with excellent plans); P. Stephenson, John Cinnamus, John II Comnenus and the
Hungarian campaign 1127/29, Byzantion 66 (1996) 177–187.
168
century there was a village called Harâm, having no less than 56

households.5 This place has the following important remark:
“Village of Hram, Hass of the aforementioned (= Mihaloğlu Ali

Bey) resorting under Lučica. They pay no harač, ispence, tiths
and other duties of the re’aya. Twenty unbelievers guard day and
night the guardhouse (karaul) on the bank of the Danube.”
Then follow the names and patronyms of the heads of households

and the total tax the village had to pay yearly. This was only 320 Akçe,
or only less than 6 Akçe per household. The average of the other villages
in the Braničevo district was 70 to 90 Akçe. A few other villages situated
directly near the banks of the Danube also paid much less, having other
duties in exchange. The inhabitants of Kiseljevo paid 34 Akçe yearly
but had to keep a ferryboat across the river. In short: the village of Ram
did not appear in the 16th century after the castle had been built, as
Deroko thought, but was already there by the mid15th century and is
certainly considerably older.
The architectural history of our castle at Ram is more complicated
than thought previously. It did not exist from the 12th to the 15th century,
as shown by the Simićs. The village of Ram also did not come into being
after the castle was built, and the castle was not built in 1483, as the
Enciklopedija Jugoslavije has it. Moreover, it came into being in several
stages, as can be concluded from what the Ottoman narrative sources
have to say and as made highly certain by the 1491 building accounts.
Our pièce de résistance is the authentic building account of the castle
of Ram written down in the beginning of 1492, when the work was
completed and a detailed report was sent to Istanbul for scrutiny. This is
the register O.91 of the collection “Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları,”
preserved in the Atatürk Kitaplığı, TaksimIstanbul. From the initial
detailed report an extract (icmal) was made to allow for rapid
scrutinizing during the meetings of the Divan. These icmals contain the
5
B. Đurđev, Hrišćani Spahije u Severnoj Srbiji u XV veku, Godišnjak Istoriskog
društva Bosne i Hercegovine 4 (1952) 165–169; M. Stojaković, Braničevski Tefter,
Beograd (Istorijski Institut, Zbornik za istočnjačku istorijsku i književnu građu 3)
1987, 60/61 of the facsimiles.
169
Machiel Kiel
various sums of money, where they came from and how they were used
and mentions the people responsible for the work (the architect,
secretary, supervisor etc.), as well as the transfer of the various sums of
state money by who and when. One of the most important aspects of the
document is that it is very well dated: the time, month and day the work
began and when it ended, and the date of the final version for scrutinising
through the sultanic bureaucracy. This date was 1491 and NOT 1483 as
hitherto believed.
The detailed version (mufassal) of these documents has not (yet) been found.
Our source is part of a large convolute of 414 large folia. The first part
deals with various administrative problems. From fol. 115r dealing with
the expenditure of the various sultanic building complexes: the
“Ottoman Trinity” of mosque, school and baths, as well as kitchens for
the poor and travellers and the amount of food distributed to them, and
the buildings where they were put up and fed for a period of three days:
imarets or/and caravansarays. Ram, here written as Haram, is also the
place where the ruins of a common Ottoman caravansaray are still
preserved, a rarity in the Balkans. Hundreds of them stood along the
Ottoman roads, mentioned, or sometimes described in great detail by
Western travellers, or by Ottomans like my ‘patron saint’ Evliya Çelebi,
or the Bosnian Yusuf Livnjak or Hibri Efendi from Edirne. Except two
wall fragments on the Via Militaris through Bulgaria (Harmanli and
Novi Han), the caravansaray of Ram is the only one in the Balkans
(excluding Turkish Thrace) of which a substantial part is preserved. For
a short but serious study of it see: Deroko, Srednjevekovni utvrdjeni
karavanseraj u Ramu.6
The caravansaray must have been built around or little before the year
1500. The section of pious foundations (vakf) of the 1516 register of the
Sandjak of Semendire/Smederevo (T.D. 1007, p. 416) shows us that the
founder of the work was Sinan Pasha who also constructed a mosque
and a school in Ram. The buildings were maintained and the staff paid
from the revenue of a number of shops in Ram, producing 1,400 Akçe,
and from the rent of a sum of 16,000 Akçe, yielding per year 1,600.
Islamic law in general is very much against “making money with money,”
6
A. Deroko, Srednjevekovni utvrđeni karavanseraj u Ramu, Starinar 2 (1951) 150–152.
170
predating Karl Marx a thousand years. The Ottomans, being followers

of Hanefite school of law, were an exception and “cash vakf” were rather
common. The same information is also given in the Icmal register MAD
506 from 967 (1530) where we also find a note that “the late Ali Bey son
of Mihal” had a hamam built in Ram of which the revenue, together with
that from a hamam near the Castle of Resava, was endowed to the
dervish convent of Ali in the town of Niš. The same register also shows
the pious foundations of the castle of Kulič, a mesdjid and a
mu’alimhâne (school) of Sinan, a soldier of the garrison of Güvercinlik
(Golubac), and a hamam founded by Süleyman Pasha. The Sinan Pasha
of the note in the 1530 register, the builder of the caravansaray, mosque
and school in Ram, could be identical with Arnaud Sinan Pasha, who
had served a long term as Admiral of the Ottoman fleet and in 1502–
1504 was GovernorGeneral of Rumeli.7 As such he was responsible for
the wellbeing of the people.
The larger part of our convolute, the folia 115r to 307v deal basically
with state building projects in the Balkans in the years 1488–1492.
Unfortunately the twin castle of Ram – Kulič, is not included. Because
of the potential for further research concerning the Ottoman building
activity in the Balkans offered by O.91, a separate list of the buildings
mentioned will be given as an annex to this presentation. The list
includes objects in Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, (Skopje)
Macedonia, Montenegro, Rumania and Serbia.
In November 1481, as answer to a destructive Ottoman raid in
southern Hungary by Iskender Pasha of Semendire, the CaptainGeneral
of the King, Pal Kiniszi, crossed the Danube with 32,000 men. He
pushed deep into the Ottoman territory and allegedly took 50,000
Serbian and Turkish prisoners with him to Hungary. It seems that this
raid in the first year of the rule of new Sultan Bayezid II (1481–1512)
made the Ottomans decide to improve their Danube frontier. Kulič,
Haram (Ram) and Golubac were either strengthened with artillery
bastions (Golubac) or completely rebuilt. The works, especially those
7
H. Reindl, Männer um Bâyezîd, Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche
Sultan Bâyezîd II. (1481–1512), Berlin (Klaus Schwarz Verlag) 1983, 319–335
(most reliable survey of the life of this important person).
171
Machiel Kiel
of the year 1483, are described in detail by the Ottoman chronicler Oruç
Edirnevi, writing for the common public, and the very learned scholar
Şemseddin Ahmed Kemalpašazâde, who wrote in a highly swollen style
for the Ottoman elite (see further on).
Ottoman Narrative Sources
The Ottoman narrative sources, partly contemporary, partly written

in the first decades of the 16th century, combined with some Ottoman
administrative source, give a much variegated picture of how the castle
of Ram came into being.
For the autumn of 1477 the important “History” of Aşıkpaşazâde8
relates that:
“After Sultan Mehmed had devastated Moldavia he retreated

and (with his army) had arrived at the bank of the Danube, the
news reached him that the Hungarian unbelievers had come on
the Ottoman territory and had built fortifications and were
making great preparation for an attack on the lands of Islam.”
Although the winter was very severe, Sultan Mehmed acted

immediately and with his army moved to the threatened area through
heavy snow and with enormous difficulties.
“The Danube itself was frozen and covered with thick ice. The
warriors of Islam camped on the ice. The two fortifications were
situated directly on the banks of the Danube. As soon as they had
made their camp, the Sultan gave the order that the strongholds
were free to plunder. On the same day they stormed the forts. In
the evening the unbelievers asked for mercy. They (the Ottomans)
8
Aşıkpaşazade: Vom Hirtenzelt zur hohen Pforte; Frühzeit und Aufstieg des
Osmanenreiches nach der Chronik „Denkwürdigkeiten und Zeitläufte des Hauses
ʻOsman” vom Derwisch Ahmed, genannt ʻAșɩkPaşaSohn, trans. R. F. Kreutel,
Graz, Styria, 1959, 263.
172
agreed and the garrisons surrendered the forts to them by way of

treaty. The Sultan led all who wanted to go back to their country
to do so. Those who wanted to stay with him were sent to Anatolia
and gave them fiefs at the castles there. Many of them, however,
were recognized to be traitors. These were sold (as slaves) for
money. The fortification, however, was burnt down. This victory
was won two and a half months after the Moldavian campaign.”
A detailed and very lively written account of the siege and conquest of
the three fortresses on the Danube is also given by the Italian GiovanMaria
Angiolello, who participated in Ottoman service in the struggle. The text
of his “Historia Turcheasca” was published in 1909 by I. Ursu.9 A good
paraphrase of the events is given by Colin Imber in his very solid work
“The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481”.10 It contains information not given in
the Ottoman account. In fact, there were three castles in the area: old Hram
on the northern bank of the Danube on the Hungarian territory, the bigger
castle of Kulič and the smaller work at Ram on the Serbian side. When the
Hungarians saw the Ottoman army approaching, the garrisons of the two
smaller forts partly fled to Hungary and partly concentrated in the larger fort
of Kulič. Also suppressed in the Ottoman account is the reason why Sultan
Mehmed agreed to let the Hungarian garrison go. During the first attack the
Ottomans were beaten back after losing 500 men. Mehmed had also lost a
big part of his artillery and was in a rather difficult position. When the
Hungarians asked for a deal he immediately agreed. It must be added here
that the two castles were built in the summer of 1477 by the King of
Hungary, Matthias Corvinus (1440–1490).
The “History” of Oruç Edirnevi in the German translation of Richard
Kreutel, “Der fromme Sultan Bayezid,” (notes for the year 888 i.e.
summer 1483)11:
9
G.M. Angiolello, Historia Turcheasca, published and annotated by I. Ursu,
Bucuresti (Edit. Academiei Romane), 1909, 93–96.
10
C. Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481, Istanbul (Isis Press), 1990, 232–233.
11
Der fromme Sultan Bayezid: Die Geschichte seiner Herrschaft [1481–1512]. Nach
den altosmanischen Chroniken des Oruç und des Anonymus Hanivaldanus, Übersetzt,
eingeleitet und erklärt von Richard F. Kreutel, Graz–Wien–Köln 1978, 36.
173
Machiel Kiel
“Sultan Bayezid Han – glorious be his victories – brought his

army together and went to Sofia. He himself remained in Sofia
but sent the Beylerbey of Anatolia, Arnavud Sinan, and the
Beylerbey of Rumeli, Yahya Pasha, with the troops, to the
Morava [in reality the Danube] and had them make on the
Morava two fortifications of wood with walls and moats and
supplied them with all that was necessary. They completed the
work on the first day of the month Cemazi’lEvvel (7.6.1483)
and returned back to the Sultan in Sofia.” He then departed
from Sofia and went to Constantinople and resided there.”
The very learned Kemalpaşazâde, in vol. VIII of his “History”12

shows that he knew the geography of the district of Ram better than his
main source: the “History” of Oruç. He (K.P.zâde) is the first to mention
the castles by name: Köylüs and Haram (Kulič and Ram). They laid on
the Danube in the plain of the Morava (river) not far from Belgrade and
noted: “He (Bayezid) ordered that a fortification should be erected
because for the defense of this district it is very important and
necessary.” Our source then recalls the winter expedition of Mehmed
the Conqueror of 1477, capturing and destroying the new fortifications
of the Hungarians, which were built of wood and stone. Six years later,
in the third year of his rule, Bayezid II had the two strongholds rebuilt.
This is described with some details by K.P.zâde. The Beylerbey of
Anadolu Iskender Paşa was responsible for the construction of one
castle. His counterpart, the Beylerbey of Rumeli, Mehmed Paşa, had the
command over the construction of the other castle. Around the works
they dug a deep moat (hendek). After the completion, a few hundred
Janissaries and Azabs were placed in the castles, which were supplied
with şayka guns, gun powder and ammunition. The work is said to have
been carried out in the spring of the year 888 (1483). Oruç Bey has the
same date but stresses the point that the ramparts of the castles were
made of wood. It was thus a sort of palanka, an earthwork faced with
12
İbn Kemâl Tevârîhi Ali Osmân, VIII, Defter, haz. Ahmet Uğur, Ankara TTK,
1997, folia 20b – 21a, = page 47–49.
174
wooden palisades and surrounded by a moat, a building type that was

very popular in the Hungarian lands of the 15th and 16th centuries. It is
clear that K.P.zâde mixed up the construction of the castles as a work of
stone (it took place in 1491) with the more humble earthworks of 1483.
One has to take into account that Oruc (d. little after 1503) was closer
in time to the event than the very learned K.P.zâde (d. 1534).
The construction of the two fortifications is also mentioned briefly in
the Serbian sources. These notes are known for a long time, collected in
the great work of Ljubomir Stojanović, “Stari Srpski rodoslovi i
letopisi”. In the “Beogradski Letopis” in this collection it is remarked
that: “In the year 6991 (=1483) Mehmed Pasha went to the Danube and
built two castles, Hram and Kulič (Ve leto 6991 hodi Mehmed Paša na
Dunavi i zazida 2 grada: Hram and Kulič”.13 This text was used by the
Simićs and doubtless also by the authors of the Ram entry in the
Enciklopedija Jugoslavije.
The political and military situation of the Danube remained critical.
After various Hungarian actions, “Istanbul” decided that the defensive
works on the Danube needed to be strengthened, the earth and wood
buildings of 1483 were evidently judged to be insufficient and had to be
replaced by strong stonebuilt works. It can be suggested that the
Ottomans erected the octagonal bastion for artillery at the castle of
Golubac/Güvercinlik at the same time as Ram/Kulič, but O.91 is silent
about it. More likely is the time immediately after the devastating
HungarianSerbian raid of 1481, under command of Vuk “with the
dragoneyes” and Dimitrije Jakšić. There are two small Ottoman
inscriptions on the bastion of Golubac, but both are so much crumbled
off that they became unreadable.
Our piece de resistance, the register M. Cevdet Yazmaları O.91 kept
in the Atatürk Kitaplığı/Belediye Kütüphanesi, a defter of 416 folia of
dirtyyellow paper in an early 20th century binding is a convolute of
hundreds of individual building accounts beginning in 894 (1489) with
the accounts of the Sultanic kitchen and ending in 897 (1492).
13
Lj. Stojanović, Stari srpski rodoslovi i letopisi, Beograd–Sremski Karlovci 1927,
254, 257.
175
Machiel Kiel
On the folia: 282v284r we find the accounts of the building of the

castle of Haram between 12 June and 8 October of 1491. The document
contains in its title the basic information about the job, the dates between
which the work was done, and people responsible and reads as follows:
“Muhasebei harci merremeti kal’ei Haram bema’rifeti

Hüseyin Ağai Mir Livaı Alaca Hisar, ve Nasuh, Emin, ‘an
Cema’ati Silahdarân, ve Cafer Mi‘mar, ve Kasım Katip, an
Cema‘atı Silahdarân ‘an 4 Şabân sene 896 ila 4 Zu’lHicce
sene 896; tahriren fi 18 Safer alMuzaffar sene seb’ ve tis’in ve
thamanmiye (= 897).”
In English: The accounts of the expenditure of the repair of the castle of

Haram under responsibility of Hüseyin, Ağa of the Sandjak Bey of Alaca
Hisar (= Kruševac), the superintendent Nasuh of the corps of the Sword
Bearers, the Architect Cafer, and the Secretary Kasım from the corps of the
SwordBearers, taking place between 12 June and 8 October of the year
1491 and written down on 21 December of the year 1491.” Herewith the
problem of the exact date of the construction of the castle is solved in one
go and those who guided and administrated the work are made known.
It should be added that the meaning of the Arabic word “merremet”
for “repair” is rather elastic. Old buildings that were completely newly
erected on the site of an older building were covered by the same word.
The same is true for the other word for repair: ta’mir, which is used for
small repairs as well as for new building, in Ottoman times and still the
same in modern Turkish parlance. Our word “reconstruction” is rarely
used. In the case of Ram, the site where the castle of 1491 arose was the
same as where the old one from 1483 stood. Indicating that parts of the
demolished Palanka from 1483 were used in the new construction is a
post in the 1491 account, which notes that “cubini kohne”, “old beams”,
were used in considerable amounts.
Before the work started, the estimated amount of money (the asl mal)
was available at the working site: 508,661 Akçe, the small Ottoman
silvercoin, or about 9,782 Venetian gold Ducats.14 A large amount came
14
H. Sahillioğlu, article Akçe, T.D.V. İslâm Ansiklopedisi II, İstanbul 1989, 224–227.
176
from the revenue of the rice fields of the district of Filibe (Plovdiv).
Other money came from the Avariz tax of the central Balkans. The actual
total expenditure (vuziya min zalike) was considerably lower than
estimated: 380,470 Akçe. This meant that 128,191 Akçe had to be sent
back to İstanbul. This was actually done on 18 Muharrem of the year
897 (21 November 1491).
The work took just less than four months, from 12 June to 8 October
1491 and is characteristic for the speed with which the Ottomans erected
their buildings. From another kind of documents (the Mühimme Defters)
it is clear that letters were sent to the kadis in the districts around the
building site, ordering them to select skilled workers in their districts and
send them with their tools and with a sum for the travel expenses before
a fixed date to the building site. The Kadı had to take the travel money
from the funds at his disposal in his residence. An extra security measure
was that each craftsman or daily jobber (ırgad), before he started his
journey, had to give a guarantor (kefil) to the Kadı, who was to send a list
to Istanbul with all the names of workers on it and keep one copy for
himself. No document of this kind that we could see contains anything
about the religion of the workmen. The only thing the State was interested
in was “skilled workers, known to be masters in their craft.” The other
duty the Kadı was responsible for was to have sufficient basic foodstuffs
available at the building site before the workers arrived.15
The accounts made in Ram by the Secretary Kasım were sent to
Istanbul, controlled there and written down in a clean copy, accepted by
the Divan as being correct and then put in the archive of the finances
department. This whole operation took two months and two weeks and
was completed on 18 Safer alMuzaffar of the year 897 (21 December
1491). This was also remarkably quick, especially if we remember that
the journey from Ram via Jagodina, Niš, Sofia, Edirne to Istanbul
15
For examples see: M. Kiel, The Construction of the Ottoman Castle of Anavarini
Cedid according to the orders of the Imperial Council as Preserved in the Mühimme
Defters 19–31 June 1572 – November 1577, A Historical and Economic Geography
of Ottoman Greece, The Southwestern Morea in the 18th century, eds. F. Zarinebaf,
J. Bennet, J. L. Davis, Hesperia Supplement 34, Athens, American School of
Classical Studies, 2005, 265–281.
177
Machiel Kiel
usually took 18 days, from Belgrade to Istanbul 20 days,16 on top of the

actual writing of the document and administrative procedure through
the various sections of the bureaucracy before it could be submitted to
the Divan, confirmed and laid ad acta.
Through a stroke of fortune an Ottoman source is preserved in the
Istanbul B.O.A., giving an overview of the garrison of the new castle of
Ram three years after its completion. This important source was kindly
placed at my disposal by Srđan and Tatjana Katić. It is the defter “Kamil
Kepeci No 4725” from 899 (1494) where on folio 26v – 29r we find the
following heading: “Defteri merdân ve ‘azabân ve martolozân i kal’e
i Harâm ez mevâcibi Rebi’ ulAhir, Cemazi ulEvvel, Cemazi ul’Ahir
tamam, sene tis’a ve tis’in ve sem’ânmiye [899] 1494. It then mentions
by name, and often by place where they came from, the Fortress
Commander (Dizdar), his second man (Kethüda), followed by the
various groups (bölük) of defenders of the castle, each under their
officers (ser bölük): gunners (topciyân), common soldiers (merdân),
‘azabân and martolozân. Azabs in the Ottoman context were light
infantry men. Martoloz (from the Greek “armatolos” (“armed man”))
were also light infantry men, but exclusively Christians.17 In our text the
common soldiers, merdân, were exclusively Muslim. They came from
all over the Ottoman Balkans, as mentioned in the text: Mehmed from
Manastir (Bitola), Ahmed from Kesriye (Kastoria) etc. and came (in
alphabetic order) from Bosna (Bosnia), Drama, Filibe (Plovdiv), İştib
(Štip), Kefe (Kaffa, Crimea), Narda/Arta, Ofçe Polje, the Polog plain
around Tetovo, Prilep, Selanik (Thessaloniki), Siroz (Serres), Sofia,
Ustrumca (Strumitsa), etc. This picture is characteristic for the early
Ottoman Balkans. Turks from Anatolia were a rarity.
In 1494 the castle of Ram had a fixed garrison of 81 men including
the Dizdar, his Kethüda, four gunners and 75 men, divided in ten bölüks,
including the officers. Next to them there was a force of six bölüks of
Azabs, in total 54 men, including their officers, and no less than 11
16
Hadschi Chalfa, Rumeli und Bosna, geographisch beschrieben von H.Ch. aus dem
Türkischen übersetzt von Joseph von Hammer, Wien (Im Verlage des Kunst und
IndustrieComptoirs) 1812, 51, 158.
17
M. Vasić, Martolosi u jugoslovenskim zemljama pod turskom vladavinom, Sarajevo,
(Akademija nauka i umjetnosti BiH) 1967.
178
bölüks of Martoloz with 107 men, together forming a military force of

242 men, of whom no less than 44% were Christians. This is another
characteristic of the early Ottoman army. In 1450 in the districts of Prilep
and Kičevo in (Skopje) Macedonia one third of the Ottoman cavalry, the
Sipahis, was Christian. In 1476 in the Sandjak of Semendire/Smederevo,
63% of the sipahis were Christians; in 1469 in Bosnia no less than 82%
of the Ottoman cavalry was Christian, (111 of the total of 135 men.) In
the 1460s the situation was the same in the great border Sandjak of Vidin
in northern Bulgaria, with fresh memories of what the crusader army
had done a few decades before.18
The synoptic (İcmal) T.D. 506 from 937 (1530) gives us an
impression of the size of the garrisons of the Danube forts after the
important Hungarian stronghold of Belgrade had been captured by the
Ottomans (1521). In 1494 Ram had a total of 248 men, and in 1530 it
had 215 men. In 1494 the sandjak capital Smederevo had 1680 men, in
1530 it had 1490 men. The pattern changed drastically in 1552, when the
entire Banat of Temeşvar, including the important fortress of Temeşvar
itself was taken and the Hungarian border moved far to the north,
making the Smederevo district losing most of its strategic importance.
This is well illustrated by the size of the garrisons of the main fortress
of Semendire: the tahrir MAD 506 of 150 mentions a total strength of
1,490 men (Muslims and Christians). In 1573/73, T.D. 517, the garrison
was reduced to 408 men only!
An impression of what the settlement of Ram looked like in the early
1660s is given in volume VII of Evliya Çelebi’s great “Book of
Travels”.19 According to him, the castle of “İhrâm” was “built by Sultan
Bayezid Veli himself”. The place was a Voyvodalık in the Sandjak of
Semendire which belonged to the great Eyalet of Budin (now: Budapest)
and was the seat of a Kadı with an income of 150 Akçe (the official list
of Kadılıks in Rumeli from 1667/68 has “Hırâm” in the eleventh
18
O. Zirojević, The Ottoman Military Organization in Yugoslav Countries in the 15th
and 16th Centuries, Dissertationes Orientalis, Prague (Czechoslovak Academy of
Sciences) 1978, p. 176–188, especially p.182/83; M. Kiel, Art and Society of
Bulgaria in the Turkish Period, 1360–1700, Assen/Maastricht (Van Gorcum) 1985,
66–69.
19
Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâme VII (Üçdal edit.), İstanbul 1980, 276–277.
179
Machiel Kiel
category of the 12 official categories of the list.20 The castle was situated
on top of a steep rock on the shore of the Danube and had a garrison of
56 men, including the officers. The castle had a pentagonal form with
five towers. Inside the castle was a Hünkâr Camii, a Mosque of the
Ruler, which must have been Bayezid II. Although the castle was “deep
inside (from the Ottoman border) and safe from enemies, its gates were
kept closely guarded also in daytime because of fear from Serbian and
Bulgarian robbers. Therefore, important inhabitants (Ayân) of the town’s
population had all their valuables stored in the inner section (İç Kale) of
this castle”. Above the entrance of the castle there was an inscription
with a short text and the date of construction: 897 (1491), the same as
the date on our building account. Outside the castle was a caravansaray
which was built by Cicime, the Defterdar of Temeşvar. (This is a mistake
because the building was erected half a century before Temeşvar became
Ottoman (1552)). Below the castle was a small hamam. The Varoş of
Ram contained about 200 houses, 20 shops and a mosque. All these
buildings were new because the entire town had burnt down a few
months before. “In short, this place is not much developed, but the
climate is pleasant and the gardens beautiful.” After this visit, Evliya,
together with some friends, boarded a ship and sailed upstream to the
castle of “Göylöc,” our Kulič which he describes with even more detail.
The castle of Ram suffered heavy damage in 1788 during the “Kočina
Krajina Uprising”, part of the Habsburg and Russia’s war against the
Ottomans (1787–1791), and was left as a ruin until our time. It is a
pleasure to see that since 2016 important works of reconstruction are
underway that will lead to the total reconstruction of this remarkable
building in its spectacular natural setting.
20
M. K. Özergin, Rumeli Kadılıkların’da 1978 Düzenlemisi, Ord. Prof. İsmail Hakkı
Uzunçarşılı’ya Armağan, Ankara (TTK) 1976, 251–309 – Ram on p. 266 and 289.
180
Appendix
In order to be able to compare the composition of a work force in

about the same period, we present here one example of work in a district
with a predominant Muslim population, followed by work in a district
where the Christians formed a great majority.
Account of the repair works on the castle of Akkırman,

İstanbul, Belediye Library, M. Cevdet Yazmaları O.91 from 1490:
Responsible: Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey, Sandjak Bey of Silistra

Architect: Ibrahim, Trusty (Emin) Hamza from the corps of Sipahiyan,
Secretary Ibrahim from the Corps of Sword Bearers
The work lasted from 16 July 1491 to 14 September 1491
The total cost of the work: 167,062 Akçe (small silver coin)
Carpenters and masons from Bursa: 60 men, all Muslims

Carpenters and masons from İstanbul: 47 Muslims, 43 Christians
Carpenters and masons from Edirne: 30 Muslims, 7 Christians
Total work force: 187 men, of whom 73% Muslim masters
Rebuilding works on the castle of Kilia (Danube Delta) in 1490

Architect: Yakub Şah, Armenian, Emin: Ramazan, Katip Kemal
The work took three months and seven days, estimated cost: 430,000
The masons came from:
İstanbul 29 Muslim masons 35 Christian masons
Edirne 61 ,, ,, 4 ,, ,,
Bursa 60 ,, ,, 0 ,, ,,
Bergama 15 ,, ,, 0 ,, ,,
Malkara 12 ,, ,, 0 ,, ,,
Mihaliç 5 ,, ,, 1 ,, ,,
Dimetoka 4 ,, ,, 2 ,, ,,
Ferecik 1 ,, ,, 3 ,, ,,
Enos 0 ,, ,, 5 ,, ,,
Sofia 1 ,, ,, 9 ,, ,,
TOTAL 188 Muslim masters 59 Christian masters
( = 76% Muslims)
181
Machiel Kiel
Reconstruction works on the Castles of Argos, Corinth and Athens.

The places where the work force came from
Dated: 1490
The works took three months and five days
Total cost: 366,520 Akçe
Carpenters and masons Muslims Christians 7–8 Akçe/day
From Serres 5 6
Verria 1 5
Ipsala 5 0
Ferecik 2 3
Didymotheichon 4 6
Gümülcine/Komotini 2 3
Yenişehir/Larissa 3 7
Athens 0 12
Selanik/Thess.niki 13 12
TOTAL 35 54
= 39% Muslim masters
A large work force of unskilled daily jobbers (Irgad), all Christians,

who earned three Akçe per day, came from Grevena, Premedi, Angelo
Kastro, Yannina, Arta and Aya Mavra
(Lefkada)
Master builders earned : 7/8 Akçe per day

_____________
Comparison: In the late 15th and most of the 16th century, imams of
mosques earned three to five Akçe daily
Complementary part of the account of the castle of Haram
Salaries over 119 work days
Wages of the Muslim masons and carpenters; per day 8 (Akçe)

3,864 man days x 8: 30,912 (Akçe): = 260 Muslim masters
Wages of the Christian masons and carpenters; per day 7 (Akçe)

5,798 man days x 7: 40,586 (Akçe) = 341 Christian masters
182
Wages of miscellaneous masons and carpenters, per day 3 (Akçe)

7,272 man days x 5: 21,816 (Akçe) = 183 auxiliary masters
Wages of the unskilled workers (Irgad), per day 3 (Akçe)

80,727 man days x 3: 242,181 (Akçe) = 678 men
Wages of the wagon drivers (Arabacıyân) per day 5 (Akçe)

9,303 man days X 5: 46,515 (Akçe) = 391 drivers
Wages of the wagon drivers who carried hay, bezer, etc. 872 (Akçe)
Left over (elBaki) 128,191 (Akçe)

Delivered (reste) to the Imperial Treasury on 18 Muharrem of the year 897
= 21 November 1491
[Of the master builders and carpenters, the people who “make the
building,” 43% were Muslims].
In September 1493 Hadım Yakup Pasha and a large Ottoman force

defeated the Hungarian commander Derencseny, plundered Steiermark
(Styria, South Austria) and took 7,000 prisoners with him. At the same time,
a raid against Temeşvar took place. The new Austrian Emperor, Maximilian,
ordered Paul Kiniszi to invade the Ottoman territory and take vengeance.
Kiniszi stormed Semendire, burnt down the suburbs and robbed from
everywhere in the wide surroundings people, cattle, corn and money and
returned at the beginning of November to Belgrade. So great was the booty
that five oxen were sold for one ducat and so large was the number of
prisoners that a woman with five girls was sold for 18 silver coins.21
21
Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches II, Pest, Hartleben’s,
1828, 308. (Unchanged reprint of all 10 volumes, Graz – Akademische Druck u.
Verlagsanstalt – 1963.)
183
Machiel Kiel
Istanbul, Atatürk Kitaplığı, M. Cevdet Yazmaları O91

Top end of Fol. O982, beginning of building account of the Castle of Ram
1 June – 8 October 1491
184
The Castle of Ram on the south bank of the Danube in 1969.

In the background the former Hungarian border
Castle of Ram as seen from the river bank (1969)
185
Machiel Kiel
Castle of Ram, typical Ottoman pointed arch
Ram, interior view of the caravanseray of Sinan Pasha, beginning 16th century.
The photo shows the remains of the chimneys of the fire places. Photo 1969.
186
Situation plan of the castle and the former varoš of Ram.

After Simić & Simić, 1984.
187
Machiel Kiel
Machiel KIEL
1491 TUNA NEHRİ ÜZERİNDEKİ OSMANLI RAM KALESİ

BİNA HESAPLARI
Özet
Eskiden Hram ya da Haram/Hiram olarak bilinen Ram Kalesi,

Sırbistan’ın geç ortaçağ kaleleri içerisinde en iyi muhafaza edilmiş
olanlarından bir tanesidir. Tuna sularının içerisine doğru çıkıntı yapan
kayalık bir burun üzerinde, Smederevo’nun 36 kilometre
kuzeydoğusunda kuruludur. Kalenin ikizi ise Morava’nın Tuna’ya aktığı
yerde, Smederevo’dan sadece sekiz kilometre doğudaki Kuliç Kalesidir,
fakat Ram’a nazaran çok daha az muhafaza edilebilmiştir. Tuna üzerinde
Büyük Cerdap Barajı inşa edildikten sonra ise büyük oranda suların
altında kalmıştır. Ram Kalesi, 15. yüzyılın ikinci yarısındaki fırtınalı
yıllarda, Tuna’nın iki savaşçı devlet, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ile
Macaristan Krallığı arasında sınır teşkil ettiği zamanda inşa edildi.
Kuliç’te, Osmanlıların modernize ettiği, kullandığı ve büyükçe bir
Müslüman nüfusu ile pek çok dini ve kamusal Osmanlı binasına sahip
küçük bir çekirdek kasaba saylabilecek bir ortaçağ selefi var olmuş
olabilir. 17. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Evliya Çelebi Kuliç’i gelişen bir
kasaba olarak tasvir eder. Ne var ki Osmanlı öncesi dönemdeki varlığı
ne ortaçağ kaynaklarınca, ne de arkeolojik kanıtlarla destekleniyor.
Kuliç, Ram’dan daha genişti, daha büyük bir garnizona sahipti ve burada
çok daha fazla sayıda Osmanlı’ya ait kamu ve dini bina bulunuyordu.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ram, Kuliç, 15. yüzyıl, Osmanlılar, kale.
188
Махил КИЛ
ИЗВЕШТАЈИ О ГРАДЊИ ОСМАНСКЕ ТВРЂАВЕ РАМ

НА ДУНАВУ 1491. ГОДИНЕ
Резиме
Тврђава Рам, који се у прошлости назива Храм или Харам /

Хирам, једна је од најбоље очуваних позносредњовековних тврђава
Србије. Смештен је на стеновитом пределу, издиже се изнад вода
Дунава, 36 км североисточно од Смедерева. Његов близанац био је
замак Кулича, који је чувао место на којем се Морава улива у Дунав,
свега осам километара источно од Смедерева, али је далеко мање
очуван од Рама. Након изградње велике Ђердапске бране на Дунаву,
добрим делом је нестао у водама Дунава. Тврђава Рам је насгала у
олујним годинама друге половине 15. века, када је Дунав био
граница између две зараћене државе, Османског царства и
Краљевине Мађарске. Кулич је можда имао средњовековног
претходника, кога су модернизовале Османлије, који су користили,
и постао језгро маленог града са значајним муслиманским
становништвом и бројним верским и јавним османским зградама.
У другој половини 17. века Евлија Челебија је описао Кулич као
град у процвату. Међутим, његово постојање у предосманском
периоду није потврђено у средњовековним изворима нити
археолошким налазима. Кулич је био већи од Рама, имао је већи
гарнизон и више јавних и верских османских објеката.
Кључне речи: Рам, Кулич, 15. век, Османлије, тврђава.
189
UDC: 94(497.6Višegrad)(093.2)”14/15”
Hatice ORUÇ
THE CITY OF VIŠEGRAD

BASED ON FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH
CENTURY TAHRIR DEFTERS
Abstract: The city of Višegrad, wellknown for its location on the Drina river and
its stone bridge, was founded by Mehmed/Muhammed Çelebi after the Ottoman
conquest. This study will focus on the establishment and development of the town of
Višegrad in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by examining the summary registers
on the Bosnian Sanjak dated 1468/69 and the tahrir registers dated 1485, 1489, 1516,
1530 and 1604, held at the Ottoman Archive of the Prime Ministry in Istanbul, Atatürk
Library in Istanbul and Kuyûdı Kadîme Archive at the General Directorate of the State
Cadastre and LandOwnership Records of the Republic of Turkey.
Keywords: Višegrad, Bosnia, Bosnian Sanjak, Ottoman state, tahrir registers,
Mehmed/Muhammed Çelebi.
The city of Višegrad, famous for its bridge built by the order of
Sokollu Mehmed Pasha above the Drina river, was founded after the
establishment of Ottoman rule. The foundation of Višegrad was laid by
Mehmed/Muhammed Çelebi, following in steps of his father Isa Beg
son of Ishak Beg, Sanjak Beg of Bosnia and founder of the cities such
as Sarajevo, Novipazar and Mitrovica. The name ‘Višegrad’ first
appeared in the summary tax register on the Bosnian Sanjak dated
1468/69 and continued to do so in 1485, 1489, 1516, 1530 and 1604.
Although there were several registers recorded on the Bosnian Sanjak
between 1530 and 1604, certain parts are missing including that on
Višegrad. There are, however, data about its villages as is the case with
the 1550 register, including information on 51 villages in Višegrad.
191
Hatice Oruç
This study will deal with the establishment and the physical/
demographic developments in the city of Višegrad in the 15th and 16th
centuries based on the Bosnian tahrir defters (tax registers) held at the
Ottoman Archive of the Prime Ministry in Istanbul, Atatürk Library in
Istanbul and Kuyûdı Kadîme Archive at the General Directorate of the
State Cadastre and LandOwnership Records in Ankara.
Višegrad under Ottoman rule
Certain parts of Bosnia such as Sarajevo and Novi Pazar were under
Ottoman rule when Bosnia was finally conquered in an expedition led by
Sultan Mehmed II in 1463. This was also the case with the city of
Višegrad, situated in eastern Bosnia. Although the exact date of its
conquest is not certain, there are nevertheless certain clues: the 1455 tahrir
defter, recorded prior to Bosnia becoming a sanjak, does not contain any
record of Višegrad, even though a kadı was present in 1462. Thus, it must
have been conquered between 1455 and 1462. According to the Bosnian
historian Hazim Šabanović, Višegrad probably became Ottoman territory
when Ottomans conquered the Serbian Despotate in 1459.1
Višegrad and the region surrounding it were added to the Bosnian
Sanjak after its establishment in 1463. According to the oldest surviving
tahrir defter dated 1468/69, recorded after the establishment of the
Bosnian Sanjak, Višegrad was a nahiye (subdistrict) in the vilayet2 of
Pavli. At the time, nahiye’s nefs3 and stronghold carried the same name:
1
H. Šabanović, Bosanski Pašaluk, Sarajevo 1982, 37.
2
The term vilâyet, although used for beglerbegilik, the firstorder administrative area
under the control of beglerbegi in the 16th century, and later for an area governed by a vali,
was also used for any administrative region, either small or large in some cases. (H.
İnalcık, Eyâlet, EI2, vol. II, Leiden 1991, 721; H. İnalcık, Eyâlet, DİA, vol. 11, İstanbul
1995, 548). It was also used to imply the administrative subdivisions of a sandjak in the
15th century. For instance, the Bosnian sandjak was divided into vilâyets most of which
(four of six vilâyets) bore the names of old administrators or their families pointing to the
preOttoman administrative structure in the 15th century. See. H. Oruç, 15. yüzyılda Bosna
Sancağı ve İdari Dağılımı, OTAM 18 (2005) 2006, 249–271; H. Oruç, Administrative
Division of the Bosnian Sandjak in the 16th Century, OTAM 25 (2009) 2011, 99–148.
3
The term nefs (nefs, nefsi bazar or nefsi varosh) was used to indicate city
settlements in the tahrir defters.
192
The City of Višegrad based on Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century tahrir defters
“The centre [nefsi varosh] of Višegrad” and “Višegrad stronghold”.

