| Tez Künye | Durumu | ||
| Barut ve Tabya: Rönesans mimarisi bağlamında Fatih Sultan Mehmed kaleleri / Yazar:H. BURCU ÖZGÜVEN Danışman: PROF. DR. SEMRA ÖGEL Yer Bilgisi: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Konu:Sanat Tarihi = Art History Dizin:Barut = Gunpowder ; Kaleler = Fortnesses ; Mehmed II = Mehmed II ; Mimari tasarım = Architectural design ; Osmanlı Dönemi = Ottoman Period ; Tabya = Bastion | Onaylandı Doktora Türkçe 1997 409 s. | ||
| ÖZET: Fatih Sultan Mehmed tarafından 1451’den itibaren yapanına başlanan kaleler Osmanlı mimarlığının belli bir dönemini temsil eder. İstanbul Boğazı’nda Rumeli Hisarı ve Anadolu Hisan dış duvarları; istanbul surlarının bitişiğindeki Yedikule, Çanakkale Boğazı’nda ise, Kilid-ül Bahir ve Kal’a-i Sultaniye II. Mehmed döneminden günümüze gelebilmiş örneklerdir. Fatih kalelerinin mimarisi üzerindeki en önemli etkiyi, kuşkusuz, Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in kendisi yapmıştır. Dönemin askeri teknikleri üzerine yoğunlaşan II. Mehmed, aynı zamanda, yeniçağın teknolojik birikimini de etkin bir biçimde kullanmıştır. 15. yüzyıl Osmanlısında aynı dönemde Avrupa’da da ortaya çıkan koşullarla parallellik vardır : Bunun en önemli işareti, ateşli silahların geliştirilerek kalelerde etkin birer savaş aracı olarak kullanılışıdır. Savaş sırasında kuşatma ve savunma tekniklerinde kökten yeniliklere yol açan ateşli silahlar sayesinde kale tasarımı anlayışı da ilk kez değişime uğrar. Ortaçağ sonlarına dek kullanılan mancınık, katapult gibi basit mekanik araçların yerini maden dökümcülüğüne dayanan top teknolojisi alır. II. Murad’dan itibaren toplar Osmanlı ordusunda önemli yer tutar. Savaş araçlarının değişmesinden mimarlık da etkilenir. Rönesans mimarisinin en tipik unsurlarından “açılı tabya” oluşturulur. Açılı tabya, Rönesans teorisyenlerinin hayal gücü ile birleşerek geometrik ve merkezi planlı kale şemasını beraberinde getirir. II. Mehmed kalelerinde bu özelliklere rastlanmaktadır. Açılı tabya ve top teknolojisi, alışılagelen savunma kavramını da değiştirir. Askeri yapılar, topun gücü sayesinde pasif savunma yapılan değil, aktif bir biçimde düşmana karşı koyan savaş araçlardır. Fatih dönemi kalelerinin bir diğer özelliği de, geniş coğrafi bölgeyi ele alan stratejik düzende yerleştirilmeleridir. Ortaçağda tekil savunma öğeleri iken, yeniçağda Akdeniz ile Karadeniz arasındaki stratejik geçiş bölgesi gibi yerleri kontrol edebilir şekilde düzenlenirler. Bu da Avrupa’da monarşilerin merkezileşme eğilimleri ile paralel bir durumdur. 16. yüzyıl Avrupa monarklan da bölgelerin bir bütün olarak kontrolünü sağlayan stratejik askeri kaleler inşa etmişlerdir. XIAvrupa’da kale mimarisinin değişimi ile birlikte savaş kuramları da değişmiş, matbaa bu kuramların yayılmasına katkıda bulunmuştur. Ancak teorisyenler aktüel gelişimlerin ötesinde, dünya görüşlerini daha kolay ifade etmelerini sağlayan antik eserlere de başvururlar. Latince ve Grekçe yapıtlar askeri stratejiler ve tavırlar konusunda ilham kaynağı olmuştur. Antik mirastan yararlanan kişilerin arasında Fatih Sultan Mehmed de yer alır. Fatih, ayrıca Roma’dan Bizans’a aktarılan, oradan da Osmanlı’ya gelen kültürel ve idari birikimi devlet düzenine yansıtmıştır. XII | |||
| SUMMARY First modern studies on the Ottoman art were conducted and realised by the 19th century German, Austrian and French specialists. These pioneer researchers were also interested in the cultural dimensions of the historical relations between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Up to now various themes were investigated in order to point out the characteristics of interrelations. Generally, these themes were as following: Ottoman influence on the Eastem European architecture; Galata, as a Genovese colony; imported handicrafts; Ottoman temporary arts and ceremonies; artists who came to the Ottoman palace and who were sent to Europe in the 19th century; Ottoman Baroque; dome as an architectural element influenced by Mediterranean cultures; 19th century westernization politics and architecture of the Ottoman State; other issues like Christian pilgrims,travellers and intemational fairs. On the other hand, “art of war” was öne of the meeting areas of both cultures throughout the centuries. Architectural dimension of the warfare, the fortifîcations, represented fundarnental changes came out with intensive ııse of the cannon in the 15th century. After the conquest of istanbul, Mehmed II, the Conqueror, carefûlly adapted the cannon to the war architecture, e. g. fortifications. Rumeli Hisan, his fîrst construction project built just before the conquest, was an attempt to control the Bosphorus with its counterpart in Anatolia, Anadolu Hisan. Mehmed II used heavy artillery here, and succeeded a blockade by controlling the strait against Venetian galleons. The same strategy was re- realised at the the Dardanelles, ten years after. The route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea was closed by two castles at its south end, Kilid-ül Bahir in Europe and