Jump to content

Talk:Osman I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Halime Hatun discussion

[edit]

For the interested. Looking to improve the HH article with usable sources. Please join at Talk:Halime_Hatun#"Some_recent(when?)_legends_described_her_as_the_mother_of_Osman_I;(citation_needed)". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

[edit]

In Osman's dream section, THE HOLY MAN SAYS "My daughter BALA/RABIA" 

not Malhun 91.93.68.132 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADIMAGE

[edit]
An Ottoman miniature depicting Osman, 1563

Of the images on the page, I think this one is the better choice. It's much older than the current 18th century one, and I have some vague hope that the artist may have had a better idea what a 14th century Ottoman sultan looked like. Any objections? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however this article drastically changed after paper(?). Beshogur (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with wikiversity, but I assume "public peer review." is meant as a mark of quality. No daughter of Osman mentioned there, I see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Buried in Söğüt"

[edit]
Graves in Söğüt

See five of the Osman_I#Sons, and articles like Halime Hatun and Gündüz Alp. Per what's at Ertuğrul#Legacy, it seems to me that these graves, with modern writing, are likely symbolic (and perhaps in cases like Halime Hatun, where the name came into existence), made long after the fact, and that actual burial place is perhaps lost to history. Is there even assumed-to-be-authentic bones in Ertuğrul's grave? Not that I know if there's supposed to be.

Am I wrong, and if not, how should we deal with it, here and in other articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the grave of Turgut Alp which is the second from left in the picture is honorary. It doesn't say anything about the others or about since when the honorary grave exists. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This says:
"Having become very old, Ertuğrul Gazi left the leadership of the clan to his son Osman Gazi. He was said to be over 90 when he died in 1281. Ertuğrul Gazi was buried near Söğüt. After his death, his tomb became a spiritual destination. The locals in Karakeçili have visited the tomb every year since then and continue to hold festivities.
During his reign, Abdülhamid II restored Ertuğrul Gazi's tomb, along with other tombs and monuments belonging to the founders of the Ottoman Empire."
That suggests that tombs are older. I would say that it is not entirely implausible that the location of the tombs was continually known. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Random person no 362478479 And this [1] says:
The sarcophagus bearing what were reputed to be the remains of Ertugrul was refashioned in marble, and a grave reputedly belonging to his wife was also rebuilt and turned into shrine in 1887* Sultan Osman's first grave was also rebuilt next to that of his father* 73 Together with this, twenty-five graves belonging to 'comrades in arms of Ertugrui Gazf received new stones. This activity looks distinctly like the Invention of tradition' given that the identity of these people is unclear and only a few of the graves actually bear names. Even the historian of the site who eulogized the great founder of the Ottoman state' felt obliged to point out that, 'It is difficult to tell how Abdul hamid II established that the grave belonged to Ertugrui Gazi's wife* We can only surmise that he relied on reliable hearsay/ 7 ^ The Ertugrui Ga 2 t shrine is mentioned frequently in despatches* In 1902 considerable money was spent on the creation of an open square around die Ermgrul Gazi Mosque by the expropriation and demolition of buildings hemming it in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That answers my question on Ertuğrul's bones, at least. But the major issue remains. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also this page,[1] can't copypaste. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"added graves" makes it sound like he just made things up meanwhile "received new stones" sounds like the graves existed and only the identity of the people buried is unclear. And "only a few of the graves actually bear names" suggests that their identity may have been known. Without sources from the time of the renovation and before I see no way of telling what was actually there before the renovation. I think it is plausible that Ertugrul's tomb was always known. For the others it is not entirely implausible that they were known, but I could also imagine that the locations were known, but no-one remembered who was buried where, and finally it seems possible that they were lost and Abdul Hamid II just made things up. Given this uncertainty we could resort to phrases like "purported tomb", or "according to tradition". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two old photos from Abdul Hamid II's photo collection[2]:
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b28393/?co=ahii
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b28394/?co=ahii
There are some stones that look like they may be old grave markers, but it's hard to tell. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of "purported tomb", or "according to tradition" may be the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Deringil, Selim (2004). The Well-protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire 1876–1909. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 31-32. ISBN 978-1-86064-472-6. Retrieved 12 March 2020.

Osman was not Sultan

[edit]

He didn't take the title of "Sultan" instead he established Ottoman Beylik (Emirate or principality). The title of "Sultan" was first used by his successor and son Orhan who the first person to take the title of "Sultan". So I have changed his title to "Bey" from "Sultan" according to history. Therealbey (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rv, it is incosistent. Also there is no proof that Ottomans were of Kayi tribe. It's Ottoman propaganda against other beyliks. Beshogur (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to 15th-century historian Aşıkpaşazade claims that Osman I, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, descended from the Kayı tribe. This lineage, he suggests, places the Ottomans among the most noble and distinguished of the Oghuz Turkic tribes, which would have given them an honorable and prestigious ancestry.He traces the Ottoman line back to Süleyman Şah, who is often depicted as Osman's grandfather. Aşıkpaşazade describes how Süleyman Şah, fleeing from the Mongols, led his tribe from Central Asia to Anatolia. According to this account, when Süleyman Şah drowned while crossing the Euphrates River, his sons continued into Anatolia, and one of his descendants, Ertuğrul, eventually settled in Söğüt. Ertuğrul is then described as Osman's father, further establishing the connection between the Ottomans and the Kayı tribe. Therealbey (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you this is viewed by modern historians as a tool of propaganda against other beyliks. There is no proof his being "bey of Kayi" etc. Even his life a black hole described in the article. Only thing that can prove he and Ertugrul was a real person was his minted coin. Otherwise he could be another semi legendary person. Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osman_I&oldid=1251489388"