Višegrad’s nefs was also a kadilik centre in the vilayets of Pavli and
Kovaç, preserving this status in 1516 and onwards.
The city of Višegrad
In the Middle Ages, numerous feudal castles were constructed in the

basin formed by the Drina river and its tributaries in the Podrinje region.4
Gradually suburbs, in the status of ‘villages’ or resembling towns in
terms of production, were formed at the foot of most castles in the
1420s.5
The Višegrad Castle contained a residential area prior to the Ottoman
rule. Its location beside the Drina river made it convenient for trade
caravans to pass through on their way to the Srebrenica region, or to
Serbia6. According to Esad Kurtović, who also presents all the previous
theories concerning this topic, the name ‘Višegrad’ first appears in the
documents held at the Dubrovnik Archive in 30 October 1427.7
However, this settlement probably held the status of a village because its
first settlement, according to the tax registers, was a ‘varosh’ (suburb)
established during the Ottoman period.
According to the 1489 detailed tahrir defter, providing information
about the foundation of Višegrad, it contained four hâssas fields (hâssa:
personal, private, and pertaining to the state or ruler). The explanation
about these fields relates the story of the city’s foundation:
Four hassas (private) fields: the names of the mentioned private fields
are as such: Knežine, Slavići, Dusići, Garče. However, the varosh of
Višegrad was established priorly [before this land survey], and Garče,
one of the private fields mentioned earlier, was given to nonMuslims in
4
D. KovačevićKojić, Gradski život u Srbiji i Bosni (XIV–XV), Beograd 2007, 148.
5
D. KovačevićKojić, Gradski život u Srbiji i Bosni (XIV–XV), 149.
6
D. KovačevićKojić, Gradska naselja srednjovjekovne bosanske države, Sarajevo
1978, 99.
7
E. Kurtović, Prvi spomeni Višegrada i Kuknja u srednjem vijeku, Radovi (Historija,
Historija umjetnosti, Arheologija). Filozofski fakultet u Sarajevu 4 (2016) 99–106.
193
Hatice Oruç
exchange for this land [where Višegrad was founded]; it was determined
and noted down as such.8
As this statement clarifies, Višegrad was established as a varosh, on
a location especially chosen for this purpose, and new land called
‘Garče’ was paid in exchange for the land received from nonMuslims.
Although the name of the founder is not stated, it is most probably
Muhammed Çelebi, son of Isa Beg, sanjak beg of the Bosnian Sanjak.
According to the defters dated 1468/69, 1485 and 1489, Muhammed
Çelebi was the subashi9 of Višegrad and he held zeâmet10 in the vilayet
of Pavli. His zeâmet income included the varosh of Višegrad and the
village of Garče.11 Indeed, he also laid out the foundation of Rogatica
under the name of varosh. Like Višegrad, Rogatica was also among
Muhammed Çelebi’s zeâmet income.
Eight hassas (private) fields: …the fields in question were assigned
under subashi in the defters from earlier on. However, Muhammed
Çelebi, son of the deceased Isa Beg, had previously given the field by the
name of Podcrkvenica to the voynuk named Tvrtko and had received the
area of Popovstan in exchange, and there established the varosh called
Rogatica, which was determined and recorded as such in the defter as
it had been recorded earlier. 12
As in the case of Rogatica, Muhammed Çelebi determined the
location towards which Višegrad would develop, but the tahrir defters
contain no record concerning whether he worked for its urbanization.
The town must have been established before 1468. The fact that
Višegrad held the status of “nefsi bazar” and was the centre of both the
nahiye with the same name and of the kaza points to this. Total 43,000
akcha of Muhammed Çelebi’s and 73,460 akchas in the zeâmet income
came through the taxes collected by Višegrad. Collection of the ushr tax
(tithe tax, 10%) points to agricultural production while the bacı bazar
8
Ottoman Archive of the Prime Ministry in Istanbul (İstanbul Başbakanlık Osmanlı
Arşivi. Hereafter BOA), TT. 24, fol. 256a.
9
A subashi was the military and administrative head of a kaza (county).
10
A fief of a za‛îm, of the yearly value of 20,000 akchas and upwards.
11
Atatürk Library in Istanbul, MC.76, fol. 42b; BOA, TT.18, fol. 54a; BOA, TT.24,
fol. 256a.
12
BOA, TT.24, fol. 259b; BOA, TT.157, p. 215.
194
(market tax) shows it was a bazaar where trade developed. In terms of

production, its status was somewhere between a village and a town.
Furthermore, a mosque and the Muslim community were nonexistent at
the time. The population had 158 households and 30 unmarrieds, all of
whom nonMuslims. Although Višegrad was the centre of commerce
and administration, it was termed as a varosh due to its position right
beside the castle, lacking a mosque and its nonMuslim population.
According to the summary tahrir defter dated 1485, Višegrad was
split into two mahalles (neighbourhoods): Gorna (Gornja) Varosh and
Dolna (Donja) Varosh. A total of 185 households and 11 unmarried non
Muslims were recorded in these mahalles. There was a Muslim
population living in 12 households at the time.13
Table 1: Population in Višegrad mahalles in 1485
NonMuslims Muslims
Name of the mahalle
Household Unmarried Household
Gorna Varosh 164 9 3
Dolna Varosh 21 2 9
TOTAL 185 11 12
The oldest detailed tahrir defter on the Bosnian Sanjak dates back to
1489. According to this register, the same mahalles were present in
Višegrad. These two mahalles contained a total of 179 households (167
households, two bashtine and one widow) and 20 unmarried non
Muslims. Thus within four years, the number of Muslim households
tripled and increased to 14 households, five unmarried Muslims were
added, while nine nonMuslims left.14 While the names of the Muslim
households and unmarried persons had TurkishIslamic names such as
Yusuf, Hamza, Ahmed, and Kurd, their father names were local non
13
BOA, TT.18, fol. 54a.
14
BOA, TT.24, fol. 256a–157b.
195
Hatice Oruç
Muslim names such as Vukić, Milić, Vladisav, Božidar. This shows that
the first generation of Muslims in Višegrad were those who embraced Islam.
Name of the NonMuslims Muslims

mahalle
Household Unmarried Bashtine Widow Deserter Household Unmarried
Gorna Varosh 151 16 2 9 4 3

Dolna Varosh 16 4 1 10 2
TOTAL 167 20 2 1 9 14 5
According to the 1516 tahrir defter, the population in Višegrad tripled

in comparison to the previous tahrir. Gorna Varosh continued to exist
under the same name, while Dolna Varosh’s name was changed to
“Raşko veledi Radivoy (Raško, son of Radivoj)” mahalle. On the other
hand, newly developed mahalles carried the name of “Câmi (Mosque)”.
This shows that the mahalle developed around a mosque, and in this
case, around the mosque constructed by Sultan Bayezid II (1481–
1512).15 The date of construction is not known, but since this mahalle did
not exist in the 1486 defter, it must have been formed before the death
of the Sultan in 1512, at the latest.
According to Ottoman documents, cities and towns were defined as
settlement units where there ‘stands a bazaar, and Friday namaz is
performed’. So, the two requirements that a settlement had to fulfill in
order to become a city are as follows: firstly, the existence of a mosque,
where namâz is held five times a day, on Fridays and on religious days,
and the prayer offered to the reigning sultan during Friday service;
15
BOA, TT.1014, fol. 64a. “Karyei Tusta Mece, karyei mezbûre ahalisi merhûm ve
magfûrün leh Sultan Bayezid Han aleyhi’rrahman ve’lgufrân, nefsi Višegrad’da
vaki olan câʽmisinin taʽmîr ve termîmine hıdmet eylemeğin avârızı dîvâniyye ve
tekâlifi örfiyyeden defteri atikde muʽaf kayd olunmağın vechi meşrûh üzere defter
i cedîde kayd olundu, tâbiʽi Brodar”. The people of Crni Vırh and Bliska Villages
in the nahiye of Brodar received the same exemption for contributing to the mosques’
repair and maintenance. (BOA, TT.1014, fol. 64a–65a; BOA, TT.157, p. 156)
196
secondly, the existence of a çarşı where a weekly bazaar is formed. The

third one is linked to the first two, the existence of a Muslim community,
at least in the form of a large mahalle.16
Višegrad was a settlement where a bazaar was formed from the very
beginning of its establishment and it also gained a location to hold the
Friday namaz with the mosque constructed by Bayezid II. So, even if it
was recorded as “nefsi varosh” in the tahrir defter dated 1516, it is evident
that it held the status of a city. Prior to the construction of the mosque,
prayer/namaz requirements took place at the mescid/mosque in the castle.
In the 1468/69 tahrir record, the name of an imam (a leader in public
worship of Islam) – Mevlana Mahmud, appears among the timar holding
guards of the Višegrad Castle.17 A timar was also assigned to the castle
imam in 1485 and 1489.18 Evliya Çelebi who visited Višegrad after 1660,
also mentions the existence of a mosque in the castle.19
Table 3: Population in Višegrad mahalles in 1516 20
NonMuslims Muslims
Name of the mahalle
Household Bashtine Widow Household Bashtine
Câmi 14 2
Gorna Varosh 118 18 3 11
Raşko veledi Radivoy 28
TOTAL 146 20 3 25 2
16
A. Handzić, Značaj muafijeta u razvitku gradskih naselja u Bosni u XVI vijeku,
Studije o Bosni, historijski prilozi iz Osmanskoturskog perioda, Istanbul, Research
Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture, 1994, 154; A. Handzić, O formiranju
nekih gradskih naselja u Bosni u XVI stoljeću, Studije o Bosni, historijski prilozi iz
Osmanskoturskog perioda, 112.
17
Atatürk Library, MC.76, fol. 149b.
18
BOA, TT.18, fol. 101a; BOA, TT.24, fol. 441b.
19
Topkapı Palace Museum, Baghdad Library No: 307, fol. 165a; Evliyâ Çelebi b.
Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Book V, ed. Yücel Dağlı, S.
Ali Kahraman, İ. Sezgin, Istanbul 2001, 289.
20
BOA, TT. 56, fol. 15a.
197
Hatice Oruç
Many records in the defters on the Bosnian Sanjak show that the
people of this town were exempt from raiyyet rüsûmu because they
engaged in handicraft and trade instead of agriculture. If they chose to
grow crops in a field outside their own town, they had to pay the ushr tax
to that region’s sipahi. A record in the 1530 defter shows that the people
of Višegrad were exempt from raiyyet rüsûmu, while those involved in
agriculture were subject to the ushr tax like all people in “other towns
and cities”. This is a direct indication that Višegrad held the status of a
city and its people were considered citizens.21
In 1530, nefsi bazar Višegrad contained 104 households of non
Muslims in three mahalles and 16 bashtine, 24 households of Muslims
and three basthine.
NonMuslims Muslims
Name of the mahalle
Household Bashtine Household Bashtine
Câmi 1 16 1
Gorna Varosh 92 11 8 2
Raşko veledi Radivoy 12 4
TOTAL 104 16 25 3
A church in Višegrad appears for the first time in the 1530 tahrir
defter: “The Preçista church. The monks residing in this church did not
pay cizye, and ispendje and other taxes. However, ushr and salariye
were collected from the cereals and vineyards as a percentage of their
agricultural product”. The statement “der nezdi Višegrad (beside
Višegrad)” in the 1604 defter suggests that the church was probably
21
The status of Višegrad and its inhabitants is put forth in a record concerning the
mahalle of Cami in the 1530 tahrir: “in the mahalle in question, the inhabitants
dealing with agriculture are subjected to ushr and salariye, while those who are
müezzins, imams and those performing their religious obligations five times a day are
exempt from ispence [should be raiyyet rüsûmu, my emphasis], as in all other towns
and cities”. BOA, TD.157, p. 156.
198
located not in the centre of the town but near it. As these records show,
there was no discrimination in terms of judicial rights between the
religious workers who served the mosque and the ones serving the
church. Both of them benefited equally from exemptions.
It is seen that Višegrad was assigned as hâss income to two different
sanjak begs of the Bosnian Sanjak – to Mustafa Pasha in 1516 and
Husrev Beg in 1530. It was then recorded as the sipahi timar income in
1540.22 However, the tahrir defter dated 1540 contains hâsses of the
Sultan, hâsses of the sanjakbegs, and zeâmets of the Bosnian Sanjak,
but does not include the timars. The pages containing the Višegrad town
appear to be missing in the later defters as well. This is why the above
information from 1530 about the Višegrad city is the last one provided
in 16th century tahrir defters. The next defter including Višegrad is the
1604 detailed tahrir defter on the Bosnian Sanjak.
There is a 74year gap between the two land surveys of 1530 and
1604. There were major changes during this period, in terms of the city’s
physical appearance, and the construction of buildings made by Sokollu
Mehmed Pasha, who originated from the Sokoloviç village of Višegrad
– he never forgot where he came from while constructing vaqfs
buildings in other parts of the Ottoman lands. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s
most prominent structure is the stone bridge constructed over the Drina
river. There are two views on when the bridge was constructed, AH 979
(1571/1572 AD) and AH 985 (1577/78 AD).23 The fact that the bridge
is mentioned in Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s vaqfname (foundation charter)
dated some time between 12 and 22 April, 1574 AD (between 21–30 of
the month of Dhu’lhijja, AH 981)24 seems to support the first view.
According to this vaqfname, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha built and donated
a large stone bridge with twelve arches over the Drina river, situated
22
BOA, TT.201, fol. 40a.
23
See E. H. Ayverdi, A. Yüksel, G. Ertürk and İ. Numan, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî
Eserleri: Yugoslavya III, 2.baskı, İstanbul 2000, 496–512; S. Eyice, Drina Köprüsü,
DİA, v. 9, İstanbul 1994, 528.
24
Foundation Records Archive of Directorate General of Foundations (Vakıflar Genel
Müdürlüğü Vakıf Kayıtları Arşivi. Hereafter VGMA), Defter 1483. A copy of this
vaqfname is also included in defter 572, between the pages 27 and 63.
199
Hatice Oruç
near the city.25 Mehmed Pasha also built an imaret near the bridge,
composed of indoor and outdoor tabhane (guesthouses), a han, kitchen,
storage area among other buildings for the use of the poor, the guests,
and travelers near this bridge.26 In order to meet the imaret’s water
supply, he built water pipes and distributed water through fountains. The
water oversupply of the imaret was distributed to Višegrad’s mahalles
through the drinking fountains built around the city.27 Sokollu Mehmed
Pasha built fiftyfour stores right beside the imaret. There is also mention
of a kervansaray28 and a han29 with twentytwo chambers in the
vaqfname. All of these monuments were constructed before the date of
the vaqfname belonging to 1574. According to the vaqfname mentioned
above, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha built a mescid 30, an adjoining mekteb31,
water pipes, and a drinking fountain in his own village Sokoloviç.32
This was the first time Višegrad experienced such intense
construction activity since its foundation. Sokollu’s vaqf monuments
changed the physical appearance of the city, but alteration did not seem
to have affected the development of the population. According to tahrir
defter accounts from 1604, three mahalles were registered and the
population decreased to a certain extent. According to this defter, there
were 34 nonMuslims households, 76 Muslim households, and 15
unmarried individuals.
25
VGMA, Defter 1483, fol. 38a; VGMA, Defter 572, p. 32
26
VGMA, Defter 1483, fol. 20a; VGMA, Defter 572, p. 29.
27
VGMA, Defter 1483, fol. 33a33b; VGMA, Defter 572, p. 31
28
VGMA, Defter 1483, fol. 193b; VGMA, Defter 572, p. 56
29
30
VGMA, Defter 1483, fol. 14b15a; VGMA, Defter 572, p. 28. According to the
vaqfname, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha required five persons to read five juz from the
Kur’an in this mescid every day, for the soul of his father Sinan Beg and receive 2
akçe payment in return. VGMA, Defter 1483, fol.190b.
31
VGMA, Defter 1483, fol. 18b19a; 190a; VGMA, Defter 572, p.29; 55
32
200
NonMuslims Muslims
Name of the mahalle
Household Household Unmarried İmam Hatib Müezzin
Sultan Bayezid
72 15 1 1 1
Han Câmi
Varosh 32 4
Raşko veledi
2
Radivoy
TOTAL 34 76 15 1 1 1
Although the population stayed very much the same, there was a great
change in the proportion of Muslims and nonMuslims. In 1530, the
number of nonMuslim households decreased from 104 to 34, while the
number of Muslim households increased from 25 to 79 (including religious
employees). The decrease in the number of nonMuslim households should
be evaluated not as migration but as religious conversion.
Table 6: Number of households in Višegrad by year
NonMuslim household Muslim Total

Date
(+ widow) household household
1468 158 158
1485 185 12 173
1489 168 14 182
1516 149 25 174
1530 104 25 129
1604 34 79 113
33
Ankara Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Kuyûdı Kadîme Arşivi (Kuyûdı Kadîme
Archive at the General Directorate of the State Cadastre and LandOwnership
Records), TT.6, fol. 109b.
201
Hatice Oruç
In conclusion, it is clear that the city of Višegrad did not exist before
Ottoman rule and developed in time. Its foundation was laid out in the
1460s at the foot of the castle with the same name and beside the Drina
river, a location chosen by Muhammed Çelebi, son of Isa Beg. It must
be noted that Isa Beg also established towns in Bosnia, and played an
important role in the urbanization of Bosnia. There was a mosque inside
the castle from the very beginning. The mosque in the city center was
constructed by Sultan Bayezid II in the late 15th or early 16th century.
There is no information on Islamic constructions and foundations in
cities, with the exception of those mentioned above, until the 1570s. The
stone bridge constructed by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha over the Drina river,
which was to become the symbol of the city, together with his vaqf
monuments, seems to have changed the physical appearance of the city.
In this way, urbanization gained speed. It should be noted that the city
was a large settlement in terms of its population. While there was a rise
in the population, a drop was noted in the 1550s, probably due to the
city’s slow development and the migration of the population to more
developed cities. While the population was completely nonMuslim in
the first tahrir, the Muslim population emerged later on, due to the
gradual conversion of the existing population to Islam. Twenty five
Muslim households accounted for 20% of the total household population
by 1530. However, this situation changed following Sokollu’s
construction activities, and in 1604 there were 79 Muslim households,
representing 2/3 of the total household figures.
202
Hatice ORUÇ
15. VE 16. YÜZYIL TAHRİR DEFTERLERİNE GÖRE

VİŞEGRAD ŞEHRİ
Özet
Bu çalışmada, İstanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi’nde, İstanbul,

Atatürk Kitaplığı’nda ve Ankara, Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü
“Kuyûdı Kadîme” Arşivinde saklanan Bosna tahrîr defterlerine göre 15.
ve 16. yüzyıl Vişegrad’ın kuruluşu ve gelişimi araştırılmıştır.
Vişegrad şehri, Osmanlı idaresi sırasında kuruldu. Şehrin temelleri,
Drina nehrinin kenarında aynı ismi taşıyan kalenin altında 1460`lı
yıllarda atıldı. Bosna sancakbeyi İshak Bey’in oğlu Muhammed Çelebi
şehir için bu yeri seçti.
Vişegrad’ın ismi, 1468/1469 yılında yazılan en erken Bosna sancağı
tahrîr defterinde ilk olarak ortaya çıkıyor. 1485, 1489, 1516, 1530 ve
1604 yıllarında yazılan tahrîr defterlerinde de bu ad aynı biçimde
mevcuttur. Bosna sancağında 1530 ve 1604 yılları arasında bir sayım
daha yapılmış olmasına rağmen, bu defterin bazı kısımları eksiktir.
Vişegrad ile ilgili kayıtların da bu eksik kısımların arasında olduğunu
tahmin ediyoruz.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Vişegrad, Bosna, Bosna sancağı, Osmanlı
devleti, tahrîr defterleri, Mehmed/Muhammed Çelebi.
203
Hatice Oruç
Хатиџе Оруч
ГРАД ВИШЕГРАД НА ОСНОВУ ПОПИСНИХ ДЕФТЕРА

ИЗ 15. И 16. ВЕКА
Резиме
Ова студија бави се оснивањем и развојем Вишеграда у 15. и 16.

веку према босанским пописним дефтерима који се чувају у
Османском архиву Председништва владе у Истанбулу, Ататурковој
библиотеци у Истанбулу и Архиву „Kuyûdı Kadîme“ при Генералном
директорату државног катастра и земљишних књига у Анкари.
Град Вишеград основан је током отоманске управе. Темељи
града положени су шездесетих година 15. века у подножју
истоимене тврђаве, уз реку Дрину. Ту локацију одабрао је Мухамед
Челебија, син Исакбега (санџакбега Босне).
Назив Вишеграда појављује се пре свега у најранијем пописном
дефтеру (tahrîr defter) (пореском попису) Босанског санџака из
1468/69. године, као и касније у пописним дефтерима из 1485, 1489,
1516, 1530. и 1604. године. Иако је попис у Босанском санџаку
извршен између 1530. и 1604, неки делови недостају, а
претпостављамо да је запис о Вишеграду један од њих.
Кључне речи: Вишеград, Босна, Босански санџак, Отоманска
држава, пописни дефтери, Мехмед/Мухамед Челебија.
204
UDC: 316.334.55(497)(093.2)”14/15”
Ayşe KAYAPINAR
Levent KAYAPINAR
APPLICATION OF DERBEND ORGANIZATION

IN THE BALKANS:
AN EXAMPLE OF CONTINUITY OF BALKAN
INSTITUTIONS IN THE OTTOMAN SYSTEM
Abstract: The practice known as vigla in Balkan history was continued by the
Ottoman Empire under the name derbendjilik. The Ottoman tax registers from the
second half of XV and from XVI century help us to present the derbendji villages and
show the development of derbendji organization in the Balkans. When we examine
the Balkan territory in general we see that the villages appointed as derbendji villages
are located in various geographical areas. Differences in geographical location
diversified the duties of derbendji villages. Another issue to examine is the difference
of the amount of taxes paid by the derbendji villages. For example, the location of
some of the derbendji villages on the banks of the Danube and Timok rivers and the
situation of others in mountainous regions influenced their distribution according to
region. In this study, we will focus on the definition of the terms of vigla and derbend,
the similarities and differences between the organizations of vigla and derbend, the
emergence of derbendjilik in the Balkans and the expansion of the organization. The
tax registers concerning the Ottoman sandjaks in the Balkans dated XV–XVI centuries
represent the main sources for our paper.
Keywords: Ottoman, Balkans, Roumelia, derbend, derbendji.
Introduction
The Ottomans made use of certain groups of people who watched

over and secured mountain passes, sea shores, riversides and transit
points over the roads in the territories they conquered. Among these, we
can count martolos, filurici, derbendci and musellems. In return for their
205
duties of surveillance and protection, these groups enjoyed certain tax

exemptions and fulfilled the duty of patrolling over their territories.
Extensively, the derbendcis undertook the duty of guarding dangerous
places; however, this duty, instead of derbendcis, was given to groups
named viglaciyan on some Aegean islands.
1. Were the terms “vigla”and “derbend”

used by the Ottomans in the same meaning?
Bulgarian historian Hristo Matanov says that the derbend organization

could be the continuation of the institution known as “vigla”, in practice
before the Ottomans.1 Starting from Matanov’s suggestion, we will try
to examine if the Ottoman derbend organization is a continuation of
vigla (or if vigla is a kind of derbend) by using Ottoman sources.
1a. Vigla:
It is noteworthy that nowadays there are too many settlements that
contain the term “vigla”2 in Greece. For example, there is a castle named
Vigla in Stia, Crete; the village Vigla in Arta city; Vigla ski center near
the Pisoderi village in Florina; Mikri Vigla village on Naxos island and
Kaki Vigla that stands opposite Athens. Vigla as a term also appears in
Ottoman Kanunnames [codes of regulation]. Specifically, “vigla” is
mentioned as a service in the kanunnames addressing the Aegean islands
under Ottoman rule. When we examine the names of the settlement units
of Greek geography, toponyms created by addition of the “–vigla” suffix
attract attention. For example, we come across a mountain named
Megali Vigla on Naxos,3 a village called Imerovigli on the Santorini
island.4 In the land register of Crete from the 1670s, the Vigla location
1
Hr. Matanov, Vıznikvane i oblik na Küstendilski sancak prez XV–XVI vek, Sofya
2000, 18.
2
For other details see: A. Kayapınar–M. H. Cevrioğlu, The Institution of “Vigla” in
the Aegean Islands during the Ottoman Period, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, XXXII/1
(2017) 93–107.
3
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 800, p. 137.
4
206
Application of the Derbend Organization in the Balkans ...
in Resmo Liva is mentioned5 and it contains the description of the vigla

service on the Midilli island.6 Also in the 1670s two land owners named
Franko Viglaki and Marko Viglaki lived in the Margarites village of the
Resmo province.7
The word ‘vigla/vigile’ comes from vigilia in Latin and means ‘to
watch’, ‘surveillance’ and ‘watch tower’.8 The Arithmos elite troops
guarding Byzantine emperors were also known as vigla. This word also
comes from Latin vigilia.9 In the Latin dictionary, vigilia means ‘to
watch’, ‘surveillance’, ‘observer’ and ‘sentry’. With the meanings of
surveillance made day and night, watch, observer and sentry, the word
vigilia appears as vigile or vigla in Ottoman records.10 For example, the
name of the Merovigli (Ημεροβιγλίου= İmerovigliu) settlement, which
was one of the six villages of Skaros located on the Santorini island
under the Ottoman rule, is created by the combination of words “mera”
(meaning “day” in Greek) and vigli; it means watch performed during
day. This village has disappeared and only the ruins of its tower have
remained. The village is located 2 km south of Skaros.11 While the word
Merovigli (Imerovigli) was used for protection and surveillance of the
vigla through the day, the description Nyktovigli, created by the
combination of “Nikta” (meaning night in Greek) and vigli, was used for
night watch. We notice the settlement names which contain the term
vigla in the Cyclades, especially on the Santorini and Naxos islands.12
Vigla carries the meanings of watching, surveillance, watch, observer
and sentry; and also points out to a tower called vigla to perform the duty
of sentry in the Byzantine, Genoese, Venetian and Ottoman periods. In the
Ottoman period, the people who had the duty to protect the vigla were
called viglacı, viglaciyan or didebânı viglacı. Moreover, also used was the
5
Livâi Resmo Tahrir Defteri, ed. E. Balta, M. Oğuz, Ankara 2009, 358.
6
7
Livâi Resmo Tahrir Defteri, 297–298.
8
Longnon and Topping talk about a location named La Vigilia on a high hill close
to today’s Navarin. See J. Longnon, P. Topping, Documents sur le régime des terres
dans la principauté de Morée au XIVe siècle, Paris–La Haye 1969, 63.
9
J. B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System of the Ninth Century – With a
Revised Text of the Kletorologion of Philotheos, London 1911, 48/n. 2, 70/n. 4.
10
F. Gaffiot, Dictionnaire latinfrançais, Paris 1934, 1675.
11
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 800, 270, p. 275.
12
B. J. Slot, Archipelagos Turbatus, t.1, Istanbul 1982, 56.
207
term gulatis, meaning soldiers standing as castle garrison – it is a derivation

of the word gula, a degenerated form of the Turkish word kule (tower).13
1b. Derbend:
Derbend is a compound word formed by the words “der” (pass) and
bend (to hold). In the Ottoman state, it was used to point out to “the
fortified positions established around locations where obstacles, passes,
straits, sets, boundary regions, and territories between the mountains
made it hard to cross”.14 The Turkish word “belen” is also used as a
substitute for the term derbend. The word didebân which is used for vigla
is also used for derbend from time to time. According to the “Derbend”
article of the Turkish Religious Foundation’s Encyclopedia of Islam
(Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi), the term derbend was
generally described as “the name given to the posts established as small
castles to secure the roads and travels in the Ottoman state”15. When the
geographical location of the derbends is considered, there are three
groups of derbends that need to be listed. The first group is the derbends
formed by the riversides or on river islands. These derbends undertake the
security of rivers and regions near rivers, and protect transition points.
The second group contains the derbends who undertake the security of
transition points located on islands or seaside, observe the danger that
could come from the sea and take security precautions. The third group
of derbends was responsible for the security of mountainous,
depopulated, deserted and dangerous regions. For example, in Vidin and
Nicopolis, mostly the rivers and mountainous regions had to be protected;
but in Silistre or in Palaio Patra, mostly the seashores were observed.
13
“Mahallei Gulatis Eflagan ve Mahallei Gulatis Arnavudan”, “Kalayı Damas el Meşhur
Çayhisar.”, See Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, MAD 10, p. 9b.
14
M. Z. Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, vol. I, Istanbul 1946,
425; Y. Halaçoğlu, Derbend, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi,
vol. 9, Istanbul 1994, 162.
15
Y. Halaçoğlu, Derbend, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 9, Istanbul
1994, 162.
208
2 What are the similarities and differences

between the organizations of vigla and derbend?
The vigla organization, used in order to maintain security in the pre

Ottoman period, continued as the derbend organization in many places
during the Ottoman era. We come across the records of the first
derbendji villages dated 1454/5 in Greece in Tırhala Liva.16 Here the
villages of Hagia Dimitri and Diyavata are recorded as derbendji
villages. Fifty persons from Hagia Dimitri and 40 people from the
Diyavata village were exempted from tribute and assigned as derbendjis.
In the first Ottoman land register of 1460 (recorded after the conquest of
Morea by Ottomans), the inhabitants of the village Rahova were appointed
to watch for the Minhalu derbend.17 These derbendji villages were located
mostly in mountainous regions. However, we see that derbendji villages
were also located on riversides. It can be determined that a great number
of derbendji villages were located along the rivers of Danube, Timok and
Moraviçe. We can give the examples of Orşova or Kasapina villages on
the Danube.18 However, instead of viglas, we come across the villages of
derbendjis on the western shore of the Black Sea. They took care not only
of the protection of deserted lands but also of the maintenance of roads.19
The concern for safety required organization on the sea shores of the
mainland. For example, the nonMuslim people of the Patra city, located
on the Gulf of Patra and known in the Ottoman period as Balya Badra,
were assigned to protect the shores and seaport. According to a record
dated 1515, the inhabitants of Balya Badra, who watched and secured
the shores and seaport, were exempted from many obligations. The
obligations that inhabitants of Patra were exempted from were tribute,
poll tax, extraordinary taxes and taxes based on common law; also
exempted were couriers, workmen repairing fortresses, the keeper of the
16
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, MAD 10, p. 100a and p. 227a.
17
L. Kayapınar, Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Mora Tarihi (Ankara University, unpublished
PhD thesis), Ankara 1999, 272–273.
18
A. Kayapınar, Le sancak ottoman de vidin du XVe à la fin du XVIe siècle, İstanbul
2011, 187.
19
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Kuyudı Kadime Arşivi, KK 86, p. 42, 74.
209
Sultan’s hounds and dog.20 In 1583, since the services performed by the
Balya Badra inhabitants were reduced, they were exempted only from
extraordinary taxes and taxes based on common law.21
Both viglaciyan and derbendcis were appointed to perform the duty
of police and to provide the security for their lands. They benefited from
certain exemptions in return for their duties. In the Ottoman period,
whereas viglacis were mostly organised against naval raids and corsairs;
derbendci villages were assigned the duty of protecting mountainous
regions, riversides and the western shore of the Black Sea. Viglacis were
to inform the authorities about the approaching suspicious vessels by
lighting a fire at night; and by raising smoke or canon shot during the day.
On the other side, derbendcis were taking an appropriate position to guard
the mountain passes or river fords and giving alert by hitting drums. Both
were aimed at establishing security and tax exemptions. However, vigla
was applied during the Byzantine and Venetian rule over the Aegean
islands and also probably on other shore areas. In the Balkans, the derbend
institution substituted it and spread over a larger area.
3. Derbendci organization in the Balkans
As was the case for Anatolia, the derbend organization was applied by
Ottomans in the Balkans too. In the Balkans, the mountains such as Koca
Balkan [Haemus], Rila, Rodop, Şar Mountains, Dinar and Albanian Alps are
located. These high mountains required the organization of derbends to secure
the passes. The existence of long rivers, the Danube being the first, then
Morava, Timok, Drina, Sava, Meriç, Vardar etc. pointed out to the necessity
of the security/post organization in the Balkans. Paramilitary groups such as
cavalry corps, castle guards, müsellem (engaged in military service instead of
payment), vigla, martalos and voynuk were commissioned to take precautions
and organize bay watch in order to secure the shores of the Adriatic, the
Mediterranean and the Black Sea from enemies and bandits.22 Therefore the
20
21
22
Ş. Özdemir, Kıyı Nöbeti: Osmanlı Devleti’nin Akdeniz’de Kıyı Koruması, Tarih
İncelemeleri Dergisi 23/1 (2008) 187–210.
210
Ottomans had to spread the derbend organization over a large area of the
Balkan geography.
3a. When did the Ottoman derbend organization start in the Balkans?
Yusuf Halaçoğlu states that the formation of the derbends as an
institution in the Ottoman state goes back to the time of Murad the
Second (1421–1444/1446–1453).23 Bistra Cvetkova mentions that the
derbendci organization existed in the Balkans since the end of the 14th
century. According to her, the Ottomans integrated the derbendci
organization parallel to the process of Ottoman conquest.24 If we relate
the derbend organization to the vigla which existed in the preOttoman
period, we could say that the Ottomans adopted such an organization of
security for their own system and spread it with respect to the size of
their lands. We come across the first record about the watch duty in the
Ottoman land registers in the Arvanid land register of 1431. According
to it, 40 people from the nonMuslim population were assigned to watch
the İskarapar fortress with the orders of the Sultan.25 In the summary
register (icmal) of Paşa Livası dated 1445, it is expressed that the
İstapençe village be watched over for the Presat Derbend located
between Köprülü and Pirlepe.26 In the Vidin liva summary register of
1454/1455 a record for Knez Fruzin and his three sons İstoyan, İstoyko,
İstanislav can be read as follows: “He resides between İsferlik and
Şehirköy as müsellem. In his hand there is a charter ordering him to
bring infidels (who are not paying tribute and who are subject to nobody)
to watch over the derbend passes” (Elinde tevkii şerîf vardır ki
yabandan haracsuz ve kimesnenün raiyyeti olmayan kafirler getürüb
derbendi bekleye deyu emr olunmuş.).27 In the Tırhala Sancak register
of the same date, fifty nonMuslims from the village Ayo Dimitri were
23
Y. Halaçoğlu, Derbend, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 9, İstanbul
1994, p. 162.
24
B. Cvetkova, K voprosu o polojenii dervendjijskovo naselenija v bolgarskih zemljah
v period turetskovo gospodstva, Učenije zapiski instituta Slavjanovedenija 20 (1960) 203.
25
H. İnalcık, Hicrî 835 Tarihli Sûreti Defteri Sancaki Arvanid, Ankara 1987, 48.
26
H. İnalcık, E. Radushev, U. Altuğ, 1445 Tarihli Paşa Livâsı İcmâl Defteri, Ankara
2013, 89.
27
Atatürk Kitaplığı Muallim Cevdet Koleksiyonu, MC O.90, p. 34a.
211
made müsellem to wait for the nonMuslim derbend. Again in the same
register, forty people from the Diyavata village were commissioned as
nonMuslim derbend. Again in the Tırhala register, firstly Balcı Yakub
(who had a timar in 1454/1455) and then his sons Hızır and İlyas are
assigned to watch the Likostem derbend.28 According to the land register
of Mora Sancağı dated 1460, inhabitants of the Rahova village are
appointed to watch over the Minhalu derbend.29 In the 15th century, it
can be seen that both the inhabitation of desolate lands and the
responsibility of the assigned lands of derbend were given to the
timariots. For example, in the Pirlepe register dated 1463, timar holder
Çeribaşı Zaganos was assigned to watch the derbend villages of
İstepançe, Kırstiçe and Kartepsi and to guard the passengers from
thieves and bandits.30 According to the record of 1463 in the Hersek
Sancak, the nonMuslim folk of Radoye veledi Milos were registered
as derbendcis, were assigned to watch over the pass and were requested
to act diligently to protect “the lives and properties of the Muslims and
nonMuslims”.31 Therefore, watching over derbends, protecting the
travelers from thieves and bandits, preventing any harm to the property
and lives of the Muslims and nonMuslims – forms the basis of the
derbendcilik service.
We will illustrate this with data from the Vidin Sancak, testifying that
the number of settlements included in the derbend organization increased
from the 15th to 16th century. It is mentioned that in the Vidin Sancak
there is only one derbend which did not even become a settlement in
1454/55. In the year 1483 the number of the villages described as
derbend is five, while in 1586 it increased to 65. Towards the end of the
16th century, some of these villages lost their derbend status and
derbendcis started to pay their taxes as the reaya did.
3b. Samples of derbendci villages in the Balkans

As we mentioned above, derbends were assigned in the Balkan region
to locations such as mountainous areas, rivers and seasides. The
28
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, MAD 10, p. 98b, 222b, 171b.
29
L. Kayapınar, Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Mora Tarihi, 272–273.
30
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 4, p. 104–105.
31
212
common point of these regions was that they were located in desolate,
mountainous, dangerous and insecure places. The places that became
derbends near riverside or on rivers had the duty of surveillance and
securing ships, and providing them with assistance. For example, the
Dolna Glutnica village bound to Fethi İslam Nahiye in Vidin “is located
on the Danube around a dangerous and insecure place, assists the passing
miri [royal] ships, watches over for the dangerous and insecure places
and performs derbend protection.” Again the Luka village bound to Feth
i İslam, since it was a public road where many people commuted in a
dangerous and insecure place near the Danube, was assigned as derbend.32
The Bukovica village located near the Timok river was not only in charge
of the protection of the pass but also of the maintenance and repair of the
pass and the transition of “those who come and go”. The Novasel village,
established by the royal decree on Büyük Ada/Veliko Ostrovo (Big Island)
on the Danube, was assigned as derbend due to its location in a
“depopulated and desolate and insecure and dangerous” region.33
The Rahova village bound to Nigbolu was located in a dangerous and
insecure place, and it is stated that the ships which came to or left from
Vidin were subjected to the raids of bandits between the piers of
Tutrakan and Giurgiru [Yergöğü]. Therefore, it is mentioned that the
village was assigned as derbenci.34 The village of Leşniki Kebir “is
located in a dangerous place and was to protect the property of miri
[royal lands] even along the Danube shores” and hence the village was
assigned as derbendci.35
We can give the example of Palaio Patra as the service of protection.
It is stated as follows:“Nefsi Balya Badra’nın yalısın ve iskelesin
beklerler, ellerinde hükmi hümâyûnları vardır. Mazmûnunda münderic
olan budur ki mezbûr müsellemânlar madâm ki ol hidmetde kusûr
komayub onat vechile yalıyı ve iskeleyi görüb gözedüb muhâfazât
eyleyeler”.36 (“People of Palaio Patra watch for the seaport and shores,
32
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, KK 57, p. 346a, 354b.
33
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, KK 57, p. 369b.
34
35
36
213
they have royal charters in their hands. They should protect the shores
and the port without a lack of service”).
The Krivovir village bound to the Çerna Reka Nahiye was located
on Koçanya Mountain. For this village it is recorded that “Mezkûr karye
i Krivovir âhâlisi ki cebeli Koçaniya, tarîki ‘amme üzere vâki’ olmuşdur.
Vidin cânibinden ve sâir vilâyetden gelen karbanın memerridir. Ekser
zamanda zikr olan cebele harami kâfirleri gelüb nice def ’a karban
basub katli nufus ve mâl ve metâların garet ve hasaret edüb dâima fesâd
üzere olub mahâlli mezbûr derbend olmağla münâsib yerde”. [The
village inhabitants are near the Koçaniya mountain where a public road
is located, on which caravans from Vidin pass. Bandits tend to attack
the caravans and the Krivovir villagers are therefore registered as
derbendjis.]37
Conclusion
The system adopted as vigla by the Roman Empire, Byzantine

Empire, Genoese and Venice, for the security of shores, rivers and
mountain passes, continued to be applied by the Ottomans under the
names of cavalry corps, castle guards, müsellem, vigla, martalos and
mostly the derbend organization. In the Balkans the persons who served
as the derbend were mostly nonMuslims. In particular, a great number
of settlements maintained their entity with the name of vigla as an
indicator of interaction that stretches from Rome to the Ottomans, up to
the present day.
37
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, KK 57, p. 233a2.
214
ANNEXES
An example of Vigla tower
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, TT 4, p. 104–105
215
• Timârı Çeribaşı Zaganos, derbend köylerini bekleyub gelanı

gideni ograbdan ve haramiden görüb gözede.
• Karyei İstepançe, Presad adlu derbendi beklerler. Bu zikr olan
kâfilerin ellerinde sultanımızın hükmi hümâyûn[ı] vardır ki cemî’i
‘avârızı divâniyyeden mu’âf ve müsellem olalar, süvariye birer kile
buğday, birer kile arpa vireler ve onar akçe.
MC O.90, p. 34a
• İsferlik ile Şehirköy aralığında müsellem adına oturur. Elinde tevkii

şerîf vardır ki yabandan haracsuz ve kimesnenün rayiyeti olmayan
kafirler getürüb derbendi bekleye deyu emr olunmuş mezkûrlardır.
• Firuzin knyez, İstoyan veledi o, İstoyko veledi o, İstanislav veledi o
• Nefer 4
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, KK 57, p. 233a2
216
• Karyei Krivovir, hâssı humâyûn, tâbi’i Çerna reka.