Kal’a-i Sultaniye in Asia, heavily furnished with serîes of batteries. Another fort in istanbul, built during the era of Mehmed the Conqueror, was Yedikule, a prestigious structure where the imperial treasury was kept. Some other forts, like Elbasan in Albania and Zindankale in Konya were also constructed in the same age, but these buildings did not reach to our time. The question of the dissertation is if there are common points betweenthe 15th century Ottoman and European fortification. This question was based on the universality of the defence and offence of the army. Many courts in Europe and Asia were influenced by the technological innovations of the Renaissance Xfflwarfare (gunpowder and cannon); consequently they introduced the newly developed methods of military architecture. New fortifıcations were designed completely in the parallel of the cannon technology. Before the fîreanns, ancient offensive weapons, like trebuchet, mantelet, battering ram, ete. were used without any serious change. High walls of tiıe medieval castles were built in order to defend the walls against horizontal shoot; but after the introduction of the cannon they had to be low as ca. 5-6 metres against the cannon fire to protect the base of the stronghold. Another important innovation was the “triangle bastion”, the öpen tower-like structure erected next to the fianks of the fortification. The importance of the bastion represented the change from the passive defensive walls into an offensive stronghold. These two points were considered as characteristic principles of the geometrical planning of the 15th century fortification. The first military architects of the Renaissance were Francesco di Giorgio and Fra Giacondo. As an architectural theorist, Di Giorgio was employed by the Aragonese Kingdom of Naples; he designed and realised a series of strongholds in the light of ne w methods. Fra Giacondo, on the other hand, worked for Yenice, Treviso and Padova’s defensive walls. Outworks of Rumeli Hisarı built in 1451-52 and the outer walls of Anadolu Hisan dated to the same years were designed according to the technological methods of newly developed warfare. Though its irregular shape, Rumeli Hisar was well situated in a geography where the closest point and swiftest current of the strait enabled an effective offence to the Venetian galleons passed by. On the other hand, forts of Dardanelles, Kilid-ül Bahir and Kal’a-i Sultaniye, represented the principles of the bastion clearly at the corners of the outer walls. Fortifications of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles also pointed out a new approach to defence methods : they were situated on the most strategic places towards the capital, istanbul. Although during the Byzantine times the straits had been fortified by a series of small strongholds, the technology enabled the use of simple war machines, unable to blockthe sea. Throughthe introduction of firearms, four sea castles of Mehmed II marked the turn of the defensive character of traditional castle into an offensive öne, and controlled the strategic lines towards the capital. The same method was also used by Henry VIII of England around 1540’s by establishing a series of castles in the south of England, like St Mawes, XIVWalmer and Deal. Construction of series of casües reflected the centralised planning attitude of the court. Another characteristics was the geometrical planning. Yedikule, with its pentogon walls was described by Marcell Restle as the first star – shaped fort in Europe. Although its military use is in the second plan, Yedikule, the imperial treasury castle of Mehmed the Conqueror, was erected as an unfmished hexagon next to the original Byzantine city walls. Ottoman military architecture rarely used regular geometric shapes, like hexagon ör pentagon. Öne of the examples is flower – like Kilid-ül Bahir, its walls are based on a regular triangle, but with semi-circular corners. Kilid-ül Bahir has an unusual aesthetic architecture, ali in the Ottoman lands, even in Europe. From the point of rounded corners and öpen terraces, Henry VIII forts could be compared with it. A medieval example, Castel del Monte of Friedrich Barbarossa in South Italy had some common features with the plan of Kİlid-ül Bahir, but characterises an octagon, instead of a triangle ör hexagon. Fortifications like KaFa-i Sultaniye and Elbasan represented rectangular plan, a pattern which was frequently used in the Ottoman lands. First strongholds of the Dardanelles had been constructed by the Byzantine Emperor lustinianos I (527 – 565) in order to control the customs in Sestos and Abydos. During the crusades a Pisan fleet managed to pass through the strait in 1193 and 1203. Emperor loannes of Nicae (1222 – 1254) regained the area from the Fraııks. in the early fourteenth century Catalan corsairs began to plunder the ships around the strait, and sometimes together with newly emerging Turkish emirates in West Anatolia, such as Karesi and Aydınoğullan. When the Ottoman