i. UNDER SULTAN SELIM I AND SHAH ESMĀIL I
The dynamics of Ottoman-Safavid relations during the almost contemporaneous reigns of Sultan Selim I and Shah Esmāʿil I (r. 1501-24) are closely connected with the general socio-political and socio-religious conditions prevailing in Anatolia, Persia, and the border regions between the two empires since the second half of the 15th century. The Turkmen groups scattered around Anatolia had deep differences from the central administrative system, religiously, socially, and politically, which went back to the Saljuq period; and the weakening of the Aq Qoyunlu state in the late 15th century fostered political chaos. Shah Esma’il, with his new religious doctrine, established influence over the Turkmens and filled the power gap. (See also discussion in ČALDERĀN.)
Shah Esmāʿil, still only the head (moršed) of the Ṣafawiya order of militant Shiʿite dervishes (see Mazzaoui, 1971 and 1972), defeated the last Āq Qoyunlu ruler and seized his capital Tabriz, then the largest city in Persia. He crowned himself in Tabriz in 1501 and soon was able to take control of the remainder of Persia and to establish there Twelver Shiʿism as the official creed. The latter action inaugurated a new period of tension in the Middle East which was to disturb its political geography for centuries, since Persia was surrounded by predominantly Sunnite neighbors, foremost among them Selim’s Ottoman empire. Nevertheless, the initial period of Ottoman-Safavid relations could be considered as friendly (see Tekindağ, 1967, pp. 34-39; 1968, pp. 54-59; Bacqué-Grammont, 1991, pp. 205-207).
Several Türkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and Iraq, and more especially in Anatolia, which had been conquered just recently by the Ottomans, were affected by the religious-sectarian movement that was now led by the young and energetic Shah Esmāʿil (b. 1487). Before Selim’s accession to the throne, his father, Sultan Bayezid (Bāyazid) II (r. 1481-1512), already old and ill and confined to Istanbul, noticed the danger posed by the Safavids and their emissaries to the heterodox Anatolian tribes, but he was helpless against Shah Esmāʿil, who enjoyed a series of victories won by his raiders in Anatolia. The rebellion of Šāhqoli Bābā Tekelü (Tekelu) in southern Anatolia in 1511 was only with difficulty suppressed by the Ottomans. The swift expansionist policy of Shah Esmāʿil and Shiʿite propaganda in Anatolia were creating a great deal of anxiety in Istanbul’s military circles. Parts of the army believed that only Prince Selim, the youngest son of Bayezid II, could save the state from this crisis (Tekindağ , 1968, p. 52; Uluçay, 1954, 1956), although Bayezid intended to leave the throne to his eldest son Aḥmad. Prince Selim, who advocated a more resolute attitude towards the Safavids, took the throne in 1512 and began his reign by killing his brothers and nephews, who could have threatened his rule. This was followed, in 1513, by ruthless measures taken against the Shiʿite Turkmens in Anatolia, before preparations began for a war against Shah Esmāʿil (Bacqué-Grammont, 1991, pp. 207-8; Baştav, pp. 21-27).
On 20 April 1514, Sultan Selim I left Istanbul at the head of a large army after having obtained a fatwa from several well-known Sunnite clerics of that time, such as Mofti Nur-al-Din Ḥamza, known as “Saru Görez,” and Ebn Kamāl, supporting the legitimacy of the military campaign against Shah Esmāʿil (Tansel, 1969, pp. 34-36; Tekindağ , 1968, pp. 53-55; Allouche, pp. 170-73.). Soon after having arrived in Sivas via Eskişehir, Konya, and Kayseri, Selim, challenged Esmāʿil to the battlefield with three letters, written in Persian in an extremely offensive style (for texts, see Feridun Beg, I, pp. 379-81, 382-86). As a safety measure, Selim had left behind 40,000 of his 140,000 soldiers, apparently to protect the region between Kayseri and Sivas. The Ottoman army suffered from shortage of supply and the severe climatic conditions in the unfriendly terrain. Selim, however, decided to march on, using severe measures to keep discipline among the soldiers who had been dissatisfied by the prolonged campaign.