• Mezkûr karyei Krivovir âhâlîsi ki cebeli Koçaniya, tarîki ‘amme
üzere vâki’ olmuşdur. Vidin cânibinden ve sâir vilâyetden gelen
kârbânın memmeridir. Ekser zamanda zikr olan cebele harâmî kâfirleri
gelüb nice def’a kârbân basub katli nufûs ve mâl ve metâ’ların garet ve
hasâret idüb dâima fesâd üzere olub mahâlli mezbûr derbend olmağla
münâsib yerde ve hâneden hâneye birer kile buğday ve birer kile arpa ve
cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyyeden mu’af olub zikr olan mahûf ve hatırnâk
yerleri hıfz ve hırâset idüb hıdmetleri mukâbelesinde on ikişer akçe
ispençe ve birer kile buğday ve birer kile arpa ve cemî’i ‘avârızı
divâniyyeden ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve müsellem olmak fermân
olunmağın defteri ‘atîkde mukayyed olmağın vechi meşrûh üzere
defteri cedîde kayd olundu.
• Karyei Bukoviça, havâssı humâyûn, tâbi’i Fethi İslam. Mezkûr kayre

nehri Timok kenârında tarîki ‘amme üzere olub ekser evkâtda nehri mezbûr
tugyân olub üzere olmağın ayende ve revendeye nice gün geçid vermeyüb ve
karyei mezbûre ol sebebden perakende olmak üzere olub zikr olunan mahâlde,
ispirka? yapub gelan ayende ve revende nehri mezbûrdan geçirüb ve geçid
yerini meremmat eyelemeğe iltizâm eyeleyüb ve hıdmetleri mukâbelesinde
birer kile buğday ve birer kile erpa ve cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyye ve tekâlifi
‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve müsellem olmak ve ispençelerin yürmişer akçe ve sâir
rüsûmların sâir re’âyâ gibi bi’ttamâm vireler deyu ‘arz olundukda her
müzevvecden birer kile buğday ve birer kile arpa ve cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyye
ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve müsellem olub yirmi beşer akçe ispençe ve
sâir rüsûmların sâir re’âyâ gibi vireler deyu fermân olunmağın defteri ‘atîkde
mukayyed olub vechi meşrûh üzere defteri cedîde kayd olundu.
217
• Karyei Novasel, der Adayı büzürg ki mukâbelei karyei Gideç ve

karyei Nova, hâssı humâyûn, tâbi’i Fethi İslam. Mezkûr karyei
Novasel Tuna içinde olan Büyük Adada karye yeri olub hâlî ve issuz ve
mahûf ve muhâtaralu yerde olub ziyâde memmer nâs olmağın şenletmek
içün hükmi şerîf vârid olub ber mûcebi emri şerif şenlenub mahûf ve
muhâtaralu yerleri hıfz ve hırâset ve derbend hıdmetin edüb hıdmetleri
mukâbelesinde on ikişer akçe ispençe ve birer kile buğday ve birer kile
arpa verüb ve cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyyeden ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden
mu’âf ve müsellem olmak üzere hâlyâ ‘arz olundukda vechi meşrûh
üzere derbend emr olunmağın defteri ‘atîkde mukayyed olub ber karâr
ı sâbık defteri cedîde dâhî kayd olundu.
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, KK 57, p. 370b
218
• Karyei İrşova, ‘an havâssı humâyûn, tâbi’i m. Mezkûr karye

Tuna’nın öte yakasında Severin serhadde olub ve Demur kapu nâm
mahâlde Trebovi ve Niş Vilâyetinden gelen tarîki ‘amme üzere İsokır
nâmı diğer Erguvan nâm mahâlde mahûf ve muhâtaralu yer olub ve
Tuna üzerinde zâhire gemileri giderken gemilere mu’âvenet eyleyub ve
zikr olan mahûf ve muhâtaralu yerleri hıfz ve hırâset edüb kimesne mâlına
zarâr u ziyân olunub iki yerde derbend muhâfazasın edüb hıdmetleri
mukâbelesinde cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyye ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve
müsellem olmak içün hâlyâ ‘arz olundukda derbend olub hıdmetleri
mukâbelesinde cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyye ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve
müsellem olmak fermân olunmağın defteri ‘atîkde mukayyed olub vech
i meşrûh üzere defteri cedîde kayd olundu.
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, KK 57, p. 373a
• Nefsi Fethi İslam, ‘an hâsshâi pâdişâhı ‘alempenâh, mezkûr

Fethi İslâm âhâlîsi Tuna üzerinde Demur Kapu nâm muhâtaralu yerde
olub yukarıdan aşağa, aşağıdan yukarıya geçen mîrî zahîre gemileri
geçerken ve sâir hıdmeti pâdişâhiye mu’âvenet edüb hıdmetleri
mukâbelesinde ‘avârızı divâniyyeden mu’âf ve müsellemlerdir. Hıdmetleri
mukâbelesinde ‘avârızı divâniyyeden mu’âf ve müsellemlerdir deyu
defteri ‘atîkde mukayyed olub hâlyâ ‘arz olundukda hıdmetleri
mukâbelesinde nefsi mezbûrda sâkini müselleman ve kefere tâ’ifesi
cemî’i ‘avârızı divâniyyeden ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve
müsellemlerdir deyu fermân olunmuşdur.
219
• Karyei İstoççe, tâbi’i Bana, Mezkûr karye tarîki ‘amme ve

Moravica nâm nehr kenârında vaki olub nehri mezbûr ekser evkâtda
tuġyân üzere olmağın ayende ve revendeye geçüd virmemek ile ayende
ve revende geçmeye külli muzâyaka çekub ve nehri mezbûr üzerine
köprü yapub ve köprü hıdmetin edüb hıdmetleri mukâbelesinde ‘avârız
ı divâniyyeden mu’âf ve müsellem olmak içün ellerine Bana kadısı ‘arz
verüb hükmi şerîf verilmeğin hâlyâ ‘arz olundukda köprü yapub ve
lâzım olan meremmatın edüb hıdmetleri mukâbelesinde ‘avârızı
divâniyye ve tekâlifi ‘örfiyyeden mu’âf ve müsellem olmak fermân
olunmağın defteri atîkde mukayyed olmağın vechi meşrûh üzere
defteri cedîde kayd olundu.
220
Ayşe KAYAPINAR
Levent KAYAPINAR
BALKANLARDA DERBEND TEŞKİLATININ

UYGULANMASI: OSMANLI SİSTEMİNDE BİR BALKAN
KURUMUNUN SÜRDÜRÜLMESİ ÖRNEĞİ
Özet
Balkan tarihinde “vigla” olarak bilinen uygulama, Osmanlı

İmparatorluğu döneminde derbendçilik olarak varlığını sürdürmüştür.
XV. yüzyılın ikinci yarısı ile XVI. yüzyıla ait Osmanlı tahrir defterleri
derbendçi köylerini tanıtmamıza ve Balkanlarda derbendçi teşkilatının
gelişmesini göstermemize yardımcı olmaktadır. Genel olarak Balkan
coğrafyasını incelediğimiz zaman derbendçi olarak tayin edilen köylerin
farklı coğrafik alanlarda bulunduğunu görmekteyiz. Coğrafi
konumundaki farklılık derbendçi köylerinin görevlerini de
çeşitlendirmektedir. Derbendçi köylerinin ödediği vergilerdeki
farklılıklar da incelenmesi gereken diğer bir konudur. Örneğin bazı
köylerin Tuna ve Timok kıyıları üzerinde ve bazılarının dağlık bölgede
yer alması, derbendçi köylerinin bölgelere göre dağılımını etkilemiştir.
Bu çalışmada vigla ile derbendin tanımı yapılarak vigla ile derbend
teşkilatları arasındaki benzerlikler ve farklılıklar ile Balkanlarda
derbendçiliğin kurulması ve yaygınlaşması üzerinde durulmaktadır. XV.
ve XVI. yüzyıla ait Balkanlardaki Osmanlı sancaklarına dair Osmanlı
tahrir defterleri çalışmamızın ana kaynağını oluşturmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı, Balkan, Rumeli, Derbend, Derbendçi
221
Ајше КАЈАПИНАР
Левент КАЈАПИНАР
ПРИМЕНА ДЕРБЕНДСКЕ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЈЕ НА

БАЛКАНУ: ПРИМЕР ОДРЖАВАЊА ЈЕДНЕ БАЛКАНСКЕ
УСТАНОВЕ У ОСМАНСКОМ СИСТЕМУ
Резиме
Пракса која је у историји Балкана била позната под називом „вигла“

наставила је да се примењује у Османском царству под називом
„дербенџилук“. Османски пописни дефтери из друге половине 15. и
16. века помажу нам да одредимо дербенџијска села и показују нам
развој дербенџијске организације на Балкану. Када, уопштено,
истражујемо географију Балкана примећујемо да су се села назначена
као дербенџијска налазила у различитим географским подручјима.
Разлике у географском положају водиле су различитим обавезама
дербенџијских села. Још једно питање које треба проучити јесу
разлике у порезима које су плаћала дербенџијска села. На пример, нека
села су се налазила на обалама Дунава и Тимока, док су се нека
налазила у планинским областима, што је утицало на распоред
дербенџијских села у односу на регион. У овом раду су дефинисани
термини вигла и дербенд, одређене су сличности и разлике у
организацији вигле и дербенда, а направљен је и посебан осврт на
успостављање и распрострањеност установе дербенџија на Балкану.
Османски пописни дефтери из 15. и 16. века који се односе на османске
санџаке на Балкану сачињавају основну грађу нашег рада.
Кључне речи: Османлије, Балкан, Румелија, дербенд, дербенџија.
222
UDC: 316.722(497.7):28”14/15”
Dragi GJORGIEV
SOME ASPECTS OF SPREADING OF ISLAM

IN MACEDONIA (XV–XVI C.)
Abstract: The spreading of Islam in the territory of today’s Republic of Macedonia in

the XV and XVI century had its own specificities regarding the western and eastern parts.
When we talk about its western part, we should point out that according to the Ottoman
censuses from the XV/XVI century the process of Islamization first started among the
Albanians in the territory of today’s eastern Albania and then spread on to the Slav population
in western Macedonia. In the XVI century many Christian villages became Muslim.
In the second half of the XV century there was a large number of the Muslim population
in eastern Macedonia, especially the Juruks, who had already settled in the eastern parts of
today’s Republic of Macedonia. In the areas around the contemporary cities of Shtip and
Radovish there were and still are more than 20 Juruk villages. The Muslim population,
soldiers and representatives of Islamic religious institutions were also present in the cities.
But, still there was no sign of Islamization of entire Christians villages in the XVI century,
as it was the case in western Macedonia.
The aim of this paper is to show that the pressure from new Muslims among the Albanian
population caused more rapid Islamization of the Slavs in western Macedonia.
Keywords: Christians, Muslims, Islamization, converts, Slavs, Albanians.
Islamization in the territory of Macedonia started at the beginning of

the Ottoman rule. During the XV century this process progressed slowly
and only in the cities with rare cases of registered converts. According
to the censuses from 1445, 1452/53, 1465, 1467/68 in most of the
Macedonian cities there were no registered Islamized Christians. The
223
Dragi Gjorgiev
exceptions can be found in several distinct cases in Tetovo, Skopje and

Bitola. A larger number of Islamized Christians can be registered in the
last quarter of the XV century. Still, those are small, insignificant numbers1.
At the same time, Islamization in villages was weaker. According to
the census from 1465, in southeast Macedonia there were eight converts
among 344 registered Muslims, while in 1467/68 in the villages in
Skopje there were 14 converts among 229 Muslims. In the nahiya of
Bitola there were five registered converts among 93 Muslims, in the
nahiya in Prilep there were no Islamized Christians among 67 Muslims,
while in the nahiya in Veles there were only six converts out of 137
Muslims2. These are negligible numbers which do not affect the
demographic structure of the population but suggest, however, the
Islamization process.
The biggest wave of Islamization took place in the XVI century, and
once again the process was much stronger in the cities. According to the
1519 census, in the southeastern Macedonian cities of Shtip, Strumica
and Kratovo, every fourth Muslim family was once part of the Christian
community. The results of other censuses for the rest of the Macedonian
cities show the same results. The 1528 census for Skopje, Tetovo,
Kichevo, Veles, Prilep and Bitola shows that from the overall number of
registered Muslims in those cities, every fourth or fifth family was once
Christian. With the passing of the XVI century, the average number of
Islamized families was going up. Thus, in 1544 in Skopje, Tetovo,
Kichevo, Veles and Bitola every third Muslim was a convert. According
to the 1569/70 censuses for Skopje, Tetovo, Kichevo, Prilep, Bitola,
1
Турски документи за историјата на македонскиот народ (ТДИМН). Оширни
пописи од XV век, том II, превод и редакција Методија Соколоски, Архив на
Македонија, Скопје, 1973, 25, 77; ТДИМН. Опширни пописни дефтери од XV
век, том III, превод и редакција Методија Соколоски, Архив на Македонија,
Скопје 1963, 103–104, 158–163; ТДИМН. Опширни пописни дефтери од XV
век, том IV, превод, редакција и коментари др Александар Стојановски, Архив
на Македонија, Скопје 1978, 127, 351; ТДИМН. Опширен пописен дефтер Но.
4, (1467–1468), превод и редакција Методија Соколоски и Александар
Стојановски, Архив на Македонија, Скопје 1971, 133, 197, 294, 417.
2
А. Стојановски, Градовите во Македонија од крајот на XIV до XVII век
(демографски истражувања), Скопје 1981, 87; М. Соколоски, Исламизација у
Македонији у XV и XVI веку, Историјски часопис 22 (1975) 79.
224
Some Aspects of Spreading of Islam in Macedonia (XV–XVI C.)
Shtip, Strumica, Dojran and Kratovo, one third of the registered Muslims
were Islamized3.
The Islamization process did not progress at the same pace in all
kazas, so the results and the percent of Islamized people were not the
same. The aim of this paper is to show that the percent of the Islamized
population in the kazas in western Macedonia was larger than in the
kazas in eastern Macedonia. This will be shown by observing the
Islamization process in the kaza of Debar, which is situated on the
geographic border between Albania and Macedonia. The data from this
kaza will be compared to Islamization in the kaza of Shtip in eastern
Macedonia which in the same period was the biggest kaza in that part of
the country.
We will start the overview with the kaza of Debar. According to the
1467/68 census, there were only few examples of Islamized persons in
this kaza – those were people who participated in the suppression of the
Skenderbeg uprising. Such is the case of Jakub, the new Muslim, “who
captured the traitor Mojso”, or persons which were encouraged by
economic reasons, i.e. they were given land. Ismail Debrali, Ibrahim
Debrali and Arnaut Hamza are such examples4. These unique examples
show that Islamization in this area was in its beginning. This is a certain
phenomenon because right after the suppression of the Skenderbeg
uprising it was expected from the state to take measures to Islamize the
rebellious Christian population in order to calm the area. However, as the
data from the censuses show, this did not happen in the given period, or
in the following decades.
The information from the summarized census of this area from 1536–
39 confirms the reinforcement of Islamization in the XVI century.
3
ТДИМН. Опширни пописни дефтери од XVI век за Ќустендилскиот санџак,
том V, книга 2, превод и редакција др Александар Стојановски, Архив на
Македонија, Скопје 1980, 21–287; ТДИМН. Опширни пописни дефтери од XVI
век за Ќустендилскиот санџак, том III, превод и редакција др Александар
Стојановски, Архив на Македонија, Скопје 1982, 39–231; 555–647; Методија
Соколоски, op. cit, 81–82.
4
А. Стојановски, Г. Паликрушева, Дебарската област во шеесетите години на
XV век (врз основа на еден турски извор), Гласник на Институтот за национална
историја 13/1–2 (1969) 39–40.
225
Dragi Gjorgiev
According to this census, 26,760 persons lived in the kaza of Debar, of

whom only 585 were Muslims. As this is a summarized census where
personal names are not given, it cannot be seen whether there were any
Islamized Christians. Almost half of these Christians, i.e. 290 persons
lived in Debar (the number of Christians was 945), and the other half,
295 persons, lived in the neighbouring villages5. The Muslims in the city
were not obliged to pay the common sheriya charges, but were obliged
to help the collectors of harach and the emins who came to collect the
taxes. Also, a new mosque was built for the Muslims in Debar, of whose
maintenance two Christians were in charge6. No matter how many of
these Muslims were Islamized Christians, Debar – according to the
number of Muslims, while at the same time being the center of the kaza
of Debar with a new mosque – can be considered one of the first centers
from where Islamization in this area began and continued at a more rapid
pace in the next decades of that century.
Thus, according to the 1583 census, the kaza of Debar numbered
35,235 persons, among whom a larger presence of Muslims can be noted
compared to the previous census. At this time, 6,445 Muslims lived in
the kaza of Debar. This number was doubtless enlarged by the Christians
accepting Islam, as confirmed by the following data. There are many
Muslims who very often have the first/personal Muslim name and a
Christian father name, or its variant “son of Abdulah”. Here are the
numbers of Muslims and those newly Islamized among them in every
nahiya in the kaza in Debar:
– Lower Debar: 3,365 Muslims – 2,340 new Muslims
– Golo Brdo: 640 Muslims – 430 new Muslims
– Chermenika: 225 Muslims – 155 new Muslims
– Reka: 720 Muslims – 390 new Muslims
– Zhupa: 140 Muslims – 75 new Muslims
– Upper Debar: 1,255 Muslims – 305 new Muslims
The sum of the new Muslims is 3,695, or 64% of the total number of
the Muslims in the kaza. In terms of the correlation between the Muslims
5
Државен архив на Република Македонија, фонд: Пописни дефтери, Tapu
defteri, No 367, 418.
6
Ibidem.
226
and the Islamized population, the majority of the newly Islamized

persons were in Lower Debar, Golo Brdo and Chermenika, where two
out of three Muslims were former Christians, then in Reka and Zhupa,
where every second Muslim used to be a Christian, and in Upper Debar
where every fourth Muslim was an Islamized Christian. This means that
the Islamization process progressed most rapidly in Chermenika and
was very slow in Upper Debar. If we look at the geographic position of
these areas, we would also see that this process was much stronger in the
western part of the kaza of Debar, where the Albanian population was
more present. Islamization was weaker in the eastern part of the kaza,
where there were more Slavic inhabitants. Such ethnic composition of
the population in the nahyies in the kaza of Debar is based on the
personal names from the censuses. Namely, among the personal names
of the Christians registered in Chermenika and Lower Debar, the names
characteristic for the Albanian ethnos are dominant. The most common
names are: Gon, Gerg, Gin, Pal, Progon, Gresh. On the other hand, in the
eastern nahiyas in the kaza of Debar, Reka and Zhupa, the names
characteristic for the Slavic ethnos are dominant, such as: Stojan,
Dimitar, Petko, Stefan, Nikola etc7.
There are a few characteristic examples from the settlements in which
between the two censuses from 1536–39 and 1583, the Islamization
process was very fast. Of course these are the villages in the western
part of the kaza, especially in the nahyia of Lower Debar. For example:
– In the village Darba in 1536–39, only 75 Christian families lived,
while in 1583 there were 40 Christian vs. 44 Muslim families
– In the village Vlesha in 1536–39, 23 Christian families lived,
without any Muslims, whereas in 1583 the number of Muslim families
was 34 vs. only eight Christian families
– In the village Vranevo in 1536–39, three Christian families lived,
without any Muslims, while in 1583 there were 29 Muslim families
without any Christians
7
ТДИМН. Опширен пописен дефтер на Охридскиот санџак од 1583 година,
том VIII, кн. I, Скопје 2000, 415–661, том VIII, кн. II, 15–91; А. Стојановски,
Демографските промени во Дебарската каза (15–16 в.), Гласник на
Институтот за национална историја 45/1 (2001) 79–81.
227
Dragi Gjorgiev
– In the village Slatina in 1536–39, 34 Christian families lived, without

any Muslims, while in 1583 there were 34 Muslim and ten Christian families
The number of such villages in this nahiya and in Chermenika is larger8.
Such examples were rare in the nahyia of Reka, but remarkable changes
took place in the villages Vidusha and Zherovnica. In the former,
according to the first census, there were only 14 Christian families, and in
1583 there were only ten Muslim families. In Zherovnica, the number of
Muslim families increased from three in 1536–39 to 69 in 1583, while of
69 Christian families there were only 20 left.
If we compare these data to the kaza of Shtip in eastern Macedonia in
the same period, i.e. the XVI century, we will see that there was no
Christian village in that kaza in which such a dramatic change in the
demographic structure occurred. Except for the center of the kaza, the city
of Shtip, where in the early XVI century the number of Christians was
larger, whereas in the second half of the century the Muslims were more
dominant, the Christian villages did not suffer dramatic changes as the ones
in the Debar kaza. In the surroundings of this city, as well as in the Strumica
and Dojran regions, there were many Juruk settlements. The Juruks
emigrated there as early as the XV century. However, the Christian villages
remained dominant without any pressure from the Juruk population.
There were four or five villages from a total of 135 in the kaza of
Shtip which experienced considerable changes in their demographic
structure. The most characteristic example is the village Ljuboten where
between 1519 and 1530 there were only 11 Christian families, while in
1550 there were only 14, and in 1570 there were 21 Muslim families9.
Ljuboten is the only village in the kaza of Shtip which, according to the
censuses, saw complete disappearance of the Christian population.
Other rare examples were also recorded in the following villages:
– In Upper Buchishte in the period between 1519 and 1530, there
lived only ten Christian families; in 1550 there were only eight Christian
and 12 Muslim families, and in 1570 there were two Christian and three
Muslim families.
8
Д. Ѓоргиев, Населението во македонскоалбанскиот граничен појас (XV–XVI
век), Скопје 2009, 144–158.
9
Штип низ вековите, книга прва, ред. акад. Михајло Апостолски, Штип 1986, 224.
228
– In Bogoslovec in the period between 1519 and 1530, there were

33 Christian families; in 1550 there were 55 Christian and 25 Muslim,
and in 1570 there were 56 Christian and 34 Muslim families10.
There are also reverse examples which show an increase in the
Christian population in villages where the Muslim population was
dominant from the beginning. Thus, in the village Milino in the period
between 1519 and 1530 there were six Christian and 36 Muslim families.
In 1550 the number of Christian families was 11 and there were 71
Muslim families, whereas in 1570 the number of Christian families
increased to 17, while there were 73 Muslim families.
We believe that such diverse intensity of the Islamization process in
eastern and western Macedonia was not the result of a different approach
of the state, but was due to differences in local conditions. There are no
existing data regarding western Macedonia and eastern Albania which
would confirm that the state led a different policy for this area which made
the Islamization process more intensive. The censuses show that the
Islamization wave went from the west towards the east and that it firstly
started among the Albanian population and later spread to the Slavs.
The spreading and the stronger intensity of the process were due to
the pressure from the new Muslims on the local Christian population.
Those from the Debar region who accepted Islam did not have any
problems with the local Ottoman authorities. However, they did face
more problems with the new local Muslims.
Also, the result of such Islamization in western and eastern parts of
Macedonia was different. In the Debar region a distinct Muslim community
was formed, which today is known as Torbesh or Macedonian Muslims,
whereas in eastern Macedonia there was no such phenomenon.
A separate religious and social group known as Torbeshes (the one
who carries a bag/sack), or Macedonian Muslims who acquired this
name because they were Muslims and spoke Macedonian, lived in the
northeastern parts of Macedonia. They represented a minor religious
group of Islamic confession from which most were Sunnis. This group
differed, culturally and religiously, from the majority of the orthodox
Macedonians, as well as from the major Muslim ethnic groups,
10
Ibidem, 220–221.
229
Dragi Gjorgiev
Albanians and Turks, by language and anthropology. They were, in fact,

part of the Ottoman heritage in the demographic sphere, and
contemporary Macedonians, Albanians and Turks also aspire towards
their identity. However, their identity which is trapped between the
Islamic religion and the Macedonian language does not allow for full
accomplishment of these aspirations. Nowadays the Torbesh or
Macedonian Muslims are part of the Ottoman heritage in Macedonia
which the state does not succeed to absorb, mainly because of the
numerous unsolved historical questions related to them as well as the
contemporary politic controversies.
Moreover, what should also be taken into account regarding the
spreading of Islam in the given territory is the political situation,
especially after the Skenderbeg uprising. Namely, even after the
suppression of this uprising, there were constant riots in the Debar and
Ohrid region because the Ottoman authorities tried to calm the situation
in various ways. The authorities sometimes aspired towards the idea of
Islamizing the defiant population. The kadi of Elbasan in 1572 said that
only the right religion could make these infidels, who believed in the
Venetian propaganda, see reason. Moreover, the khadi of Debar in 1573
wrote: “As long as they are kafirs they will cause unrests11”. The
government thus launched intensive propaganda to spread Islam to this
defiant population. Those who accepted Islam were exempted from
taxes, just like all the Muslims, others were given timars whereby they
changed their status overnight and from common peasants became part
of the feudal class. Very illustrative examples are the first Islamized
Christians from the Debar region such as Jakub the new Muslim and Ali
Janissary, who possessed timars. The former possessed two villages and
the latter three12. In the second half of the XVI century, with the
reinforcement of the Islamization process more and more people became
new Muslims and automatically enjoyed the tax privileges just like all
other true believers. The most important of all was being exempted from
11
А. Матковски, Исламизацијата како метод за пацификација на Дебарскиот крај,
Бигорски научнокултурни средби, Гостивар, 21–22. X 1971, Скопје 1973, 230.
12
А. Стојановски, Г. Паликрушева, Дебарската област во шеесетите години
на XV век (врз основа на еден турски извор), 39.
230
harach as the most burdensome of all taxes. These benefits granted to

new Muslims influenced the rest of the Christians, especially the poor.
A big challenge for all Christians was the decision of Sultan Selim II
who announced that every Christian house or fellowship would be free
of tax if one male member accepted the true religion. The further
spreading of Islam among the Christian population was carried out by
the converts, of course with the authorities’ hidden support.
231
Dragi Gjorgiev
Dragi GЈORGIEV
MAKEDONYA’DA İSLAMIN YAYGINLAŞMASININ BAZI

UNSURLARI (XV–XVI YÜZYIL)
Özet
XV. ve XVI. yüzyıllarda İslamın yaygınlaşması bugünkü Makedonya

Cumhuriyeti topraklarının batı ve doğu kısımlarına göre farklı
özellikler gösteriyordu. XV./XVI. Osmanlı sayımlarına göre, batı
kısmında islamlaşma süreci ilk olarak bugünkü doğu Arnavutluk
topraklarında Arnavutlar arasında başlayıp batı Makedonya’daki Slav
nüfusu üzerinden devam etti. XVI. yüzyılda bir çok hristiyan köyü
müslüman oldu.
XV. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında doğu Makedonya’da bir pek çok
müslüman yaşıyordu. Bunların arasında özellikle bugünkü
Makedonya’nın doğu kısımlarına önceden yerleşmiş olan Yürükler
vardı. Bugünkü İştib ve Radovişte şehirlerin civarlarında yirmiden fazla
Yürük köyü vardı ve bunlar varlıklarını hala sürdürmektedir. Müslüman
halkı, askerler ve İslam dini kurumlarının temsilcileri de şehirlerde
bulunuyordu. Ancak, doğu Makedonya’dan farklı olarak XVI. yüzyılda
hristiyan köylerinin tamamen islamlaşması henüz söz konusu değildi.
Bu çalışma, Arnavut halkından olan yeni müslümanların baskısıyla
batı Makedonya’daki Slavların hızla müslümanlaşmasını etkilediklerini
göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: hristiyan, müslüman, islamlaşma, din değiştirme,
Slav, Arnavut.
232
Драги ГОРГИЕВ
ПОЈЕДИНИ АСПЕКТИ ШИРЕЊА ИСЛАМА

У МАКЕДОНИЈИ(XV–XVI ВЕК)
Резиме
Ширење ислама на територији данашње Републике Македоније

у XV и XVI веку одликовале су специфичности у погледу западних
и источних делова. Када говоримо о западном делу, треба истаћи да
је према отоманским пописима из XV/XVI века процес
исламизације прво почео међу Албанцима на подручју данашње
источне Албаније, а затим се проширио на словенски живаљ у
западној Македонији. У XVI веку, бројна хришћанска села постала
су муслиманска.
У другој половини XV века, у источној Македонији живео је
велики број муслиманских житеља, нарочито Јурука, који су се већ
били доселили у источне делове данашње Републике Македоније.
У областима око данашњих градова Штипа и Радовиша постојало
је и још увек постоји више од двадесет јурушких села.
Муслимански живаљ, војници и представници исламских верских
институција такође су били присутни у градовима. Међутим, још
увек није било знакова исламизације целокупних хришћанских села
у XVI веку, као што је то био случај у западној Македонији.
Циљ овог рада је да се прикаже да је притисак од нових
муслимана међу албанским живљем узроковао бржу исламизацију
Словена у западној Македонији.
Кључне речи: хришћани, муслимани, исламизација, преобраћеници,
Словени, Албанци.
233
UDC: 338.439.4:664.782(497)”14/15”
Dragana AMEDOSKI
INTRODUCTION OF RICE CULTURE

IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS
(15th AND 16th CENTURY)*
Abstract: The growing of rice followed the route of the Ottoman Empire’s expansion
towards Rumelia. Soon after the conquest, the first rice fields appeared in the river valleys
all over the central Balkans. The most fertile soil along the Velika (Great) Morava, Južna
(South) Morava, Nišava, Rasina and Toplica rivers was used for cultivating this “precious
grain”. Peasants employed in the rice fields enjoyed certain privileges; they had the status
of çeltükcis. During the 16th century rice growing flourished especially in the region of
Niš, in the nâhiye of Petruš, district of Paraćin, as well as the Peć nâhiye and the region
of Banat. Significant quantities of rice were also produced in the Alaca Hisar nâhiye,
while smaller amounts were registered in several villages in the Rasina valley and in the
nâhiye of Bovan. Rice fields belonged to hâss of the sultans, members of the sultan’s
family and high officials, and they were under direct control of the central treasury. The
administration governed rice fields by the mukâta‘ system. Most of the mulk land
assigned to rice growing was converted to vaqf.
Keywords: rice, çeltükci, Balkans, 15th century, 16th century, Sancak of Alaca Hisar,
Sancak of Smederevo, Sancak of Skadar.
Rice (Oryza sativa) is staple food mainly used in Asia. It is also used
by approximately a half of the world’s population. Nowadays it is
cultivated in almost all areas with a lot of water and warm climate. A
commonly accepted view for a long time was that the earliest records of
domesticated rice are probably those from southern China, from the
Yangtze river valley.1 However, the latest researches show that the
*
1
M. Nesbitt, Grains, The Cultural History of the Plants, Routledge 2005, 56.
235
Dragana Amedoski
domestication of rice took place 8,200–13,500 years ago, in the region

of the Pearl river valley in China.2
The Middle East probably acquired rice from South Asia around 1000
B.C.3 In the Near East rice was introduced in the Hellenistic period (from
300 B.C.) and was traded all over the Roman Empire. Archaeological
and historical evidence indicates that rice spread slower than most crops,
because of its special need for abundant water.4 There are several
possible routes of introduction of rice into Europe: one of them could be
from Persia to Egypt between the 4th and 1st centuries B.C., the other
from Greece or Egypt to Spain and Sicily in the 8th century A.D., and the
third one from Persia to Spain in the 8th century, and later to Italy
between the 13th and 16th centuries. Rice was brought from southwest
Asia into the Balkan Peninsula by the Ottomans.5
Being one of the basic ingredients of Levantine cuisine, rice was
greatly used in daily nourishment of the Ottomans.6 The nutritive value
of rice is very high. Therefore and due to its lavishness and ease of
storage, rice was a strategic ingredient, a staple of immense importance
for the nourishment of the Ottoman army in its long campaigns.7
2
J. Molina, M. Sikora, N. Garud et al., Molecular evidence for a single evolutionary
origin of domesticated rice, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 108/20 (2011) 8351; X. Huang, N. Kurata, X. Wei et
al., A map of rice genome variation reveals the origin of cultivated rice, Nature
490/7421 (2012) 497–501.
3
T. T. Chang, Rice, The Cambridge World History of Food, Cambridge 2000, 139.
4
M. Nesbitt, Grains, 56.
5
T. T. Chang, Rice, 139.
6
H. Inalcık, Rice Cultivation And The Çeltükçi–Re’aya System In The Otoman
Empire, Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic History, London 1985, 113. In
the Levant, rice was mentioned more often in the records of the 15th and 16th centuries
than later, but that was because the Ottoman state tried to organize its cultivation by
assigning duties and setting regulations to safeguard its continued presence. It was
not mentioned as frequently later because its production was widespread enough not
to warrant organization from above (F. Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean,
1550–1870, Baltimore 2008, 172–173).
7
Studies of some campaigns indicate that the Ottoman soldier was generally treated
quite well, expecting fresh baked bread (nân–i azîz for the Janissaries; nân–i çift for
the ordinary soldier, the difference being the quality of the ingredients), biscuit when
bread was unavailable; a daily meat ration (lamb and mutton) of approximately 200
grams; honey, coffee, rice, bulghur and barley for the horses. R. Murphey, The Functioning
236
Introduction of Rice Culture in the Central Balkans (15th and 16th Century)
There was high demand for rice in Ottoman markets, especially in

the city centers that were fastdeveloping and kept high rice prices.8 High
quantities of rice were utilized in the sultan’s kitchen that influenced the
spread of rice production under supervision of the State. Rice was
consumed every day in the soup and pilav which were made especially
during the month of fasting and for feasts, as indicated in books of some
imperial hospices. Besides palaces of sultans, rice was used in kervân
sarâys, hâns as one of the main ingredients for food preparation.9
Besides, it was a crop often seen in kitchens of small groups of rich
people and state landowners, as well as at social gatherings. On the other
hand, the food of the poorer classes and the peasantry was bulghur.10
Later on, as rice expanded it replaced other traditional cereals (like millet
and even wheat).11
The production of this “precious grain” followed the path of expansion
of the Ottoman Empire westward, towards Rumelia.12 Besides rice which
in the 15th century found in the Balkans a receptive environment in which
to flourish, the expansion of the Empire was associated with the spread
of maize, sesame and pepper in the 16th, and of tobacco and coffee in the
17th century.13 At the same time, due to the redirection of rivers, irrigated
of the Ottoman Army Under Murad IV (1632–1639/1032–1049): Key to the

Understanding of the Relationship Between Center and Periphery in Seventeenth
Century Turkey (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1979), 130, on the 1639
campaign.
8
H. Inalcik, Rice Cultivation, 72.
9
Ö. Lütfi Barkan, Şehirlerin İnkişafı ve Teşekkülü Tarihi Bakımından Osmanlı
İmparatorluğunda İmâret Sitelerinin Kuruluş ve İşleyişi Tarzına Ait Araştırmalar,
İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23/1–2 (1962–63) 325, 335, 393.
10
M. Karagöz, 1193/1779 senesi rüsüm defteri’ne göre Bazarcık–Tatarpazarı’nda
pirinç üretimi, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 14/1 (2004) 277; B.
Masters, Cuisine. –Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, New York 2008, 165; O.
Зиројевић, Булгур – (не)заборављена намирница, Сирогојно 2002, 31–44.
11
T. T. Chang, Rice, 132–149.
12
The most often quoted work concerning the early introduction of rice into Rumelia
by the Ottomans is Tâc’ütTevârih work of Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, who was quoted
by Hammer and Babinger as well: Beiträge zur Frühgeschuchte der
Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien, München 1944, 48, note 51; J. Von Hammer–
Purgstall, Geschichte der Osmanichen Reiches, I, (reprint) Graz 1963, 167.
13
F. Tabak, The Waning of the Mediterranean, 262.
237
Dragana Amedoski
fields and new plants, a transformation of landscape took place. The first
rice field appeared in Thrace which was known as the “Istanbul’s
granary“. Plovdiv and Tatar Pazarcik were the centres.14
Following new conquering successes of the Ottomans, new territories
were annexed to the Empire and in the mid15th century rice fields started
to appear in the river valleys in the central Balkans (at that time the areas
of Kruševac, Skadar and Smederevo Sancaks). Some researchers believe
that during the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans çeltükcis were moving
together with akincis.15 Testimonies of some travel writers, such as
French travel writer Bertrandon de la Broquière who passed through Niš
in 1432, confirm that rice was cultivated even before the final Ottoman
conquest.16 A question arises as to whether there was rice culture in this
area prior to the Ottoman conquest?
Coming into the new territory, Ottoman beys and commanders
immediately identified and recorded favorable conditions for the cultivation
of rice. Besides climatic characteristics, human resources and arable land
that could be converted to rice fields were required.17 Ottoman authorities
had such a system that they would first select areas fulfilling the conditions
for growing this culture, and would then perform test productions. If the
results were positive, the production expanded. Sometimes the government
tried to plant, but the results were not as expected; they would withdraw
from production and state that the land would be used for something else.
For example, such was the case with the Lika village on the Prizrenska
Bistrica river that belongs to Prizren. It was mentioned that there were rice
fields previously and now those are mowing meadows.18
14
M. Karagöz, Filibe Kazası Rüsum Defterleri ve XVII. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısında,
Filibe–Tatarpazarı–Göbe’de Çeltik Ziraatı, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi 14/2 (2004) 364. It is well known that the Ottomans settled large groups of
Yuruks in rice growing areas in Rumeli: Filipe, Gömülcine, Karasu–Yenicesi and
Drama. (H. İnalcik, Rice Cultivation, 106).
15
Ц. Георгиева, Пространство и пространства на бьлгарите XV–XVII С.,
София 1999, 118.
16
B. de la Brokijer, Putopis. Putovanje preko mora, Beograd 2002, 106.
17
G. Boykov, Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on
Filibe, Tatar Pazarcik and Istanimarka (1472–1614), Master’s thesis, Bilkent
University, Ankara 2004, 19–20.
18
T. Катић, Опширни попис Призренског санџака из 1571. године, Београд 2010, 146.
238
The reshaping of existing fields and the extension of irrigation and

drainage canals were costly and demanded both skills and coordination
of efforts.19 Canals (nehri çeltük) were made in the fields close to
water20 since rice cultivation demands abundant water. The Balkan zone
is often called ‘subMediterranean’ due to its climate. The summer
months were warm enough for successful cultivation of crops sensitive
to cold such as rice, whereas winter temperatures were sufficiently warm
for the cultivation.21
The most fertile land in the central Balkans was used along the rivers
Nišava, Resava, Velika Morava, Južna Morava, Rasina, Lomnica,
Crnica, Toplica and some other smaller rivers. People working on rice
fields were citizens with a special status, the socalled çeltükcis. Re‘âyâ
which was once registered as çeltükcis could not change their status
which was hereditary – the aim was to secure rice production.22 This
status was strictly regulated by Ottoman law (Kânûni çeltükçiyân).23
Taking into consideration that rice is a laborintensive crop and its
cultivation implied hard work in unhealthy conditions, as well as
19
D. Smith, Western Mediterranean Europe: A historical geography of Italy, Spain
and southern France since the Neolithic, London 1979, 207–208.
20
F. Emecen, Çeltik, Diyanet Islam Ansiklopedisi (DIA), yıl: 1993, cilt: 8, 265.
21
W. D. Hütteroth, Ecology of the Ottoman lands, The Cambridge History of Turkey,
Volume 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, S. N. Faroqhi (ed.), Cambridge
2007, 25.
22
H. Inalcık, Rice Cultivation, 103; F. Emecen, Çeltik, 265.
23
Ö. L. Bârkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali
Esasları, İstanbul 1943, 54; H. İnalcık, Rice Cultivation, 1982, 84. (It was formulated
in kânûn–nâmes like this and the tasks of çeltükcis were as follows: “In the time of
the census, besides çeltükcis there was a sign”. Also, there is following information
that rice is a laborintensive crop. Firstly çeltükcis “together with kürekçis choose and
prepare a plot big enough to take water from the river”, and then soak with water the
spot where rice will be cultivated”, then “give their own seed”, and after that “when
certain seed is spent, it is looked after and monitored”. “When rice is completely ripe,
cultivated rice is harvested by kürekçis”, “after harvest let them take care of it” and
“let them, according to the custom, get paid as needed for their service”. Ö. L. Barkan,
Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki, 205). According to the Law for
Kruševac it was regulated that if there was rice or salt in the carriage, it is counted as
bulk and two akches were taken (D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni i zakonski propisi iz XV i
XVI veka za smederevsku, kruševačku i vidinsku oblast, Beograd 1974, 39).
239
Dragana Amedoski
constant care from sowing to obtaining the final product, peasants were
avoiding to work in the fields.24 As rice was a crop of great importance
for Ottoman authorities, the administration was encouraging peasants
by exempting them from the tax called ‘avârız.25 The once assigned
privileges were confirmed, in a new or modified form, by a new sultan
or after a new census, and registered into the defter.26
Rice cultivation in the central Balkans was basically identical to other
parts of the Empire. In dry or upland cultivation, rice is grown on
hillsides as a rainfed crop similar to other cereals. In wet or lowland
systems, it is grown on irrigated or flooded paddies.27
Çeltükcis were concentrated around rivers and their tributaries. The
basic work unit was a group of çeltükcis, headed by the principal (re’îs).
He was supposed to be a person with experience (çeltük‘ilminden habîr).
The principal acquired the seeds from the administration, took care of the
cultivation timeline and the rhythm on water canal filling, including the
timeline of supplying the administration treasury with the belonging part
of the harvest and other details.28 Special care was taken of what plots
would be cultivated by rice and experts were deciding on it.
Rice was not cultivated on the same plot every year. Plots were
determined prior to harvest. Sipâhî or za‘îm on whose land rice was
harvested was informed prior to the harvest in order to prevent
24
In some Ottoman lands, rice cultivation, laborintensive in character, was carried
out on a parttime basis by göçer evler, migratory populations who commuted
between their summer and winter pastures or by itinerant daylaborers (S. Faroqhi,
Tarsus and the tahrir, Journal of Ottoman Studies 13 (1993) 79).
25
These were benefits like those enjoyed by derbencis and members of other social
groups exempted from some taxes completely or partially, depending on the
significance of the performed duty. (М. Васић, Становништво крушевачког
санџака, Крушевац кроз векове, Зборник реферата са симпозијума одржаног од
4. до 9. октобра 1971. у Крушевцу, Крушевац 1972, 49–71). H. İnalcık,
Osmanlılarda Raiyyet Rüsumu, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Toplum ve Ekonomi,
İstanbul 1996, 49; The Law for Niš from 1498, 1516. and 1536. states: “Rice
cultivators enlisted in the defter do not pay ‘avârız.” (D. Bojanić, Turski zakoni, 14,
27, 45).
26
Н. Inalcık, Rice Cultivation, 103; H. İnalcık, Osmanlılarda Raiyyet Rüsumu, 49.
27
28
Н. Inalcık, Rice Cultivation, 107–108.
240
cultivation of anything else on the chosen plot. Subsequently re’îs would

take the seeds that had to be cultivated right on time and provide all
necessary arrangements.
The head of çeltükcis had his own notary (kâtib) and confidant (emîn).
They were educated persons. There was certain nomenclature of
vocations, such as workers for plot preparation, canal digging,
melioration, rice harvesting etc. The basic unit for an area with rice crops
was tohum (basic meaning: seed, grain). In this case, the term meant the
quantity of rice seed to be cultivated in a certain area, while in practice
it represented the sowing plot. The amount of tohum varied depending
on the place and time of sowing.29 Sources show that there were sowing
plots of 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5 seeds.30
The basic measure units used for rice were mud and kile. Their weight
varied depending on the part of the Empire they were used in; however
official rice mud was 20 rice kile, i.e. 256.56 kg.31
The distribution of income from rice fields was as follows: 1/10 of
the annual harvest was dedicated to rençbers32 who paid tax irgâdiyye,
for workers in the field. Two dozen went to the state which secured the
seed, 1/10 for niyâbet and kitâbet, from which deştebân (field keeper)
and other servants were paid. Of remaining 6/10, 1/10 went to the state
and the rest would be shared in two equal parts between the state and
çeltükcis.33 After harvest, rice had to be dehusked to remove the inedible
hull (lemma and palea). This was often carried out using a wooden
mortar and pestle. The resulting grains are usually eaten as white,
polished rice from which the bran has been removed.34 This could be
29
А. Стојановски, Раја со специјални задолженија во Македонија, Скопје 1990, 119–120.
30
В. Скарић, Стари закон о оризиштима, Гласник Земаљског музеја Босне и
Херцеговине 47 (1936) 38–39.
31
Ibidem. For measure values according to the period and area see: H. İnalcık,
Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Ekonomik ve Sosyal Tarihi. Cilt I 1300–1600, İstanbul
2000, 444; B. McGowan, Food and Supply and Taxation on the Middle Danube
(1568–1579), Archivum Ottomanicum I (1969) 165–166; Д. Бојанић, О српској
баштини и соћу у турским законима, Историјски часопис 20 (1973) 160.
32
Rençber is a person doing laborintensive jobs in agriculture, timber production, on
rice fields etc.
33
В. Скарић, Стари закон о оризиштима, 38–39.
34
241
Dragana Amedoski
done in the mill (dink) as well, and çeltükci had to pay a certain amount
for whitening rice in dink.
There was a rice field with two canals in the very vicinity of Niš, in
the year 1498. One was water supplied from Jelašnica and Banja, and the
other from Prva Kutina. Çeltükcis who belonged to Christian cemâ‘at
and who were engaged in these fields lived partly in Banja, and partly in
Prva Kutina and Jelašnica. Total 48 luknos of rice was cultivated (each
lukno per Edirne kile is 6 kiles). Rençbers were also allowed to sow. A
half was given to the bey and a half retained. Except for the seeds,
kürekçis gave 2/3 of the income to the bey and kept 1/3 for themselves.
Income from both rivers was 106 muds and 13 kiles.35 At this time, a bit
of rice was produced by cemâ‘at Tekeci, also in the very vicinity of Niš.36
In the period up to 1516 revenues from Nišava increased by
approximately 50%. Income from Nišava registered in 1516 (153 muds
and 5 kiles) testifies that at that time the production had already
stabilized and was improved.37 Çeltükcis from these fields were
inhabited in the nearby villages Donji Bubanj, Donja and Gornja
Međurova. They were all Christians.38
The village of Kurvin grad excelled in rice production at the time;
more precisely, in mezra‘a Crna bara that was the seeding point of this
town, together with the villages of Banja, Brzi Brod, Prva Kutina,
Jelašnica which belonged to Niš, 2 dinks were registered for white rice
(income for dink was 15 akches).39
In the same year, there were no registered kürekçis on the Resava
river, meaning that rice cultivation was not practiced. Cultivation of rice
started in the kazâ of Braničevo, on the Resava river, until 1530.40
35
М. Васић, О. Зиројевић, А. Стојановски, Попис Нишког кадилука из 1498. године,
Споменик САНУ 131 (1992) 101.
36
Ibidem, 100
37
BOA (İstanbul, Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Osmanlı Arşivi), TD (Defterhâne–i
Âmire Tahrîr Defteri) 1007, p. 430.
38
Ibidem, p. 539
39
Ibidem, p. 430, 46, 470–471.
40
MAD 506 numaralı Semendire Livâsı İcmâl Tahrîr Defteri (937/1530), Dizin
veTıpkıbasım, T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi
Daire Tıpkıbasım, T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi
Daire Başkanlığı, Yayın Nu: 104, Defter–i Hâkânî Dizisi: XIV (Ankara 2009), p. 31.
242
Rice fields belonged to the hâss of sultans, members of the sultan’s

