Under the scientific editorship of A. G. Herzen. Simferopol: Antikva Publ., 2014, 308 p., ill.

The Ottoman conquest of the Southern coast of Crimea can be considered without exaggeration one of the key moments in the history of the peninsula. The campaign of 1475 ended the existence of Genoese colonies there. A direct consequence of the campaign was the founding of the new Ottoman province of Eyaleta, centered on Cafes. Finally, the expedition of Ahmed Gedik Pasha not only strongly influenced the formation of the Crimean Khanate, but also led to the formation of new relations between it and the Ottoman Empire, which are usually called vassalage.

Moreover, the events of 1475 were an important moment in the history of the entire Black Sea basin and surrounding lands. After the conquest of Kilia and Ackermann in 1484, and Budjak in 1538, the Black Sea turned into a "Turkish lake" until 1774, where only Turkish vessels could swim [Kolodziejczyk, 2007, p. 125-139]. Although historians have recently questioned the validity of this view, suggesting that Ottoman control in the Black Sea basin was not total, there is no doubt that the nearly 300 years that elapsed from the fall of Kafa to the Kuchuk-Kainardji peace were an era of political, military and commercial domination of the Ottomans in the Black Sea region. It was not without reason that the Ottoman dragoman Alexander Mavrokordato told the Russian ambassador in 1701, in response to the demand for free navigation, that the Black Sea in Ottoman hands was like an innocent girl whose virginity could be violated by foreign ships.

The internal, socio-political, and economic history of the Ottoman Crimea up to the end of the 16th century is described in some detail (Ozturk, 2000; Ozturk, 2002, p. 182-184). However, the conquest itself, the course of military operations, the geography of the campaign, and so on did not receive detailed coverage before the appearance of the reviewed book.

The book of V. L. Ruev belongs to a rare type of publications that combine written and archaeological sources to recreate the picture of what happened. Not being a professional archaeologist, it is difficult for me to judge the latter, but I think that from the point of view of coverage and analysis of archaeological material, the book can cause nothing but satisfaction and joy. The author, who personally took part in the excavations of Mangup, seems to have collected all the material traces of the campaign of 1475.

However, the situation with written sources is much worse. Let's start with a description and classification of them by the author of the book. It is noteworthy that V. L. Ruev devoted much less space to their characterization than to material sources (pp. 22-32 and 33-56, respectively). Of course, you can say a lot on 10 pages, but this did not happen. There are several works devoted to the Cafe in Turkish historical literature, from which it would be necessary to use the mentioned work of Yucel Ozturk " Kafa under the Ottoman rule (1475-1600)". The fact is that this essay (s. XXX) lists the Ottoman sources about the capture of Kafa and the course of the conquest itself, as it is reconstructed from the Ottoman texts (s. 26-30). All this, judging by the text of the book, remained unknown to V. L. Ruev. The author also passed by another small review about the conquest of Kafa in the Ottoman and Crimean chronicles [Zaitsev, 2009, pp. 93-95]. So

ZAITSEV Ilya Vladimirovich-Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ilyaaugust@ya.ru.

Ilya ZAITSEV - Doctor of Sciences (History), Leading Research Fellow, Institute of Oriental Studies, RAS. Moscow, ilyaauugust@ya.ru.

The review was made as part of the work on the RGNF project No. 15-31-10169 "History of the Crimea".

page 200
Thus, unfortunately, the writings of Tursun bey (Tarikh - i Ebul-feth), Uruj (Tevarikh-i Al-i Osman), Hadidi (Tevarikh-i Al-i Osman) and a number of others, including later authors, fell out of the historian's field of view.

As a result, V. L. Ruev came to the conclusion that the monuments of writing "for the most part... refer to the capture of Kafa. Sources present the events of the siege of Mangup in 1475 very vaguely and ambiguously, and completely keep silent about the fate of other settlements on the Southern coast and in the mountainous part of the Crimea" (p.32).