Ultimately, the Ottoman and Safavid armies came face to face on the field of Čālderān (see also Walsh; PLATE 1) on 3 August 1514. The ensuing battle ended with the complete victory of the Ottoman army, because of its superiority in number, its innovative military tactics, and especially the extensive use of firearms. Shah Esmaʿil, who had fought courageously, lost many of his close followers and commanders, though he managed to escape wounded from the battlefield. Selim then marched unopposed towards the Safavid capital, Tabriz, which he entered on 6 September. The Safavid camp, along with precious possessions belonging to the shah, was seized and many artisans from Tabriz were deported to Istanbul (for a document from that time, which has preserved a list with their names, see Uzunçarşılı, 1986, pp. 23-76).
The approaching winter, however, became a serious threat to the Ottoman army, whose logistic problems began to worsen. It left Tabriz for Karabakh (Qarābāḡ) in the southern Caucasus on 15 September 1514. Selim was willing to winter in Karabakh and then to resume his campaign against Shah Esmā’il, but a mutiny started in the army when it reached the Aras River, which made Selim’s position in Azerbaijan untenable, and he departed with his army for Amasya in Anatolia. Once Selim and the Ottoman army had left for Anatolia, Esmāʿil returned to Azerbaijan, entering Tabriz, his capital, in September 1514, where he passed the winter (Możṭar, ed., p. 508; Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., p. 534; Ḥasan Rumlu, I p. 196).
Meanwhile, Selim was reinforcing his military success against Shah Esmāʿil with skillful use of diplomatic, economical, and psychological warfare. In order to weaken and encircle the Safavid state, he initiated contacts with the Sunnite ruler ʿObaydallāh Khan of the Uzbeks, whose territories bordered on the northeast of the Safavid domain (for details, see Feridun Beg, I, p. 374-79, 415-16). He also prohibited the transport of goods to Persia and confiscated them from traders who ignored the embargo (Feridun Beg, I, p. 498; Ḵvāja Saʿd-al-Din Efendi, IV, pp. 213-16; Bacqué-Grammont, 1975). As an insult and also a psychological ploy, he forced the favorite wife of Shah Esmāʿil, who had been captured at Čālderān, to marry one of his men (see Ḵvāja Saʿd-al-Din Efendi, IV, pp. 213-15; Uzunçarşılı, 1959, pp. 611-19; Savory, 2003, pp. 217-32; Pārsādust, pp. 479-81).
Selim spent the winter of 1514/15 in punishing those soldiers and statesmen who had opposed the Persian war, and in bringing the Kurdish feudal lords of the frontier area, who had so far pursued a wait-and-see attitude, over to his side (see TSMA, E. 8333; Ḥaydar Čalabi, p. 149; Edris Bedlisi, pp. 237-40). Meanwhile, Shah Esmāʿil sent an embassy, led by Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Wahhāb, to Amasya offering peace, but Selim rejected this proposal and had the envoys sent to Istanbul as prisoners.
Although the power of Shah Esmā’il could not be destroyed entirely in the Battle of Čālderān, he was never again to constitute a serious danger to the Ottomans. The defeat had deep effects on the future policy and even on the psychology of Shah Esmāʿil. Hitherto, he had spent his life in struggles and wars and had achieved spectacular successes and victories. After 1514, however, he kept away from all political contention and wars and never again led his army into a battle.
In the few years following Čālderān, Selim turned his attention to those principalities from which the Safavids might possibly get aid. In the spring of 1515, he captured first the fortress of Kemāḵ, present-day Kemah in eastern Anatolia (see Imber), which was still held by Esmāʿil’s troops. He then sent an army under the command of Senān Pasha to the principality of the Ḏu’l-Qáadrs, who had followed ambiguous politics during the Persian war. After the Battle at the Turna Mountain (12 June 1515), their territory was incorporated into the Ottoman empire. This annexation was followed by the conquest of the cities of Āmed (present-day Diyarbakır) and Mardin (Mārdin), and the surrounding region by Bıyıklu Mehmed Pasha.
Selim, however, was unable to continue his Persian war because of renewed mutinies in the army. Instead, he returned to Istanbul and spent the year 1515 in punishing those officials whom he suspected of disobedience. After this, Selim launched a military campaign against the Mamluks, as the annexation of the Ḏu’l-Qáadr principality had created tensions between the two powers, which were now immediate neighbors. The Ottoman army entered Cairo after two decisive victories at Marj al-Dābeq (24 August 1516) and Raydāniya (22 January 1517); thus Syria, Egypt, and Hejaz were annexed to the Ottoman empire.