troops invaded Karesi Emirate in 1346, first Turkish military structures in Gelibolu appeared. Bayezid I established a garrison to defend the Dardanelles in 1390, and erected two tovvers at the entrance of the harbour, observed by Clavijo, Spanish envoy to the Byzantine court. After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II emphasized the defence of the new capital by building two castles Kilid-ül Bahir and Kal’a-i Sultaniye (1461-62). The purpose of the construction was “to lock the sea”, in other words to control the passage between the Asia and the Europe, through the effective XVuseage of firearms. Architectural plan of both castles was shaped according to innovations at the cannon technology. Kilid-ül Bahir could be described as cristallization of the Renaissance military theories, from the point of its central plan, offensive character and the intensive use of artillery. Plan of the inner fort is surrounded by an enceinte, bordered by the tower built during the reign of Süleyman I. The role of the central composition was influential on the Kilid-ül Bahir ‘s total plan. Its architect still remains in the dark. But the difference between medieval examples and Kilid-ül Bahir was marked by the crucial shift from the traditional towards the modern technology. With its counterpart in Anatolia and with artillery power, Kilid-ül Bahir gained an offensive character, rather than traditional defensive one. On the other hand, Yedikule with its pentagonal, or unfinished hexagonal form represents a geometrical pattern of early modern castles. Mehmed the Conqueror added three Ottoman towers to the existing Byzantine walls, and these seven towers gave the pentagonal shape to the structure. Such as the forts at Dardanelles, Yedikule had a small settlement inside. A Fatih mosque within the enceinte, cistern, a small vegetable garden in the south, probably a bakery were elements of Yedikule. According to Italian drawings, irregular pattern of eighty-ninety timber houses were described as barracks of the military troop seperated by narrow paths. However, as mentioned above, the main function of the Yedikule was its role at the palatial tradition. Founded by Mehmed the Conqueror as a treasury fort, Yedikule included golden ignots and precious wares. Foreign observers of the 16th century informed the existence and protection of the “Khazina”. Schweigger underlines here a mint confirmed by Mehmed Ziya Bey. But during the reign of Murad III the imperial treasury, as a whole, was moved to the palace, so Yedikule turned to be an imperial prison where ambassadors, princes or other important foreigners were kept inside, especially during the extraordinary war conditions. However, Ottoman prisoners, mainly high visiers and pashas (even one Sultan) had also been actors of numerous tragic events at Yedikule. To conclude, fifteenth century Ottoman fortifications and contemporary early- XVIRenaissance examples had common architectural features, originated by the newly developed warfare. Rivalry between two cultures was reflected by the costumes, encampment and ceremonies of the army, as well as military architecture. On the other hand, Ottoman temporary structure for offensive purposes, called “havale” was effective at the wars, since the reign of Osman I, the founder of the Empire. Marsigli points out later wooden structures of the Ottoman military camps, and underlines the influence on the east European military traditions. Similarly, the Ottoman army used a vehicle for war, “tabur”, as mainly influenced by the Hungarian army, which were developed and exported to the Moghul Empire. On the sources : The dissertation takes the Ottoman and foreign witnesses as primary sources. The Byzantine contemporaries of Mehmed the Conqueror era were Kritovoulos, Ducas, Chalcocondyles, Francis (Sphrantzes) and Anonymous Zoras. Among the Ottomans such as Neşri, Aşıkpaşazade,Tursun Beg, Nişancı Mehmed Paşa and among the foreigners, like Angiolello, Barbara, Dolphin, Dei, Mihailovic and Jorg of Nuremberg reached their observations to our time. Late 15th and 16th century foreign eyewitnesses, mainly envoys, merchants, travellers and prisoners prepared reports or wrote books on the events. These were : Von Harff, Hierosolimitano, Dernschwam, y Sanz, Schweigger, Gyllius, Venetian ambassadors, Nicolay, Menavino, Lubenau, Wratislaw, Cantemir, Lewenklaw, Busbecq, Tafferner and among Ottomans Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi, Haydar Çelebi, İbni Kemal, Hoca Saadeddin and Piri Reis. Seventeenth century observers were Maurand, Mundy, Chishuli, Wild, Marsigli and Katip Çelebi ; in the 18th century Simeon, Sanderson, de Thevenot, Tournefort, Kömürciyan and Sandys presented reports. Sources of local histories were Evliye Çelebi’s encyclopedical work, books of İbni Bibi, Şikari and Camiüddüvel. Various sketches, plans and maps were prepared by Tournefort, Melling, Scarella, Piri Reis, Niebuhr, Vavassore, Matrakçı Nasuh, Lokman and other anonymous designers. xvn | |||