This, as will be shown below, is not entirely true. For such a thorough study, the author would need to use written sources directly, without the mediation of predecessors or translators. I'll give you one example. Indeed, as V. L. Ruev correctly notes, the texts of Ashik Pasha-zade and Neshri are very close. However, there is still a difference between them. In Ashik Pasha-zade, the conquest of Mangup is not highlighted in the text of the story about the capture of Kafa, and in Neshri it is an independent hikayat under the same name, 880 AH, but ends with a tarikh about the capture of Kafa. In the Tarikh-i Neshri, the story of Mangup is really a bit new in comparison with the Chronicles of the House of Osman: both authors write that Gedik Ahmed, advancing to Mangup, surrounded the city and prepared cannons. At first, tekfur / tekyur wanted to surrender Mangup, but there was someone in the fortress who disagreed with this decision, who persuaded the people to start resistance by closing the gates. Gedik Ahmed went to the trick, pretending to move away from the fortress, leaving a small force for the siege. Meanwhile, an ambush was set up. The fortress was crowded with 1 people. The besieged made a sortie, butThe Ghazis, who were lying in wait, struck from the side, and the stronghold fell. Tekur, his treasury, as well as the captured loot were taken to Istanbul. After the fall of Mangup, the Ottomans turned the daughters and wives of the defenders into slaves, read the khutbah in the fortress, and turned the churches into mosques. A cadi was appointed to the city. The deeds of the infidels have come to an end. "The realm of unbelief has become the realm of Islam," Neshri sums up philosophically. However, a comparison of the two annalistic texts seems to reveal rather subtle differences (for convenience, the text is divided by paragraphs into separate semantic segments).

It is easy to see that, for example, only Neshri mentions the population census of Mangup and Kafa immediately after the conquest. Apparently, part of the text of Ashik pasha-zade remained incomprehensible to him. These discrepancies (even differences in the spelling of the name of the fortress and the name of its owner) suggest that Neshri reworked the text, distorted it in places, or maybe deliberately used another source.

All this brings us back to the question of the composition of the Ottoman chronicle and its sources. Not all the Ottoman chronicles are so stingy in describing the history of the conquest of the Southern Coast. In the texts of the group of sources that is connected with the anonymous "Chronicles of the House of Uthman" and goes back with them, the chronicles of Ashik pasha-zade, Uruja and Neshri to one common source (the text of Yaksha Faqih), this account is indeed quite brief. Differences in completeness are explained by the fact that this common source was brought only to 1389 or 1402, and in describing subsequent events, the anonymous "Tevarikh" and Uruj used different sources: takvim (calendars) of varying degrees of completeness. Tevarikh usually gives shorter versions of events (i.e., it uses abbreviated and later takvim), while Uruj gives more complete versions (Inalcik, 1962, p. 155, 159).

In Uruj's account of the Crimean events, which, by the way, are dated incorrectly to 879 AD, attention is drawn to the curious mention not only of the Cafe, but also of "its fortresses and regions" that were captured by Ahmed Pasha, and also to the fact that after that the "Crimean army and the Desht army" submitted to the Ottomans (Die Fruhosmanischen Jahrbucher des Urudsch, 1925, p. 129] 2.

Another tradition is represented by the text " Tarikh-i Ebul-feth "("History of the victorious") of Tursun Bey. A native of Bursa, Tursun bey b. Hamza Bey (c. 1426-1491) served the empire in various very high positions (such as diwan kyatibi secretary of the State Council, Anatolian defterdar) and was a contemporary of Mehmed II's conquests beginning in 1452 (he, in particular, describes in great detail the construction of the Rumeli-hisary fortress in this year).

1 This may be an indirect indication that residents of nearby villages (I. Z.) are hiding in it.

2 In the Cambridge and Oxford manuscripts that served as the basis for the publication, the scribe clearly did not understand the word "Desht" (i.e., Desht-i Kipchak) and, confusing the last letter, wrote "Deshb" instead.

page 201

page 202
The official historian was very close to the Ottoman statesman Mahmud Pasha when the latter was Grand vizier, and then Kapudan Pasha. Tursun Bey was able to accompany his patron in almost all military enterprises. However, he apparently did not personally participate in the Crimean campaign. Tursun Bey's "history" has been preserved in at least six manuscripts (five of them in Istanbul's Topkapi Palace, Hagia Sophia Library, and University; one in Vienna) and was published three times (Tursun, 1912; Tursun, 1977; Tursun Beg, 1978).

In prose and verse, Tursun describes the Ottoman spoils: "Frankish, Rum, Russian and Mogul lovers, all kinds of riches and money", " Frankish boys and Rum girls, gold and silver... Mongolian girls, whose face is beautiful" [Tursun, 1912, p. 160].