After the elimination of the Mamluk empire, Selim turned again his attention to his archenemy Shah Esmāʿil. In the winter of 1517-18, when the Ottoman army was stationed in Damascus, he commanded a bridge to be built over the river Euphrates. However, by the time it was completed, the sultan encountered again the severe resistance of his army. He was therefore forced to postpone the planned march against Persia and to return to Istanbul. During the last two years of his reign, Selim was still planning campaigns against Shah Esmāʿil, but the instable situation among his troops prevented him from turning his plans into action.
Sultan Selim died on 21 September 1520 near Çorlu. The interest of his son Süleymān (Solaymān) I (r. 1520-66), who succeeded him to the throne, focussed on the West, although he, too, led several campaigns into Persia. Under his rule, trade with Persia was resumed, although on a limited scale. An official letter and an embassy sent by the shah to congratulate Süleymān on his accession to the throne and his conquest of Rhodes in September 1523 caused a temporal thaw in the relations between the two states (Faridun Beg, I, pp. 525-27). Shah Esmāʿil died the following year and was succeeded by his son Ṭahmāsb I (q.v., r. 1524-76). These events were the beginning of a new era in the relations between the Ottomans and the Safavids.
Primary sources (documents and enšāʾ literature). Lajos Fekete, Einführung in die persische Paläographie: 101 persische Dokumente, ed. György Hazai, Budapest, 1977, pp. 251-341.
Faridun Beg, Monšaʾāt al-salaṭin, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1848-58, I, pp. 367-500, 525-27.
ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, ed., Šāh Esmāʿil Ṣafawi: majmuʿa-ye asnād wa mokātabāt-e tāriḵi, Tehran, 1968.
Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (TSMA), no. E. 5460, 8333.
Ottoman Turkish sources. Edris Bedlisi, Selim Šāh-nāma, Turk. tr. H. Kırlangıç, Ankara, 2001.
Šokri Bedlisi, Salim-nāma, ed. M. Argunşah, Kayseri, 1997, pp. 161-201.
Ḥadidi, Tawāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān (1299-1524), ed. Necdet Öztürk, Istanbul, 1991, pp. 356-419.
Ḥaydar Čalabi, Haydar Çelebi Ruznāmesi, ed. Y. Senemoğlu, Istanbul, n. d. Friedrich Giese, ed. and tr. Tawāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān as Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, 2 vols., Breslau, 1922-25; ed. Nihat Azamat, Istanbul, 1992, 132-40.
Jalālzāda Moṣṭafā Čelebi, Salim-nāma, ed. A. Uğur and M. Çuhadar, Ankara, 1990.
Loṭfi Pasha, Tawāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān, ed. K. Atik, Ankara, 2001, pp. 197-244.
Ḵvāja Saʿd-al-Din Efendi, Tāj al-tawāriḵ, ed. İsmet Parmaksızoğlu, Ankara, 1999, IV, pp. 123-367.
Sareja Kamāl, Salāṭin-nāma, ed. Necdet Öztürk, Ankara, 2001, pp. 168-79.
Yusof b. ʿAbd-Allāh, Tāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān, ed. Efdal Sevinçli as Bizans söylenceleriyle Osmanlı tarihi: Târih-i Ãl-i ʿOsmān, Izmir, 1997, pp. 235-71.
Persian sources. ʿAbdi Beg Širāzi, Takmelat al-aḵbār,ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1990, pp. 53-56.
Manučehr Amiri, tr., Safar-nāmahā-ye veniziān dar Irān: Šiš safar-nāma, Tehran, 1970, esp. pp. 240-64, 308-48, 410-30.
Budāq Monši Qazvini, Jawāher al-aḵbār: baḵš-e tāriḵ-e Irān az Qarā Qoyunlu tā sāl-e 984 H. Q., ed. Moḥsen, Bahrām-nežād, Tehran, 1999, pp. 99-141.
Eskandar Beg Torkomān, Tāriḵ-e ‘ālamārā-ye ‘Abbāsi, ed. Iraj Afšār, 2 vols., Tehran, 2003, I, pp. 25-44; tr. Roger Savory as History of Shah ʿAbbās I, Boulder, 1978, pp. 40-74.