family and high officials,41 and they were under direct control of the central
treasury. The administration governed rice fields by the mukâta‘ system.42
Lands devoted to rice cultivation were classified as mukâta‘, whose
revenues were usually collected by ‘âmils or emîns. They constituted a far
greater part of ricegrowing land than mulk and vaqf lands.43
Somewhat prior to 1528, the Ottoman Empire confiscated from the
Smederevo sancakbeyi rice fields on the Nišava river and annexed them
to the sultan’s hâss. At the same time, a larger group of Niš inhabitants
were engaged in cultivation of rice fields within the sultan’s hâss. So
was Haci, the son of Ilyas, engaged in field melioration, Ferhad son of
İshak was in charge of notary affairs, and Mustafa Çelebi was the head
confidant (seremîn). They were also highly educated and respectable
persons. Many çeltükcis are mentioned in Niš, among which there was
one macûnci. Ordinary kürekçis were also tailors, knitters and
manufacturers of külâhs.44
In 1530, of state seeds 12 muds were cultivated, of kürekçi’s seed 2
muds, and 10 kiles of re‘âyâ seeds. Of that, they harvested 168 mud of
pure rice (erzi sefîd or pirinç hâlis). Total income from these fields was
2,253 mud and 129 kiles of white rice. In the same year, 16 kürekçis
were registered in the village of Donji Bubanj and 12 kürekçis in the
village of Donja Međurova.45
Later testimonies such as the one by German Jakob von Betzek, a
member of the Austrian delegation, who passed through Niš in the second
half of the 16th century, also show that rice fields were very prosperous,
emphasizing the fertility of this area with many swamps and mud.46 A
41
F. Emecen, Çeltik, 265.
42
Ibidem, 265–266.
43
44
Д. Бојанић, Ниш до Великог рата 1683., Историја Ниша I, Од најстаријих
времена до ослобођења од Турака 1878. године, Ниш 1983, 163–164.
45
MAD 506 Numarali Semendire Livasi Icmal Tahrir Defteri (937/1530), p. 35. The
total revenue from these rice fields was 28.384 akches.
46
P. Matković, Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku XVI vieka–7. Putovanje Melchiora
Seydliza g. 1556–59. – 9. Itinerari carskoga kurira Jakova Betzeka g. 1564–1573, Rad JAZU
71 (1887), according to Т. Поповић, Ниш у делима путописаца XVI–XVII века, Историја
Ниша I, Од најстаријих времена до ослобођења од Турака1878. године, Ниш 1983, 183.
243
Dragana Amedoski
French anonymous source from a later period (year 1621) notes that on
the way out of Niš there was an entrance to a swamp meadow
surrounded by mountains where red rice was grown in exuberance.47
Besides Niš, rice was cultivated on the Resava river in the Smederevo
Sancak as well. Rice production on the Resava greatly improved by the
year 1536, as shown by the income and a higher number of inhabitants
working on rice fields (39 kürekçis).48 They were all Muslims.49 The
village of Čeltukči which belonged to Resava had 17 households, with
four of them bachelors. Total income was 1,957 akches.50
Soon after the establishment of the Sancak of Kruševac in 1455, the
Ottomans began introducing rice in this area as well, primarily in the
vicinity of Kruševac. This fertile area with many river flows seemed an
appropriate territory for growing this culture. Seed was handed over to
sancakbeyi, who collected income from mukâta‘ of Kruševac rice
fields. Authorities ordered the cultivation of 18 luknos of rice on one
field, but one lukno amounted to four Edirne kiles. Seed was handed
over to sancakbeyi, who collected income from mukâta‘ of the rice
fields in Kruševac.51 The almost insignificant income from these rice
fields testifies to the development of rice cultivation at the time.
In the following period the production was extended to the area of
Paraćin. In 1516, the same amount was sown around Kruševac and
Paraćin. Production in Kruševac was slightly higher than in Paraćin.52 In
47
Т. Поповић, Ниш у делима путописаца XVI–XVII века, 191.
48
A spelling error in the document – instead 39, number 38 was written.
49
BOA, TD 187, p. 88.
50
Ibidem, p. 88–89.
51
1 Ra 883 (2 June 1478) it was ordered that income from mukâta‘ of the rice fields
in Kruševac represented hâss of sancak–beyi. On one rice field 18 luknos of rice
were cultivated; seeds goes to sancak–beyi. Out of that: for Emperor’s treasury on
16. Safer 884 (May 9th 1479) from tahvîl of Mevlânâ Muhiyuddin, the kâdî of
Kruševac. Annual duty of the aforementioned fields was 1,103 akches (Z. Koçak,
Alacahisar vilayeti’ndeki mukataalar (1471–1479), Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar
Dergisi, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 45, Ağustos 2016, 272). However, Edirne’s measurement was
18 okkas when measuring grains, but it was less for rice and amounted to 9 okkas (1
okka=1,2828 kg). When we speak about rice, one Kruševac lukno was 36 okkas,
46.18 kg respectively (Д. Бојанић, Фрагменти опширног пописа видинског
санџака из 1478–81. године, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea) 2 (1973) 84).
52
BOA, TD 55, p. 4.
244
1516 the same amount was cultivated in the vicinity of Kruševac and
Paraćin; 6 muds of state rice, 2 muds of çeltükcis and 5 kiles of rice
belonging to re‘âyâ. Income in Kruševac was a bit higher than in Paraćin
(it amounted to 7,500 vs. 6,000 akches in Paraćin).53
Rice fields near Kruševac used water for irrigation from the Rasina
and Lomnica rivers in 1530.54 The Lomnica emerges from the many
streams and does not dry out. That is why it was suitable for growing
rice. However, the production on the Lomnica river was several times
lower than on the Rasina. Carved into the hills of Jastrebac, with the
streams wriggling through the woods, the river of Lomnica consists of
many streams that flow down the west steppes of Jastrebac. On the way
to the Rasina, where it confluences 6 km south of Kruševac, it flows
through the villages of Lomnica, Donji Stepoš, Ravnište and Buce. This
Rasina confluent is the richest in water, does not dry even in summer,
and was fully used for watering the surrounding plots and gardens. This
is why it was very good for rice cultivation.
Income from rice fields on the Rasina were 15,600.00 akches in 1530,
and from the fields in Lomnica 9,600.00 akches.55 Çeltükcis from Rasina
cultivated 60 muds of state seeds56 and 10 kiles of seed belonging to
re‘âyâ.57 Cultivation on the Lomnica was lesser – 4 muds of state rice
and 10 kiles of rice belonging to re‘âyâ, which gave approximately a ten
times higher income amounting to 9,600 akches (12 akches per kile).58
Until 1536, rice was introduced in the nâhiye of Petruš, Bovan,
Kruševac, Zagrlata.59 At that time, Paraćin and its surroundings stood
53
Ibidem, p. 4.
54
167 numaralı muhâsebe–i vilâyet– Rûm–ili defteri (937/1530), II, Vılçıtrın, Prizrin,
Alaca–hisâr ve Hersek Livâları, (Dizin ve Tıpkıbasım), Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri
Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayın Nu: 69, Defter–i Hâkânî
Dizisi: IX, Ankara 2004, p. 404.
55
167 numaralı muhâsebe–i vilâyet– Rûm–ili defteri, p. 404. The price of a scoop is
12 akches.
56
One mud (tur. müdd/mud) amounts to 20 kiles.
57
167 numaralı muhâsebe–i vilâyet– Rûm–ili defteri, p. 404.
58
Ibidem.
59
BOA, TD 179, p. 66. The Law on rice fields noted that when the uncleaned rice was
cleaned in dink, it gave the same amount of cleaned rice. (В. Скарић, Стари закон
о оризиштима, 47).
245
Dragana Amedoski
out with their yields, while Kruševac began to lag behind with
production.60 Total 51 kiles of state seed were cultivated in rice fields in
the vicinity of Paraćin, on the Paraćin river, i.e. most likely the Crnica
river flowing through the very city, or maybe the Grza river that was
also a nearby river.61 Total income of these rivers was 3,000 kiles of pure
rice.62 According to the defter of re’îs Kasim in the period up to 1570,
the production was extended to the Lešje and Velika Morava rivers.63 In
that period, the price of rice increased to 25 akches. Although rice field
appeared in some other parts, the production was almost the same,
amounting to 3,000 kiles.64
Until 1570 the “New Morava” became a rice river. There is no doubt
that it is the South Morava, as it was indicated that it belonged to the
kazâ of Leskovac.65 According to sources, the Toplica was also a rice
river, but was not enlisted in the defter from this period.66
Çeltükcis from this area had an obligation to maintain the irrigation
system, consisting of a dam (band) and canal (arg). This system, necessary
for continuous rice cultivation, provided for running water for the
irrigation of rice fields in certain time intervals. These dams, made mostly
of wood, were prone to damages, especially during the winter period. It
was necessary to find a solution for permanent maintenance, since re
building expenses were much higher.67 In order to survive spring and snow
meltdown, the maintenance service was usually performed in autumn, as
was the case with the dam and canals in Toplica.68
Privileges in the category of çeltükcis were reduced in the second half
of the 16th century and annulled in time, practically leading to the
situation where the status of privileged categories was that of re‘âyâ.
The example of the çeltükcis of Toplica shows that they got into a very
60
Total 8 kiles of state rice was sown and 550 kiles of rice produced. (BOA, TD 179,
p. 68, 69, 70, 72).
61
BOA, TD 179, p. 67–68.
62
Ibidem, p. 68.
63
BOA, TD 567, p. 24.
64
Ibidem, p. 24.
65
Ibidem, p. 24–25.
66
BOA, MMD (Mühimme Defterleri) 10, p. 50–51/72.
67
H. Inalcık, Rice Cultivation, 82–83.
68
BOA, MMD 10, p. 50–51/72.
246
disadvantageous position – they faced a very difficult position in the 16th

century. They had to cultivate rice, maintain irrigation systems and pay
taxes. This resulted in the relocation of one part of inhabitants, while
the other part tried to regain tax benefits. However, the Sublime Porte
took this issue into consideration but without the intention to solve it,
most likely because the situation in this economic branch was uncertain
and variable in terms of income from rice fields on the Toplica.69
On the other side, such uncertain and increasingly bad position led to
çeltükcis becoming careless in performing their duties. Such was the
case with çeltükcis on rice fields on the rivers in Paraćin. Namely, in
1573 the edict was issued to sell state rice every six months; as of the 25th
day of Ramadan, on shopping days ‘âmils of rice mukâta‘ should sell
rice. However, local çeltükcis neglected shopping days and did not hand
over rice to ‘âmils. Rice was not sold at the determined price and
remained unsold. The administration dismissed çeltükcis and the damage
that the state suffered due to unsold rice was compensated from
çeltükcis’ income.70
Some çeltükcis tried to use their status to secure impunity for crimes
and were sometimes supported by emîns in these attempts. For instance, on
30 January 1560, the bey of Kruševac wrote a letter to the Porte informing
them that kürekçis of his hâss and from villages of some tîmâr holders
registered as workers on the rivers which irrigate rice fields were offenders
to be punished with the death penalty, but were protected by emîns.
Therefore they kept fighting and severe offenders remained unpunished.
After receiving this hüküm, the Porte ordered investigation into the whole
matter in order to execute punishment under Sharia Law.71
69
Д. Амедоски, Узгајање пиринча на Топлици, Зборник радова „Други српско–
турски рат 1877/78. године, ослобођење Југоисточне Србије и Беле Паланке”,
Белопаланачки зборник 3 (Београд–Бела Паланка 2007) 142–145. The document
(BOA, MMD 10, p. 50–51/72) was written on 12 May and sent to the kâdî of
Prokuplje. Up to the 1570s çeltükcis and kürekçis of the Sancak of Kruševac were
Muslims only; a few of them were converts. A group of Christian kürekçis was
registered for the first time around 1570 in the kazâ of Leskovac.
70
BOA, KKd (Kâmil Kepeci Tasnifi Defteri), 0067, p. 570
71
E. Kovačević, Muhimme Defteri: Dokumenti o našim krajevima. Monumenta
Turcica, No. 4, Series III, Knjiga 1, Svezak 1, Sarajevo 1985, 31.
247
Dragana Amedoski
Up to the 1570s, çeltükcis and kürekçis of the Sancak of Kruševac

were Muslims among which there were some converts. A group of
Christian kürekçis was registered for the first time around 1570 in the
kazâ of Leskovac.72
The kazâ of Peć which belonged to the Sancak of Skadar with its rice
fields on the Pećka Bistrica river was another center for rice cultivation
in the central Balkans. However, production in this area was very
unstable, as evidenced by the constant problems that the Porte had with
leaseholders. Namely, fields on the rice river Pećka Bistrica were given
to lease on 8 August 1575 for the period of three years, to lessee Memi
Dede for 150,000 akches. Due to financial problems and inability to
realize the expected revenues, leaseholders were not able to fully meet
their obligations, and therefore mukâta‘ was empty for ten months. In
that period there were no parties interested in this mukâta‘. The
administration was forced to calculate and drastically lower the cost of
leasing, so as not to run mukâta‘ empty, as occasionally happened. After
certain time, Süleyman son of Ali, ‘azâp of the Lješ fortress, showed up
and took under lease this mukâta‘ for the period of three years as of
September 1578. Besides the unpaid 50,000 akches, the new lessee paid
another 100,000 akches.73 The daily payment of emîn of this mukâta‘ was
8 akches and of the registrar 4 akches.74 On 6 September 1578 it amounted
100,000 akches. A sudden leap in leasing of this mukâta‘ testifies that
period of mismanagement ended in 1581.75 On 4 September 1581 it
amounted to 162,500 akches. It was governed by certain Süleyman and
Oruç. In the subsequent period, from September 1584, this mukâta‘ was
taken under lease by the same persons at the same price.76
Rice started to be grown in 1572 in Banat, more precisely in some
places of the Eyâlet of Timisoara. Upon the request of the Timisoara
defterdâr, in April 1572, the Porte sent an order to the müfettiş of
Smederevo. According to this order he was supposed to send two experts
in the cultivation of rice with 600 kiles of seed to Timisoara to be sown
72
BOA, TD 567, p. 24–25.
73
BOA, MAD (Maliyeden Müdevver Defter) 5684, p. 18.
74
Ibidem, p. 19.
75
Ibidem, p. 24.
76
BOA, MAD 3073, p. 6.
248
on the selected plots.77 The construction of rice mills, as well as

complaints of çeltükcis testifies that the production of rice would be
established in the future and spread to other areas of Banat.78
Leases from the rice fields in the Sancaks of Kruševac and
Smederevo belonged to the nezâret of Belgrade, the financial institution
in charge of monitoring dealings of Emperor’s income in the following
sancaks: Smederevo, Kruševac, Zvornik and Srem. On the other hand,
leases of rice fields in the Sancak of Skadar belonged to nezâret in
charge of Peć and the Sancak of Prizren.79
Land lease usually lasted for three years (in the subsequent period
six years), and therefore lease agreements were concluded for that
period. The lessee with the best individual or joint offer could take one
or merge several leases.80 Such case was with leases of the rice fields in
Kruševac and Smederevo Sancaks which were merged. The most
important rice fields in the vicinity of Niš and Paraćin belonged to this
mukâta‘, and they were often joined to the income of the şemhâne of
Smederevo and the Kruševac Sancak. During the 1567–1569 period this
mukâta‘ had three lessees due to better offers every year. According to
the notes of Mevlânâ Bali, the kâdî of Belgrade, müfettiş, this mukâta‘
changed three lessees due to better bargains each year. In the first year,
the lease for mukâta‘ was 1,050,000 akches. In the following year the
lease increased to 1,060,000 akches and in the third year it amounted to
1,090,000 akches.81 In the forthcoming period (1573–1575) a threeyear
lease of this mukâta‘ increased to 1,999,410 akches. According to the
hüccet of Mevlânâ, two persons were in charge of the mentioned sancaks
by means of guarantee and jointly. Of this, 1,600,700 akches were
77
BOA, MMD 16, p. 207/399, p. 208/400 according to С. Катић, Кнежевачко Потисје
под турском влашћу, Историја Новог Кнежевца и околине, Нови Кнежевац
2003, 159.
78
BOA, MMD 22, p. 345/683, according to С. Катић, Кнежевачко Потисје под
турском влашћу, 159.
79
Besides aforementioned, clerks of nezâret were taking care of imperial income
from mines, mints, salt pans, customs etc.
80
С. Катић, Д. Амедоски, Закупи београдске и смедеревске скеле и карловачког хаса
седамдесетих и осамдесетих година 16. века, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea)
32 (2011) 206.
81
BOA, MAD 654, p. 232.
249
Dragana Amedoski
dedicated to the mukâta‘ Niš.82 In the following three years, i.e. 1576–
1578, income from these mukâta‘s was approximately the same
(1,961,000 akches),83 while for the period starting in 1584/85 income of
this mukâta‘ increased to 4,090,256 akches.84 Mustafa Haci Ahmed from
the mahalle of Haci Cafer in Prokuplje85 was responsible for this
mukâta‘ in 1584. According to ‘arz of Derviş Muhiyuddin, the kâdî of
Leskovac, lessee of this mukâta‘ through kefâlet was Mustafa son of
Hasan. The daily salary of the inhabitants engaged in this mukâta‘ was
83 akches.86
As for the prices of rice, they varied depending on supply and demand
in the market. At the end of the 15th century, the price of one kile in Niš
was 10 akches. In the first several decades of the 16th century, the price
of one kile of rice in Niš and Kruševac was 12 akches, while in Paraćin
it was necessary to pay 10 akches for one kile. Price fluctuation was
more or less the same until the mid 16th century when in the ’70s the
price significantly increased. This was due to the declining value of
akche and penury. Therefore, in the 1570s the price of a kile of rice was
25 akches, while in the surroundings of Leskovac the price reached as
much as 30 akches. Such trend in price fluctuation was noted in other
parts of the Ottoman Empire as well. 87
The issue of rice field endowment is of particular interest. This
tradition was recorded during the time of Sultan Orhan (1326–1362)
since çeltükcis and rice cultivation were mentioned in two villages he
endowed. The issue was noted in the defter made during the reign of
Mehmed II (1451–1481).88
82
Ibidem, p. 248.
83
Ibidem, p. 244.
84
BOA, MAD 312, p. 92.
85
Until the seventh decade of the 16th century this mahalle was called the mahalle of
mescid of Cafer son of Şirmerd. (Д. Амедоски, Градски објекти у Прокупљу у
16. веку, Просторно планирање у Југоисточној Европи (До Другог светског
рата), Београд 2011, 404–405).
86
BOA, MAD 1838, p. 110.
87
H. Dernschwam, Istanbul ve Anadoluya Seyahat Günlüğu (trc. Yasar Önen),
Ankara 1988, 336, 339.
88
N. Beldiceanu and I. Beldiceanu–Steinherr, Riziculture dans l’Empire ottoman
(XIVe–XVe siècle), Turcica IX/2–X (1978) 15.
250
Most of the mulk land assigned to rice growing was converted to vaqf
which secured greater safeguards for the founder and his heirs. Many of
these vaqfs were established as evlâdiyye vaqfs.89
The fact that rivers and canals for supply were included in vaqfs and
mulks could be related to Sharia legislation arising from desert
conditions in the Arabian peninsula where water and land were subjected
to ownership – hence exchanges, sale and vaqf. Those norms applied in
the Ottoman Empire, especially in the Middle East where dependant
citizens had to pay to the water provider, in case when some cultures
had to be meliorated. There were “vaqf rivers” in the Balkans which
were used as engine power for mills or for melioration of rice fields.90
We found such examples in the Sancak of Smederevo. One of them
is vaqf of Ali Bey son of Mihal Bey in Niš. In 1516, it was noted that this
vaqif ordered planting of two muds of rice seeds at its expense.91 In 1530,
income from the rice plants of this vaqf was doubled, amounting to
around 10,000 akches. Income from the rice fields, as well as other
income of vaqf was intended for its zâviye in Niš.92
Another example is the vaqf of late Süleyman Paşa, established in
Niš as well. Süleyman Paşa ordered planting of rice on mezra‘a Crna
Bara belonging to Niš. This land that was a forest once, was taken from
the sipâhî with the tâpû. He dedicated income from these rice fields,
amounting to 16,910 akches, to his mosque in Edirne.93
89
90
В. Мутафчиева, Аграрните отношения в Османската империя през XV–XVI
в., Османска социално–икономическа история, Избрани произведения,
Пловдив 2008, 152–153. According to: И. Найденов, Оризьт като земеделска
култура и хранителен продукт в бьлгарските земи през ранните столетия на
османското владичество (XV–XVII в.), Стандарти през среднновековието и
новото време, Сборник с материали от Пьрва и Втора научни крьгли маси,
Велико Трново 2012, 38.
91
BOA, TD 1007, p. 535.
92
MAD 506 Numarali Semendire Livasi Icmal Tahrir Defteri (937/1530), 39; С.
Катић, У. Урошевић, Вакуфи у сумарном попису Смедеревског санџака из 1530.
године, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea) 36 (2015) 52.
93
М. Васић, О. Зиројевић, А. Стојановски, Попис Нишког кадилука из 1498.
године, 16; Çeltük–i Niş tâbi‘–i Çrna Bara nâm mezra‘ada bir mikdâr hâlî ormânluğı
merhûm Süleymân Paşa sipâhîden tapu ile alub ormânın açdırub câmi‘ne vakf
eylemiş. Mezkûr değirmenler argından kendü harc ile çeltük ekilüp hisse–i mîrî ve
251
Dragana Amedoski
The establishment of rice mills (dink) within a vaqf was a common

practice; there were plenty of such examples throughout the central
Balkans.94 Within the mentioned vaqf of late Süleyman Paşa, rice mills
on the Nišava river operated all year long, in the villages of Vrežina,
Brzi Brod and Kurvin grad.95 Vaqf rice mills were all around the Sancak
of Kruševac, in Kruševac, Prokuplje, Dubočica and Petruš. One of them
was the endowment of Firuz Ağa and registered in 1530.96
***
Rice was cultivated in the Balkans in the subsequent period as well.

The onset of the Little Ice Age (roughly from the 1550s to the 1870s) and
the fluvial environment it generated brought about possibilities for the
cultivation of aquatic crops. Thus, rice and crops that were in need of
irrigation, like cotton, became popular.97 The organizational capabilities
of the Ottoman state previously mobilized to sustain rice culture were no
longer needed; rice became enough of a staple so as not to warrant
imperial supervision.98
Since rice culture involved the landscape of marshes and fens and
unhealthy humid air, cultivators had to live with the vicissitudes of such
environments such as malarial infestations.99 Malaria (sıtma) was the
reason why some villages vanished. The picturesque example of such
village is found in Thrace in the early 17th century. Due to malaria
öşr alınmaz diyü ormânın açdurduğı yerden gayrı yerde dahi ekilmez diyü yazılmış.
Hâliyâ vilâyet yazıldıkda hâricde dahi çeltük ekdikleri ma‘lûm olub ve tapu ile alınan
yerün vakfiyyeti bî–hasbi’ş–şeri‘ câiz olmaduğı sebebden defter–i cedîd ʻizz–i
huzûr–i saltanata ‘arz olındıkda ayrık yerde zirâ‘at iderlerse sâhib–i arza öşr virilmiş
emr olunmağin sept olındı (BOA, TD 1007, p. 535); С. Катић, У. Урошевић,
Вакуфи у сумарном попису Смедеревског санџака, 52.
94
State did not interfere in the income from rice fields that were in the possession of
vaqf, it completely belonged to vaqf. А. Стојановски, Раја со специјални
задолженија, 141.
95
BOA, TD 1007, p. 535.
96
167 numaralı muhâsebe–i vilâyet– Rûm–ili defteri, p. 415.
97
98
N. Beldiceanu and I. Beldiceanu–Steinherr, Riziculture, 9–28.
99
252
spreading all over the rice fields, the Muslim population of this village was
decimated. On the other hand, Christians who lived in nearby mountain
villages started to inhabit the meadow, taking over Muslim locations.100
The imperial authorities tried to control or limit the expansion of rice
planting. However, despite their attempts and despite mud and fever
during the whole year, some people did not respect the prohibition; they
cultivated rice wherever they could. Rice became an alternative to
traditional grains and managed to survive.
Conclusion
It is obvious that rice production in the central Balkans was intended

for local needs and the administration apparatus exclusively. The
quantities were small especially compared with areas where rice
cultivation was advanced and brought significant annual income (for
example the Plovdiv area).
In the second half of the 15th century the area of Niš excelled. At the
same time, 48 luknos of rice were cultivated on one of the rice fields in
the Niš vicinity, while 18 luknos were cultivated in the vicinity of
Kruševac. We could conclude that the Ottoman administration still
experimented with cultivation in the territory of the Kruševac sancak,
except for Kruševac, while the production in Niš was already ongoing.
In the early 16th century Paraćin excelled as the new center for the
production of rice, so in the late 16th century Niš and Paraćin remained
the production centres of this grain with highest investments from the
administration and highest income.
100
M. Kiel, Tatar Pazarcık, A Turkish Town in the Heart of Bulgaria, some brief
remarks on its demographic development 1485–1874, X. Türk Tarih Kongresi,
(Ankara 22–26 Eylül 1986), Ankara 1994, cild V, 2567–2581.
253
Dragana Amedoski
Dragana AMEDOSKİ
ORTA BALKANLAR’DA PİRİNÇ ÜRETİMİ

(15. VE 16. YÜZYIL)
Özet
Doğu mutfağının temel besin malzemelerinden olan Pirinç,

Osmanlıların günlük kullanımında da oldukça yaygındı. Rumeli’de
pirinç üretimi, Osmanlı Devleti’nin bölgeye hakim olmasıyla başlamış
ve zamanla giderek daha da yaygınlaşmıştı. Mevcut kaynaklar ve
araştırma eserleri Orta Balkanlar’daki pirinç üretiminin Osmanlı
hakimeyetiyle başladığını kanıtlamaktadır. Pirinç üretimi çoğunlukla
Büyük Morava, Güney Morava, Nişava, Topliçe, Rasina nehirlerinin
etrafındaki alanlarda yapılmaktaydı. Bertrandon de la Broquière ve
Jakob Betzek gibi seyyahlar eserlerinde bu nehirlerin etrafındaki
arazilerin pirinç tarımı için oldukça elverişli olduğuna vurgu
yapmaktadırlar.
Devlet, temel gıda maddesi olan pirincin üretim alanını genişletmeyi
oldukça önemsemiştir. Bu anlamda mevad durumundaki arazileri
şenlendirmek ve tarıma uygun hale getirmek için bu arazileri mülk arazi
konumuna dönüştürmüştür. Ayrıca vakıf arazilerinde de pirinç
yetiştirilmesini teşvik etmiştir. Osmanlı devleti bu tedbirleri alarak hem
pirinç üretim alanlarını arttırmış hem de bu tarım alanlarında mukâta‘a
sistemini uygulayarak merkezi hazineye gelir sağlamaya çalışmıştır.
Osmanlı Devleti, pirinç üretimi ile meşgul olan reayayı yaptıkları bu
hizmet karşılığında birtakım vergilerden muaf saymıştır. Pirinç üretimi
yapan reayaya çeltükçü denilmiş ve bu ayrıcalıklı statü babadan oğula
geçmiştir. Çeltükçülerin esas görevi pirinç yetiştirmekti. Ancak bazı
durumlarda, sulama kanalları ve bentlerinin bakım ve onarım işlerini de
yapmışlardır.
Orta Balkanlar’da yapılan pirinç üretimi sadece idarecilerin ve
yerlilerin ihtiyaçlarını karşılamaktaydı. Bu bölgede yetiştirilen pirinç
miktarı Plovdiv (Filibe) civarında yetiştirilen pirinç miktarıyla
karşılaştırıldığında oldukça azdı.
254
Bölgede yaşanmış olan Küçük buzul çağı ilk dönemlerde, başta pirinç
olmak üzere suya ihtiyaç duyan tarım ürünleri için avantajlı bir durum
oluşturmuş olsa da zamanla bu alanlar bataklığa dönüşmüş bu da sıtma
hastalığına neden olmuştur. Sıtma hastalığının yayılmasını engellemenin
yolu bu alanlarda tarımsal faaliyetleri yasaklamaktan geçiyordu.
Anahtar Kelimeler: pirinç, çeltükçü, Orta Balkanlar, 15. yüzyıl, 16.
yüzyıl, Alacahisar sancağı, Semendire sancağı, İşkodra sancağı.
255
Dragana Amedoski
Драгана АМЕДОСКИ
ПОЈАВА ПИРИНЧА НА ЦЕНТРАЛНОМ БАЛКАНУ

(15. И 16. ВЕК)
Резиме
Пиринач је као један од основних састојака левантинске кухиње

био у великој мери заступљен и у свакодневној исхрани Османлија.
Производња пиринча је следила пут ширења Османског царства.
На основу постојећих извора и литературе, можемо са сигурношћу
тврдити да се пиринач узгајао на територији централног Балкана.
Велика Морава, Јужна Морава, Нишава, Топлица, Расина некада
су биле пиринчане реке. И сведочења појединих путописаца, попут
Бертрандона Брокијера и Јакоба Бецека, такође говоре о томе да је
у овим областима много успевао пиринач.
Држава је настојала да контролише и прошири простор намењен
узгајању пиринча као значајне намирнице, па је охрабривала
појединце да оживе опустошену земљу која им је давана у
мулковни посед. Пиринач се производио и на вакуфској земљи.
Приходи са тих поља издавани су у закуп (mukâta‘a).
Султан је групама становништва ангажованим на пиринчаним пољима
за службу коју обављају у корист државе одобравао значајне пореске
привилегије. Они су имали статус челтукчија који је био наследан. Задатак
челтукчија био је да узгајају пиринач, а сходно потреби, одржавали су и
систем за наводњавање сачињен од бране и канала.
Ипак, производња пиринча на простору централног Балкана
била је исључиво за локалне потребе и административни апарат.
Произведене количине биле су мале, посебно ако се упореде са
количинама које су добијане на пример у области Пловдива.
Мало ледено доба које је уследило повољно је утицало на
културе које су захтевале доста воде, па и на пиринач. Међутим,
појава маларије у мочварним пределима какве је захтевао пиринач,
довела је у каснијем периоду до забране узгајања ове културе.
Кључне речи: пиринач, челтукчије, Балкан, 15. век, 16. век,
санџак Алаџа Хисар, Смедеревски санџак, Скадарски санџак.
256
UDC: 327(560:450.341)”1540/1646”
Güneş IŞIKSEL
MANAGING COHABITATION AND CONFLICT:

FRONTIER DIPLOMACY
IN THE DALMATIAN FRONTIER (1540–1646)
Abstract: The Ottoman frontier administration and diplomacy in the Dalmatian

borderlands is a neglected subject. This article aims at highlighting different cases of
frontier diplomacy between Ottoman and Venetian authorities in the early modern period.
The interests of local governors and the subjects under their administration coincided
rarely and recurrent attacks and impediments to trade had to be resolved locally. These
case studies demonstrate how the shared interests of the central administrations became
the object of dispute and negotiation for the Ottoman and Venetian frontier
administrators, whose priorities were often defined by local interest groups.
Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Venetian Republic, Beylerbeylicate of Bosnia,
frontiers, 16th century, 17th century.
Ottoman rulers were receptive to the idea of a frontier which was not
a constraint to expansion. A significant shift in this ideology happened
during the reign of Suleiman the Lawgiver (1520–1566), when the
Ottomans gradually came to redefine their political space in more rigid
territorial terms. This change was prompted by the reduced number of
feasible military expeditions available to the Ottomans, and by the
difficulty of operating in areas far away from each other, as well as from
the center. Instead of adventitious and tactically specious frontier marches
(uc), zones which showed a strategic awareness of the empire’s natural
defenses, communications and resources were developed. Interdependent
257
Güneş Işiksel
administrative structures created in the borderlands facilitated the

implementation of a coherent and expedient frontier policy.1
Considering how varied the Ottoman frontiers were, for reasons of
efficiency the sultans delegated a part of their sovereign powers to
frontier governorgenerals who had sufficient local knowledge and
expertise. These high dignitaries sent regular missions to their
counterparts, discussed, and negotiated frontier issues. In this setting,
the governorgeneral (beylerbey) of Buda was, for example, responsible
for relations with the Hapsburgs, while the governorgeneral of Erzurum
dealt with the Safavids. Similarly, the governors (sancakbey) of Kilia
and Akkerman were in regular contact with the Polish Commonwealth.2
In this article, I will focus on the OttomanVenetian frontier diplomacy
conducted by the governorgeneral of Bosnia, the provedditore of the
Venetian possessions in Dalmatia, and the Venetian bailo in Istanbul.3
These agents were the main mediators between local interest groups and
the central administrations. The study of disputes over demarcated
frontiers, double taxation, and trade, as well as of several instances of
cooperation across border, will reveal the nature of cohabitation between
Ottomans and Venetians before the outbreak of the long Candia War
(1646–1670) which transformed their pattern of interaction.4
1
Cf. G. Veinstein, La frontière ottomane en Europe jusqu’à la fin du XVIIe siècle,
Cours et travaux du Collège de France. Résumés 2004–2005, Paris, CID, 2006, 687–
702; M. Koller, Eine Gesellschaft im Wandel. Die osmanische Herrschaft in Ungarn
im 17. Jahrhundert (1606–1683), Stuttgart, Steiner, 2010.
2
G. Işıksel, La diplomatie ottomane sous le règne de Selîm II. Paramètres et
périmètres de l’Empire ottoman dans le troisième quart du XVIe siècle. Paris–
Louvain–Walpole, Peeters, 2016, 7–14.
3
For the bailo and his functions: E. Dursteler, The Bailo in Constantinople: Crisis and
Career in Venice’s Early Modern Diplomatic Corps, Mediterranean Historical
Review 16/2 (2001) 1–30. For the administration of Venetiаn Stato dal Mar see,
among others, B. Arbel, Venice’s Maritime Empire in the Early Modern Period, A
Companion to Venetian History, 1400–1797, ed. E. Dursteler, Leiden, Brill, 2013,
125–253.
4
Some of the documents related to Bosnian frontier diplomacy are published or
indexed. T. Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki Vesikalar Külliyatında Kanuni
Sultan Süleyman Devri Belgeleri, Belgeler I/2 (1964) and Idem, Venedik Devlet
Arşivindeki Türkçe Belgeler Kolleksiyonu ve Bizimle İlgili Diğer Belgeler, Belgeler
V–VIII/9–12 (1968–1971); M. PiaPedani Fabris, I Documenti turchi’ dell’Archivio
258
Managing Cohabitation and Conflict: Frontier Diplomacy in the Dalmatian Frontier (1540–1646)
Defining the territory beyond the fortresses
Starting from the reign of Mehmed II (1451–1481), the Ottomans

began to advance in Dalmatia, through the eastern Adriatic, and in
Albania at the expense of local kingdoms and of the Republic of Venice.5
While the local political entities, except the Republic of Ragusa, were
incorporated into the Ottoman dominions, Venetian possessions were
gradually limited to a thin belt alongside the Adriatic coast, leaving only
a few of their towns and fortresses commanding a rocky terrain with
many scattered islands and small ports.6 After the peace of 1479, some
di Stato di Venezia, Roma, Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, 1994 and Idem,
Inventory of the Lettere e scritture turchesche in the Venetian state archive, Leiden,
Brill, 2009; D. Desaive, Les documents en ottoman des fonds des archives du baile
à Constantinople, Turcica 33 (2001) 369–376 and S. Mumcu, Venedik Baylosu’nun
Defterleri\The Venetian Baylo’s Registers (1589–1684), Venezia, Edizioni Ca
Foscari, 2014. There are also some studies based on these documents: M. PiaPedani
Fabris, The Ottoman Empire and Gulf of Venice (15th–16th c.), CIÉPO XIV.
Sempozyumu bildirileri, (18–22 Eylül 2000 – Çesme), ed. T. Baykara, Ankara, TTK,
2004, 585–600; S. Faroqhi, The Venetian Presence in the Ottoman Empire, 1600–
1630, The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy, ed. H. İslamoğluİnan,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987, and Idem, Bosnian Merchants in the
Adriatic, Ottoman Bosnia: A History in Peril, eds. M. Koller and K. Karpat,
Maddison 2004, 225–239.
5
A remark is in order: The Croatian part of the Dalmatian frontier was already, in the
period covered by this study, a triplex confinium. However, negotiations and frontier
diplomacy with the Habsburg governors were not as intense as those between Venetian
and Bosnian administrators. This must not conceal, on the other hand, Vienna’s interest
in these negotiations as it is demonstrated by the recent detailed study of James D. Tracy.
For the conceptualization of this territory see the vol. edited by Drago Roksandić,
Microhistory of the Triplex Confinium. International Project Conference Papers 1
(Budapest, March 21–22, 1997), Budapest CEU Institute on Southeastern Europe, 1998.
James D. Tracy, Balkan Wars. Habsburg Croatia, Ottoman Bosnia and Venetian
Dalmatia, 1499–1617, Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Tracy’s insistence on
Ottoman local governors’ dependence on the decisions from the center and the absence
of local policy development requires attenuation.
6
T. Mayhew, Dalmatia between Ottoman and Venetian Rule: Contado di Zara, 1645–
1718, Roma, Viella, 2008; D. Madunić, Defensiones Dalmatiae: Governance and
Logistics of the Venetian Defensive System in Dalmatia During the War for Crete
(1645–1669), unpublished PhD thesis, Budapest 2012.
259
Güneş Işiksel
portions of the frontier with the Republic of Venice were demarcated in

Morea and partially in Bosnia.7 References in diplomatic correspondence
to the first attempts of delineation and its enforcement are, however, rare
and occasional.8
In the 1520s, the Bosnian frontier zone was disputed regularly. In
1523, Suleiman the Magnificent ordered the governor of Herzegovina to
stop attacks at the Venetian territories.9 In 1530, Husrev Beğ, the
governor of Bosnia was notified about the attacks of irregular forces,
i.e. azebs and martoloses, against the fields and pastures surrounding
Kolivrad.10 In 1531, the governor of Bosnia was ordered to conduct a
thorough investigation to punish the assailants who were attacking the
Venetian villages near the fortresses of Šibenik and Trogir. Husrev Beğ
replied with a long report on the conditions of the peasants who were
suffering from double taxation and by this manner, justified indirectly
his inability to stop the local klein krieg.11
In the conquered territories of Dalmatia, the Ottoman administration
gradually organized a military border system, defined later as Krajina.
Next step was the relatively forced settlement of the pastoralist or semi
pastoralist Vlachs, who were sometimes organized in corps (Eflakan
taifesi) by the sancak of Herzegovina, in the strategically important
outskirts of the Krajina.12 They cooperated with Ottoman frontier
7
M. Pia Pedani, Dalla frontiera al confine, Roma, Herder, 2002, 40–46.
8
ASVe, Documenti Turchi, 17–19, d. 10 July 1480 (Mehmed II’s demand from the
Doge for the stability in the frontier regions); loc. cit., 21–23, d. 30 April 1481
(Mehmed II’s confirmation of the frontiers); loc. cit., 35, d. 31 May 1487 (Bayezid
II’s demand for the stabilization of the frontiers in Morea); loc. cit., 131 a–c (Beyazid
II’s orders to the governors of Bosnia, Mostar and the Morean fortresses to respect
the frontiers), s.d.
9
Т. Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, art. cit. doc. 100.
10
Т. Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, art. cit. docs. 105, 111.
11
Т. Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki”, art. cit. doc. 110.
12
On this community see N. Beldiceanu, Sur les valaques des Balkans slaves a
l’epoque ottomane. (1450–1550), Revue des études islamiques 34 (1966) 83–132;
Idem, Les Valaques de Bosnie a la fin du XVe siecle et leurs institutions, Turcica 7
(1975) 122–134; C. Luca, The Vlachs/Morlaks in the hinterlands of Traù (Trogir)
and Sebenico. (Šibenik), towns of the Venetian Dalmatia, during the 16th century,
Miscellanea Historica et Archaeologica in Honorem Professoris Ionel Cândea, eds.
V. Sîrbu, C. Luca, Braila 2009, 311–322 and V. Kursar, Being an Ottoman Vlach:
260
soldiers during their incursions aimed at capturing cattle and abducting

slaves for ransom.
Before the OttomanVenetian war of 1537–1540, the Klis region
became one of the most disputed areas. Although its fortress was
captured by Ottoman frontier lords in 1536, their Venetian rivals did not
recognize its de facto new status. This ambiguity led Husrev Beğ to
initiate negotiations with the Venetian Senate to receive indemnities for
slaughtered Ottoman officials, and to liberate their wives and children
imprisoned in the fortress of Split.13 After the peace of 1540, Klis was
recognized as an Ottoman stronghold but nearby fortresses (among
others, Velin and Sinj) and mills were object of heated discussions. In
1546, a joint commission comprised of local experts was created to
delineate as much as possible the frontier near Klis.14
Both Ottomans and Venetians were investing in the defense of
territories. Venice’s primary interest was to secure the ports that
protected the Zadar channel which assured its contacts with the East.
Fortification works aimed at securing the frontier started during the
1550s in Dalmatia and Albania, and this process may be considered
another step of territorialisation. Most of the erected or reconstructed
forts were located at the edge of the ring defending the inner Balkan
lands, as well as also along the entire Ottoman dominions adjacent to the
Adriatic. The division of defense labor changed, however, according to
military considerations and threats.15 The Signoria paid handsome sums
for the rebuilding of the Zadar fortress.16 Venetian landlords and
Ottoman askeris living near the frontiers took a more active part in
defense with their private troops in return for various exemptions. Guard
On Vlach Identity (ies), Role and Status in Western Parts of the Ottoman Balkans
(15th–18th Centuries), OTAM 34 (2013) 115–161.
13
14
Т. Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, art. cit. doc. 8. See also, B. Hrabak,
Turske provale i osvajanja na području današnje severne Dalmacije [Irruptions et
conquêtes turques sur le territoire de l’actuelle Dalmatie septentrionale (jusqu’au
milieu du XVIe siècle)], Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku povijest 19 (1986) 69–100.
15
For the efforts in the Venetian side: W. Panciera, Building a Boundary: the First
VenetianOttoman Border in Dalmatia, 1573–1576, Radovi Zavoda za hrvatsku
povijest 45 (2013) 9–37.
16
J. D. Tracy, Balkan Wars, 206–208.
261
Güneş Işiksel
houses were formed primarily out of abandoned monasteries and minor

forts. Some of the border fortresses were organized into captaincies as
ocaklık.17
The first attempt to settle the frontiers and the populations near the
fortresses of Nadin, Vrana and Klis according to the peace of 1540, was
not easily finalized.18 In 1558, the sultan informed the doge of Venice
about a recent inquiry of Malkoç Beğ, the previous governor
(sancakbeğ) of Klis, concerning thirtythree villages and fields near
Šibenik which belonged to Venice. Apparently, Vlach “infidels” (Eflak
keferesi) had been paying their taxes to the Ottoman emins (tax farmer),
in an area where the majority of villages and fields had been deserted for
more than sixty years. Since it was confirmed that the mentioned lands
had belonged in the past to the population of Šibenik, the new governor
of Klis, Ferhad, was ordered to find an appropriate place to resettle the
Vlachs in Ottoman lands.19 One year later, Ferhad Beğ was to make a
similar operation for the villages bordering the Venetian Trogir fortress
and its dependencies.20 The procedures for resolving frontier disputes
between the two powers were being formalized, and an effective frontier
diplomacy was developing.
Following the war of Cyprus (1570–1573) which was also fought in
the Western Balkans, the frontiers in Dalmatia were finally demarcated
with a reasonable degree of success. The negotiations, procedure of
delineation, and preparation of attestations (sınırnâme) are discussed in
17
N. Moačanin, The Complex Origin of the Bosnian Ocaklık Timar, Halil İnalcık
Armağanı – I, Ankara 2009, 142–167.
18
19
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo a Costantinopoli, Busta 365–I, n. 5. W. Panciera, Tagliare
i confini: la linea di frontiera SoranzoFerhat in Dalmazia (1576), Studi storici
dedicati a Orazio Cancila, eds. A. Giuffrida, F. D’Avenia, D. Palermo, Palermo,
Mediterranea, 2011 237–272. Ferhad, a scion of the Sokolović family was an
important actor in the frontier diplomacy for more than three decades. Not being
complete, the biography of him narrates different administrative services that he
accomplished in the Imperial centre and the Bosnian frontier, as well as his
endowments (waqfs) in Istanbul and the Balkans.
20
Т. Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, art. cit. doc. 52. See as well, Luca, The
Vlachs/Morlaks in the hinterlands of Traù, art. cit.
262
detail by Walter Panceira21 and James D. Tracy22 (for the status of