Finally, there is another version of the Crimean events of 1475. It is described in the poetic "Chronicles of the House of Osman" by a certain Hadidi [Hadidi, 1991]. Very little is known about him: we do not know the date of his birth; he may have died in 940, but at least before 968 AD (1533-1534 or 1560-1561). A historian and poet, he chose such a mahlas (hadid means "iron" and "sharp" in Arabic, for example, a knife), since his father was a blacksmith-gunsmith [Bursali, 1975, p. 62]. Contrary to the opinion of V. L. Ruev, this source also refers to the capture of Inkerman and describes the siege of Mangup (Hadidi, 1991, p. 295-300). Khadidi writes that after the "banner of Islam" was raised in the Cafe, the khutba was read in the name of Mehmed, and the largest church in the city was turned into a mosque, 3 residents and property that went to the gaziyas were rewritten. After that, Pasha " unfurled the sail and approached Inkerman in the early morning." Inkerman was taken immediately, with a swift blow and covered in blood, after which a census of the captured lands took place:

Oradan gocdi pasa acdi yelken
irer ingermen'e bir subh erken

Heman feth itdi ani gordugi dem
Pur itdi yaragile yarar adem

Nevahi-yi Tuna derya kenan
Ki ta ingermen'e vannca van

Muti' oldi cemi'isi musahhar
Yazup timar eri oldi mekarrer
[Hadidi, 1991, s. 297-298].

It is interesting that Hadidi places Inkerman "in the Danube districts" (Nevahi-yi Tuna!), while in reality it is located at the confluence of the Chernaya River (Chorguna, or Kazykly-Ozen) with the Sevastopol Bay. It is worth remembering that Evliya Celebi attributed the conquest of Inkerman to the time of Bayezid Veli and associated it with the name of a certain pasha named Senjuvan (Evliya, 2003, p. 218;Evliya, 2008, p. 26) .4
It seems to me that the author also made insufficient use of the story of Ibn Kemal that he mentioned. For example, V. L. Ruev, based on the analysis of archaeological material, writes that the Turks used three types of artillery besides arrows during the siege of Mangup: heavy, medium and small (p.38). This is perfectly confirmed by the data of Ibn Kemal that guns, rifles (tyufek), arrows and zenbureks/zenbereks, i.e. light guns that were usually transported on camels, falconets in European terminology, were prepared in sufficient quantities for the campaign. They were later used for the siege of Mangup [Ibn Kemal, 1991, p. 385, 387].

V. L. Ruev cites information from a letter of Leonard Arte to the Doge of Venice dated July 4, 1475, which mentions a certain Diagarge Yakub, flabulario of the city of Garipol. The author believes that this Yakub was Kapudan Pasha and took part in the Ottoman raid on the Crimea in 1469 (pp. 148-150, 254). This character is none other than Zagarji Yaqub Bey, about whom Ibn Kemal

3 This is probably the Kafina church of Santa Maria, which is mentioned in the form of" Ezcntimariyya "in the hagiographic monument of Ebul-Hayri Rumi" Saltuk-nams " (Ebul-Hayri-Rumi, 2007, p. 112). The stories about Baba Saltuk were compiled in a cycle around 1480, i.e., just shortly after the capture of Kafa.

4 The name is unclear. It is unlikely that this is the successor of Gedik Ahmed Pasha Khoja Sinan Pasha (1476-1477).

page 203
he writes in a story about the siege of Mangup. After several sieges, Ahmed Pasha left him to besiege the city and returned to Istanbul [Ibn Kemal, 1991, p. 387]. Zagardzhi - actually 'dogman': this was the name of one of the categories of the janissary corps. Identification of these two names (or rather, two forms of the same name) It is very important, because, apart from the story of Ibn Kemal, Zagarji Yaqub is not mentioned in the Ottoman sources, which inspired a certain skepticism about the text. Now we can say that Yaqub Bey definitely took part in the campaign, which means that Ibn Kemal's version that Mangup was taken by him is trustworthy. Ibn Kemal further writes that after the appointment of Yaqub Bey as the first dizdar (commandant) According to the highest firman, 100 families of the fortress residents were sent to Istanbul (Ibn Kemal, 1991, p. 388).