Sayyed Ḥasan b. Mortażā Ḥosayni Estrābādi/Astarābādi, Tāriḵ-e solṭāni: az Šayḵ Ṣafi tā Šāh Ṣafi, ed. Eḥsān Ešrāqi, Tehran, 1985, pp. 47-50.
Ḥasan Rumlu, Aḥsan al-tawāriḵ I, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1978.
Mirzā Beg Ḥasan b. Ḥosayni Jonābādi, Rawżat al-ṣafawiya, ed. Ḡolām-Reżā Majd Ṭabāṭabāʾi, Tehran, 1999, pp. 284-91.
Amir Maḥmud Ḵvāndamir, Tāriḵ-e Šāh Esmāʿil wa Šāh Ṭahmāsb Ṣafawi: Ḏayl-e Ḥabib al-siar, ed. Moḥammad-ʿAli Jarrāḥi, Tehran, 1991, pp. 85-88.
Ḵaṭāʾi [Shah Esmāʿil I], Kolliyāt (Divān, Naṣiḥat-nāma, Dah-nāma, qošmalar, fārsča šeʿrler), ed. Mirzā Rasul Esmāʿilzāda, Tehran, 2001.
Ḡiyāṯ-al-Din Ḵᵛāndamir, Ḥabib al-siar IV, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, Tehran, 1983, pp. 545-50.
Ḵᵛoršāh b. Qobād Ḥosayni, Tāriḵ-e ilči-e Neẓāmšāh, ed. M. R. Naṣiri and K. Haneda, Tehran, 2000, pp. 1-83.
Moḥammad-Yusof Monši, Taḏkera-ye moqim-ḵāni, ed. Ferešta Ṣarrāfān, Tehran, 2001, esp. pp. 85-94.
Aṣḡar Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., ʿĀlamārā-ye Šāh Esmāʿil, Tehran, 1970.
A. D. Możṭar, ed., Jahāngošā-ye Ḵāqān (Tāriḵ-e Šāh Esmāʿil) taʾlif dar 948-955 H., Islamabad, 1971.
Qāżi Aḥmad Tattawi and Āṣaf Khan Qazvini, Tāriḵ-e Alfi, ed. Sayyed ʿAli Āl-e Dāwud, Tehran, 1999, pp. 363-64.
Mir Sayyed Šarif Rāqem Samarqandi, Tāriḵ-e Rāqem, ed. Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 2001, pp. 82-118.
Shah Ṭahmāsb Ṣafawi, Taḏkera-ye Šāh Ṭahmāsb, ed. Paul Horn as “Die Denkwürdigkeiten des Šāh Ṭahmāsp von Persien,” ZDMG 44, 1890, pp. 563-649, and 45, 1891, pp. 421-23; ed. ʿAbd-al-Šakur, Berlin, 1343/1924; Turk. tr.. H. Kırlangıç, Ankara, 2001, pp. 18-29, 40.
Moḥammad-Yusof Wāleh Eṣfahāni, Ḵold-e barin: Irān dar ruzgār-e Ṣafawiān, ed. Mir-Hāšem Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1993, pp. 231-44.
Waliqoli b. Dāwudqoli Šāmlu, Qeṣaṣ-e ḵāqāni, ed. Sayyed Ḥasan Sādāt Nāṣeri, 2 vols., Tehran, 1992-95, I, pp. 45-50.
Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd-al-Laṭif Qazvini, Lobb al-tawāriḵ, Tehran, 1984, pp. 414-17.
Secondary sources. A. Abacı, “Farsça Selim-nâmeler,” Ph.D. diss., Ankara University, Ankara, 1974.
Adel Allouche, The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict (906-962/1500-1555), Berlin, 1983, pp. 69-145.
Şinasi Altundağ, “Selim I,” in İA X, pp. 423-34.
İbrahim Artuk, “Yavuz Sultan Selim’in güney doğu Anadolu’nun fethi ile ilgili sikkeleri,” in Géza Fehér, ed., Fifth International Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest, 1978, pp. 79-90.
Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, “Études turco-safavides I: notes sur le blocus du commerce iranien par Selîm Ier,” Turcica 6, 1975, pp. 68-88.
Idem, Les Ottomans,les Safavides et leurs voisins: contribution à l’histoire des relations internationales dans l’Orient Islamique de 1514 à 1524, Istanbul, 1987.
Idem, “Padişah ve şah: 16. yüzyıl başlarında iyi bilinmeyen diplomatik oyunlar hakkında,” Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi dergisi 2, 1987, pp. 32-41.