Zemunik). However, border incidents were still frequent after the
agreements. For instance, in January 1579, the bailo complained to the
sultan that the dwellers of Zemunik, in the sancak of Klis, had removed
the boundary stones. The Porte ordered to the governor and kadı of Klis
to examine the case and, if the claims were true, to have the stones
placed again in their proper places in order to prevent the population
from transgressing the boundaries.23
The resettlement of Vlachs was a constant problem. Both Ottoman
and Venetian administrators had divergent views on their transhumant
mobility which created the conditions for double taxation. In April 1577,
the count of Trogir and the voivode of Podgorje had settled the case of
three Vlach notables from the Bristivizza village who were imprisoned
in Trogir for not paying the land tax after the intervention of the
governor of Clissa.24 Some four years later, peasants from the same
village allegedly displaced boundary stones in order not to pay the taxes
to their Venetian land lords. Moreover, they had obtained the approval
of the governor of Clissa in their action. This smallscale event was as
21
W. Panciera, Building a Boundary, art. cit. For the clear instructions to the Ottoman
border commission: ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 2, referred partially
by W. Panciera, Building a Boundary, note 67. In his order to the beys of Bosna and
of Klis as well as to the kadıs of Klis and Saray, Murad III exhorted them to meet
with the Venetian representatives, delimit the frontiers (sınır ta‘yin edüb), plant the
boundary signs (muhkem alametler vaz’ edüb), register the determined frontiers
(temessüklerin alub…hüccet edüb), give a copy to the Venetians (bir suretin anlara
verüb) and send a copy to the Porte. Copies of the final hüccet, referred by Panciera,
(“Building a Boundary”, p. 25 note 89) exist in ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–
I, n. 1, 3–4. The localities determining the frontiers are listed in detail in this hüccet.
The attestation was drawn up in Loncavik and authenticated by the kadı of Bosna
‘Osmân bin Mehmed. Cosignatories are: the mîrlivâ of Bosna, Ferhâd, the mîrlivâ
of Klis, Mustafa and the kadı of Iskradin.
22
J. D. Tracy, A Castle in Dalmatia: Zemunik in the VenetoOttoman peace
Negotiations of 1573–1574, retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital
Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/155720 and J. D. Tracy, Balkan Wars,
211–212.
23
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 1 bis. evâsıtı Zî’lka‘de 986 / 9–18
January 1579.
24
M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc.380 / O, P, N, Q, R.
263
Güneş Işiksel
well negotiated locally between the count of Trogir and Ottoman local
governors.25
In the 1580s, minor frontier incidents did not cease and the frontier
itself was sometimes contested and transgressed on both sides by
military officials and civilians alike. In February 1588, after receiving
complaints from the bailo, Murad III ordered the governorgeneral of
Bosnia, Ferhad Paşa to prevent the governor of Klis from building
fortified palankas near the Trogir fortress, thence a Venetian possession.
The Sultan required the demolition (hedm) of these new strongholds,
even if the construction work was finished.26 Upon receiving the order,
Ferhad Paşa went to inspect in situ, but affirmed that the fortresses were
built within the Ottoman territory, which he himself had fixed a decade
ago. Nevertheless, Murad III ordered to carry out a detailed inquiry
concerning the localities involved to be carried out by a çavuş, the
dragoman of the bailo, who were sent from Istanbul for this matter, and
by the Venetian delegates.27
In fact, both the bailo and the Ottoman governors in Bosnia were
reporting these minorscale events when they were unable to resolve
them locally. In 1590, the bailo complained to the sultan about the
assaults (akın) that the voyvodas of the governors, together with some
other minor officers and inhabitants of Bosnia, were directing at
Venetian territories, including the aforementioned Trogir fortress.
Following this complaint, the Porte gave an order to the governor
general of Bosnia to notify and warn governors, kadıs, voyvodas, and
other minor officers to put an end to both land and sea aggression.28
In 1591, the governorgeneral with the defterdâr of Bosnia informed
the Porte that the population of the sancaks of Klis and Krka, near the
Venetian frontiers, had complained that the Venetian governors of
Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Trogir were regularly transgressing the
25
M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc.380/A, B.
26
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 7, evâsıtı Rebî‘ I 996 / 10–19 February
1588. See as well M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 595.
27
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 8, evâhiri Cumada II 996 / 18–27. May
1588. An abbreviated copy in loc. cit, n. 9, s.d.
28
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 12, evâili Zî’lka‘de 998 / 1–10
September 1590.
264
agreements by taking hold of lands under Ottoman authority.29 The

petitioners lamented that, in case the Venetian encroachment continued,
they would be forced to leave their villages as many of their neighbors
had done recently.30 The representatives of the peasant populations were
requesting the demolition of the Vrhpolje fortress, which had been
restored and fortified by the Venetians after the demarcation. Moreover,
they were asking for the construction of two towers in the villages that
depended on the Zagorya nâhiye to safeguard the region.31 Upon this
remonstration, the sultan ordered the governorgeneral of Bosnia to send
a reliable man and to have him carry out a very careful inquiry with the
Venetian representatives, and to inform the Porte with a detailed report.32
However, some months later the bailo denounced the mobilization of
troops under the authority of the governorgeneral who were
constructing strongholds in the proximity of Vrhpolje, a Venetian
possession confirmed by the sınırnâme.33 The Porte ordered the
destruction of these towers near the Zagorya nâhiye.34 The governor
general, after being not able to convince the Imperial center about an
alliance between Venetians and Uskoks35, had to comply with the
definitive orders from Istanbul.36
29
For a report from the governor of Klis to the governor general of Bosnia Hasan
paşa on the poor living conditions in the frontier region of Zagoria and the necessity
to build a fortress so as to protect the peasants from Uskok and eventually Venetian
depredations, see M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 478, 479.
30
For a previous similar report dating from autumn 1588 see. M. PiaPedani,
Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 467.
31
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Mühimme Defteri LXVII, n. 295. See as well M. Pia
Pedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 456, 460.
32
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–1, n. 10. evâsıt Cumada II 999 / 6–15 April
1591 and Mühimme Defteri LXVII, n. 301. The bailo was notified accordingly:
Mühimme Defteri LXVII, n. 304.
33
For the bailo’s letter to the governorgeneral of Bosnia: M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the
Lettere e scritture, doc. 458. For the copy of the most recent sınırname of Trogir and its
surroundings prepared in 1576, M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 487.
34
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–1, n. 14, evâili Şa‘bân 999 / 25 May – 3 June 1591.
35
M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 463.
36
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–1, n. 13, s.d. Also see governorgeneral’s letter
to the doge (evaili Şevval 999\ 23 July – 1 August) confirming that he had given
orders to all of the frontier governors of Klis, Krka and Herzegovina who were
265
Güneş Işiksel
Complaints about the double taxation were a constant cause of

discord as well. The inhabitants of twelve villages in the sancak of Klis,
who lived near Trogir, complained to the Porte in 1618 that each year the
Venetian authorities were collecting taxes amounting to 150,650 aspers.
The central government decided to conduct an inquiry, involving both
Ottoman and Venetian local governors under the authority of Hasan Ağa
from Bosnia. Hasan, with the help of a local kadı, held a session in a
village near the fortress of Trogir in the presence of witnesses both from
Ottoman and Venetian sides. When questioned, Venetian local
governors declared that the lands were at their behest and the taxed
peasants were Venetian subjects. Moreover, they claimed that they had
been collecting these taxes since the year 1000 A.H. (1591–92) and
would continue to do so.37 They referred to the bailo as the final
authority for this matter and demanded that inquiry be followed up in
Istanbul. Hence, the problem was not resolved.
Two years later, following a petition from the population, the kadı of
Klis informed the Porte that the Venetians from Trogir and Omiş fortresses
had been, since the year 1000 A.H., attacking the neighboring villages of
the havâssı hümâyûn (lands belonging to the crown), pillaging and
burning property and seizing each year products worth over 3000 guruş.
The petition then renewed the accusation formulated two years before
about the doubletaxation amounting to 150,600 aspers. According to the
kadı, Venetians were previously ordered to put an end to such exactions
but they were continuing to levy the taxes. He requested, in the name of
the population of the villages, that the Venetians be prevented from taxing
them and that the sums already collected by the Venetians be recovered
from their ambassador in Istanbul.38 These few examples show that
harassing the surroundings of Vrhpolje so that they halt their attacks. M. PiaPedani,
Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 462. For the definitive exhortation to destroy
the recently installed towers from the sultan to the governorgeneral who seemingly
continued to negotiate with Istanbul for their conservation: M. PiaPedani, Inventory
of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 506. Evâsıt Muharram 1000 / 29 October – 7
November 1591.
37
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 375, n. 91. Hüccet dated as evâhir Muharrem 1027
/ 18–27 January 1618.
38
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 375, n. 91 bis. İlam dated as evâsıt Ramazân 1029
/ 10–19 August 1620.
266
frontier diplomacy was in effect active and based on documentation

approved by both sides. Fixed frontiers were facilitating not only the
administration of these zones, but also the occurrence and definition of
violence and abuse in the frontier regions.
Friendly interactions
Frontiers define, delineate in as much as they facilitate the

interactions. If for military and administrative officers frontiers were
lines to be preserved during peacetime, for the inhabitants of the region
these limits had a relatively small value as long as the act of crossing
them was not forbidden. Despite the gradual loss of its possessions in the
Balkans, the Venetian Republic kept an eye on diverse nations of the
Balkans not only for the sake of its ancient presence and for the
possibility of regaining them in case of a loss of Ottoman power, but
also for religious affinities. As one of the Venetian local governors
observed in 1588, “poor Christian populations of these regions, who are
subject of the Turks, aspire to Your Serenity’s administration in justice
and justness, since they cannot bear the tyrannical rule of this Barbarian
nation. They can not have any security for their goods, children and for
themselves because of her cupidity and injustice”.39 Another reason for
accentuated Venetian interest was the growing Habsburg involvement in
the region.40
Quite naturally, local merchants inhabiting Venetian cities went to
Ottoman markets. This was a situation not always welcomed by their
39
ASVe, Collegio Relazioni, busta 65, rel. V, fol 3r: According to Andrea Gabriel :
[l]e sperenza loro tutti quelli poveri popoli cristiani circonvicini, sudditi turcheschi,
che bramano il mansueto e giustissimo governo di Vostra Serenità, poiche non
possono sopportar la tirania di quella barbara natione per la cui avaritia e
inguistitia, non conoscono haver sicure le facoltà, li figlioli e le proprie persone.
40
During the war between Ottomans and Habsburgs both Viennese and Neapolitan
authorities asked for Venetian participation which was refused by the Senate. P.
Bartl, Der Westbalkan zwischen spanischer Monarchie und osmanischem Reich: zur
Türkenkriegsproblematik an der Wende vom 16. zum 17, Wiesbaden, Harassowitz,
1974; J. P. Niederkorn, Die europäischen Mächte und der „Lange Türkenkrieg”
Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1593–1606), Vienna, ÖAV, 1994, 256–385.
267
Güneş Işiksel
lords: “The cupidity of these merchants is to a degree that they do not

care for evident dangers by going to contaminated places or by importing
goods from there”41. There are other trivial reasons of passing the
frontier. Venetian subjects living near Split preferred to go to the mills
located in Ottoman territories and not in some distant mills in Venetian
Trogir42. It was these peasants who were able to buy cereals from the
Ottoman markets when, in 1605, the Dalmatian possessions of the
Republic were in outright starvation.43 Had this importation of victuals
with the permission of local Ottoman governors not existed, reported
one provedittore, the state of affairs in strained times would appear like
a formal siege.44 Although these extreme cases were rare, the inhabitants
of the Venetian possessions, in order to survive, had to rely on their
Ottoman neighbors, with whom they were often in conflict.
Venetian local governors reported constant visits of sudditi turcheschi,
i.e, Ottomans living in Balkan towns.45 Merchants of all kinds visited the
markets with their wax, leather, silk, cotton as well as other goods.46
However, the Venetian governors often had suspicions about these
merchants “since these men could in an opportune moment takeover the
port city”.47 Often, Venetian administrators planned to oblige the Ottoman
subjects to stay outside the city in hostels – sometimes referred to as
seraglio or fondaco in the documents, but as well as a ghetto48 – built
41
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 65, rel. 21, fol. 8v (1618): È tanta loro avidità che
non astendosi dal praticare incautamente nei luochi ammorbati et del managgiar et
ricevere robbe di sospetto.
42
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 72, rel n. 14, fol 4r (1611).
43
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 72, rel n. 12, fol 3r (1605).
44
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 65, rel n. 28, fol 1 r, (1635): Se Turchi levassero
la prattico ed impedissero le vettovaglie che dal loro paese vengono
somministratevalla città e territorio, proverebbe un’assedio formale.
45
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 65, rel n. 29, fol 6 r, (1637).
46
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 66, rel. 7, fol. 12v (1636): Mercanti d’ogni
conditione et qualità capitano in essa con cere, pelami, sede, lane et autre sorte de
merci.
47
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 65, rel n. 29, fol 6 r, (1637): Ne cade il pericolo
che con felice ardimento si potesse tentar la sorpresa della città istessa.
48
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 66, rel n. 4, fol 18 v: Crederi proprio il mirarsi a
dargli luoco appartato in che, come in ghetto, dovessero star uniti.
268
for them49 not only for the trade facilities but also for the security of
the towns.50
In some other cases, Venetians and Ottomans employed each other’s
subject for the cultivation of their lands,51 which often resulted in the
interjection of officials from both sides.52 These conflicts rarely prevented
the passing and circulation of people and goods. This interaction was
based not only on the mobility of the population settled in a continuous
landscape and on their complementary needs but also on the local forms
of production and exchange.53 Although suspected by governors, these
frequent movements across the border created on the one hand the idea of
a separation, but made possible, on the other, the conditions of coexistence
between Ottoman and Venetian local governors.
During his beylerbeylicate, Hasan Paşa constantly corresponded with
his homologues, especially the provveditore of Dalmatian coasts so as to
secure good neighborly relations. Gifts were regularly exchanged. Both
governors ransomed or liberated slaves. In the following years, with the
gradual appeasement of frontier conflicts – to which the Ottomans gave
an utmost importance especially during their Long War with Habsburgs
– trade topics and measures against Uskoks became the main object of
local diplomatic activity.54
49
For one of the first plans: ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 62, vol II, fol. 44r (1576):
[C]he saria molto bene che la facessi qualche luoco fuori della città dove si potesse
allogiar ogni sorte di Turco.
50
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 72 rel n. 9, fol 3v: “per commodità della mercantie
e per sicurtà della città”.
51
ASVe, Collegio relazioni, busta 71 rel n. 17 f.2r (1622).
52
ASVe, Collegio Relazioni, busta 72 rel n. 9, fol 3 r–v (1602).
53
For a classification of this flux, K. Pust, Le genti della città, delle isole e del
contado, le quale al tutto volevano partirsi. Migrations from the Venetian to the
Ottoman Territory and Conversions of Venetian Subjects to Islam in the Eastern
Adriatic in the Sixteenth Century, Povijesni Prilozi 40 (2011) 121–159.
54
M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 510, 531. Creation of the
trade port of Spalato (see infra note 65) in 1591 seems to have accelerated this
process.
269
Güneş Işiksel
Cooperating against Uskoks
Bands of Uskoks who were subsidized by the Habsburg

administration as auxiliary forces, regularly attacked ships flying the
Ottoman, and even Venetian, flag. Since their protectors, at least
initially, were not clearly defined, they were the reason for intense
dispute and diplomacy between Ottoman and Venetian frontier
administrators. Judging by only scarce evidence which may reveal the
common action of local governors of the frontier before the 1580s55, at
the turn of the 17th century, Uskok raids become a constant part of the
frontier diplomacy and cooperation.56
In 1589, Murad III ordered to the governor of Herzegovina and to
the kadıs of Gabela and Imoçka to construct a fortress in Makarska after
negotiating with local Venetian authorities.57 After a complaint from the
55
See the dispacci of Marc Antonio Barbaro to the Venetian Senate in 1569: ASVe,
Senato, Ambasciatori Costantinopoli., Dispacci, Filza 4, fol. 116 r. ASVe, I
Documenti turchi, n. 802 and 803. Uskok raids which were not controlled by Venetian
frontier authorities were among the official causes referred by Selim II and Sokollu
Mehmed Pasha in their letters to the Republic of Venice for the War of 1570–1573:
ASVe, I Documenti turchi, n. 807 and 809. cf. J. D. Tracy, Balkan Wars, pp. 213–215.
56
C. W. Bracewell, The Uskoks of Senj: Piracy, Banditry, and Holy War in the
SixteenthCentury Adriatic. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1992; İ. Bostan,
Adriyatik’te Korsanlık: Osmanlılar, Uskoklar, Venedikliler, 1575–1620, İstanbul,
Timaş, 2009. For their review: K. Beydilli, Uskoklar Hakkında İki Kitap, Osmanlı
Araştırmaları 35 (2010) 303–328.
57
However, the Venetians denounced afterwards that they were not informed: ASVe,
Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 16. ‘Arz of the bailo, s.d. Ottoman regional authorities
studied the project and they reported that the construction of a solid fortress would impede
Uskok attacks, assure the security of the region as well as the revenues of Treasury (mîrî)
and the town. They also informed the Porte that although some of the materials could be
procured from Herzegovina, the wages of the workers and the prices of some other
materials needed to be paid by the Treasury (mîrî) since it would not be possible to
impose forced labour (imece) for the construction. Moreover, the emîn Muhammed Ağa
accepted to increase the annual payment for his farm by forty thousand akça if the fortress
was constructed. The Porte ordered its construction with both forced and waged labor in
December 1589. It was to be financed with the revenues from the emîns (iskelei mezbûr
emînlerinden), who were to deduct the sums paid in advance from the future payments.
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 17, 22 Safer 998 / 31 December 1589.
270
bailo in 1590, the sultan informed the governorgeneral of Bosnia about

concerted actions between Uskok raiders and Ibrahim, the governor of
the nearby Behaj fortress. This was an inadmissible act both for the
Venetian authorities and the Ottoman central government. The governor
general had to assure, as soon possible, immediate cessation of their
activities.58 But according to the version of the Ottoman frontier
governors which was sent in reply to the sultan, the Uskoks acted, in
reality, with the Venetians. In 1591, the governorgeneral of Bosnia
informed the Porte that the governor, kadı, and the population of Klis
had complained about Venetians who transgressed the frontiers and
cooperated with the Uskoks, attacking and causing a great harm to the
region.59 Here, the problem was without doubt about identification. Who
was really an Uskok, and who was suspected to be one? In the early
modern world, frontier populations were complex societies: norms
concerning the identification of their members, as well as modalities of
association to the group were not universally defined and recognized.
This ambiguity was the source of constant friction between official
governors of adjacent regions split over the frontier zones.
Nevertheless, cooperation between Ottoman and Venetian frontier
governors often concerned less local threats than the Uskoks. In an
undated report to the Porte, Hüseyin Ağa confirmed that captain
Marcantoni liberated seven men from a group of nine which had been
taken prisoner by the Uskoks. The captain brought the former captives
to Split, and then handed over the seven men, together with some of
their pillaged goods, to the governor of Klis, Mustafa. The liberated men
also confirmed that the captain had treated them well, and had given
each one of them new clothes.60 In the same vein, the customs
administrator (nazır) of Narenta praised Venetian navies’ successful
measures to thwart Uskok raids after the peace of 1573.61 In his hüccet,
‘Ali ibn Şeyhî, the kadı of Klis declared that the merchants and the
58
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 250, reg. 330, 14r (dated Cumada I 998 [April 10,
1590, in Venetian translation]).
59
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 365–I, n. 11 (evâsıt Muharrem 1000 [between
October 29 and November 7, 1591]).
60
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 370–II, n. 1, s.d.
61
M. PiaPedani, Inventory of the Lettere e scritture, doc. 269.
271
Güneş Işiksel
population of Klis were very satisfied with the administration and the
services of Ivan Bembo, the Venetian provedittore of Dalmatia (Dalmaç
cenerali) and his representative, the knez of Split, Leonardo Bolaki.
Since the latter’s appointment, the region had become more and more
prosperous thanks to the safety Bembo provided to lands and population,
chasing away Uskoks and liberating zimmîs kidnapped by Uskoks.62
Another example is the attestation by Mustafa, the fortress commander
of Seddi Islam. In this act, Mustafa confirmed that Simon son of
Dobrovi, the governor of Šibenik, had liberated from an Uskok boat a
woman and a young girl from the village of Popova.63 Ottoman
commanders were reporting to the sultan similar endeavors of Venetian
frontier administrators. In March 1612, Mustafa from Makarska
informed the Porte that this town, situated on the shore facing the Hvar
island, had been suffering from Uskok attacks. About five months later,
the Venetians constructed a tower manned by ten soldiers on the island,
in order to protect the region; since that time the Uskoks were not seen
in the area.64
In 1590, upon the request of the population and officers of Gabela
and Imoşka, the kadı of Gabela informed the bailo in Istanbul about the
harm inflicted by the Uskoks over the course of several years to the
population living in villages around Gabela, and to the merchant boats
62
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 370–II, n. 19. For a similar attestation: T.
Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, doc. 172 (p. 99).
63
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 345, n. 9: evâhir Rebî‘ II 1003 / between 3 and 11
January, 1594. In 1612, Ahmed I was informing the governorgeneral of Bosnia
about the cooperation in which Venetian authorities were steadfast in their efforts
against the Uskoks and demanding his cooperation when asked from the Venetian
authorities: ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 250/ reg. 332, 28r, dated evâsıt Cumada
II 1021 (between August 9 and 18, 1612).
64
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 364, n. 32, evâhir Muharrem 1023 [between 3 and
12 March 1614]. Still, the cooperation was not always complete. In an undated ‘arz
addressed to the Porte, the Bailo complained that some Bosnian governors were
harassing him with undocumented claims of compensations for the damages caused
by the Uskok bandits, who were Austrian subjects. Although similar cases were
heard in the presence of the Grand Vizier, and despite the decision and the
corresponding orders sent, they were continuing to harass him as before. ASVe,
Archivio di Bailo, Busta 364, n. 62 s.d.
272
in the proximity of the Straits of Gabela. In one recent attack, the Uskoks
had completely pillaged the town of Gabela, killing many men and
taking numerous prisoners. The raiders were imposing taxes on the
population of the villages, both Ottoman and Venetian.65 These attacks
were one of the reasons for the creation of the scala of Split, as a detailed
official attestation (hüccet) received by a merchant named Ottavo
reveals. Ottavo in his declaration to the court of Klis denounced the
Uskok attacks and proposed that the perceptions of customs be
transferred from Gabela, the target of Uskok attacks, to Split. His
proposition was backed by the governor general and the defterdâr of
Bosnia as well as military officers (ağa, dizdâr), merchants and religious
men (hatîb, imâm, mu‘allim) from the region who served as witnesses
to his declaration.66
In another report, Bâli, silâhdârı dergâhı ‘âlî, a high officer of the
Sublime Porte, informed the sultan that some Moslems from Bosnia had
been attacked by the Uskoks when they were on their way from Venice
to Gabela. Their goods, as well as those belonging to several pious
foundations (evkâf rızkı), had been pillaged. Bali was sent to Venice in
order to make an inquiry. After the inquiry, he ascertained that the
Venetian ship captain had been completely innocent of complicity with
the pirates. According to Bali, the captain even fought the pirates, saved
some of the pillaged goods and restituted them back to their owners.67
Ottoman local officials were also writing to the Venetian provedittore
to ask for his help against other Ottoman officers. In a letter signed by
twentyone ağas from the vicinity of frontiers of the Zadar fortress, they
65
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 363, n. 4. For a detailed account in the hüccet form
about the Uskok attacks which took place in 1590 by the officers (kapudân, fârisân
ağası, ‘azabânı cedîd ağası, dizdâr, kethüdâ, topcubaşı, ‘alemdâr, ...) and the
population of the town of Gabela as well as the fortress of Sedd ülislâm, see: ASVe,
Archivio di Bailo, Busta Busta 373–II, n. 11 (evâil Cumada I 1000 [between 14 and
23 of February, 1592]).
66
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 364, n. 10. Date of the original hüccet: evâil Rabi‘
I 1001 (between 6 and 15 December, 1592). The copy kept in the archive is dated
evâsıt Receb 1019. For the creation of Split cf Renzo Paci, La ‘scala’ di Spalato e il
commercio veneziano nei Balcani fra cinque e seicento, Venezia, Deputazione di
storia patria per le Venezie, 1971.
67
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 364, n. 36, s.d.
273
Güneş Işiksel
announced that they had received the letter sent by the “ceneral,” and
were eager for a peaceful relationship. However, they remarked that, as
the “ceneral” was already aware, the troubles did not stop since the
arrival of a new commander, Halîl Ağa. According to them, the country
was ravaged, relations between the two states deteriorated and the
population was in revolt. Due to the numerous supporters of Halîl Ağa,
they were themselves unable to take measures against him. Therefore,
they were requesting that the “ceneral” and the Venetian notables (beys)
inform the Porte of all the trouble that Halîl Ağa was causing so that he
could be punished, and peace and order be reestablished in the country.68
Military cooperation against the Kingdom of Spain
The cooperation between Ottoman frontier officials and the Venetians

was recurrent during the wars between Spain and Venice. The military
officers of Klis and Lonçarik fortresses once informed the government
about the movements and activities of the Spanish fleet, the assembly of
their troops in Brindisi, about the state of their provisions, arms, and
guides received from their Ragusan allies, and about their schemes to get
hold of the province of Albania. The officers also stressed the loyalty and
cooperation of the Venetians in their efforts to thwart the Spanish
projects.69 Similar events were related by sixteen military officers of the
new and old fortresses of Novi in their report addressed to the Porte.
According to this report, these fortresses were on the frontiers, on the sea
shore, and 140 nautical miles from the Spanish territory. The Spanish
fleet had come to Dubrovnik’s port named Groj four times during that
year (1026/1617), with the intention of besieging Novi fortresses and
its vicinity. However, they were blocked by the Venetians, whose fleet
continued to assure the security of the region. More recently, a
commander of the Venetian fortress informed the Ottomans that an
68
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 345, n. 51, probably from 1035 A.H.
69
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 6, s.d. The signatories are all ağa: dizdârs
of lower and new (zîr, nova) Klis, and Lonçarik, kapudân of Klis, martolosânı evvel
and martolosânı sânî of Klis, martolosânı Lonçarik, fârisân of Lonçarik.
274
important Spanish fleet was expected to come again to Groj, only 30

nautical miles away from Novi. The allegedly duplicitous beys of Dubrovnik
were giving full assistance to the Spanish fleet, while sending to the Porte
false petitions and hüccets delivered by the bribed kadıs of Nova and Lubin,
in order to protest their innocence. Due to the dangers impending on the
provinces, the situation was reported to the Porte, and signatories asked that
an upright and trustworthy inspector be sent to examine the matters
concerning the corrupted kadıs and the beys of Dubrovnik.70
On the last day of March 1618, Nûrullah, the kadı of Saray, informed
the Porte about the declarations made by the guards (mustahfız, fârîs)
Mustafa bin Keyvân, ‘Osmân bin Mustafa, ‘Abdurrahmân bin Hasan,
Hüseyin bin Hasan and numerous other persons living in the frontier fortress
of Klis: the Spanish fleet appeared in their vicinity at the beginning of June
1617. The Spaniards were receiving help from their allies, Dubrovnik and
the Albanians, and they were planning to construct a fortress in the harbor
called Groj near Dubrovnik. This plan was for the time being thwarted by
the important Venetian fleet, which patrolled the sea.71
During the same months, some fifteen military officers from the
fortresses of Klis and Lonçarik informed the central administration
government of the arrival of the Spanish fleet for the first time since the
“August Conquest” (fethi hâkânîden berü), and of the help that they
received from their ally, the Republic of Dubrovnik, responsible for the
presence of the Spaniards in the region. This news was given to them by
some Moslems from Simontornya who were on the Spanish galleys and
who somehow managed to escape.72 The Spaniards had pillaged Split,
70
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 9, s.d. Signatories are Hasan, kethûdâi
topcuyâni Nova; Mustafa kethûdâi müstahfızânı cedîd Nova; Muharrem, ağai
limancıyânı Nova; Hasan re’isi ‘azabânı Nova; Memmişah, ağaı martolosânı
cedîd Nova; Mehmed dizdârı kalei zîr Nova; Mehmed dizdârı cedîd Nova;
Hüseyin kapudânı ‘atîk ve cedîd Nova; ‘Ali serbölüki ‘atîk Nova; Hasan ser bölük
i cedîd Nova; Hasan elkâtibi kalei Nova; Ismâil ser bölüki cedîd Nova; Hüseyin
kethüdâi topcuyâı cedîd Nova; ‘Ömer kethüdâi tersânei Nova; Hüseyin kethüdâ
i kalei zîr Nova and Mehmed kethûdâi müstahfızânı Novai ‘atîk.
71
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 20, 4 Rebî‘ II1027 [31 March 1618]. There is
a copy of this report in the same archives: ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 15.
72
On Simontornya, cf. G. Dávid, Some Aspects of 16th Century Depopulation in the Sanjaq
of Simontornya, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28 (1974) 63–74.
275
Güneş Işiksel
Klis, Lonçarik, and the neighboring towns, as well as the Venetian

fortresses of Trogir and Zadra. A total disaster for the entire region was
avoided thanks to the Venetians and their fleet. Had this help not existed,
both Frankish and Moslem dominions in Dalmatia would have been
seriously damaged by the Spanish fleet (eğer frenk diyârıdır ve memâlik
i islâmdır cümle gâret ve hasâret etmeleri mukarrer idi).73
During the time of these events, twelve military officials from the
castle of Nova denounced Dubrovnik’s help to the Spanish fleet and
complained about the damage it inflicted on the land and the population
in the region.74 In his report addressed to the Porte, Mustafa bin Ferhâd,
the adjunct kadı (nâ’ib) of Klis, reported that his witnesses, Mehmed
Ağa and Kurd Odabaşı, midranking officers of the janissary corps, from
Fülek and Seçen (Szécsény) fortresses in Hungary, had previously been
imprisoned by the Habsburgs. After having been sold many times, they
ended up in the Spanish galleys, from which they finally escaped at the
end of January 1619. One of the stunning pieces of information they gave
(...haber verdikleri ‘acâibâtdan biri...) is that all those deserting the
Venetian fleet, should do so with the inducement of the beys of Dubrovnik,
who should then send the deserters to serve in the Spanish fleet. The
treacherous activities (hıyanet) of Dubrovnik, according to the nâ’ib, was
awfully harmful both to the Ottomans and to the Venetians.75 In another
73
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 14, s.d.
74
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 16, s.d. But they refer to the beginning
of hostilities between Spanish and Venetian fleets near Groj on 9 November 1618.
See as well the petition by the population of Ülgün, signed by fourteen men, mostly
military officers, and addressed to the Porte: ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–
I, n. 4, s.d. According to this report, Spaniards, in concerted action with the help of
the Republic of Saint Blaise not only attacked the merchant boats returning from
Venice, killing and taking prisoner the men while pillaging their goods and
merchandise, but they were also inflicting important and ever increasing damages to
the provinces of the Sultan with their constantly reinforced fleet. A similar report was
signed by Rıdvân, ağai ‘azabân and Hacı ‘Osmân, dizdâr of the fortress of Risan
and addressed to the Porte. ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 10, s.d. Another
one was signed by ağa, kethüdâ, hatîb from the northern frontier towns of Vrana,
Zemunic, Nadin, Sedd ülislâm and Poleşnic: ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–
I, n. 13, s.d.
75
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 7, s.d.
276
report signed by ‘Abdülbâkî, the kadı of Imoçka, also addressed to the

Porte, similar events concerning Dubrovnik’s contributions to the
activities of the Spanish fleet were exposed.76
In 1625, during a territorial dispute between the Republic of Venice
and the allies of the Kingdom of Spain over Valtoline, the sultan and
the high dignitaries of the Sublime Porte exhorted the governors of the
OttomanoVenеtian frontier and even the Republic of Ragusa in order
to obtain their collaboration against the common enemy, i.e. the
Habsburgs. Since the Venetians had acted in a friendly way since times
immemorial (müddeti medideden berü dostluk üzere), the Ottoman
central administration, in conformity with the Capitulations (‘ahdname
mucebince) not only allowed the exportation of some primary material
(hububat ve zahire) and the mobilization of the volunteering reaya who
accepted to serve as mercenary force (ücret ile cenkçi) when Venetians
called for them, but constantly reiterated its encouragement.77 Similar
orders were sent, in 1630, to the governors and kadıs of the frontier zone
shared with Venice, who was in another territorial dispute with Spain.
The governorgeneral of Dalmatia and Albania, Alvise Zorzi, informed
the Senate that he had recruited, thanks to the authorization of the
Sublime Porte, 3000 fantassini and 350 cavalieri from the sancaks in
Dalmatia, despite the opposition of some local governors.78
76
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 387–I, n. 12, evâsıt Cumada I 1028 [26. IV – 5.V. 1619].
77
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 251/reg. 335. 4r. from Murad IV to the governor
general of Bosnia, Murtaza Paşa and to the kadis in Bosnia, evâ’il Cumada II 1034
(between February 9 and 18, 1625); 5r: from Kaimmakam Gürcü Mehmed Paşa to the
governorgeneral of Bosnia, s.d.; 12r: from Murad IV to the governor of İskenderiye,
evâ’il Cumada II 1035 (between January 29 and February 7, 1626); 14r: from Murad
IV to the governor of Delvine and qadis of Delvine, evâ’il of CA 1035 (between
January 29 and February 7, 1626); 17r: from Gürcü Mehmed Paşa to the governor of
Morea, s.d.; 26r: from Gürcü Mehmed Paşa to the governorgeneral of Buda, s.d.; 72r:
a circular order from Murad IV to all governors and qadis in Rumelia, evâsit Şa‘bân
1035 (between May 8 and 17, 1626); 73r: from Murad IV to the Republic of Ragusa,
evâsit Şa‘bân 1035 (between May 8 and 17, 1626). For a contemporary account of the
dispute: s.n., Histoire véritable de ce qui s’est passé en la Valtoline, par l’armée de Sa
Majesté, commandée par M. le marquis de Coeuvre; aussi le serment de fidélité fait à
Sa Majesté, au duc de Savoye, et à la république de Venise, Paris et Amsterdam, 1625.
78
ASVe, Collegio, Relazioni, busta 66, rel. n. 6, fol. 5v–6r.
277
Güneş Işiksel
While the modalities of mobilization and demobilization of Ottoman

mercenaries under Venetian authorities in the first half of the 17th century
are not clear – it is a largely ignored topic79– a complaint from the
voyvoda of Klis, Mehmed Ağa, and the fortress commander of Loncarik
Yusuf Ağa to the central government written in 1618 reveals that this
was not a troublefree operation. According to these frontier governors,
during that year the Venetians recruited, with the permission of the
governor of Klis Mustafa Bey, over 10000 waged (‘ulûfe ile) men to
serve on their boats during their conflict with the Austrians and the
Spaniards. Although the war was over, the Venetians were not only
refusing to let these men return to their homes, but were using them as
ransom slaves (esîr). When the Venetian fleet was in the vicinity of
Loncarik, seven or eight hundred of these Ottoman mercenaries tried to
escape but were recaptured by the Venetians near the fortress; thirty two
of them were killed and left there; the others were taken back to the boats
where they were tortured, killed, or chained to the galleys. Following
the demands of the plaintiffs, the court sent an investigator, Hamza
Efendi, to Loncarik to carry out an inquiry about this affair. The report
indeed identified thirty two corpses of nonidentified circumcised men
(sünnetli âdem), proving the validity of the declaration made in the
court.80 In a detailed letter addressed to the bailo, Süleyman, the qadi of
Klis, made similar accusations concerning the fate of these mercenaries
and exhorted him to punish the wrongdoers.81
79
For a similar case regarding Transylvania in the last quarter of the 16th century, cf.
P. Fodor, Making a Living on the Frontiers: Volunteers in the SixteenthCentury
Ottoman Army, Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe: The
Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest, eds. G. David and P. Fodor,
Leiden, Brill, 2000, 229–263.
80
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 364, n. 43 c, Evâhir Cumada II 1027 [between
June 15 and 23, 1618] . For a similar hüccet, prepared two years later: ASVe,
Archivio di Bailo, Busta 364, n. 43 d, evâsıt Ramazân 1029 [between August 10 and
19, 1620].
81
ASVe, Archivio di Bailo, Busta 363, n. 3, s.d.
278
Ways of managing cohabitation and conflict
These scattered examples covering more than a century shed some

new light on the modalities of complex cohabitation between the
Bosnian beylerbeylicate and adjacent Venetian territories. It involved
actors of different administrative and/or military capacity. Though those
actors who directly lived on the frontier zone had more chances to act
directly on frontier issues, they were also dependent on their regional
superiors in moments of crisis. For the Ottomans, the governorgeneral
of Bosnia was the middleground authority in resolving disputes of local
nature, and for Venetians it was either the provedditore or the bailo.
It is true that the representativeness of the cases described above is
uncertain. There must have been many cases of dispute which were
resolved at the microlevel without the interference of middleground
authorities. There must have been other cases in which the latter were
involved, but which were resolved without referring to the central
authorities, thus depriving us of direct documentary evidence. The cases
discussed in this paper were also selected from the extant documentation
in Ottoman Turkish (and less in Italian), which may represent a small
portion of negotiations taking place on the frontier, which were as well
conducted in local languages.
However, one may speak of a regulated cohabitation in the close or
remote hinterland of the Adriatic which was based on reciprocal if not
shared interests. The local population, in extreme cases, changed their
sides or created the conditions for foreign help, as in the case of Uskoks.
Other times, they complied with the orders of their landlords. Local
governors (of local origin or foreigners from other Ottoman or Venetian
lands) cooperated against mutually defined external threats. In cases of
famine or other types of natural disasters, they were dependent on the
neighbors’ relief. When they had to negotiate or resolve conflicts, they
based their claims on documented proofs as demarcation acts, tax
registers and other sorts of mutually recognized attestations. They
addressed to the opinions and testimonies of elders as well. Nevertheless,
there were many internal and external reasons for instability and
279
Güneş Işiksel
renewed mistrust such as difficulties in identifying the subject local

population, unresolved territorial and taxation issues and last but not
least, constant caution of intrusion from the “other side”. These elements
created the conditions of frontier diplomacy, and allowed for the
interference of the central authorities as arbiters. As to the central
authorities, they had the power to put into perspective the cases
presented by the local governors and sometimes by subject population
so as to use these cases against the rival power either to gain the upper
ground when peace prevailed or to use them as pretexts in order to justify
the antagonistic relations.
280
Güneş IŞIKSEL
YANYANA YAŞAMA VE ÇATIŞMANIN YÖNETIMI:

DALMAÇYANIN KIYILARINDA SINIR DIPLOMASISI
(1540–1646)
Özet
Bu yazı, Erken Çağcıl dönemde OsmanlıVenedik sınır ilişkilerini

Dalmaçya kıyısı civarındaki Osmanlı sınır bölgesi idaresi ve
diplomasisini nesnelleştirme denemesidir. Her ne kadar yerel
idarecilerin ve onların idare ettiklerinin talepleri birbiriyle, komşularının
ve uzaktaki merkezi idarelerin öncelikleri ile her zaman uyuşmuyor olsa
da, ele aldığımız örnekler, zaman içinde çeşitli ortak yaşam kurallarının
bu farklı eyleyiciler tarafından oluşturulduğunu gösteriyor.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı Devleti, Venedik Cumhuriyeti, Bosna
Beylerbeyliği, sınır diplomasisi, 16. Yüzyıl, 17. Yüzyıl
281
Güneş Işiksel
Guneš Išiksel
РУКОЂЕЊЕ СУЖИВОТОМ И СУКОБИМА:

ПОГРАНИЧНА ДИПЛОМАТИЈА НА ДАЛМАТИНСКОЈ
ГРАНИЦИ (1540–1646)
Резиме
Овај чланак настоји да објективизује османсковенецијанске

пограничне односе у раномодерном добу и османску пограничну
управу и дипломатију у залеђу Далмације. Упркос томе што се
захтеви локалних управника и њихов начин руковођења,
међусобно, нису увек преклапали са приоритетима њихових суседа
и удаљене централне власти, примери на које смо указали показују
да су ови различити актери, временом, успоставили разноврсна
правила заједничког живота.
Кључне речи: Османска држава, Република Венеција, Босански
беглербеглук, погранична дипломатија, 16. век, 17. век.
282
UDC: 355.087.2(560:497.6)”14/16”:340.13
Aşkın KOYUNCU
KAVÂNINI YENIÇERIYÂN AND THE