V. L. Ruev is right when he writes that this Yakub took part in the raid of 1469. Indeed, it was probably mentioned in Mengli-Giray's letter to Mehmed Fatih on October 24, 1469, about the Kafin robbery [Kurat, 1940, s. 84-85; Le Khanat..., 1978, s. 41-44; Kurat, 2014, s. 125-127]. It was an old sea wolf: back in 1461. he took part in the campaign against Trebizond, and later served as the Sanjak Bey of Gelibolu and commander of the Ottoman fleet.

Comparing different versions of the siege and the capture of Mangup, we can assume that the story of the pretended retreat of Ahmed Pasha and the subsequent sortie of the "ambush regiment" is quite likely a reflection or misunderstood version of the actual departure of the Grand Vizier from the theater of operations to Istanbul, after which the siege was already led by Kapudan Yakub Bey.

V. L. Ruev writes that the Ottoman feth-nameh about the capture of Kafa has been preserved as a "duplicate", so some of its data (for example, about the three-hundred-thousandth expedition corps of Ahmed Pasha) should be treated with skepticism (p.25). There is no doubt that the data on the size of the Ottoman army is greatly exaggerated. But they are not exaggerated at all because the report about the capture of the city has come down to us in a copy. The value of the Ottoman Fethanames is not in the fact that they describe certain events, but in the way they do it. In these sources, it is most likely worth seeing not an accurate description of events, but, as J. L. Lewis once noted, "the image in which the empire wanted to look in the eyes of its friends and its enemies." "The primary function of feth-nameh was propaganda "[Lewis, 1962, p. 196, 193]. Thus, these sources are valuable primarily for the reconstruction of ideology. These very original historical sources, being short in scope and epic in style, are also interesting as material for comparison with the descriptions of relevant events in the Ottoman chronicles [Ozcan, 1988, p. 197], of which they sometimes became a part.

V. L. Ruev is right when he writes that the data on the diplomatic mission of Alexey Starkov in 1475 were reflected in the Russian chronicle. However, it is surprising that the main source of information about this embassy - documentation directly related to it (instructions to Starkov, including negotiations with the Kafinsky consul and Mengli-Giray), the author does not mention or use anywhere [Sbornik..., 1884, pp. 9-13]. Meanwhile, these documents provide information about the relationship between the Ottomans, the Kafa and the Crimean Khans, which has not yet been sufficiently studied. It is worth recalling that even before 1475, the city was under double Ottoman-Crimean financial pressure. After the siege of Kafa in 1454 by the Ottoman squadron of Demir Kakhya, the city paid both the Ottoman padishah (3000 Venetian ducats a year, then 4000, and from 1468 - 6000 and soon 8000) and the Crimean khan (600 soms, or 4000 chervonets, and then 8000 chervonets).

The amount of tribute served as a constant subject of bidding. It is not by chance that Hadji Giray in his label of 1453 names Kafu among the subordinate possessions [Kurat, 1940, p. 64-67], and the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan III in the aforementioned order to Alexey Starkov (1475) ordered to tell Mengli Giray: "you spoke to my boyar Mikita about the Cafe, and you call Kafu your people"[Sbornik..., 1884, p. 12]. At the same time, Mengli-Giray himself explicitly wrote in the letter to Mehmed Fatih (19 Rabi II 874 / 25 October 1469) that the Ottomans were taking Kharaj from Kafa [Kurat, 1940, s. 84-85]. The same Moscow embassy papers also mention the failed matchmaking of the Mangub prince "Isaika"to the daughter of the Moscow Grand Duke, which was supposed to take place through the mediation of the Kafinsky merchant and usurer Khoja Gek-gez ("Coconut") [Sbornik..., 1884, pp. 12-13]. It is interesting that in the letter of Shirinsky Bey Eminek to Istanbul, written at the beginning

page 204
May 1476, Mangup Prince Alexey is named "Syrian" (as-Suryani) [Le Khanat..., 1978, p. 59-64]5.