Idem, “XVI. yüzyılın ilk yarısında Osmanlılar ve Safeviler,” in Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, Istanbul, 1991, pp. 205-20.
Şerif Baştav, “Osmanlılarla Safevîler’in mücadelesi asnasında Alevilerin rolü,” Türk kültürü araştırmaları 27/1-2, 1989, pp. 21-27.
İsmail H. Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi, 6 vols., Istanbul, 1971, II, pp. 11-21.
Oktaj Effendiev (tr. Laure Mahieux), “La rôle des tribus de langue turque dans la création de l’état safavide,” Turcica 6, 1975, pp. 24-33.
Idem, Azerbaycan Sefeviler dövleti, Baku, 1993, pp. 33-58.
M. Ekinci, “Yavuz Sultan Selim döneminde Osmanlı-Safevi ilişikleri,” in H. C. Güzel, K. Çiçek, and S. Koca, eds., Türkler IX, Ankara, 2002, pp. 446-58.
İsmail E. Erünsal, The Life and Works of Tâcî-zâde Caʿfer Çelebi, with a Critical Edition of His Dîvân, Istanbul, 1983, pp. XXXV-XLVI.
Naṣr-Allāh Falsafi, “Jang-e Čālderān,” MDAT 1/2, December 1953-January 1954, pp. 50-127.
Idem, Jang-e mihani-e Irāniān dar Čālderān, Tehran, 2002, pp. 81-115).
Erika Glassen, “Schah Ismāʿīl, ein Mahdī der anatolischen Türkmenen?” ZDMG 121, 1971, pp. 61-69.
M. T. Gökbilgin, “Çaldıran muharebesi,” in İA II pp. 329-31. Abdülbâkî Gölpınarlı, “Kızılbaş,” in İA VI, pp. 789-95.
Monika Gronke, “Auf dem Weg von der geistlichen zur weltlichen Macht: Schlaglichter zur frühen Ṣafawīya,” Saeculum 42/2, 1991, pp. 164-83.
Joseph Freiherr von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, 2nd ed., 4 vols., 9 maps, Pest, 1834-36; new ed. 10 vols., Graz 1963; tr. M. Dochez as Histoire de l’Empire ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours, Paris, 1844; Turk. tr. (from Fr. in Ar. script) Mehmet Ata as Devlet-i ʿOṯmāniye tāriḵi, 10 vols., Istanbul, 1912-, IV, pp. 118-45.
Hāšem Ḥejāzifar, Šāh Esmāʿil-e awwal wa jang-e Čālderān, Tehran, 1995, pp. 63-78.
C. H. Imber, “Kemākh,” in EI2 IV, pp. 870-71. Halil İnalcık, “Selīm I,” in EI ² IX, pp. 126-31.
F. Malekzadeh, “İstanbul Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinde bulunan Şâh İsmail-i Safevi’ye ait kupa,” İstanbul Üniversite edebiyat fakültesi (İÜEF) tarih enstitüsü dergisi 7-8, 1977, pp. 263-76.
M. I. Marcinkowski, “The Reputed Issue of the ‘Ethnic Origin’ of Iran’s Ṣafavid Dynasty (907-1145/1501-1722): Reflections on Selected Prevailing Views,” JPHS 49/2, 2001, pp. 5-19.
Joseph Matutz, “Vom Übertritt osmanischer Soldaten zu den Safawiden,” Die islamische Welt zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Beiruter Texte und Studien 22, Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Beirut and Wiesbaden, 1979, pp. 402-15.
Michel M. Mazzaoui, “The Ghāzī Background of the Ṣafavid State,” Iqbal Review 12/3, 1971, pp. 79-90.
Idem, The Origins of the Ṣafawids: Šīʿism, Ṣūfism and the Ġulāt, Freiburger Islamstudien 3, Wiesbaden, 1972.
Irène Mélikoff, “Le problème ḳızılbaş,” Turcica 6, 1975, pp. 49-67.
Idem, “L’Islam hétérodoxe en Anatolie,” Turcica 14, 1982, pp. 142-54.
J. H. Mordtmann and V. L. Ménage, “Dhu’l-Ḳadr,” in EI ² II, pp. 239-40.
Manučehr Pārsādust, Šāh Esmāʿil-e awwal: padšāh-i bā aṯarhā-ye dirpāy dar Irān o irāni, Tehran, 1996.