RECRUITMENT OF BOSNIAN MUSLIM BOYS
AS DEVSHIRME RECONSIDERED*
Abstract: Kavânini Yeniçeriyân (Janissary Law) is one of the most important

sources on the history of devshirme and the Janissary Corps. It was written originally
in 1606, but only several copies of it have remained today. In this study, I used seven
copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân preserved in Istanbul, St. Petersburg and Bratislava.
Although Muslims were exempted from devshirme in the classical period, Bosnian
Muslim boys, called Poturnakoğulları or mostly Poturoğulları in the Ottoman
documents, were exceptionally collected as acemioglan. Kavânini Yeniçeriyân has a
unique narrative about the reason for their recruitment and its starting time. According
to Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, only Muslim boys were recruited from Bosnia because the
Bosnian population embraced Islam massively upon the Ottoman conquest in 1463, but
requested from Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror that their children be collected as
devshirme. The Sultan then ordered Bosnian Muslim boys to be recruited as
acemioglan. This claim created a myth of a special privilege bestowed by the Ottomans
only on Bosnian Muslims. Some historians used the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân
to back up the Bogomil theory asserting that as the Bosnian Church was Bogomil,
Bosnians at once converted to Islam en masse. Besides, they claimed that Bosnian
Muslims gave their children voluntarily as devshirme. However, historical facts refute
the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân. First, both Muslim and nonMuslim boys were
collected as acemioglan in the sandjaks of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis. Second, the
tahrir defters show that the Islamization of Bosnia was not in fact an instantaneous, but
a gradual process. Moreover, Islamization was a common phenomenon among
*
This paper is mainly extracted from an article of the author on the Islamization of
Bosnia and the meaning of the terms of Potur and Potur sons in Ottoman
terminology, but this is a revised and extended version of the related parts with the
new findings. A. Koyuncu, Devşirme Tarihine Bir Derkenar: Bosna’nın İslamlaşması
ve Osmanlı Terminolojisinde Potur ve Potur Oğulları Terimlerinin Anlamı, Türk
Sosyal Tarihçiliğinde Bir “Yalnız” İsim Bahaeddin Yediyıldız’a Armağan, еd. Y.
Koç, S. Küçük, Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü, Ankara 2015, 213–259.
283
Aşkın Koyuncu
Catholic and Orthodox people too. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be such
an agreement between Mehmed II and the Bosnian people. However, the narrative of
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân is still popular among Turkish historians. I am going to compare
the passage about Bosnia in the copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and reconsider its
narrative in the light of other Ottoman sources. Finally, I will try to explain why the
Ottomans collected Bosnian Muslim boys as devshirme and when this started.
Keywords: Janissary Law, Bosnia, Islamization, Devshirme, Janissaries, Poturs.
Introduction
It is certain that one of the most important and contested institutions

in Ottoman history is the devshirme system or childlevy practice.
Although the Muslim reaya were exempted from devshirme in the
classical period, Bosnian Muslim boys, called Poturnakoğulları,
Poturoğulları (sons of Poturnak and Potur) or sünnetlioğlan (circumcised
sons) in the Ottoman sources, were exceptionally recruited into the
Janissary Corps as acemioglan (candidate janissaries). Kavânini
Yeniçeriyân (Janissary Law or Janissary Codex), which is one of the
basic sources on the history of the Janissary Corps, has a unique
narrative about the reason for recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys and
its starting time. In this paper, I will focus on the passage about Bosnia
in Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and examine whether the narrative of
recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys into the Janissary Corps is
compatible with the historical facts or not. Besides, I am going to show
the differences among the copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân on this issue.
Finally, I will try to explain why the Ottomans collected Bosnian
Muslim boys as devshirme.
Before criticizing the passage about Bosnia, I have to pay attention
that despite its name, Kavânini Yeniçeriyân is not a kanunnâme (law
book), but a risale (pamphlet), written as a kind of nasihatnâme (advice
book), as Pál Fodor pointed out.1 The anonymous author, who was also
1
P. Fodor, Bir Nasihatname Olarak Ḳavānīni Yeniçeriyan, Beşinci Milletlerarası
Türkoloji Kongresi, İstanbul, 23–28 Eylül 1985, Tebliğler, III. Türk Tarihi, Cilt 1,
İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul 1986, 217–224. See also
V. Kopčan, Mebdei Kanunı Yeniçeri Ocağı Tarihi (Istoriya proiskhozhdeniya
284
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and the Recruitment of Bosnian Muslim Boys as Devshirme Reconsidered
an old and experienced janissary, stated that he wrote this risale to

present it to the Sultan (Ahmed I). It was written in 1606, when Derviş
Mehmed Pasha was grandvizier (21 June – 9 December 1606). It is a
wellknown fact that the classical order of the Ottoman Empire had been
shaken as a result of administrative, military and financial crises in the
second half of the 16th century and the early 17th century. Long wars
with the Habsburg Empire and Safavids undermined the Ottoman
military and economic power. Besides, the innovations of the firearms
technology made infantry troops more important in battles and the sipahi
(cavalryman) forces lost in their importance. These developments gave
rise to an increase in the number of janissaries and ethnic Turks started
to be enrolled into the Janissary Corps under the names of ağaçırağı
(apprentice of aga) or kuloğlu (son of soldier, son of janissary). In other
words, the new circumstances forced Ottoman statesmen to change or
transform the classical institutions to the new order. It seems that the
corruption of the devshirme regime and the changes that occurred in the
order of the Janissary Corps irritated the anonymous author of Kavânin
i Yeniçeriyân. Thus, he might have intended to show to the Sultan the
laws, old rules, customs and bidats (novelties) of the Janissary Corps in
detail. Therefore, the date of writing of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân was not
accidental. The text clearly shows that the author’s main concern was the
infiltration of ethnic Turks into the Janissary Army. For this reason, it is
not incidental that the first novelty which the author advised to be given
up is to stop the recruitment of Turks into the Janissary Army.2 Although
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân certainly contains very important information
about the history and organization of the Janissary Corps and of
acemioglans, it does not say more than what the anonymous author
actually knew and heard or supposed about our topic.
zakonov yanicharskogo korpusa), Izdanie teksta, perevod s turetskogo, vvedenie,
kommentarii i ukazateli I. Ye. Petrosyan. Pamyatniki pismennosti Vostoka, LXXIX,
Nauka, Moscow 1987, 283 + 315 pp, Asian and African Studies, Slovak Academy
of Sciences 1/1 (1992) 103–105; N. Moačanin, Mass Islamization of Peasants in
Bosnia: Demystifications, Mélanges Prof. Machiel Kiel, ed. A. Temimi, Fondation
Temimi pour la Recherche Scientifique et l’Information, Zaghouan 1999, 354.
2
P. Fodor, op.cit., 217–219; V. Kopčan, op.cit., 103, 104; N. Moačanin, Mass
Islamization of Peasants in Bosnia, 354. See also A. Handžić, O Janičarskom
zakonu, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 46 (1996) 1997, 141–143.
285
Aşkın Koyuncu
I Reason for the recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys

as devshirme according to Kavânini Yeniçeriyân
and the critique of its narrative
The reason for the conscription of Bosnian Muslim boys as acemioglan

and its starting time is a very controversial issue among historians. In fact,
the information in literature on this question has been mostly based on
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and Şemdanizâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi’s (d.
1779) Müri’tTevârih, which apparently followed the former. The narrative
of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân is very important as it was used for a long time
to support the Bogomil theory claiming that as the Bosnian Church was
Bogomil and Bosnian people had a separate identity, they massively
converted to Islam after the conquest of Bosnia in 1463.
The original manuscript of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân has not survived.
However, there are several copies of it under different names. In this
study, I used seven copies of it preserved in the libraries in Istanbul,
Bratislava and Saint Petersburg:
1. Kavânini Zümrei Bektaşiyân, Topkapı Palace Museum Library in
Istanbul, Revan Section (est. 1642–1643)3 (hereafter Revan 1320)
2. Mebdei Kānûnı Yeniçerî Ocâğı Târihi, Russian Academy of
Sciences in Saint Petersburg (est. 1705).4 (hereafter St. Petersburg)
3
Kavânini Zümrei Bektaşiyân, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Revan
Kitaplığı, No. 1320. There is a list of janissary agas in this copy in which Bektaş
Ağa is the last recorded janissary aga (f. 105a). It is obvious that this copy was
reproduced during his serving time, i.e. between February 1642 and June 1643.
4
Mebdei Kānûnı Yeniçerî Ocâğı Târihi, The Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, the
Russian Academy of Sciences, No. A 249. This copy was translated into Russian,
with an introduction, commentaries and indices by I. E. Petrosyan. See Мебдеи
кануни йеничери оджагы тарихи (История происхождения законов
янычарского корпуса), Издание текста, перевод с турецкого, введение,
комментарии и указатели И. Е. Петросян, Ответственный редактор А. Н.
Кононов, Издательство “Наука”, Главная редакция восточной литературы,
Москва 1987. I used facsimiles in this book. Adem Handžić also used the St.
Petersburg copy. Op.cit., 141–150. The St. Petersburg copy was also translated into
modern Turkish by Orhan Sakin. See Yeniçeri Ocağı: Tarihi ve Yasaları, Doğu
Kütüphanesi, İstanbul 2011.
286
3. Kavânini Zümrei Bektaşiyân, Topkapı Palace Museum Library in

Istanbul, Revan Section (est. 17131715).5 (hereafter Revan 1319)
4. Yeniçeri Kanunnamesi, University Library in Bratislava, Bašagić
Collection of Islamic Manuscripts (H. 1137/17241725).6 (hereafter BC)
5. Yeniçeri Ocağı Kanun ve Kaideleri, Atatürk Library in Istanbul,
Belediye Yazmaları Section (Municipality Manuscripts Section)
(H.1210/17951796).7 (hereafter BY)
6. Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul, Esad
Efendi Collection.8 (hereafter EE)
7. Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Beyazıt State Library in Istanbul,
Veliyüddin Efendi Library Section.9 (hereafter VEL)
All copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân are almost identical in the
passage about Bosnia and they repeat the same story about the reason
and the starting time for the collection of Bosnian Muslim boys as
devshirme. However, Revan 1320 and St. Petersburg copies say a
different thing about the legal status of their collection from the others
5
Kavânini Zümrei Bektaşiyân, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Revan Kitaplığı,
No. 1319. There is a list of janissary agas at the end of this copy, in which the last
janissary aga is Kürt Hasan Ağa (f. 173a). Thus, the reproducing date of this copy
must be during his serving time, i.e. between September 1713 and October 1715.
6
Yeniçeri Kanunnamesi, Univerzitná knižnica v Bratislave, Bašagićova zbierka
islamských rukopisov (University Library in Bratislava, Bašagić collection of
Islamic Manuscripts), No. TE 47, Poradové číslo: 439. This is the copy of Safvet Beg
Bašagić and was first used by him. Safvet Beg BašagićRedžepašić, Kratka uputa u
prošlost Bosne i Hercegovine: od 1463 do 1850 godine, Vlastita naklada, Sarajevo
1900. For Turkish translation of this book, see Safvet Beg Başagiç (Recepaşiç)
(Mirza Safvet), Bosna Hersek Tarihi: 1463–1850, Tr. by S. Atalay, Kastaş Yayınevi,
İstanbul [2015].
7
Yeniçeri Ocağı Kanun ve Kaideleri, İ.B.B. Atatürk Kitaplığı, Belediye Yazmaları,
Demirbaş No. BEL_Yz_O.97. This copy was published with the title of Kavânini
Yeniçeriyânı Dergâhı Âli, A Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî
Tahlilleri, 9/I. Kitap, I. Ahmed Devri Kanunnâmeleri, 9/II. Kitap, II. Osman Devri
Kanunnâmeleri, FEY Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul 1996, 127–367.
8
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Esad Efendi Koleksiyonu, No.
2068.
9
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Beyazıt Devlet Kütüphanesi, Veliyüddin Efendi Kütüphanesi
Bölümü, No. 1973. This copy was published in modern Turkish by Tayfun Toroser.
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân: Yeniçeri Kanunları, Yay. Haz. T. Toroser, İş Bankası Kültür
Yayınları, İstanbul 2011.
287
Aşkın Koyuncu
and this nuance is very important to evaluate the recruitment question.

The passage on Bosnia in Kavânini Yeniçeriyân is as follows:10
“While it was prohibited to collect the boys except the sons of
infidels in the aforementioned imperial orders, all of the boys
collected in the land of Bosnia are Muslims and sons of Muslims,
while collecting them was ordered by the law11 / while there is no
law not to collect them.12 Besides, the majority of them are sent to
the Imperial Palace and Imperial Gardens. The reason for so much
reputation given to these people is that when His Excellency,
Sultan Mehmed Khan, the Conqueror of Constantinople, may
God’s blessing and mercy be upon him, turned his victorious army
to the Bosnian land, having learned about the power and might of
the noble Padishah, the Protector of the world, the whole people of
that land massively came in front of him, touched with their faces
his imperial stirrups, and at once converted to Islam. When His
Excellency, the Padishah, the Protector of the world, saw that these
people at once converted to Islam, he realized that they were not
evil people. Having seen that they were honored with the glory of
Islam, His Majesty, the Padishah, the Protector of the world, told
them, ‘Ask from me whatever you wish.’ Thereupon, they wanted
the boys of their land to be collected. He accepted their wish and
made the collecting of their boys a law. So, their boys are recruited
regardless of whether they are circumcised or not. There is no law
which requires examining them. But, they should be examined as
a precaution to avoid the outsiders mixing among them. In fact,
when the flocks of these people come, they must be firmly
examined to prevent the Turks to infiltrate within them by means
10
Revan 1320, f. 8b, 9a; St. Petersburg (Petrosyan), facsimiles 12b–13b, original f.
11b–12b; BC, f. 8a, 8b (pp. 15, 16); Revan 1319, f. 12a, 12b; BY, f. 7b, 8a; EE, f. 8a,
8b; VEL, f. 10b, 11a; A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri,
141; T. Toroser, op.cit., 16, 17; D. Bašić, The Roots of the Religious, Ethnic, and
National Identity of the BosnianHerzegovinan [sic.] Muslims, Ph.D. Dissertation,
UMI Number: 3356598, University of Washington 2009, 269, 307.
11
cemʻ olunmak kanun olduğundan: Revan 1319, f. 12a; BC, f. 8a, 8b (pp. 15,16); BY,
f. 7b; EE, f. 8a; VEL, f. 10b.
12
cemʻ olunmamak kanun değil iken: Revan 1320, f. 8b; St. Petersburg (Petrosyan),
facsimiles 12b, 13a, original f. 11b, 12a.
288
of bribery. The çorbaci to be sent to the land of Bosnia must be more

honest from all devshirme officers. As these people are Muslim, it is
easier for outsiders to mix among them. Most of the collected boys
from that people up to now, whether they were sent to the Palace or
Garden or other places, were bright, so they acquired high positions
and became learned. Therefore, they are sent to the Imperial Palace
or the Garden and they are not given to the Turks.”
Şemdanizâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi in his Müri’tTevârih

recounted a similar story of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân:
“When Bosnia was conquered, all of the people at once converted
to Islam, but requested from the Padishah that their boys be collected
as devshirme. Namely, one thousand boys among the sons of
dhimmi (zimmi) reayas were levied every year. After being
circumcised, they were trained as acemioglan. Afterwards, the more
handsome of them were sent to Enderunu Hümayun (the Imperial
School) and more powerful ones were enrolled as Bostancı
(Gardener), while the others were written down as Janissary troops
and lived in the Janissary barracks. Muslim boys were not collected
(as devshirme). Even the sons of dhimmis born circumcised were
not levied as being suspicious. Muslim boys were not accepted due
to the fact that they knew gaining and profit, that they might escape
to their parents in the time of trouble and that they could not endure
hardships. But, the sons of reaya could not run away from the battle;
if they fled, they would be punished and they could not have escaped
from the punishment. So the law was made. After Bosnians become
Muslim, their boys could not have been collected (anymore).
Therefore, they requested their sons to be taken, and so the Padishah
permitted Bosnian Muslim boys to be collected as devshirme.” 13
According to these two sources, Bosnian people embraced Islam en

masse after the conquest in 1463. In addition, they voluntarily requested
13
Şemdanizâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi, Müri’tTevârih, Vol. I, Maarif Nezareti,
İstanbul 1338, p. 454; A. Refik, Devşirme Usûlü, Acemi Oğlanlar, Dârülfünûn
Edebiyat Fakültesi Mecmuası 5/1–2 (1926) 1, 2.
289
Aşkın Koyuncu
from the Padishah to have their children taken as devshirme and Sultan
Mehmed the Conqueror made it a law or permitted Bosnian Muslim
boys to be recruited as devshirme. Therefore, the collecting of Bosnian
Muslim boys or Poturoğulları as acemioglan started after the conquest.
In other words, Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and Müri’tTevârih claim that
the recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys resulted at once and massively
from Islamization of the Bosnians and it was a reward or privilege given
by the Sultan himself. However, we should keep in mind that both of the
sources belong to quite later periods and their stories did not correspond
to the historical facts. First, I am going to evaluate who actually was
collected from Bosnia and then examine the reason for the socalled
privilege, i.e. Islamization question.
In the five copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân (Revan 1319, BC, BY,
EE and VEL), we read that “While it was prohibited to collect the boys
except the sons of infidels in the aforementioned imperial orders, all of
the boys collected in the land of Bosnia are Muslims and sons of
Muslims, while the collection of them was ordered by the law. Besides,
the majority of them are sent to the Imperial Palace and Imperial
Gardens...”14 On the other hand, Revan 1320 and St. Petersburg copies
say that “While it was prohibited to collect the boys except the sons of
infidels in the aforementioned imperial orders, all of the boys collected
in the land of Bosnia are Muslims and sons of Muslims, while there is no
law not to collect them. Besides, the majority of them are sent to the
Imperial Palace and Imperial Gardens...”15 So, all copies of Kavânini
14
“Yukarıda oğlan cemʻi içün virilen emri şerife evâmiri şerif(e)de kâfir evlâdından
gayrisin cemʻ eylemeği nehy eylemişken Bosna diyarından cemʻ olunan oğlanların
cümlesi Müslüman oğlu Müslüman iken, cemʻ olunmak kanun olduğundan mâʻadâ
anların ekseri(ni)/ekserinden Sarayı Âmire’ye ve Has Bağçe’ye virdiklerine…”
Revan 1319, f. 12a; BC, f. 8a, 8b; BY, f. 7b; VEL, f. 10b; EE, f. 8a.
15
“Yukarıda oğlan cemʻi içün virilan emri şerifde kâfir evlâdından gayrisin cemʻ
eylemeği nehy eylemişken Bosna diyarında cemʻ olunan oğlanların cümlesin
Müslüman oğlu Müslüman iken ve cemʻ olunmamak kanun değil iken andan mâʻadâ
anların ekserini Sarayı Âmire’ye ve Has Bağçe’ye virdiklerine…” Revan 1320, f.
8b; St. Petersburg (Petrosyan), facsimiles 12b, 13a. Orhan Sakin, who could not grasp
the importance of the introduction sentence, completely omitted some statements:
“Devşirme için verilen emri şerifte kâfir oğlanlarından başkasını toplamak
yasaklanmışken, Bosna diyarından toplanan oğlanların tamamını müslüman çocukları
290
Yeniçeriyân claim that only Muslim boys were collected from Bosnia as
acemioglan. But, the legal status of their collection is not clear.
According to the five copies (Revan 1319, BC, BY, EE and VEL), it
was ordered literally by the law that sons of Muslims be collected,
whereas Revan 1320 and St. Petersburg copies state that “There is no
legal obstacle to collect them” or “The law does not prevent to collect
them.”16 On the other hand, the ambiguous legal status and differences
among the copies were detected by a meticulous reader of the Revan
1319 copy or more presumably by another müstensih (copyist) who was
obviously aware of the other copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân.17 Namely,
oluştururur.(13a) Bunların çoğunluğu da ya saraya, ya da Hasbahçe’ye verilir.” O.

Sakin, op.cit., 171.
16
Nenad Moačanin blames Bosnian historians Safvet Beg Bašagić and Adem Handžić to
have distorted or misinterpreted the text of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân with the intention to give
more historical support to their national goals. See N. Moačanin, Mass Islamization of
Peasants in Bosnia, 354; Idem, Osmanlı Bosnası, Tr. by. Osman Sinkaya, Türkler, Vol.
10, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara 2002, 400; Idem, Defterology and Mythology:
Ottoman Bosnia up to the Tanzîmât, International Journal of Turkish Studies 10/1–2 (2004)
190. According to him, while the original text says only that there be no law which prevents
the practise of devshirme in Bosnia, both authors translated it as if it was saying that it was
ordered by the law that only sons of Muslims be taken. I have to remind that while Safvet
Beg Bašagić used his own copy (i.e. BC) dated H. 1137 (1724–1725), Adem Handžić
used the St. Petersburg copy (est. 1705). In my opinion, Safvet Beg Bašagić stated exactly
what his own copy says or means. Cf. Safvet Beg BašagićRedžepašić, Kratka uputa u
prošlost Bosne i Hercegovine: od 1463 do 1850 godine, 19; Safvet Beg Başagiç, Bosna
Hersek Tarihi, 47. But, it seems that Adem Handžić poorly translated or intentionally
misinterpreted the introduction of the passage. Here is Handžić’s translation: “U to
vrijeme, kako je sultanskim ukazom o kupljenju gore navedenih dječaka (oglan) bilo
zabranjeno uzimati kakve bilo dječake, (kao) dječake nevjernika, nego je naređeno da se
dječaci uzimaju iz Bosne od samih muslimanskih porodica. Nije samo naređeno da se
dječaci kupe nego je, štaviše, većina njih (iz Bosne) upućivana u sultanski dvor ili u
dvorske bašče.” (At that time, as the Sultan’s decree about collecting of the above
mentioned boys (oglan) prohibited the collection of any boys, (as) infidel boys, it was
rather ordered that the boys should be taken from Bosnia, only from Muslim families. It
was not only ordered for the boys to be collected, but, furthermore, the majority of them
(from Bosnia) were sent to the court of the Sultan or to the palace gardens.) A. Handžić,
op. cit., 148. I am grateful to Fahd Kasumović, Emir O. Filipović and Amir Duranović for
their precious contribution and translation of Handžić’s text into English.
17
Besides, there are numerous corrections and supplements as marginal notes in the
copy of Revan 1319.
291
Aşkın Koyuncu
he marked the words “olunmak” and “olduğundan” in the statement,

i.e.“cemʻ olunmak kanun olduğundan (collection of them was ordered by
the law)”, and instead of them added “olunmamak” and “değil iken”
phrases into the text as derkenar (marginal note) and then he wrote
“sahh” (i.e. correct, true). So, he pointed out that the statement should
be read as “cemʻ olunmamak kanun değil iken (there is no law not to
collect them)”, just like in Revan 1320 and St. Petersburg copies (see
appendix 2). Indeed, whether the anonymous author knew the legal
status or not is uncertain. It is obvious that the assertion of Kavânini
Yeniçeriyân about those who were collected from Bosnia is not
compatible with the historical truths. The records in Mühimme Defters
and other examples definitely refute its claims. For instance, an Esame
Defteri (name book) (est. d. 1565) shows that 60 boys were levied from
Yenipazar (Novipazar) kaza and 45 of them were Muslim sons and the
others were Christian sons.18 In addition, it can be seen from another
Esame Defteri dated 5 Rebiülevvel 973 (30 September 1565) that out
of 12 boys collected as acemioglan from the Bosnian sandjak, ten boys
were sons of Muslims and two of them were sons of nonMuslims.19
Besides, according to an Eşkal Defteri (register of levied children) of
1603–4, of the groups sent from Bosnia, 410 boys were Muslims, and 82
of them were Christians.20 Furthermore, there are numerous examples in
Mühimme Defters about the recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys as
well as kefere evladı (sons of infidels). For example, it was ordered to
the kadis in the sandjaks of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis in 1565,21
18
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (Hereafter BOA), Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi
Defterleri (Hereafter TSMA.d.), No. 9451, pp. 1–4. This defter was first used by
Rıfkı Melûl Meriç in his Birkaç Mühim Arşiv Vesikası, İstanbul Enstitüsü Dergisi,
No. III, 1957, 35–40. Although Meriç estimated that this defter was written before
H. 940 (1533), the defter was sealed by Müezzinzade (Miralem) Ali Ağa who served
as the Janissary Aga between H. 973–975 (1565–1567).
19
BOA, TSMA.d. No. 10177, pp. 1, 2.
20
G. Yılmaz, The Economic and Social Roles of Janissaries in a 17th Century
Ottoman City: The Case of Istanbul, McGill University, Institute of Islamic Studies,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Montreal 2011, 46; Eadem, Son Kalan Eşkal Defterlerine Göre
Devşirmeliğin Bilinmeyenleri, Atlas Tarih, Nisan 2014, 39.
21
BOA, Mühimme Defteri. (Hereafter A.DVNS.MHM.d.), No. 5, Order 220, p. 96,
13 Safer 973 (9 September 1565). This document was first used by Ahmed Refik in his
292
1573,22 157823 and 160924 and to the Beylerbey of Bosnia in 158925 and
159526 not to oppose the collection of the Muslim boys apart from kefere
oglans (sons of infidels). In these documents, Bosnian Muslim boys
were called Potur sons, circumcised sons (sünnetlioğlan) and boys of
the Muslim reaya. It can be seen from Mühimme Defters that the Sultans
warned the kadis in the sandjaks of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis to be
careful while collecting boys and to recruit only native Potur sons as
acemioglan, whether they were circumcised or not. Besides, Sultan
Murad III ordered to the Beylerbey of Bosnia to collect only those who
were circumcised but ignorant of Turkish as usual and warned him
against recruiting Türkleşmiş boys, i.e. Turkishspeaking ones in 1589.27
We should emphasize that none of these documents contains any
information about giving priority to volunteers or the willingness of
Bosnian people to give their children as acemioglan. On the contrary, the
warning of the kadis in the sandjaks of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis not
to hinder yayabaşı or Anadolu Ağası to recruit Potur sons and sons of
infidels given several times by the Sultans shows that there was no
privilege, law or regular application about the collection of Bosnian
Muslim boys.28 Finally, the fact that Sultan Ahmed I ordered again the
Devşirme Usûlü, Acemi Oğlanlar, Dârülfünûn Edebiyat Fakültesi Mecmuası 5/1–2

(1926) 2. See also İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtından Kapıkulu
Ocakları, I, Acemi Ocağı ve Yeniçeri Ocağı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2nd ed.,
Ankara 1984, 108 (first published in 1943) and E. Kovačević, Jedan dokumenat o
devširmi, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 22–23 (1972–73) 1976, 203–209.
22
BOA, A.DVNSMHM.d. No.22, Order 590, p. 299, 26 Rebiülahir 981 (25 August
1573). This document was first used by İ. H. Uzunçarşılı in his Kapıkulu Ocakları,
103; See also A. Özcan, Devşirme, DİA, Vol. 9, İstanbul 1994, 255.
23
BOA, A.DVNSMHM.d. No. 35, Order 49, p. 24, 19 Rebiülahir 986 (25 June 1578).
This document was first used by İ. H. Uzunçarşılı in his Kapıkulu Ocakları, 106.
24
BOA, A.DVNS.MHM.d, No. 78, Order 1470, p. 572, 17 Ramazan 1018 (14
December 1609).
25
İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 108, 109.
26
BOA, A.DVNSMHM.d. No. 73, Order 815, p. 371, 20 Zilhicce 1003 (26 August
1595). This document was first used by Murat Yıldız in his Osmanlı Devlet
Teşkilâtında Bostancı Ocağı, Marmara Üniversitesi, Türkiyat Araştırmaları
Enstitüsü, (Unpublished PhD. Dissertation), İstanbul 2008, 15 note 87.
27
İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 108, 109; V. L. Ménage, Devshirme, EI2,
Vol. II, E. J. Brill, Leiden 1991, 211.
28
A. Koyuncu, op.cit., 217.
293
Aşkın Koyuncu
kadis in the sandjaks of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis in 1609, i.e. three
years after the original text of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân was written, not to
impede the recruitment of circumcised Potur sons and the collection of kefere
evladı (sons of infidels), denies the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân.29
The more contested issue in Kavânini Yeniçeriyân (and of course in
the Müri’t Tevârih) is the assertion that the Bosnians at once embraced
Islam voluntarily, but requested from Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror
that their children may still be eligible for devshirme and thereupon the
Sultan ordered or permitted the recruitment of Muslim boys. This claim
created the myth of a special privilege bestowed by the Sultan on
Bosnian Muslims in modern times, combined with the Bogomil theory.
After Croatian historian Franjo Rački suggested in 1869–1870 that the
Bosnian Church may have incorporated elements of Bogomilism, his
theory enjoyed wide acclaim to explain how enthusiastically and swiftly
many Bosnians converted to Islam following the Ottoman conquest.30
Therefore, the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân was used in the
international literature for a long time to back up the thesis asserting that
because the Bosnians were Bogomils, they converted to Islam en masse.
Starting from Safvet Beg Bašagić, numerous Bosnian historians
zealously championed the Bogomil theory as a basis for their arguments
to prove that Bosnians had a separate entity and differed from the local
Catholic and Orthodox people, i.e. Croats and Serbs, before the Ottoman
conquest and they used the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân as a
powerful proof for their claims.31 This theory was commonly accepted
by Turkish historiography too. At first, İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı uncritically
accepted and repeated the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and of
Müri’tTevârih in his famous work Kapıkulu Ocakları in 1943.32
29
BOA, A.DVNS.MHM.d, No. 78, Order 1470, p. 572, 17 Ramazan 1018 (14
December 1609).
30
N. Malcolm, Bosna’nın Kısa Tarihi, Tr. by Aşkım Karadağlı, Om Yayınevi,
İstanbul 1999, 65–68.
31
S. Başagiç, Bosna Hersek Tarihi, 46, 47; N. Malcolm, op.cit., 66–68. See also A.
Koyuncu, op.cit., 227–229.
32
İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 18, 19; Idem, Devşirme , İslam Ansiklopedisi,
Vol. 3, Milli Eğitim Basımevi, İstanbul 1963, 564; G.Yılmaz, The Economic and
Social Roles of Janissaries, 35.
294
Besides, he asserted that Bosnians accepted Islam en masse, because

they were Bogomils and literally put forward the idea that the Potur term
was a distorted form of Pataren which was the other name of
Bogomils.33 Afterwards, the Islamization theory spread extensively
among Turkish historians.34 Moreover, the exceptional recruitment of
Muslim boys as acemioglan from Bosnia has been interpreted as their
willingness and a special reward or privilege given only to the Bosnians
for embracing Islam en masse.35 Most Turkish historians still believe
33
İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, Vol. II, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 5th ed.,
Ankara 1988, 84, 85, 551, 554 (First published in 1943).
34
K. Kepeci, Tarih Lûgati, Tan Matbaası, İstanbul 1952, 104; M. Cezar, Mufassal
Osmanlı Tarihi: ResimliHaritalı, Vol. I, İskit Yayınevi, İstanbul 1957, 365, 499; M
İlgürel, Acemi Oğlanı, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopesidisi (Hereafter DİA),
Vol. 1, İstanbul 1988, 324; Y. Halaçoğlu, XIV–XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlılarda Devlet
Teşkilatı ve Sosyal Yapı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara 1991, 39; Idem,
Klâsik Dönemde Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtı, Genel Türk Tarihi, Vol. 6, Yeni Türkiye
Yayınları, Ankara 2002, 184; A. Özcan, Bostancı, DİA, Vol. 6, İstanbul 1992, 308,
309; Idem, Devşirme, DİA, Vol. 9, İstanbul 1994, 255; M. Z. Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih
Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü, Vol. II, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, İstanbul
1993, 780; A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri, 141; A.
Akgündüz, İslam Hukukunda KölelikCâriyelik Müessesesi ve Osmanlı’da Harem,
Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, İstanbul 1995, 187, 189; A. Akgündüz – S. Öztürk,
700. Yılında Bilinmeyen Osmanlı, Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, İstanbul 1999, 46,
47; M. Akgündüz, Osmanlı İdaresi Döneminde Bosna Hersek, Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, No. 18, 2003, 125; K. Albayrak, Bogomilizm
ve Bosna Kilisesi, Emre Yayınları, İstanbul 2005, 273; S. Özdemir, Osmanlı
Devleti’nde Devşirme Sistemi, Rağbet Yayınları, İstanbul 2008, 110, 122, 213; M.
Yıldız, Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtında Bostancı Ocağı, 7, 15; Idem, Bahçıvanlıktan
Saray Muhafızlığına: Bostancı Ocağı, Yitik Hazine Yayınları, İstanbul 2011, 22,
28; Idem, 15.–19. Yüzyıllarda Edirne’de Asayişi Sağlayan Bir Kurum: Edirne
Bostancı Ocağı, History Studies 3/3 (2011) 386; M. A. Ünal, Osmanlı Tarih Sözlüğü,
Paradigma Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2011, 195, 196, 550; G. Çağ, Osmanlıların
Balkanları Fethinde İslam Kimliğinin Etkisi/Katkısı, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 3/2 (2012) 135–137.
35
A. Refik, op.cit., 1, 2; İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 18, 19; Idem, Osmanlı
Tarihi, 84, 85; M Cezar, op.cit., 365, 499; Y. Ercan, Devşirme Sorunu, Devşirmenin
Anadolu ve Balkanlardaki Türkleşme ve İslâmlaşmaya Etkisi, Belleten 50/198 (1986)
700–703, 715; BosnaHersek ile İlgili Arşiv Belgeleri (1516–1919), T. C. Başbakanlık
Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlügü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, Yayın Nu: 7,
Ankara 1992, XI, 9, 10, 37, 38; Y. Halaçoğlu, op.cit., 39; M. İlgürel, Acemi Oğlanı, 324;
295
Aşkın Koyuncu
and repeat this tale. However, all of these claims are invalid and it is
about high time to reconsider the story.
Contrary to Kavânini Yeniçeriyân (and of course to the Müri’t
Tevârih), the Ottoman sources of that period are absolutely silent about
the socalled massive Islamization. Even Tursun Bey, who took part in
the Bosnian expedition and was an eyewitness of the surrender of Jajce,
does not mention any single conversion event of either nobles or the
common people.36 Moreover, the tahrir defters (cadastral surveys) prove
that the spreading of Islam in Bosnia was not in fact an instantaneous,
but a gradual process, as numerous historians starting from Nedim
Filipović revealed. According to the 1469 İcmal Tahrir Defteri (Synoptic
Cadastral Survey), in the sandjak of Bosnia (including the Herzegovina
region), there were literally 332 Islamized households (264 in the
villages and 68 in the towns) and 37,125 Christian households, 8,770
A. Özcan, Devşirme, 255; M. A. Ünal, op.cit., 195, 196; M. Yıldız, Osmanlı Devlet
Teşkilâtında Bostancı Ocağı, 15; Idem, Bahçıvanlıktan Saray Muhafızlığına, 28;
Idem, Edirne Bostancı Ocağı, 386; H. Selçuk, Tapu Tahrir ve Maliyeden Müdevver
Defterlere Göre Rumeli’de İhtida Hareketleri (1432–1482), Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 12 (2002) 93, 94; M. Akgündüz, op.cit., 124, 125; G. Yılmaz,
Becoming a Devshirme: The Training of Conscripted Children in the Ottoman Empire,
Children in Slavery Through the Ages, eds. G. Campbell, S. Miers, and J. C. Miller,
Ohio University Press, Ohio 2009, 122; Eadem, The Economic and Social Roles of
Janissaries, 32, 35, 46; M. E. Yardımcı, 15. ve 16. Yüzyılda Bir Osmanlı Livası: Bosna,
Kitapyayınevi, İstanbul 2006, op.cit., 13; Z. Gölen, Tanzîmât Döneminde Bosna Hersek,
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara 2010, 46; M. G. Akmaz, Evliya Çelebi in Bosnia,
2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 8–9 2010, Sarajevo
2010, 386; A. Çetin – G. Çağ, Bosna’nın Osmanlı İdaresine Geçişinde Bogomilliğin
Etkisi, Tarih Okulu, No. IX, Ocak–Nisan 2011, 30–32; A. Akgündüz, İslam Hukukunda
KölelikCâriyelik Müessesesi, 187; A. Akgündüz – S. Öztürk, op.cit., 46, 47. Akgündüz
ve Öztürk persistently claim that Bosnian Muslim boys were willingly recruited by the
Ottomans on the request of Bosnian people themselves: “Even relying on this law (i.e.
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, AK), Muslim Bosniaks insistently demanded that their children
should be collected as acemioglan, because their boys would not have been recruited
for being Muslim. Upon their persistent desire, only Bosniaks were subjected to the
devshirme law among Muslims. They were called Poturoğulları (sons of Potur).” See
A. Akgündüz, İslam Hukukunda KölelikCâriyelik Müessesesi, 187; A. Akgündüz – S.
Öztürk, op.cit., 46.
36
Tursun Bey, Târîhi Ebü’lFeth, ed. M. Tulum, Baha Matbaası, İstanbul 1977,128;
H. Oruç, 15. Yüzyılda Bosna Sancağı ve İdari Dağılımı, OTAM 18 (2005) 251.
296
single men and 147 widows. These figures prove that six years after the
conquest, there was literally less than 1% of Islamized households in
the sandjak of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that mass conversion to
Islam was only a myth.37 We can suppose that if Bosnian people did not
massively convert to Islam immediately after the conquest, there would
not have been such an agreement between Sultan Mehmed the
Conqueror and the Bosnians or any permission or privilege given to
them as Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and Müri’tTevârih alleged. However,
the Islamization process stepped up rather considerably in the following
years.38 For example, there were 12.3% Muslims in the Bosnian sandjak
in 148539 and in 1489 the Muslim ratio reached 16%.40 According to
figures published by Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, the ratio of the Muslim
population reached 46.3% in the sandjak of Bosnia, 42.5% in the sandjak
of Herzegovina and 16.5% in the sandjak of Zvornik in the years 1520–
1535.41 These figures show that the Islamization process accelerated
after 1490 in the Bosnia and Herzegovina region. The low Islamization
ratio in the Zvornik sandjak resulted from the fact that Srebrenica and
Jajce were in the hands of Hungary until 1512 and 1527 respectively.
The Islamization process steadily increased in Bosnia and 71% of the
whole population of the Bosnian sandjak was Muslim in 1604.42 These
examples clearly show that the Islamization of the Bosnia and
Herzegovina region was a gradual and even slow process and that the
Bogomil theory itself is not sufficient to explain this process. In addition,
modern scholars demonstrated the weakness of the Bogomil theory and
revealed that Islamization was a common phenomenon among the local
37
D. Bašić, op.cit., 269, 271, 289; N. Malcolm, op.cit., 102, 103; A. Lopasic, Islamization
of the Balkans with Special Reference to Bosnia, Journal of Islamic Studies 5/2
(1994) 165.
38
D. Bašić, op.cit., 289.
39
N. Malcolm, op.cit., 103; D. Bašić, op.cit., 271.
40
D. Bašić, op.cit., 269, 271; A. Lopasic, op.cit., 166; B. Đurđev, BosnaHersek,
DİA, Vol. 6, İstanbul 1992, 300. See also. H. İnalcık, L’Empire Ottoman, Actes du
Premier Congrès International des Études Balcaniques, III, Sofia 1969, 75–103.
41
Ö. L. Barkan, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu
Olarak Sürgünler”, İ. Ü. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15/1–4 (1953–1954) 235, 237.
42
A. Handzic, Population of Bosnia in the Ottoman Period: A Historical Overview,
IRCICA, İstanbul 1994, 31, 32.
297
Aşkın Koyuncu
Catholic and Orthodox people and even among the Vlachs settled by the
Ottomans after the conquest.43 In conclusion, the mass conversion claim
of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân was nothing else but a romantic myth and
retrospective imagination, and of course the reason for the recruitment
of Bosnian Muslim boys is definitely fictitious. Probably, the
anonymous author was of Bosnian origin and he might have exaggerated
the effect of the glorious victory of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror over
Bosnia with a religious zeal.
II Some considerations about the reason and starting time

of the recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys
As already shown, neither the reason for the recruitment of Bosnian

Muslim boys nor the starting time narrated in Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and in
the Müri’tTevârih are acceptable. Their claims are completely invalid and
anachronistic. To be frank, we do not know exactly why the Ottomans
recruited only Bosnian Muslim boys as acemioglan in the classical period
and when this practice started. According to the available sources, the first
record about the collection of Bosnian Muslim boys as acemioglan goes
back as early as 1515. Nişancı Feridun Ahmet Bey (d. 1583) stated in his
Münşeâtü’sSelâtîn that in 1515 “It was ordered to Bosnian Bey Mustafa
Paşa and to Herzegovina Bey İskender Bey son of Evrenos to collect one
thousand lads for Janissaries from the converted Poturnak sons.”44 Here we
43
J. V. A. Fine, The Medieval and Ottoman Roots of Modern Bosnian Society, The
Muslims of BosniaHerzegovina: Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages
to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, ed. M. Pinson, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 1993, 12–19; N. Malcolm, op.cit., 104, 110; A. Lopasic,
op.cit., 164–168; A. Handzic, Population of Bosnia, 21–25; F. Bieber, Muslim
Identity in the Balkan States before the Establishment of Nation States, Nationalities
Papers 28/1 (2000) 19, 20; A. Aliçiç, Hersek’te İslâm’ın Yayılması, Tr. by H. Oruç,
Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve TarihCoğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 46/2 (2006) 249–251;
D. Bašić, op.cit., 273, 285, 286; I. AščerićTodd, Dervishes and Islam in Bosnia:
Sufi Dimensions to the Formation of Bosnian Muslim Society, Brill, Leiden–Boston
2015, 11–21. For details, see A. Koyuncu, op.cit., 225–233.
44
“…Bosna Beği Mustafa Paşa’ya ve Hersek Beği Evrenos oğlu İskender Beğe bin yeniçeri
oğlanı cemʻ itmek emr olundu, Müslüman olan Poturnakoğullarından.” Feridun Bey,
298
have to pay attention that the converted Bosnians are called Poturnak.
This term was later replaced with Potur sons, Potur people and
circumcised sons (sünnetlioğlan) in the orders about the collection of
devshirme from Bosnia in Mühimme Defters in the second half of the
16th century. In fact, the meaning of these terms shows the weakness of
Bogomil theory and refutes the presence of a separate ethnic or heretic
religious entity and the socalled privilege given to them after their mass
conversion. There are different views about the origin and meaning of
the Potur term. Some scholars supporting the Bogomil thesis asserted
that it stemmed from the Patarin or Pataren term used by the Roman
Catholic Church and in the Latin sources to describe dualist, neo
manichaeist heretics. As already mentioned, İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı
asserted that the word Potur was a distorted form of the Pataren term and
after him this view was accepted by Turkish historiography. Some
scholars claimed that this word was derived from poturçin or polu
turçin which means halfMuslim (half Turk). Some others supposed that
the Potur term means peasant and rude people. Even some scholars tried
to make us believe that this word stemmed from the Turkish Potur word
(baggy pants). Finally, some scholars stated that Potur was a Slavic term
describing converts or those who accepted Islam or were Turkicized. I
agree with the last group of scholars. The Potur and Poturnak terms in
Ottoman documents are similar words, both of them of Slavic origin.
The Poturnak was a loan word from Bulgarian (i.e. poturnak/poturnyak),
meaning “Turkified oneself, turned Turk, a Christian who accepted
becoming a Turk” and was equivalent to the word Poturčenjak in the
SerboCroatian (or Bosnian) language. The term Potur is an abbreviation
of them. Besides, Potur, Poturci, Poturçin, Poturçen, Poturnak, Poturica
or Poturčenjak terms in the Slavic languages were all similar words
pejoratively used by Christian Slavs for the new converts. For example,
Pomaks and Torbeshes were also called Potur by their Christian
neighbors in later times. It is certain that the Ottomans adopted into
official usage these Slavic terms as early as the 16th century. After the
Mecmuai Münşeâtı Feridun Bey [Münşeâtü’sSelâtin], Vol. I, Darüttıbati’lÂmire,