To write a biography of one of the main actors on the Ottoman side, Gedik Ahmed Pasha, we should have used an article about him in the latest Turkish edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam [Kiel, 1996]. If this were the case, the author would point out that Ahmed Pasha was most likely born in the Serbian despotism, in the vicinity of the town of Vrane, which was conquered by the Ottomans in 1455. There are other sources about this person. If the author had used the work of Fyodor Spandunis (a work written in Italian and existing in several author's versions, of which the final one dates back to 1538), he would certainly have written that Gedik Ahmed had such a nickname because of a knocked out front tooth (literally ' cherbaty') [Spandounes, 1997, p. 53]. However, this explanation may be wrong. Gedik in later Ottoman terminology meant a type of land grant issued to the heads of fortresses for their service, as well as a document for the right to engage in craft and trade, issued by the treasury to artisans and merchants, i.e., in modern terms, a license [Agrarian system..., 1963, p. 198; Akgunduz, 1996; History..., 2006, pp. 492-493]. There are other explanations for the nickname.

There are also some very annoying gaps in the author's use of research literature. Thus, it is not obvious that the author is familiar with D. Sekei's article "Kafa, Ciscaucasia and Eastern Anatolia in the Ottoman and European politics of the 15th century", published in Russian in 1996 (Sekei, 1996, pp. 35-46).

I will also note the inevitable typos, such as " Desht-i Kirchak "(p.22), or the appearance of the unknown" Georgian "" Mehmed Solakdze " (p. 20) instead of the correct Solak-zade. There is doubt about the legitimacy of declension of Turkish words (military terms) in their Russian translation, for example, the author writes: "it was necessary to ensure the participation of jebels in the campaign" or "from one to three jebels were displayed from Timar" (p.144). We are talking about members of the feudal militia, owners of small timars or hired soldiers, who were called " jebelu "(own. "latnik"). The author uses the plural "jebel" as a derivative of this word.

It seems to me that in an effort to give a comprehensive picture of the campaign of 1475 on the basis of archaeological data and the written tradition of different peoples and states, the author was a little hasty, and the overall good book leaves the reader with the impression of not fully completed work.

However, it is not by chance that V. L. Ruev chose the words of Gaius Sallust as the epigraph for his book: "It seems difficult to write a story." Let's not detract from the significance of the work: now everyone interested has an excellent archaeological study about the Ottoman campaign in the Crimea. The appearance of the book by V. L. Ruev leads us to a new problem: why did the military actions of the Ottomans described in written sources in the fortresses of the Southern Coast (for example, Inkerman) not reflect in any way in the available archaeological material? What was the reason for this: insufficient archaeological knowledge or the tendentiousness of the Ottoman chroniclers? This question remains to be answered.

In any case, we should agree with the author that "the historiographical analysis and study of the history of archaeological research of the events of 1475 in the Crimea convince us that it is necessary to continue working out the problem, analyzing and summarizing new data" (p. 84).

list of literature

The agrarian system of the Ottoman Empire of the XV-XVIII centuries. Documents and materials / Comp., translated and commented by A. S. Tveritinova, Moscow: Publishing House of Eastern Literature, 1963.

Zaitsev I. V. Mezhdu Moskvy i Stambulom: Juchidskiye gosudarstva, Moskva i Osmanskaya imperii (nachalo XV - pervaya polova XVI vv.) [Between Moscow and Istanbul: The Juchid States, Moscow and the Ottoman Empire (the beginning of the XV-first half of the XVI centuries)]. Moscow: Rudomino, 2004.

5 Another daughter of the Mangup prince, Maria (according to the Bistrica Chronicle), was married to the Moldavian voivode Stefan the Great in September 1471. She died in December 1476 [Slavonic-Moldavian Chronicles, 1976, pp. 27, 29, 64]. The Moldavian-German chronicle of 1457-1499 calls her a princess from Mangup (O'urstyn auss Maugop) and for some reason a Circassian (ein Zerkassin) [ibid., pp. 39, 49]. Some of the refugees who survived the Ottoman takeover of Kafa and Mangup settled in the Moldovan capital Suceava [ibid., p. 41, 51; Zaitsev, 2004, p. 87].

page 205
Zaitsev I. V. Crimean historiographical tradition of the XV-XIX centuries. Ways of development. Manuscripts, texts and sources, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2009.
History of the Ottoman State, society and civilization. Vol. 1 / Ed. by E. Ihsanoglu, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2006.