Hans Robert Roemer, “The Türkmen Dynasties,” Camb. Hist. Iran VI, pp. 147-88.
Idem, Persien auf dem Weg in die Neuzeit. Iranische Geschichte von 1350-1750, Wiesbaden, 1980, pp. 225-73.
Idem, “The Qizilbash Turcomans: Founders and Victims of the Safavid Theocracy,” in Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen, eds., Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson, Professor of Persian Studies, Princeton University, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990, pp. 27-39.
Ghulam Sarwar, History of Shāh Ismāʿīl Ṣafawī, Aligarh, India, 1939.
Roger M. Savory, “Tājlī Khānum: Was She Captured by the Ottomans at the Battle of Chāldirān, or Not?” in É. M. Jeremiás, ed., Irano-Turkic Cultural Contacts in the 11th-17th Centuries, Budapest, 2003, pp. 217-32.
Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, I: Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808, Cambridge etc., 1978.
Hanna Sohrweide, “Der Sieg der Ṣafawiden in Persien und seine Rückwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens,” Der Islam 41, 1965, pp. 95-223.
Idem, “Dichter und Gelehrte aus dem Osten des Osmanischen Reiches (1453-1600),” Der Islam 43/3, 1970, pp. 263-302.
Idem, “Ḫoğa Saʿddin und die Perser,” Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 14, 1981, pp. 170-79.
Yad-Allāh Šokri, ed.,ʿĀlamārā-ye ṣafawi, Tehran, 1984.
Faruk Sümer, Safevî devletinin kuruluşu ve gelişiminde Anadolu Türklerinin rolü, Ankara, 1992, pp. 28-36, 218-19.
Selâhattin Tansel, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Ankara, 1969, pp. 27-306.
Idem, Sultan II: Bâyezit’in hayatı, Istanbul, 1966, pp. 227-310.
M. C. Şehabeddin Tekindağ, “Şah Kulu Baba Tekeli isyanı,” Belgelerle Türk tarihi dergisi 1/3, 1967, pp. 34-39; 1/4, 1968, pp. 54-59.
Idem, “Yeni kaynak ve vesikaların ışında Yavuz Sultan Selim’in İran seferi,” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 17/22, 1968, pp. 49-78.
Idem, “Selim-nâmeler,” İÜEF Tarih enstitüsü dergisi 1, 1970, pp. 197-231.
Çağatay Uluçay, “Yavuz Sultan Selim nasıl padişah oldu?” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 6/9, 1946, pp. 53-90; 7/10, 1954, pp. 117-42; 8/11-12, 1956, pp. 185-200.
Ali Uğur, “Selim-nâmeler,” Ankara Üniversite İlâhiyat fakültesi dergisi 22, 1978, pp. 367-79.
Idem, The Reign of Sultan Selīm in the Light of Selīm-nāme Literature, Berlin, 1985.
Idem, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Kayseri, 2nd ed., 1992.
İsmail Hakki Uzunçarşılı, “Şah İsmail’in zevcesi Taclı Hanım’ın mücevheratı,” Belleten 23/92, 1959, pp. 611-19.
Idem, “Osmanlı sarayında Ehl-i Hıref (sanatkarlar) defterleri,” Belgeler 11, 1986, pp. 23-76.
Idem, Osmanlı tarihi II, 5th ed., Ankara, 1988, pp. 259-72.
M. Ç. Varlık, “Çaldıran savaşı,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi VIII, pp. 193-95.
J. R. Walsh, “The Historiography of Ottoman-Safavid Relations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Bernard Lewis and Peter Malcolm Holt, eds., Historians of the Middle East, London, 1962, pp. 197-211.
Idem, “Čāldirān,” in EI ² II, pp. 7-8.
ʿAli-Akbar Welāyati, Tāriḵ-e rawābeṭ-e ḵāreji-e Irān dar ʿahd-e Šāh Esmāʿil Ṣafawi, Tehran, 1996.
Tahsin Yazıcı, “Şah İsmail,” in İA XI, pp. 275-79. R. Yınanç, Dulkadir beylīği, Ankara, 1989, pp. 80-105.
(Osman G. Özgüdenli)
Originally Published: July 20, 2006
Last Updated: July 20, 2006