[İstanbul] 1274, 472; İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 109; V. L. Ménage,
op.cit., 211.
299
Aşkın Koyuncu
first appearance in 1515, the term poturnak disappeared from the

documents. According to available sources, the term Potur was literally
used for the first time in 1539 in the Kanunnâme of Bosnia, Herzegovina
and Zvornik sandjaks. Here the term Potur is a synonym of a Muslim and
was used to denote all Bosnian Muslims.45 Mustafa Ali of Gallipoli (d.
1600), who lived approximately eight years in Bosnia (1570–1577),
explained this term literally as follows: “The term Potur is used in
Bosnian terminology to describe the infidels who accept Islam.”46
Keeping in mind that among Bosnian Muslims there were numerous
people of Catholic and Orthodox origin, we can absolutely claim that
Poturnak, Poturs, Potur sons or Potur people found in the Ottoman
records related to devshirme define all Islamized people of Bosnia
regardless of their origin, i.e. Bogomil, Catholic or Orthodox.47
There is no consensus among scholars about the reason and starting
time of the recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys. As already mentioned,
İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, relying on Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, claimed
that it began after the conquest on the request of Bosnians. Following
him, this view was widely accepted in Turkish historiography.48 Some
scholars supporting the Bogomil thesis asserted that it started
immediately after the conquest after mass conversion to Islam and that
Bosnian Muslims gave their children voluntarily as devshirme. Noel
Malcolm accepts that the Bosnian people were particularly prized: “One
AustrianSlovenian writer Benedikt Kuripešić observed in 1530 that the
Sultan preferred to recruit Bosnians because he believed them to be ‘the best,
most pious and most loyal people’, differing from other ‘Turks’, because they
were much bigger, more handsome and more able.”49 Alexander Lopasic
45
“Ve ispençe dahi kâfirden yirmi beşer akçe alına. Ve Potur’dan ki evlidir, yirmi
ikişer akçe alına. Ve ergen Poturdan ki, baliğ ola, on ikişer akçe alına. Ve Müslüman
ve kâfir fevt olmış ola, ol kimesne geçen senenin mahsûlünden ahz eylediyse tamâm
ispençesin verür. Zira tedâhüldür; cizyeden ifrâzdır; anun ile amel oluna. Ve ispençe
vakti Martdır…” A. Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri, 6.
Kitap, Kanunî Devri Kanunnâmeleri, II. Kısım, Eyâlet Kanunnâmeleri (II), FEY
Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul 1993, 437.
46
İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 18 not 3.
47
For detailed information and about literature, see A. Koyuncu, op.cit., 225–250.
48
İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 18, 19. See above notes 34 and 35.
49
N. Malcolm, op.cit.,122.
300
states that the role of Bosnia in the devshirme system seemed to have
been different and Bosnian Muslims enjoyed a special status. He states
that at an early stage, they were allowed to send their children into the
ranks of janissaries. He also says that the reason was not clear, but
according to him, Bosnia’s position as a frontier province must have
played a part.50 Antonina Zheliazkova is of the opinion that “the peasant
raya in Bosnia saw service in the janissary odjaks and the palace as the
only way to bring about some social change and prosperity for their
offspring, which is why they offered no resistance to devshirme, as did
the population in other Balkan provinces.”51 Relying on Jaroslav Sidak,
Slobodan Ilić asserts that the reason for the recruitment of Potur sons
into the Janissary Corps resulted from their superficial Islamization and
the statesmen were not convinced that they were true believers.52 Nenad
Moačanin denies that Bosnian Muslims had special prerogatives in the
case of devshirme and claims that the Ottoman statesmen mistrusted the
Turks or Turkmens and saw the Bosnians as reliable. He asserts that
when a strong movement of Islamization made rapid progress in Bosnia
after ca. 1500, the state might have easily started to worry how to
compensate for the loss of possible good soldiers and palace servants.53
Moačanin is also of the opinion that after the rapid Islamization in rural
areas, their recruitment was a good way of compensating for the losses
of polltax.54 According to Mustafa Imamović, Bosnians gave their
children voluntarily into the Janissary Corps as devshirme with the hope
of social and economic earnings, but it was not before the beginning of
the 16th century as the first example was seen in 1515. He also claims
that Bosnian Muslim boys were collected on condition that their parents
50
A. Lopasic, op.cit., 172.
51
A. Zheliazkova, The Penetration and Adaptation of Islam in Bosnia from the
Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Century, Journal of Islamic Studies 5/2 (1994) 197.
52
S. İlic, ‘Bosna Bogomilleri’ ve İslamlaşma: Bilimsel Bir Yanılgıdan Ulusal Bir
Mitos’a, I. Ulusal Tarih Kongresi: Tarih ve Milliyetçilik, 30 Nisan–2 Mayıs 1997,
Mersin Üniversitesi, FenEdebiyat Fakültesi, Mersin, Bildiriler, Mersin Üniversitesi,
[Mersin] 1997, 324.
53
N. Moačanin, Mass Islamization of Peasants in Bosnia, 354; Idem, Osmanlı
Bosnası, 400, 401. See also. N. Moačanin, Defterology and Mythology, 190.
54
N. Moačanin, Defterology and Mythology, 190.
301
Aşkın Koyuncu
gave permission or they wanted to enrol as acemioglan.55 Denis Bašić

champions that Muslim boys of BosniaHerzegovina were collected
through devshirme on a voluntary basis. He tends to explain this
situation in two ways. The first one was the contract made between the
Sultan and the Bosnians. He apparently relies on the narrative of
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân. The second possible explanation, according to
him, was that the Bosnian Potur boys could have been levied because the
Bosnian Poturs were not at first considered to be true Muslims.56 Kemal
Beydilli is of the opinion that the levying of Christian boys was even an
infringement of sharia and also asserts that it was not acceptable to
consider Bosnian Muslims’ conversion the reason for their recruitment.57
Y. Hakan Erdem refutes the traditional explanation in the Ottoman
sources claiming that after accepting Islam, Bosnians wanted to have
their boys collected as devshirme. He tends to explain this phenomenon
by means of slavery institution in the Islamic law and implies that
Bosnian boys were forcefully levied.58 In my opinion, all of the
assertions based on Kavânini Yeniçeriyân and the Müri’tTevârih are
invalid. Besides, it is not reasonable that the recruitment of Potur sons
resulted from their superficial Islamization. In addition, it is more
appropriate to evaluate this question in view of political and military
needs instead of trying to explain it by means of the sharia law.
We do not know whether there was a previous case before 1515 or
not. Although there are numerous examples in the Mühimme Defters
about the collection of Muslim boys from 1565 to 1609 in the sandjaks
of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis, unfortunately there is no indication
about the time this practice started, except for the statements such as: as
usual, as before, as in the past, as customary etc. In addition, these
documents are silent about the reason for collecting them.59 I think that
after the conquest, devshirme agents started to collect Christian Slav
55
M. Imamović, Historija Bošnjaka, Bošnjačka zajednica kulture, Sarajevo 1997,
142, 143.
56
D. Bašić, op.cit., 306, 308.
57
K. Beydilli, Yeniçeri, DİA, Vol. 43, İstanbul 2013, 451.
58
Y. H. Erdem, Osmanlıda Köleliğin Sonu, 1800–1909, Tr. by B. Tırnakçı, Kitapyayınevi,
İstanbul 2004, 17, 18.
59
See above notes 21 to 29.
302
boys as acemioglan in Bosnia and Herzegovina as in the other places of

the Balkans and, as claimed by Nenad Moačanin, after the acceleration
of the Islamization process at the end of the 15th century and at the
beginning of the 16th century, the authorities did not give up recruiting
them, probably due to their ability and successful performance until that
time.60 The observations of Benedikt Kuripešić cannot be ignored either.
As far as the origin of acemioglans is concerned, I believe the Ottomans
made no difference in terms of whether they were sons of infidels or
Potur sons in Bosnia. It seems that the main criterion was their being
convenient for becoming janissary (yeniçeriliğe yarar) or not, as stated
in the orders given to the kadis in the sandjaks of Bosnia, Herzegovina
and Klis and to the Beylerbey of Bosnia from 1565 to 1609.61 On the
other hand, we have to remind that there is no record about giving
priority to the volunteers for recruitment or Bosnian Muslim families
gave willingly their children to the yayabaşı. Last but not least, as most
devshirme boys were of Slavic origin, the Ottoman statesmen might
have thought that the sons of already converted Slavs would be more
loyal to the state. Therefore, the sons of Bosnian Poturs (Muslim Slavs)
60
N. Moačanin, Mass Islamization of Peasants in Bosnia, 354; Idem, Osmanlı
Bosnası, 401.
61
In the orders we read: “…şimdiye değin alınu geldüği üzre kadimi yerlü olan
sünnetlü oğlanlardan yararların cemʻ itdiresin” (1565) BOA, A.DVNS.MHM.d.
No. 5, Order 220, p. 96, 13 Safer 973 (9 September 1565); A. Refik, op.cit., 2; İ. H.
Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 108. “…Acemi oğlanı eğer kefereden ve eğer Potur
taifesindendir, cemʻ itdirüb kefere oğullarından değildür deyu müşarünileyhe taaruz
olmayasın ve sünnet olmuştur deyu yarar oğlanları vermekte inat ittirmeyesin.”
BOA, A.DVNSMHM.d. No. 22, Order 590, p. 299, 26 Rebiülahir 981 (25 August
1573); İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 103. “…Bosna vilâyetinden dahi üslûb
u kadim üzre alınan Poturoğulları sünnetlü olanın amma Türkçe bilmeyüp acemi
oğlan gibileri alup Poturoğludur deyu emrime muhalif ahardan oğlan karışmadan
begayet içtinap eyleyesin, bu bapta ihtimam idüp himayet ile acemi oğlanlığa yararın
alıkoyup yaramazın cemʻ itmeden ve hilâfı emir Türkleşmiş oğlan alınmaktan ihtiyat
eyleyesin, amma bu bahane ile bir ferdten celp ve ahz olunmaktan dahi sakınasın.
(1589)” İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Kapıkulu Ocakları, 108, 109. “hükmü hümayunum
mucibince acemi oğlanı cemʻ itdirüb ve Poturoğludur ve sünnetlüdür deyu mütearrız
olmayasın yeniçeriliğe yarar eğer kefere evladıdır ve eğer Poturoğullarındandır
müşarünileyhe cemʻ itdirüb kimesne mani olmasın…” BOA, A.DVNS.MHM.d, No.
78, Order 1470, p. 572, 17 Ramazan 1018 (14 December 1609).
303
Aşkın Koyuncu
were collected as devshirme, whether they were circumcised or not, but

ignorant of Turkish. Besides, as stated in Revan 1320 and St. Petersburg
copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, there was no law not to collect them
or, in other words, law did not prevent their collection in principle.62 So
they were collected from time to time, whenever necessary.
By the beginning of the 17th century, the ranks of the Janissaries had
become so swollen with Muslimborn “intruders” that frequent
recruitments by devshirme were no longer necessary and during the 17th
century, devshirme was carried out more sporadically.63 In my opinion,
it was not until the 17th century that the Ottomans gave priority to the
volunteers, while collecting devshirme. However, at that time, they gave
opportunity not only to the boys of Muslims, but also to nonMuslim lads
who were willing to become janissaries. For example, in a document from
1666, it was ordered that the children of Bosniak (sic.) and Albanian
Muslims should be taken as devshirme if they wanted to do so voluntarily
and on condition that they were 16–20 years of age. In the same document
it was also ordered to collect nonMuslim boys aged 16–25 and
volunteers first, if there were any.64 From the middle of the century, in the
land of Bulgaria, newly converted peasants in the intensively Islamized
regions were enrolled as janissaries, but stayed in their villages. Besides,
new converts also started to apply to become janissaries.65
Conclusion
Although the Muslim reaya were exempted from devshirme in the

classical period, Bosnian Muslim boys were extraordinarily recruited into
the Janissary Corps as acemioglan. According to Kavânini Yeniçeriyân,
62
Relying on the St. Petersburg copy, Moačanin pointed out for the first time that
there were no obsacles to collect them. See N. Moačanin, Mass Islamization of
Peasants in Bosnia, 354; Idem, Osmanlı Bosnası, 401.
63
V. L. Ménage, Devshirme, 212.
64
A. Matkovski, Prilog pitanju devširme, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 14–15
(1964–1965) 1969, 276, 301–303.
65
E. Radushev, ‘Peasant’ Janissaries?, Journal of Social History 42/2 (2008) 447–467.
See also A. Matkovski, op.cit., 306.
304
only Muslim boys were collected from Bosnia and it was a reward given
to them by Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror himself, in return for their
massive Islamization at once and on their own request. Müri’tTevârih
also recounts a similar story. The narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân
was used to support the Bogomil theory claiming that as the Bosnian
Church was Bogomil and Bosnian people had a separate identity, they
at once accepted Islam en masse after the conquest of Bosnia in 1463.
However, neither the narrative of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân nor of Müri’t
Tevârih is compatible with the historical facts. Namely, tahrir defters
apparently show that the Islamization of Bosnia was not in fact an
instantaneous, but a gradual process. Therefore, the Bogomil theory is
not sufficient itself to explain the spreading of Islam in Bosnia.
Moreover, Islamization was a common phenomenon among the local
Catholic and Orthodox people too. This means that the mass conversion
claim of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân was nothing else but a romantic myth
and, of course, the reason for the recruitment of Bosnian Muslim boys
is completely fictitious. There are different views about the reason and
the starting time of the collection of Bosnian Muslim boys. I think it
started after the spread of Islam gained speed, probably at the end of the
15th century or in the early years of the 16th century. I am of the opinion
that the main criterion was their being convenient for becoming
janissaries or not, as seen in the orders given to the kadis in the sandjaks
of Bosnia, Herzegovina and Klis and to the Beylerbey of Bosnia from
1565 to 1609. Besides, as most of devshirme boys were of Slavic origin,
the Ottoman statesmen might have thought that the sons of Muslim Slavs
would be more loyal to the state. Moreover, as stated in Revan 1320 and
St. Petersburg copies of Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, there was no law not to
collect them or, in other words, law did not prevent their collection in
principle. So the Ottomans collected Muslim boys from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, whenever needed.
305
Aşkın Koyuncu
APPENDIXES
1. Kavânini Zümrei Bektaşiyân, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi,

Revan Kitaplığı, No. 1320, f. 8b, 9a.
306
307
Aşkın Koyuncu
2. Kavânini Zümrei Bektaşiyân, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi,

Revan Kitaplığı, No. 1319, f. 12a, 12b.
308
309
Aşkın Koyuncu
3. Yeniçeri Kanunnamesi, Univerzitná knižnica v Bratislave, Bašagićova

zbierka islamských rukopisov (University Library in Bratislava, Bašagić
collection of Islamic Manuscripts), No. TE 47, Poradové číslo: 439, f. 8a, 8b.
310
311
Aşkın Koyuncu
4. Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Beyazıt Devlet Kütüphanesi, Veliyüddin

Efendi Kütüphanesi Bölümü, No. 1973, f. 10b, 11a.
312
313
Aşkın Koyuncu
Aşkın KOYUNCU
KAVÂNINI YENIÇERIYÂN VE BOSNALI MÜSLÜMAN

ÇOCUKLARININ DEVŞIRILMESI MESELESININ GÖZDEN
GEÇIRILMESI
Özet
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Yeniçeri Ocağı ve devşirme tarihinin en

önemli kaynaklarından biridir. 1606 yılında yazılan Kavânini
Yeniçeriyân’ın orijinal metni günümüze ulaşmamıştır. Bu çalışmada
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân’ın İstanbul, St. Petersburg ve Bratislava’da
bulunan yedi kopyasını kullandık. Klasik dönemde Müslümanlardan
devşirme alınmadığı halde, Osmanlı kaynaklarında Poturnakoğulları ve
çoğunlukla Poturoğulları şeklinde tanımlanan Bosna Müslümanlarından
istisnai olarak acemi oğlanı toplanmıştır. Bunun sebebi ve başlangıcı
hakkında Kavânini Yeniçeriyan’ın benzersiz bir anlatısı vardır.
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân’a göre Bosna’dan yalnızca Müslüman çocukları
devşirilmektedir. Bunun sebebi ise Bosna ahalisinin 1463 yılında fetihle
birlikte topluca ihtida etmesi ve Fatih Sultan Mehmed’den çocuklarının
devşirilmesini rica etmeleridir. Bunun üzerine Sultan, Bosnalı
Müslüman çocuklarından acemi oğlanı alınmasını kanun kılmıştır. Bu
anlatım devşirme konusunda Bosna Müslümanlarına özel bir imtiyaz
verildiği efsanesi yaratmıştır. Bazı tarihçiler Kavânini Yeniçeriyan’daki
bu anlatıyı Bosna Kilisesi’nin Bogomil olduğu ve bu sebeple
Boşnakların topluca ihtida ettiklerini savunan Bogomil tezini
desteklemek için kullanmışlar ve Boşnakların gönüllü olarak çocuklarını
devşirme olarak verdiklerini ileri sürmüşlerdir. Ancak, tarihi hakikatler
Kavânini Yeniçeriyân’ın anlatısının gerçek olmadığını göstermektedir.
Bosna, Hersek ve Kilis sancaklarında hem Müslüman, hem de Hristiyan
Slav çocukları devşirildiği gibi, tahrir defterleri de Bosna’da
İslamlaşmanın birden bire olmadığını ve İslamın tedricen yayıldığını
göstermektedir. Ayrıca, bölgedeki Katolik ve Ortodokslar arasında da
İslamlaşmanın yaygın bir hadise olduğu görülmektedir. Bu sebeple,
Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Bosnalılar arasında Kavânini Yeniçeriyân’da
anlatıldığı gibi bir anlaşmanın yapılmış olması muhtemel değildir.
314
Bununla birlikte, Kavânini Yeniçeriyân’ın anlatısı Türk tarihçiler

arasında popülerliğini korumaktadır. Bu çalışmada Kavânini
Yeniçeriyân nüshalarında Bosna hakkındaki pasajı karşılaştırdıktan
sonra, diğer Osmanlı kaynakları ışığında onun anlatısını gözden
geçireceğiz. Son olarak Osmanlıların klasik dönemde neden yalnızca
Bosnalı Müslüman çocuklarını devşirdiğini ve bu uygulamanın ne
zaman başladığını açıklamaya çalışacağız.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Bosna, islamlaşma,
devşirme, Yeniçeriler, Poturoğulları.
315
Aşkın Koyuncu
Ашкин КОЈУНЏУ
„ЗАКОНИ О ЈАНИЧАРИМА“ (KAVÂNINI YENIÇERIYÂN)

И РАЗМАТРАЊЕ ПРОБЛЕМА ДЕВШИРМЕ
БОСАНСКЕ МУСЛИМАНСКЕ ДЕЦЕ
Резиме
„Закони о јаничарима“ (Kavânini Yeniçeriyân) су један од

најважнијих извора за проучавање историје јаничарског корпуса и
девширме. Оригинални текст Закона о јаничарима који је написан
1606. године није сачуван. У овом раду смо користили седам копија
Закона о јаничарима које се налазе у Истанбулу, Санкт Петерсбургу
и Братислави. Иако у класичном периоду девширма није узимана
од муслимана, аџеми оглани су, као изузетак, прикупљани од
босанских муслимана који су у османским изворима били познати
под изразом Poturnakoğulları и, у већини случајева, као
Poturoğulları (Потурице). Закони о јаничарима садрже јединствену
приповест о узроку и настанку такве праксе. Према Законима о
јаничарима, из Босне су за девширму била узимана само
муслиманска деца. Разлог томе је да је становништво Босне
приликом освајања 1463. колективно прешло у ислам и да су
султана Мехмеда Освајача замолили да се само њихова деца
узимају у девширму. На основу тога, султан је донео закон да се
босанска муслиманска деца узимају за аџеми оглане. Ова приповест
је створила легенду о томе како је босанским муслиманима дата
посебна привилегија по питању девширме. Неки историчари су ову
приповест из Закона о јаничарима користили да подрже
богумилску тезу која је тврдила да је разлог за масовну
исламизацију Босне био у томе што је босанска црква била
богумилска и да су Бошњаци добровољно давали своју децу за
девширму. Међутим, историјске чињенице показују да приповест
из Закона о јаничарима није била истинита. Пописни дефтери
указују, поред тога што су и хришћанска и муслиманска деца
узимана у девширму у Босанском, Херцеговачком и Клишком
санџаку, да се исламизација у Босни није одиграла одједном већ да
316
је процес ширења ислама текао постепено. Додатно, уочено је да је

исламизација била раширена појава и међу локалним католицима и
православцима. Из тог разлога, није могуће да је био састављен
један такав споразум између султана Мехмеда Освајача и босанског
становништва као што је то описано у Законима о јаничарима.
Ипак, приповест из Закона о јаничарима штити њена популарност
међу турским историчарима. У овом раду ћемо упоредити одломке
о Босни из различитих рукописа Закона о јаничарима, а затим ћемо
проучити поменуту приповест у светлу других османских извора.
На крају, настојаћемо да објаснимо зашто су Османлије у
класичном добу узимале само босанску муслиманску децу у
девширму и да одредимо од када је ова пракса почела.
Кључне речи: Kavânini Yeniçeriyân, Босна, исламизација,
девширма, јаничари, Потурице.
317
UDC: 336.2(560.497.5)”16/17”:314
Nenad MOAČANIN
DIVISION OF CIZYEPAYERS
INTO THREE CLASSES AS FORESHADOWED
IN THE PREREFORM 17TH CENTURY
“PSEUDOMUFASSALS“
Abstract: The analysis of a unique nonOttoman source for the 17th century
Ottoman taxation, that is, the Habsburg Hungarian Court Chamber (Hofkammer)
surveys of the reconquered land in Slavonia (1698 and 1702), was crucial for
understanding the otherwise puzzling figures of the Ottoman polltax records. Instead
of taking for granted the uniformity and apparently low number of taxation units in the
cizye icmals and mufassals, the Habsburg survey data lead undoubtedly to the
conclusion that “on the ground“ threeclass division of cizyepayers did indeed exist
already around 1650. At the same time, this enables the researcher to understand better
the even more bewildering occurrences, such as fictional names of taxpayers and their
very poor variety, or the thoughtprovoking resemblances between the rates per tax
unit in many places in Slavonia and northeastern Bosnia and the number of days in
the payrolls of the garrisons in the eyalet of Kanije.
Keywords: Ottoman cizye reform of 1691, bookkeeping, Slavonia, Bosnia.
Three classes of cizye payers before 1691
It was commonplace for the polltax in the Ottoman Empire to be

collected on the per household basis, this being almost a lump sum
(maktu), while during the wartime in 1691 this practice was abolished,
and a new one was introduced, with religious undertones, that is, the
cizye was taken from every adult male fit to work, according to the
principle of three classes based upon their relative wealth. It looks
revolutionary, and, besides, more beneficial for the Imperial Treasury.
319
Nenad Moačanin
What is more, it looks as a reliable tool for demographic estimations.

Contrary to this, the Treasury was now receiving less cash than before
the war with the Holy League, while the totals of the evrak seemed lower
than the old hane figures, such as the one in the 17th century cizye records,
or, the differences are even more striking if the totals of hanes from the
16th century tapu tahrirs are taken into consideration. This, in turn, has
provoked ideas of a “demographic catastrophe” in the 17th century.1
Yet we dispose of a source which is very helpful in this respect. The
Habsburg Hungarian Court Chamber (Hofkammer) surveys of the
reconquered land in Slavonia (1698 and 1702) offer an excellent insight
into the Ottoman taxation practices “on the ground“, because the
peasants had to inform the commission on how exactly the taxation was
effectuated, not on what the Ottoman regulations and Imperial decrees
had proclaimed, of which they understandably had no idea.2 These
records are unique in their main purpose, that is, to prove that no
Christian landlord could claim his rights originating in preOttoman
times and/or being somehow recognized until the late 17th century. It
was not so in the Hungarian plain, because the reayas there were
subjected to the double taxation in favor of sipahis and Hungarian nobles
as well. One may say that this set of examples is questionable because
it refers to the prereform time and to a borderland area which was
probably governed in an atypical way. But now, after the analysis of
Macedonian and Bosnian cases, done by Michael Ursinus3 and myself,
we may argue that Slavonian examples confirm the assumption that at
least in the mid17th century a trend started in Ottoman Europe which
had very characteristic features, heralding new practices.
A very important fact may be spotted while examining Hofkammer
records village by village. Out of some 400 settlements for ca. 350 it
1
See N. Moačanin, Demographical Trends in the Ottoman Empire and their Impact
on Economy: neither the West, nor the East, Relazioni economiche tra Europa e
mondo islamico secc. XIII–XVIII, Varese 2007, 55–73.
2
T. Smičiklas, Dvijestogodišnjica oslobođenja Slavonije, Zagreb, Jugoslavenska
akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1891; I. Mažuran, Popis naselja i stanovništva u
Slavoniji iz 1698. godine, Osijek, Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1988.
3
M. Ursinus, Mutafçi Ahmed und Seinesgleichen: Zur Bedeutung des Deruhdecilik
in Manastïr im 18. Jahrhundert, Studia in Honorem Verae Mutafčieva, Evgenij
Radušev, Zara Kostova, Valeri Stojanov (eds.), Sofija 2001, 351–74.
320
Division of CizyePayers into Three Classes as Foreshadowed in the 17th Century “Pseudomufassals“
was indicated how much and on what basis peasants had to pay their
dues to the “Turkish emperor”. It seems that the collective memory was
reaching back just to the fifties of the 17th century. In three quarters of
cases, a clear, quite uniform picture emerges: 37% of the taxpayers were
paying 3–4 forints, another 37% 1.2–2, while 26% were assessed with
0.4–0.8 (most frequently, 0.8–1.5–3). In a number of cases it was
indicated that the highest amount referred to the obligation of the
incolae, or those possessing the fullsized farm, while the inquilini, or
tenants, had to pay half of it (sometimes “tenants and the poor“, one half
or less). Consequently, we are allowed to see the third class as sub
tenants or, simply, holders of a quartersized plot. Since three to four
forints were equal to one gold coin, it becomes apparent that the official
Ottoman “single” rate of 383 or 394 akçes in both the icmal and mufassal
cizye records reflected the one ducat per fullsized farm principle, in
terms of the real exchange rate, disregarding the official exchange rate
of 120 akçes for a gold coin. For practical reasons, the variety of
amounts that were actually collected was rounded up, making the totals
of hanes to look lower. Moreover, the Habsburg records teach us that in
the time of the Ottoman rule a fullsized farm consisted not just of a
surface, but of four oxen as well.
The per plow or full sizedfarm taxation matched one ducat or four
forints, or the standard 383/394 akçes in terms of the real exchange rate,
while in case of the household or farm basis the rate was lower by one
quarter (three forints, probably because the animal part of the whole was
incomplete). This, of course, refers to the upper class, thus divided into
two subgroups. Besides, it seems that at least in some parts of western
Sirem/Srem/Srijem pairs of oxen were the basic unit. The “harass“ as a
unit consisting of a number of taxpayers (five, probably each possessing
a pair of oxen) was set at twenty forints.4 Therefore a picture close to that
one can get from the Manastır sicills emerges, yet in an epoch one or two
centuries earlier: apart from cases of reductions and lump sums, the
perplexing variety of rates that appear in Habsburg cameral surveys
reveals in the last analysis a simple fact that three to four forints
remained the real universal equivalent to one gold coin. This should
4
I. Mažuran, Popis naselja i stanovništva u Slavoniji iz 1698. godine, 54.
321
Nenad Moačanin
reflect the dues of a nuclear household. When eight, ten or twelve forints
are mentioned, we are dealing with collectivities, multiple households or
gangs of neighbors, using four or more pairs of oxen in plowing. Thus
it seems that most of the units paying less than one forint stand for the
apportionment per nefer. For up to five the basis was hane, while the
sum above this amount points toward the çift principle. I think that this
is the origin of the apparent mess that Count Ferdinand Carl Caraffa di
Stigliano, head of the royal Hungarian court chamber commission, left
behind for historians to struggle with.
Now, how was it possible that Ottoman cizye records offer such an
orderly, quite a monotonous picture, as if everybody was paying the
highest amount? To answer this we probably have to start from the fact
that one third of the actual taxpaying population, probably the lower
class, was absent from these records. Then, for the sake of uniformity,
the remaining majority of units could be presented as roundedup
figures. It might have been effectuated by assembling middle and low
class units and turning them to the “high” class.
Compared with the new principle established in 1691, the Slavonian
example reveals the fact that, as far as the peasant world was concerned,
the three classes of taxpayers were already in existence decades before
the reform. The respective shares of each of the groups are similar
enough to the “normal” situation in the Ottoman core lands in the
Balkans in the 18th century, with the predominant role of the middle
class. The striking fact is that, taking forints for guruşes, each one of the
esnafı selase had to pay exactly the triple amount as compared with the
one from the hane epoch. This can only refer to the “adult sons”.
Therefore we may posit that the evrak totals do not display exactly the
size of the male population fit for work. The emrede mürahik part of the
population was left concealed in the cash totals. Thus in my opinion the
hane principle was in a way updated, first by switching from the more
social to the more economic basis, that is, from the household to the
farm, and then increasing the amount to pay by “two adult sons” as a
theoretical average.
322
“Pseudomufassals“
There are a number of “curious“ polltax records from the 1620s for
some kazas in Slavonia and Bosnia. We may, or even we must, speculate
on the meaning of the large number of units (about a half of the total)
appearing under the highly suspicious name “X, (son of) Petre” –
perhaps simply a device to indicate the presence of a fullsized
farm/plow, irrespectively of the possessor, just like “Mr. John Smith”.
Besides, the variety of given names is very poor, about half a dozen
(Vuk, Todor, Jovan, Lazar, Petre, Mihal). This assumption might be
corroborated by T pseudomufassal cizye defter for the kaza of Bijeljina
(Beline) in Zvornik from 1626/7, where literally every “taxpayer” (some
1000 entries) bears the “personal name” Vuk Petre!5 A codename for a
taxpaying unit (land, not persons)? Even more puzzling is the cizye
defter for Gračanica from the same year, which has the ever changing
sequence: Todor Vuk, Vuk Todor.6 Some marginal notes in the Beline
register do cite real names in cases when a particular person handed over
the due amount for the whole village. In general, the entries appear as
three types: 1. those who were paying 398, or, sometimes 343 akçes,
followed by two strokes below, 2. those without indication of the
amount, but with two strokes below the “name“ and 3. those without
any specific mark whatsoever. But since the marked entries are mostly
accompanied with the word teslim, it is safe to assume that no class
division was meant. Probably the universal rate was 379 akçes, as
attested later, while only cases of deviations deserved noticing. In any
case the amount was close to that in Pojega, that is, equalling some three
guruşes, or forints. In the icmal for the same district from 1654/5, where
a multiplication of çiftliks in the hands of townspeople is visible (57 of
them), the ordinary units were paying an unspecified, but surely the
standard amount, while the çiftlikholders did it ber vechi baştine.7 It is
quite possible that in the second case the uniform rate of 250 akçes
5
BOA, DCMH.d.26578.
6
BOA, D.CMH.d.26583.
7
BOA, MAD.d.05449.
323
Nenad Moačanin
reflects the “Muslim cizye“, being somewhat lower than the zimmi one.8
Ten years later, eightythree çiftliks were enregistered. Characteristically,
the “three forint“ areas coincide with the provinces which had to provide
additional funding of the Hungarian eyalets. Characteristically enough, at
the beginning of the first survey from 1626/7 (Beline) there is a warning
against paying in Hungarian mariashes instead of silver guruşes. Now is
it possible to detect here too the class division, visible in the Hofkammer
records, but not in Ottoman registers? The answer is yes and no!
Although the mid and late17th century records do not display much
transparency in respect of our subject, we are free to rely on the much
more transparent early records, such as those from 1518 or 1585.9 There
we meet a vivid variety of real rates on the ground. For example, in 1518
in a village of 63 units, fourteen different rates were used. And in 1585
the range was from 17 to 100 akçes. It is possible to calculate the number
of the fullsized farms by converting the total in akçes first into the
destaks (ten okkas of seed, equalling one şinik) and then to çifts of 3ha
on the average. The resulting picture displays an overwhelming majority
of onequarter holders (e.g. plots of 2.46ha). In such circumstances one
cannot look for the possessor of the titledeed of a fullsized farm;
instead, it was necessary to write down the fictional name, like “Vuk
Petre“. Of course, some plots belonged to the upper and middle class, as
attested in the first postreform surveys, but there the typical case was
7% for the first, and 18% for the second group. In some districts the
middle class share was even smaller, while the upper class was simply
absent. If we look back to the kanunname from 1565, one section must
attract our attention: “since it was impossible to enregister separately
the tiny farms, of which three or four can barely constitute one (that is,
the fullsized farm of some 100 dönüms), the distribution found in the
previous record has been repeated. The taxes were imposed according to
their abilities. In matters of their cizye it is up to the just kadıs to exert
control and investigation“.10 As the destak/şinik principle was observed
till the 19th century, the authorities abandoned the division in three
8
A Muslim owner of the titledeed (tapu) was liable to cizye as a land tribute.
9
BOA, MAD.d.00037. BOA, MAD.d. 15151.
10
Branislav Đurđev et al., Kanuni i kanunname za Bosanski, Hercegovački, Zvornički,
Kliški, Crnogorski i Skadarski sandžak, Sarajevo 1957, 100–101.
324
classes twenty years later at best (ca. 1710), introducing the alledna
principle, since the early attempts of introducing the Empirewide
principle had shown that the share of the lower class was about 75%,
while in most of Ottoman Europe, including the now extinct districts in
Slavonia, the reverse was the case. In addition, this may teach us that the
deeper meaning of the hane as the taxation unit was basically the plot,
rather than the family.
That in Bosnia the size of the plot was important in the apportionment
of the filori tax is obvious from a source from 1663.11 There the data for
the imperial estates plus the evkaf of Hüsrev bey in northwestern Bosnia
(kaza of Kobaš) appear, uniting the filori, cizye, avarız and badihava.
Tax units on the sultanic hasses are divided into three classes, similar to
the canonical upper, middle and lower class, yet the names are different:
haneyi kebir, haneyi evsat and haneyi sağir. To interpret this as
complex, extended and nuclear households would be wrong. In the last
tapu tahrir (1590–95), the Vlach tax units in the same region are divided
in those paying 280 akçes from a fullsized farm, 140 from the medium
sized, and various smaller amounts from lesser plots. The total per unit
was pretty high, about 1.000 akçes, yet consisting of three different taxes.
And the number of “units“ was the result of the intervening of additions,
or the zamaimi şeriye. This does not mean at all an increase in the size of
the population. Instead, the zamaim are explained below as follows:
ispence, ağnam, bedeli hamir, güvare, kesri mizan, tefavütü hasene,
gulamiye, and cülus for several sultans beginning with Mehmet III,
ranging from three to 60 hanes (!), making the initial, real number almost
double. At the same time, the register illustrates quite well the transition
from the old “onegoldcoin“ principle as a single tax toward the new kind
of capitation, the usual 280 akçes per unit being equal to 2.33 guruş.
The possible impact of the cash ocaklıks on the uniform rates
What factors might have influenced the variety of threeforint rates

in the districts where the cizye was destined for funding the garrisons in
11
BOA, MAD.d 04718_00002.
325
Nenad Moačanin
the eyalet of Kanije? In one record the different rates in akçes often display
a remarkable similarity with the number of days for which men in different
garrisons were paid.12 This was also valid for the northern part of Slavonia,
where the cizye belonged to the ocaklıks of the Kanije garrisons, while in
the southern part the amount collected went directly to the central treasury.
The amount of akçes appears equal or similar to days of the pay year. The
same was valid for most of the Izvornik sancak where the cizye was also
going to the Kanije treasury. In contrast to that, the rates of some 250
akçes or a bit more in Hungary, most of Bosnia and elsewhere in the
Balkans, may stand for the “pure“ cizye, independent of funding of the
garrisons. The number of “coins” in a local unit is usually lower than the
total of days of both the lunar and solar year (300, 323, 341), but in some
cases it is higher (379, 394, 398). In the first case, the deficit could be
covered by an additional source, such as gedik timars, mukataa money,
etc. The case of “surplus” allows for the supposition that two overlapping
systems were in use: one based on the number of per diems (entailing
adaptations in the tax collection), the other, closer to the practices on the
ground, based on fullsized farms (influencing payment calculations).
Therefore probably there was no real increase in the rate of the polltax.
On the local level quite different exchange rates could be agreed upon.
Kanije was a saliyane province, which means that it could use the
income generated by the polltax without the mediation of the central
government. The way of bookkeeping as expressed in rounding up and
levelling of the tax rates coupled with tax units going unnamed, indicate
an intimate connection between the tax rates and pay days. In a similar
way, the due amounts of the output of the village agriculture must have
been adjusted to the cash equivalent of the dirlik a village belonged to.
Thus all looked orderly and properly, leaving to every peasant soul
enough food to survive (around the social minimum). Or, conversely,
the different rates on the spot might have influenced the duration of the
year. A striking example for 18th century Bosnia shows the pay year’s
duration of 258 days, recalling the prereform rate of cizye (250 akçes).13
12
BOA, MAD.d. 03774_00127.
13
M. R. Hickok, Ottoman Military Administration in EighteenthCentury Bosnia, The
Ottoman Empire and its Heritage, vol. 13, Brill, Leiden–New York–Köln 1997, 85.
326
This could well function on the ground, despite the rule that the rate was
2.75 guruşes per evrak. Of course, coins and days were not related in the
literal sense as cause and effect, but a kind of interdependence with
synchronistic and meaningful coincidences seems to be obvious.
The quotation refers to the year 1742, but it seems that the amount was widespread
and regular.
327
Nenad Moačanin
Nenad MOAČANIN
CİZYE MÜKKELEFLERİNİN 17. YÜZYIL REFORMLAR

ÖNCESİ “YARIMUFASSALLARA” GÖRE ÜÇ SINIFA
AYRILMASI
Özet
HabsburgMacar Saray Kamerası (Hofkammer) tarafından yapılan

Slavonya’daki yeniden fethedilen toprakların sayımları (1698 ve 1702),
Osmanlı “olay yerinde” vergilendirme uygulaması hakkında, özellikle
de cizye vergisi söz konusu olduğunda, gayet fikir vericidir. Yaklaşık
altmış yıl önce yapılan cizye sayımlarının tek biçimli ve oldukça
yeknesak görüntüsünden farklı olarak, ele aldığımız sayımlar, gayrı
müslim tebaanın vergilerini cizyenin 1691 yılında resmi olarak tanındığı
şekliyle hemen hemen aynı biçimde ödediklerini göstermekte. 17.
yüzyılın ortalarından, hatta yirmili yıllarından başlayarak, vergi
mükkelefleri üç sınıfa ayrılıyordu. Osmanlı sayımlarının yorumlanmasına
dair bir sonraki adım “cizyehane” (cizye ödeyen hane) kelimesinin sanki
her bir hane aynı birim söz konusuymuş gibi kullanılması yönünde
gitmeli. Öte yandan, meselenin daha iyi anlaşılması için başka önemli
ipucuları bulunabilir. O anlamda, doğrudan anlamı olmayan “isimleri”
içeren ve ayrıca enflasyon veya döviz kursu gibi konu ile alakası olmadığı
varsayılabilen hatta arasıra ordunun günlük maaşlarıyla bağlı olabilen ve
ödenmesi gereken meblağları içeren defterler (“yarımufassal”), bu
konuda kilit önem taşımaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: 1691 Osmalı cizye reformu, muhasebecilik,
Slavonya, Bosna.
328
Ненад МОАЧАНИН
ПОДЕЛА ОБВЕЗНИКА ЏИЗИЈЕ НА ТРИ КЛАСЕ

ПРЕМА НАЗНАКАМА ИЗ ПРЕДРЕФОРМСКИХ
„ПСЕУДОМУФАСАЛА“ ИЗ 17. ВЕКА
Резиме
Пописи поново освојене земље у Славонији (1698. и 1702)

Дворске хабзбуршкоугарске коморе (Hofkammer) пружају веома
добар увид у отоманску праксу опорезивања „на терену“, нарочито
кад је реч о порезу џизија. За разлику од једнообразне и прилично
монотоне слике у џизијским пописима који су сачињени неких
шездесет година раније, поменути пописи откривају чињеницу да
су немуслимански поданици плаћали џизију на потпуно исти начин
на који је она званично уведена 1691. године. Наиме, постојале су
три класе обвезника пореза, бар до средине 17. века, ако не већ и од
двадесетих година. Наредни корак у тумачењу отоманских пописа
мора ићи у правцу објашњавања чињенице да се употребљава реч
„cizyehane“ (домаћинство које подлеже џизији) као да се свуда ради
о истој јединици, али, истовремено, повремено се дају вредни
наговештаји ка бољем разумевању. У том смислу, од кључне
важности је чињеница да постоје пописи („псеудомуфасали“) који
садрже „имена“ обвезника пореза која су буквално бесмислена, као
и износи које је потребно исплатити и који нису били везани ни за
инфлацију нити за девизни курс, већ су понекад могли зависити од
дневница војске.
Кључне речи: отоманска реформа џизије из 1691, књиговодство,
Славонија, Босна.
329
UDC: 27726.6:28(560)”14/19”
Ema MILJKOVIĆ
FROM “DHIMMITUDE“ TO TURKISM –

CONFESSIONAL AND ETHNIC POLICY
IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE*
Abstract: Although the main outlines of the Ottoman policy toward the nonMuslim
citizens of the Empire have been wellknown, the issue still raises questions, as well
as a polemic discourse among historians – experts for the history of the Ottoman
Empire. The two main lines of reasoning are the following: some historians tend to see
the position of the nonMuslim citizens of the Empire (mostly Christians and Jews,
socalled dhimmis, from Arabic ‫ ﺬﺨﻤﻟﻲ‬ḏimmī, ) as the secondclass subjects, with almost
no rights (hence the term dhimmitude used by the Jewishoriginated British historian
and publicist Bat Ye’or), while some other historians see dhimmis as protected citizens
and insist on the tolerance expressed by the Islamic states precedent to the Ottoman
Empire, as well as by the Ottoman Empire itself.
This paper aims to examine in detail the dhimmi status and tries to outline an
objective and scientific description of the position of nonMuslim subjects of Ottoman
rulers. The paper will also examine the evolution of the status of dhimmis, especially
after the Hattı Şerif of Gülhane dated 1839, when the classic position of nonMuslim
citizens began to change.
Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Muslim population, nonMuslim population, Classical
Age, Tanzimat Era, Young Turk Revolution.
The position of the nonMuslim population in the Islamic countries

has been a largely disputed question in scientific discussions, as well as
in literature and publicist works. There is almost no need to say that the
consensus on this issue has not yet been reached (with small chances to
be reached eventually). The reason for such a difference of opinions
could be explained by at least two sets of reasons: the first group of
*
331
Ema Miljković
opinions is linked to the perception of the writer himself/herself and the

second to the lack of firstgrade documents which could help resolve
this particular scientific (and not only scientific) problem.1
As for the perception of the author, and the most obvious one, the
first differentiation would be among the authors or scientists coming
from the Islamic milieu, who try to present Islamic past from the
apologetic point of view (the whole range of experts for Islamic law
would be a part of that group), but there are also some scientist experts
for other fields and of different origin who agree with that position. On
the other hand, there are the authors of whom a large majority is of non
Islamic origin, who criticize the position of the nonMuslim population
in the Islamic states. One of the extremes could be the English publicist
of Jewish origin Baat Ye’or, who even invented the term “dhimmitude“
in order to emphasize how discriminating this position is.2
This state of scientific production is certainly linked to the second
statement: the lack of relevant sources for a research of this topic. The
most widely used source is the Qur’an itself. However, as it is a Holy
Book, written in a special literature form, and thus not replete with
unnecessary explanations, its perceptions could be widely different. This
situation creates a wide range of possibilities not only for different, but
completely opposite reasoning and opinions.
With the proclamation of Islam in the 7th century, the ultimate truth
according to the Muslim doctrine, the whole world, has been imaginarily
divided into two parts: darulislam and darulharb; darulislam being
“the Abode of Islam“ and darulharb, “the Abode of War“, which
should ultimately encompass all the lands and regions. In that idealistic
perspective the whole world should be ruled by the Muslims. By the
same doctrine, the population was divided into Muslims, dhimmis
1
For more details see: D. Tanasković, Smisao i domašaj verske tolerancije u Islamu,
Kultura 91/92 (1993) 159–160.
2
For Baat Ye’or, the term “dhimmitude“, which is her invention, is the civilization
circle of dhimmi. She sees the “concept of the protected citizens“ in direct correlation
with jihad (the Muslim holy war), as well as the state of permanent fear and
insecurity; thus the “infidels“ are in a constant nonrespective and humble position
in the dominantly Muslim societies. B. Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude. Where
Civilizations Collide, Madison. Teaneck. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press 2005.
332
From “dhimmitude“ to Turkism – Confessional and Ethnic Policy in the Ottoman Empire
(protected citizens) and harbis (population of the “Abode of War“), and

it was proposed that all harbis should become Muslims.3
However, this doctrine was not possible to accomplish in practice.
Thus, the category of dhimmis, mentioned in the Qur’an4, was introduced.
It meant that all followers of the monotheistic religions had the state
protection and freedom in practicing their own religion, as long as they
obeyed the rules which were proclaimed for them particularly, i.e. while
they were the loyal subjects of the Muslim ruler, paid proscribed taxes
and were attentive to the feelings of “true believers“.5
The first document mentioning the Muslim view of protection of
dhimmis was the contract given by Prophet Muhammad to the population
of the town of Najran, in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. The
document is dated 630 A.D. and states that Prophet Muhammad,
although being master of the population of Najran and their property,
benevolently decided to leave their belongings to them, defining the
amount of the tax that should be paid by them.6
The earliest limitations in the rules that dhimmis should follow were
proclaimed by the document of disputable authenticity, but nevertheless it
was an undisputable witness of its own epoch, which is widely known as
the “Pact of Umar“ (whose authorship was wrongly linked with the second
“Rightly Guided“ Caliph, who was the head of the “Rashidun Caliphate“
from 634–644); the real author of this Pact is Umayyad Caliphe Umar Ibn
Abel Aziz, who headed the Umayyad Caliphate in the period from 717 to
720. The same or similar restrictions would be applied in the later period,
on a smaller or larger scale, depending on historical circumstances.7 As the
3
For more details, see: S. Faroqhi, The Ottoman Empire and the World Around it,
New York 2004, 2–3.
4
In the Qur’an the followers of Judaism, Christianity, as well as the followers of St.
John the Baptist, and later Persian Zoroastrians obtained the dhimmi status. They
are also known as “people of the Book“ (ahl alkitāb in Arabic).
5
D. Tanasković, Smisao i domašaj, 162; Д. Танасковић, Ислам. Догма и живот,
Београд 2008, 147–159; А. Фотић, Између закона и његове примене, Приватни
живот у српским земљама у освит модерног доба, Београд 2005, 27–71.
6
D. Tanasković, Smisao i domašaj, 163.
7
For detailed regulations for the dhimmi population according to the Pact of Umar
see: D. Tanasković, Smisao i domašaj, 163–164. For the restrictions prescribed in the
Ottoman period, see: А. Фотић, Између закона и његове примене, 36–37.
333
Ema Miljković
times became harder, the restrictions on dhimmis grew harsher, as they

were always regarded as a guilt part for the bad conditions in the state
or society.
The aim of this paper is to present the rules prescribed for the non
Muslim population in the Ottoman Empire, using all the available
sources and from the standpoint of an objective scholar, without
predefined conclusions and prejudices.
The usual division of the population in the Ottoman Empire was along
the confessional and social, and not ethnic groups. Thus, as already
explained, the main classification was into Muslims, dhimmis and harbis
(confessional one), according to the acceptance of the Contract from
Najran and Pact of Umar, documents dated from the first centuries of
Islam, along with the Ottoman social diversification to asker and reaya.
The position of the nonMuslim population of the Ottoman Empire
should be analysed according to the periodization of the Ottoman
Empire itself – as circumstances in the Empire changed, the position of
the nonMuslim population changed as well.
If we accept the standard periodization of the Ottoman Empire,
proposed by H. Inalcik in his early works and then widely used and
reused, the first period examined in the sense of this topic would be the
Classical Age of the Empire. The second is the Tanzimat Era, and the
third the period after the Young Turk Revolution.8
In the first period, the term ‘Ottoman’ did not signify ethnicity, thus
even the Turkish Muslim population of the Empire was not called the
Ottomans. The Ottoman at that time referred to the Dynasty (of Osman)
itself and the ruling class among them, regardless of the birth origin of
8
Although in the last two decades several articles have appeared proposing the new
periodization of the Ottoman history, for this paper the “classical“ one served better
its function. The new periodization is yet to be discussed and valuated. For example,
see: L. Darling, Another look at the periodization in Ottoman history, The Turkish
Studies Association Journal, vol. 26, No. 2 (fall 2002) 19–28.
334
the highest dignitaries in the Empire. However, since the time of

Mehmed II there were no high dignitaries who were a part of the
Osman’s tribe. They were all renegades from various (very often Balkan)
nations, and serving as the faithful servants of the “Ruler of the Faithful“.
It is important to point out that in the earlier centuries of the Empire’s
existence, the term Turk had a pejorative meaning, although the dynasty
was partly of Turkish origin (since the 15th century sultans’ mothers were
of different ethnic origin, but were not Turkish; the Ottoman language,
according to famous Jean Deny was only a dialect of the Turkish
language, but the Ottoman Empire could not be possibly called the
Turkish Empire in this early period).9
The position of dhimmis, at the time of Mehmed II, as well as during the
reign of his predecessors and successors, was different in the time of war
and in the time of peace. For example, the population of Constantinople,
after the Ottoman troops entered the city on 29 May 1453, endured rapes,
atrocities, thefts, ransoms. However, after a very short period of time (but
we do not know precisely how long), the young padishah gave the order
to the newly appointed commander (subaşı) of Istanbul, certain Suleyman
beg from Trakya, to clean the city, rebuild it, adjust the city services to the
Ottoman system, and as the most important task, to repopulate the deserted
city.10 The next move was to settle in the newly proclaimed capital of the
Ottoman Empire gifted craftsmen and tradesmen from other former Greek
cities, to renew the economic life of Constantinople. The newcomers were
given immense tax conveniences11.
After the conquest of Constantinople, the Greek population was
granted, by the Imperial Order, three rights: the right to preserve their
churches which would not be converted into mosques; second, the right
to make their own ceremonies for weddings, funerals and church rituals,
9
For more details, see: Историја османског царства, ур. Р. Мантран, Београд
2002, 101–102. See also: R. Lewis, Everyday Life in Ottoman Turkey, London, New
York, 1971, 19.
10
Ф. Бабингер, Мехмед Освајач и његово доба, Београд 2010, 94–95.
11
Ф. Бабингер, Мехмед Освајач, 94–95; С. Рансиман, 1453. Пад Цариграда,
Београд 2008, 208–209; Х. Иналџик, Османско царство. Класично доба 1300–
1600, Београд 1974, 202–294.
335
Ema Miljković
and third the right to celebrate Easter with the complete ceremony.12 The
relations with the other confessional entities in the Empire were
organized accordingly.13
The main fiscal obligation of nonMuslim subjects in the Ottoman
Empire, haraj – tax per capita paid to the ruler, implied the acceptance
of subjugated relations to the ruler, as a way of payment for the passive
role in the Ottoman state. The subjects paying haraj were freed from the
obligation to serve the Ottoman army and had the right to preserve the
confession of their predecessors.14 This status also implied various
limitations (according to the Sheri’a Law), which nonMuslim subjects
of the Empire had to respect, as explained above.
Modern historiography describes that Mehmed Fatih first wanted to
impose a kind of a “political“ leader who would answer directly to the
sultan, and who would be responsible for the behaviour of his community.
It is presumed that this position was meant for Lucas Notaras, the Grand
(Megas) Dux of the last Byzantine Emperor Constantin XI.15
However, the ruler changed his opinion and Lucas Notaras was
executed a couple of days after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople.16
Mehmed II needed a new solution.
During the last months of 1453, Mehmed Fatih began the procedure
of election of the new Patriarch of Constantinople, determined to fulfil
that task according to the accepted tradition. Sultan elected George the
monk, a fierce adversary of the Church Union. He was proclaimed the
Patriarch of Constantinople with the name of Gennadius Scholarius at
the beginning of January 1453.17
12
Time will show that those guarantees were not always respected in practice. One by
one church was taken from the Christians, thus in the 18th century only three were left.
13
Ф. Бабингер, Мехмед Освајач, 96; С. Рансиман, Пад Цариграда, 203–205.
14
For more details see: H. Hadžibegić, Glavarina u Osmanskoj državi, Sarajevo1966.
15
B. Braude, Foundation Myths of the Millet System, Christians and Jews in the
Ottoman Empire: Functioning of the Plural Society, ed. B. Braude and B. Lewis,
vol. 1, The Central Lands, London, New York 1982, 69–87.
16
С. Рансиман, Пад Цариграда, 200; Ф. Бабингер, Мехмед Освајач, 88–89.
17
Ibidem.
336
II
This concept was valid throughout the Ottoman era, from the 15th
century until 1839, when with the Rescript of Rose Chamber the equality
of persons of all religions in the application of civil laws was proclaimed
for the first time in the history of the Empire.18 Beside the above equality
of subjects of sultans, the Rescript proclaimed the security of life, honour
and property of subjects; the abolition of taxfarming and all abuses
associated with it; regular and orderly recruitment into the armed forces;
fair and public trial of all persons accused of various sorts of crimes.19
Although rather modern for the Ottoman political circumstances and
definitely proclaimed as influenced by Western ideas (with more or less
enthusiasm), for the Balkan nations that was rather a step back in
comparison with the Millet system,20 which was a way of preserving the
national and confessional identity, although it had huge limitations.21
The majority of authors who treated this issue points out that the
declared equality of all subjects was the result of pressure of the
European Great Powers on the sultan and Sublime Porte, although there
are some voices insisting that those measures were initiated from the
heart of the Ottoman Empire. Both groups agreed that the declared
18
B. Lewis in his book The emergence of Modern Turkey (Оxford University Press,
1961) discusses in detail this document of immense importance.
19
Ibidem, 105–106; 108, 113, 131, 162, 166–167, etc.
20
Millet system, as a system of confessional units in the Ottoman Empire with a high
scale of autonomy gained its full shape in the 19th century, developing on the swing
of reforms during the reign of sultan Mahmud I (1808–1839) and Abdul Mejid I
(1839–1861). During their reign, as mentioned before, the right of the Muslim and
nonMuslim population of the Empire became equal for the first time in the history
of the Ottoman Empire with the Noble Rescript of Gülhane (1839). However, the
model established by Mehmed the Conqueror, after the victory during which he took
over Constantinople, was the basis for the system developing in the later epochs.
More about the millet system: B. Braude, Foundation myths of the millet system,
69–87. See also: S. Stavro, The Millet System and its Contribution to the Blurring
of Orthodox Identity in Albania, Balkan Cultural Studies, New York 1980, 177–190.
21
For more details on the position of nonMuslims see: А. Фотић, Између закона и
његове примене, 27–71; Е. Миљковић, Мехмед II Освајач и питање верске
толеранције у Османском царству, Свети цар Константин и хришћанство I,
Ниш 2013, 645–654.
337
Ema Miljković
measures aimed to preserve the Empire, whose foundation was strongly

shaken at the time. It was thought that the quoted measures would stop
the development of the national feeling with the nonMuslim population,
which was considered the ultimate goal for members of the Ottoman
central government.22
In the classical period of the Ottoman Empire there were no intentions
toward the creation of one, unique nation; the different ethnic groups were
organized according to the confessional principle, headed by the spiritual
leader, who was in fact a sovereign of his community. The spiritual, as
well as common, practical and visual dominance of Islam could be
strongly seen. However, completely different from some other Islamic
states which preceded the Ottoman Empire, in the Osman’s state there was
almost no difference between the “оld“ and “new“ Muslims. The Dutch
diplomat Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq insisted that with the Ottomans “it
was possible for the son of a fisherman, peasant or cattle breeder to
became a grand vizier“,23 but exclusively if he converted to Islam.
Since 1839, on the swing of the Tanzimat movement the main idea
was to unify the various nations of the Empire, thus creating the new
Ottoman nation – this time, dhimmis were included. This process is
usually called Ottomanism.
Ottomanism (Tur. Osmanlılık), regarding the epoch in which it was
studied, could be examined both as a determination for the Dynasty and
ruling elite of the Ottoman Empire, as explained above, and as a movement.
The change in the meaning of the term Ottomanism came with the
forties of the 19th century and the above Rescript of Gülhane. Since that
time, the term Ottomanism could be used in the sense of a movement, its
basic idea being to proclaim all the population of the Empire the
Ottomans, with allegedly equal rights, and to unify into one Ottoman
nation all peoples of the Empire, which was the main idea of the
22
For more details, see: B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey; Dž. Hakov,
Kratka istorija moderne Turske, Prizren 2011; C. Finkel, The Osman’s Dream,
London 2006.
23
The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at
Constantinople, 1554–1562, trans. Edward Forster, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
UP, 2005. Serbian translation: J. Novaković Lopušina, Srbi i jugoistočna Evropa u
nizozemskim izvorima do 1918, Beograd 1999.
338
Tanzimat era, as well as the ideology of the Committee of Union and

Progress24, which became one of the most important political movements
in the shortest century (20th century as it is called in history writings) of
the Empire.25
However, the Tanzimat process led to the establishment of liberally
inclined Ottoman intellectuals known as the Young Ottomans, who
were rather conservative regarding the confessional issue, believing
that the radical reforms according to Western standards weakened the
ethics and ideology of the Ottoman society without an adequate
replacement; their intention was to adjust Western political institutions
with the traditional Ottoman theory and practice, expressed through
three main ideas: the Constitution, Parliament and Ottomanism. The
main proponents of such ideology were Namik Kemal and Ali Suavi,
who began to express their ideas during the sixties of the 19th century;
their main idea was to achieve real Ottomanism by abolishing all
millets as legal entities and erase all differences among them, and
include them all into one and only Ottoman nation.26
Although the idea could have a positive connotation, in practice it
became a process during which all subjects of the sultan would become
the Ottomans, as well as Muslims. This ideology was well expressed
during the time of the Young Turk Revolution and can be nicely
illustrated by the words of TalatBey, one of the leading personalities of
the Committee of the Union and Progress, in his speech delivered in
Monastir (Bitola) in 1910: “You are aware that by the terms of the
Constitution, the equality of Mussulumans and Ghiaur was affirmed but
you one and all know and feel that this is an unrealizable ideal. The
Sheriat, our whole past history and the sentiment of hundreds of
thousands of Mussulumans and even the sentiment of the Ghiaurs
themselves, who stubbornly resist every attempt to Ottomanize
24
For more on the Committee of Union and Progress, see: B. Lewis, The Emergence
of Modern Turkey, 196–197.
25
See: B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Историја Османског царства,
ур. Р. Мантран, Dž. Hakov, Kratka istorija savremene Turske; C. Finkel, The
Osman’s dream.
26
B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 133, 135, 137–143, 145–146, etc.
according to the register.
339
Ema Miljković
them, present an impenetrable barrier to the establishment of real

equality. We made unsuccessful attempts to convert the Ghiaur into loyal
Osmanli and all such efforts must inevitably fail, as long as the small
independent states in the Balkan Peninsula remain in a position to
propagate the ideas of separatism among the inhabitants of Macedonia.
There can therefore be no question of equality, until we succeed in
our task of Ottomanizing the Empire – a long and laborious task, in
which I venture to predict that we shall at length succeed after we have
at last put an end to the agitation and propaganda of the Balkan states.“27
For members of the Committee of the Union and Progress, the first
word in the name of their organization meant unification of all ethnic
groups in the Empire, which implied abolition of all particular national
movements with autonomy as the ultimate goal. The Young Turks
wanted one single state, with a stress on centralization and unification.28
In the note of the British Ambassador in Constantinople Sir Gerald
Lowther sent to London in 1910, commenting on those past events, it
was written: “The Committee has given up any idea of Ottomanizing all
the nonTurkish elements by sympathetic and constitutional ways. The
term “Ottoman” evidently means “Turk” and their present policy of
“Ottomanization” is one of pounding the nonTurkish elements in a
Turkish mortar…“29
However, there are some preserved testimonies showing that during
the Young Turk Revolution there was the feeling of unity among the
various nations of, at the time already, reduced Empire. According to
the testimony of Robert Chambers30,“for the first time in the history of
27
Quoted according to: B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 214.
28
Историја Османског царства, ур. Р. Мантран, 718–719.
29
For more details see: B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 214–215; see
also G. Miller, Straits vol. II, British policy toward the Ottoman Empire and origins
of the Dardanelle campaign, available at: www.manorhouse.clara.net/book 2/.
30
Robert Chambers was born in Erzerum, Turkey. He was a son of Canadian
missionaries and grew up in a deeply religious home, but was also a witness of
ArmenianTurkish conflicts. He graduated from the Robert College in Istanbul in
1900. He continued his schooling in Canada where he obtained an M.A. level in
1902. He came back to Turkey, where he worked, since 1902 to 1905, as a teacher
in a school in Bardezag (eastern Turkey). He started his research career in biology
at the University of Munich, where he worked under the supervision of famous
340
the world, Christians stood shoulder to shoulder with Muslims, in a

triumphant onslaught for the recovery of liberty and the reinstatement of
the Constitution“.31
The proclamation of the constitutional rule was celebrated with great
enthusiasm all over the Empire. It was Enver Bey, who emerged as one
of the “heroes of liberty” and delivered a speech to the cheering people
in Salonica: “Citizens! I am grateful for your affection towards my
person. I did not do enough to deserve it. I was only lucky that this duty,
which every Ottoman would love to undertake, was given to me. If I
could do my job properly, this would be the best reward for me. Thanks
God, we have restored the constitution. We obtained our liberty.
However, we should not think that our task is over. The tougher part
begins now. In order to further this first step, we have taken on the path
to progress, we should work harder and be more careful. From now on,
all the citizens, Muslim or nonMuslim, work hand in hand and make our
fatherland rise. Long live the nation, long live the fatherland!”32
III
In his book under the title “History of the modern Turkey“, the
Bulgarian historian of Turkish origin Džingiz Hakov stated the opinion
that the Constitutional Movement from 1876 created at least four
different movements, such as Ottomanism, Islamism, Turkism and Pro
Western movement.
He sees Ottomanism only as a reaction to nationalliberation intentions
of various peoples of the Empire, but insists that its main intention was
the unification of all nations, regardless of their ethnic origin or
zoologist Richard Hertwig. He obtained his Ph.D. degree at the University of

Munich. He researched livid cells. He had a curious and adventurous spirit, shaped
by the years he spent in eastern Anatolia. He published his memoires dedicated to the
Young Turk Revolution in the article Liberty and the Ottomans, in the journal
“University of the Toronto Monthly“ vol. IX/X, 1909–1910. The entire text is available
at: http://home.us.archive.org/stream/universityoftoronto10univuoft/ universityof
toronto10univuoft_djvu.txt.
31
Ibidem.
32
Quoted according to: www.turkeyswar.com/cup.html.
341
Ema Miljković
confessional background, all that in the name of preservation of the

Ottoman state.33
The second phase, according to the same author, was Islamism,
whose followers believed that the only way to save the Ottoman state
would be to stick to the rigid principles of Islam and by applying its
rules. This movement was quite strong during the time of Sultan Abdul
Hamid II, who used it as a shield against Russian influence in the
Balkans, as well as to weaken the group of the New Ottomans and to
eliminate it from the political life of the Empire.34
Followers of the ProWestern movement advocated the acceptance
of Western technology and social and cultural institutions. They saw it
the only way to save the Ottoman state and ensure its development at the
level of Western states.35
As for Turkism, which was one of the main principles of the
Republic, it was established as a movement at a least couple of decades
before the Liberation War and creation of the Republic of Turkey.
The title of the “Father of the Turkish nationalism“ has usually been
given to Ziya Gökalp, a poet and political worker (1876–1924). Ziya
Gökalp was born as Mehmed Ziya in the province of Diyarbakir, which
was the frontier of the Empire at the time. He was brought up in mixed
ethnical surroundings. His early life was shaped by the shifting terrain
of national identity which he saw around him. This multicultural area
was home to a mixture of Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian peoples, all
governed by the rapidly deteriorating Ottoman Empire, which still
maintained a tenuous hold on its vast territory. According to one of his
biographers, an expert in cultural history Thomas Storey, Gökalp saw
Turkish identity of his forebears subsumed within the Ottoman hierarchy
and lost in the increasingly decadent palaces of this great Empire. He
became infatuated with the idea of Turkish nationalism, and the
possibilities for the unification of ethnically Turkish people. He opposed
not only the dissipation of the Ottoman Empire, but also the rising tide
33
Dž. Hakov, Istorija moderne Turske, 22.
34
Ibidem, 23.
35
Ibidem, 24.
342
of Islamism, which he saw as an unnecessary distraction from the more

pressing issue of Turkish nationalism and modernization36.
In 1896 he moved to Istanbul and started his revolutionary activities,
becoming a member of the group of young positivists who called
themselves “Union and Progress“ (Ittihad ve Terakki). In sociology,
especially that of Emile Durkheim, prevails the theory that Ziya Gökalp
founded the conceptual framework within which he constructed the first
theoretical formulation of Turkish nationalism.37
According to B. Lewis, “the Ottoman reaction to the Balkan separatism,
the Tatar revolt against Russian panSlavism, the response of Turkish and
Tatar intellectuals to the new ideas and examples set by European
nationalism, the nourishment of Turkish pride by Turcological discovery –
all these, at the time of Ottoman defeat and Muslim abasement, combined
to encourage the growth of Turkism as a new political movement based
not on a dynasty, faith or state, but on a people – the Turkish people in the
vast territories extending from Europe to the Pacific.“38
However, the Young Turks were dedicated to the idea of Ottomanism,
rather than Turkism and that ideology prevailed after their victory in 1908.39
Turkism as s movement was the reclamation and elevation of Turkish
identity focused around Gökalp’s ideas. It eventually led to the Turkisation
of the previously ethnically and nationally diversified Empire.
Gökalp’s most salient work was “The Principles of Turkism“
(Türkçülüğün Esasları) published in 1923, the same year when after the
decisions of the Lausanne Conference, the Turkish Republic (Turk
Cumhuriyeti) was proclaimed. The essence of his political ideas could
be traced in the wellknown verse:
VATAN NE TÜRKİYEDİR TÜRKLERE, NE TÜRKİSTAN

VATAN, BÜYÜK VE MÜEBBET BİR ÜLKEDİR: TURAN 40
36
http://theculturetrip.com/europe/turkey/articles/ziyagkalpturkeysnationalpoet
andthefatherofturkishnationalism
37
B. Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 226–227.
38
Ibidem, 344–345.
39
Ibidem.
40
http://www.antoloji.com/turan2siiri/
343
Ema Miljković
In English translation:
FOR THE TURKS, FATHERLAND MEANS NEITHER TURKEY

NOR TURKISTAN,
FATHERLAND IS A LARGE AND ETERNAL COUNTRY,
TURAN.41
Dž. Hakov elaborates that the main shortcoming of his ideology was
the fact that he insisted on the creation of one wasteland which would
include all Turkish people, called Turan.42
After the proclamation of the Republic, Turkism as a model was
absolutely prevailing, but it was the determination for the Turks, citizens
of the Republic of Turkey and became one of the pillars of Kemalism.
In his book “NeoOttomanism: a doctrine and foreign policy practice“
the famous Serbian expert in Islamology professor Darko Tanasković
explains that “Kemalism is considered to be founded on six basic
principles, the socalled six arrows. These are republicanism
(cumhuriyetçilik), revolutionism (inkilâpçılık), laicism (lâiklik), statism
(devletçilik), nationalism (milliyetiçilik) and populism (halkçılık).43 He
continues by concluding that “regardless of the fact that all these
principles are given equal weight in school textbooks on Kemalism, it is
easy to agree with those who see uncompromising secularism/laicism
and assimilating Turkish nationalism (condensed into the notion that all
Turkish citizens, regardless of their ethnicity belong to the “Turkish
political people“ or the Turkish nation), as the two main pillars of the
Ataturk’s revolutionary and modernizing state ideology“.44
Although Ottomanisation as a concept of the 19th and 20th century
was never really achieved in practice, and thus did not become reality,
Turkisation was an integral part of the political discourse of the Republic
of Turkey and became strong and livid reality; however all movements
of the late 19th and early 20th century had the same goal: to save at any
41
http://books.google.rs/books?id=cGHGPgj1_tIC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq
42
Dž. Hakov, op.cit., 24.
43
D. Tanasković, Neo Ottomanism, Belgrade 2013, 18–19.
44
Ibidem, 19.
344
rate the Ottoman state. Obviously, nothing could be done for the Ottoman
state at the time as it was too late. The establishment of the new Republic
of Turkey led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk represented ultimately
the termination of the Ottoman state and institutions. The new Turkish
state was born.
The third phase, determined as Turkism, again raises the question of
(non)existence of religious freedom within such a system. The position
of Kemalism toward religion was very rigid and during the rule of
Kemal Ataturk some severe measures for secularization of the state and
society were taken (much more than in the period of his followers as
heads of the Republic of Turkey).45
The attitude of Kemal Ataturk regarding the freedom of speech, even
for representatives in the Parliament, could be illustrated at its best by
quoting his speech in the Turkish Parliament in late autumn 1922, during
the debate about the abolishment of the Caliphate. On that occasion, he
said: “Sovereignty and kingship are never decided by academic
debate. They are seized by force. The Ottoman dynasty appropriated by
force the government of the Turks, and reigned over them for six
centuries. Now the Turkish nation has effectively gained possession of
its sovereignty… This is an accomplished fact… If those assembled
here… see the matter in its natural light, we shall all agree. Otherwise,
facts will still prevail, but some heads may roll.“46
In the newly created Republic of Turkey, whose borders, in their today’s
volume, were acknowledged at the Lausanne Peace Conference in summer
1923, the rights for the minorities were proclaimed. However, they never
came to life in the newly established state. In the Republic of Turkey
everyone was a Turkish citizen, despite their ethnic origin. Article 66 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey defines as Turkish each one who
is linked to the Republic of Turkey by way of citizenship.47
45
B. Lewis, The emergence of the Modern Turkey, 256–269; 406–417. See also: Е.
Миљковић, Концепт слободе у Османском царству и Републици Турској:
потпуни раскид са прошлошћу, Наука и Слобода, Пале 2015, 15–25.
46
(https://www.quora.com/WasKemalAtaturkadictatororthepersonificationof
thepeopleswill)
47
Dž. Hakov, Istorija moderne Turske, 82–84.
345
Ema Miljković
According to Džingiz Hakov, “all nonMuslim minorities had the right

to finance their schools and various charities, as well as religious and social
establishments.“ The Greek Patriarchy in Istanbul preserved its previous
position, on the condition of nonengagement in political activities. The
majority of the Greek population in Turkey as well as Turkish in Greece
were forced to resettle. The exception was made for the Greek population
in Istanbul and on the islands of Imros and Bozciada, as well as for the
Turks in western Thrace. On 1 May 1923, even before the signing of the
Lausanne Treaty, the exchange of population began“. According to the
Lausanne Treaty 1.1 million of Greeks were resettled from Turkey, as well
as 380,000 Muslims from Greece.48
According to the American expert for Turkish studies, Lerna
Ekmecioğlu, “we“ created by the new Turkish elite represents, in its
essence, the limitations of the minority rights, regardless of the
provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, by which they were de iure protected.
She states her opinion that even the new elite believed that the non
Muslim minorities accelerated the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire,
and thus presented a danger for the young Republic as well.49
As a confirmation of her conclusion, she quotes the words of the
representative in the Turkish Parliament Mehmed Şükrü (Kocaoğlu), in
a parliamentary session on the future of minorities in Тurkey, who
declared: “Gentlemen! Unlike any other minority in the world, religious
minorities in this land lived in utmost comfort thanks to the tenets of
our religion. But these deceitful [muzır] people tried every possible
crime to ruin this state and devastate this nation [millet]. I think if we
now consulted them, they would say that they have no place in this
country anymore. They would admit that they themselves put an end to
their existence. And that is true. They really don’t have a place here…
Oh, those people, those traitors who were living in prosperity – they had
dominated the businesses, crafts, and commerce, without even serving
as soldiers for this country!“50
48
Ibidem.
49
L. Ekmekcioğlu, Republic of Paradox: The League of Nations Minority Protection
Regime and the New Turkey StepCitizen, Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 46/3
(2014) 657–658.
50
Ibidem.
346
***
The three described phases of the position of nonMuslim citizens of

the Ottoman Empire show that there was always a system applied rather
systematically. This statement leads to the conclusion that the position
of minorities (which is rather a modern term and used here just for
practical purposes) was more progressive than in other European states
at the time, where similar categories did not even exist. However, it
would be wrong to determine the Ottoman society as tolerant, especially
not in the modern sense of that notion. The Ottoman tolerance included,
at the same time, discrimination, expressed through a subjugated
position of the nonMuslim population in regard to the Muslim one. This
discrimination was quite visible, bearing in mind the absolute visible
domination of Islam. That is the reason why we find it more useful to use
the term coexistence dependant on hierarchy. The nonMuslim
populations, mostly Christians and Jews, without any doubt, had their
own place within the Ottoman state, but the equality between those two
groups was never accomplished, although it was proclaimed the goal
during the last century of existence of the Empire.
347
Ema Miljković
Ema MILJKOVIĆ
ZIMMİLİKTEN TÜRKÇÜLÜĞE – OSMANLI

İMPARATORLUĞU’NUN DİNİ VE ETNİK POLİTİKASI
Özet
İmparatorluğun gayrımüslim nüfusuna ilişkin Osmanlı siyasetinin ana

unsurları iyi biliniyor olsa da, bu mesele hala yeni incelemelerin konusu
olarak, tarihçiler ve özellikle Osmanlı İmparatorluğu tarihi uzmanları
arasındaki polemikleri teşvik etmektedir. Bu noktada iki ana düşünce var:
Bazı tarihçilere göre, İmparatorluğun gayrımüslim nüfüsü (genel olarak
hristiyan ve yahudi, “zımmi”, arapça “‫ ﺬﺨﻤﻟﻲ‬ḏimmī”) neredeyse tüm hakları
olmayan ikinci sınıf vatandaşlardı (yahudi kökenli Britanya tarihçisi ve
siyaset yazarı Bat Ye’or tarafından oluşturulan “dhimmitude” “zımmilik”
terimi bu düşünceden kaynaklanıyor), başka tarihçiler ise gayrı
müslümanlara korunmuş vatandaşlar olarak bakarak Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu öncesi islam devletleri ve Osmanlı İmparatroluğu nun
zımmilere tolerans tanıdıkları noktasında ısrar ediyorlar.
Bu çalışma, gayrımüslim statüsünün detaylı incelenmesiyle ve
Osmanlı hükümdarların gayrı müslüman tebaasının durumunun objektif
ve bilimsel tarifinin verilmesini amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışmada
gayrımüslim statüsünün gelişmesi ve özellikle 1839 yılı Gülhane Hatt
ı Şerifinden sonra gayrımüslimlerin gelekensel durumunda meydana
gelen değişimler incelenecek.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, müslüman nüfüsü,
gayrımüslim nüfus, klasik çağ, Tanzimat dönemi, Jön Türk Devrimi.
348
Ема МИЉКОВИЋ
ОД „DHIMMITUDE“ ДО ТУРКИЗМА – КОНФЕСИОНАЛНА

И ЕТНИЧКА ПОЛИТИКА У ОСМАНСКОМ ЦАРСТВУ
Резиме
Иако су главни аспекти османске политике према немусли

манским грађанима Царства добро познати, то питање и даље је
предмет анализа, подстичући полемике међу историчарима –
стручњацима за историју Османског царства. Два главна правца
размишљања су следећа: поједини историчари сматрају да су
немуслимански грађани Царства (углавном хришћани и Јевреји,
тзв. „dhimmis“, од арапске речи „‫ ﺬﺨﻤﻟﻲ‬ḏimmī“) били грађани другог
реда, без скоро икаквих права (отуда термин „dhimmitude“ који је
сковала британска историчарка и публицистикиња јеврејског
порекла Бат Јеор), док други историчари посматрају немуслимане
као заштићене грађане и инсистирају на толеранцији која је
постојала у исламским државама које су претходиле Османском
царству, као и у самом Османском царству.
Циљ овог рада је да подробно испита статус немуслимана и да дâ
објективан и научан опис положаја немуслиманских поданика
османских владара. У раду ће такође бити размотрен развој статуса
немуслимана, нарочито после Хатишерифа од Гилхане из 1839.
године, када је традиционални положај немуслиманских грађана
почео да се мења.
Кључне речи: Османско царство, муслиманско становништво,
немуслиманско становништво, класично доба, период танзимата,
Младотурска револуција.
349
LIST OF AUTHORS
Assoc. Prof. Marko ŠUICA, PhD
(University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History, Belgrade, Serbia)
Neven ISAILOVIĆ, PhD

(Institute of History Belgrade, Serbia)
Miloš IVANOVIĆ, PhD

Adrian MAGINA, PhD

(Museum of the Highland Banat, Reşiţa, Romania)
Assist. Prof. Emir O. FILIPOVIĆ, PhD

(University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History, Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina)
Srdjan RUDIĆ, PhD

Aleksandar KRSTIĆ, PhD

Prof. Machiel KIEL, PhD

(Netherlands Institute in Turkey)
Assoc. Prof. Hatice ORUÇ, PhD

(Ankara University, Faculty of Languages, History and Geography, Department of History,
Ankara, Turkey)
Prof. Ayşe KAYAPINAR, PhD

(İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of
History, Izmir, Turkey)
Prof. Levent KAYAPINAR, PhD

(İzmir Kâtip Çelebi University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of
History, Izmir, Turkey)
Prоf. Dragi GJORGIEV, PhD

(Institute of National History, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia)
Dragana AMEDOSKI, PhD

Assist. Prof. Güneş IŞIKSEL, PhD

(Istanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of History,
Istanbul, Turkey)
Assoc. Prof. Aşkın KOYUNCU, PhD

(Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Sciences and Arts, Department of History,
Çanakkale, Turkey)
Prof. Nenad MOAČANIN, PhD

(Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia)
Prof. Ema MILJKOVIĆ, PhD

(University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philology, Department of Oriental Languages, Literatures
and Cultures, Belgrade, Serbia)
S TAT E AND SOC I E TY I N T HE B A L KA N S
BE F O RE AND A F TE R E S TA BL I S HME N T OF OT TOM A N R U L E
Publishers
The Institute of History, Belgrade
Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade
Editors in Chief
Srđan Rudić, PhD, Director of The Institute of History, Belgrade
Selim Aslantaş, PhD, Director of the Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade
Proofreading and translation (English)

Tatjana Ćosović
Proofreading and translation (Turkish)

Stevan Kordić
Secretary of the Editorial Board

Snežana Ristić
Prepress and Cover art

Slobodan Simić
Circulation
550
Print
ISBN: 9788677431259
CIP Каталогизација у публикацији

Народна библиотека Србије, Београд

State and Society in The Balkans Before Ottoman Conquest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State and Society in The Balkans Before Ottoman Conquest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State and Society in The Balkans Before Ottoman Conquest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Institute of History Belgrade

Collection of Works, vol. 35

Yunus Emre Enstitüsü

STATE AND SOCIETY

Professor Rossitsa Gradeva, PhD

Selim Aslantaş (Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade)

This book has been published with the financial support of

Ayşe Kayapinar, Levent Kayapinar

LIST OF AUTHORS 351

EFFECTS OF EARLY OTTOMAN CONQUESTS

The immense political changes that struck the Serbian Empire

hazardous foreign politics of Prince Stefan Lazarević that reached its

The centralized and resilient state structure of prince Lazar’s

Obrad Dragosaljić, who belonged to the old generation of noblemen.19

Ottoman Empire.23 According to sources, during the last decade of the

Lazarević, during the year 1397. The political misbalances between

ERKEN OSMANLI FETIHLERIN LAZAREVIÇ

Sırbistan’ın Morava bölgesindeki soylu sınıfının toplumsal yapısı,

Balkan yarımadasında 14. yüzyılın sonlarında Osmanlı hükümdarlarının

ПОСЛЕДИЦЕ РАНИХ ОСМАНЛИЈСКИХ ОСВАЈАЊА НА

Током последње две деценије 14. века структура највишег

области Лазаревића биле су одраз друштвених кретања унутар

LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE VLACHS

The question of Vlachs/vlachs1 of South Eastern Europe, whether we

Poland to Byzantine Greece), denoting populations, toponyms, areas,

If we do not take some solitary fragments into account, the earliest

community was organised in groups of houses (i.e. katuns).15 Vlachs

mentioned earlier, prohibited the Serbs to enter into marriages with

carrying vlach names as well and some groups of them permanently

it as a “bad custom” which should be removed from use, but we do not

implemented old Serbian mining laws. See: Е. Миљковић, А. Крстић, Трагови,

OSMANLI FETHİ ÖNCESİ VE SONRASI BALKAN

Bu çalışma, Balkanlar’da Eflak nüfüsünün yasal statüsünü açıklayan

ЗАКОНОДАВСТВО О ВЛАСИМА БАЛКАНА

У фокусу рада је анализа законодавне грађе из средњег века и

Abstract: An important source for an overview of relations between the Commune

Cyrillic correspondence is an important source for understanding

It is noted that in spring 1392 authorities of Ragusa ordered to their

Commune of Ragusa during 1395 and 1396 in communication with nun

velikomu vojevodi”).23 It is from this letter that we find out that

term “adoration” in letters to the Lazarevićs, Bosnian King Stefan Ostoja

entirely cordial adoration (“mnogoljubimo i v’ vsem’ srdačno

was to be in the Serbian or Ottoman language? Did perhaps Ottoman

Table: Letters of the Commune of Ragusa to Ottoman commanders (1396–1417)

Their relations can also be traced on the basis of Ottoman Cyrillic

not carried out. Left without Sultan’s support, in mid­October 1432

In regard to the salutation, in the Sultan’s letter of 1430 it reads as:

1396 – 1458 YILLAR ARASINDA DUBROVNİK

Dubrovnik ve Osmanlılar arasında kiril harflerinde yapılan yazışmalar,

ettikleri kişilerin rütbesine uygun olarak davrandıklarını gösteriyor.

ЋИРИЛСКА ПРЕПИСКА ИЗМЕЂУ ДУБРОВАЧКЕ

Важан извор за познавање дубровачко­османских односа

Након битке код Ангоре 1402. османски утицај на Балкану је

IN THE HANDS OF THE TURKS.

Hungarian Kingdom were exposed to the Ottomans’ attacks from that

psychological impact, those raids caused material losses. In 1446, for

noble woman remembered that a certain nobleman was a landlord when

kapcsalatos iratok 1607–1659 [The documents of the assemblies and rulers

not carried out. Left without Sultan’s support, in midOctober 1432

Важан извор за познавање дубровачкоосманских односа

1463, noted the execution of voivode Tvrtko Kovačević.16 Dursunbey,

Osmanlıların, Balkan yarımadasına ve Tuna bölgesine gelişi Sırp

“Village of Hram, Hass of the aforementioned (= Mihaloğlu Ali