Kurat Akdes Nimet. Collected works. Book 1. Labels and bitiks of the Khans of the Golden Horde, Crimea and Turkestan in the archive of the Topkapi Palace Museum. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, 2014.

Collection of the Russian Historical Society, vol. 41, St. Petersburg, 1884.

Sekei D. Kafa, Ciscaucasia and Eastern Anatolia in the Ottoman and European Politics of the 15th century. Problemy vneshnoi politiki i otnoshenii s Rossii [Problems of Foreign Policy and Relations with Russia].
Slavyano-moldavskie letopisi XV-XVI vv. [Slavic-Moldavian chronicles of the XV-XVI centuries].

Evlia Celebi. Travel book. Crimea and adjacent regions. Extracts from the essay of a Turkish traveler of the 17th century / Transl., introductory article and commentary by E. V. Bakhrevsky. Simferopol: DAR Publ., 2008.

Akgunduz Ahmet. Gedik // Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi. Cilt 13. Istanbul, 1996.

Asik Pasazâde. Tevarih-i Al-i Osman. Istanbul, 1332.

Bursali Mehmtd Tahir Bey. Osmanli Muellifleri. 3. Cild. Hazirlayan I. Ozen. Istanbul, 1975.

Ebul-Hayri-Rumi. Salluknamə. 1 Cild. Toplayan və tərtib edən Prof. Dr. Sukru Haluk Akalin. Baki: Əli Nesriyyat Evi, 2007.

Evliya Celebi Seyahatnamesi Topkapi Sarayi Kutuphanesi Bagdat 308 Numarali Yazmanin Transkripsionu-Dizini. Hazirlayanlar: Yucel Dagli, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Robert Dankoff. 7. kitap. Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yanyinlari, 2003.

Die Fruhosmanischen Jahrbucher des Urudsch. Nach den Handschriften zu Oxford und Cambridge erstmals herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Franz Babinger. Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Neinz Die Lafaire, 1925.

Hadidi. Tevarih-i Ali-i Osman (1299-1523). Hazirlayan N. Ozturk. Istanbul: Marmara Universitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi Basinevi, 1991.

Ibn Kemal. Tevarih-i Ali-i Osman (Tenkidli transkripsiyon). Hazirlayan Serefettin Turan. Ankara: TTK Basimevi, 1991.

Inalcik H. The Rise of Ottoman Historiography // Historians of the Middle East. Oxford, 1962.

Le Khanat de Crimee dans les archives du Musee du palais de Topkapi. P., 1978.

Kiel H.R. Gedik Ahmed Pasa // Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi. Cilt 13. Istanbul, 1996.

Kolodzicjczyk D. Inner Lake or Frontier? The Ottoman Black Sea in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries// Enjeux politiques, economiques et militaires en mer Noire (XIVe - XXIe siecles). Etudes a la memoire de Mihail Guboglu, sous la direction de F. Bilici, I. Candea, A. Popcscu. Braila, 2007.

Kurat A.N. Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi Arsivindeki Altin Ordu, Kirim ve Turkistan Hanlarina ait Yarlik ve Bitikler. Istanbul: Burhaneddin Matbaasi, 1940.

Lewis G.L. The Utility of Ottoman Fethna_mes // Historians of the Middle East. Oxford, 1962.

Ozcan A. Historiography in the Reign of Suleyman the Magnificent // The Ottoman Empire in the Reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. Vol. II. Ankara, 1988.

Ozturk Y. Osmanli Hakimivetinde Kefe (1475-1600). Ankara: T.C. Kultur Bakanligi Milli Kutuphane Basimevi, 2000.

Ozturk Y. Kefe // Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi. Cilt 25. Istanbul, 2002.

Spandounes, Theodore. On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors / Translated and Edited by Donald M. Nicol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Tursun, 1977 - Tursun-Bey. Tarih-i Ebul-Feth. Ed. A. Mertol Tulum. Istanbul, 1977.

Tursun, 1912 - Tursun-Bey. Tarih-i Ebul-Feth. Ed. Mehmed Arif. Tarih-i Osmani Encumeni Mecmu'asi Ilavesi. Istanbul, 1330/1912.

Tursun Beg, 1978 Tursun Beg. The History of Mehmed the Conqueror. [Tarih-i Ebulfeth], trans. by Halil Inalcik and Rhoads Murphey. Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978.

page 206

Permanent link to this publication: