Page 243 - Journal of Asian History_Neat

p

f

M\m»vvu.1.k: Thr Ottoman I'rnnnrc of nlfln.s<l •l SI)

\\ hatever the n'U'on for the conquest in the hul :i> :v nutpo>t ratln'r than one from
ll|Nt place —and there is little evidence to support which to launch offensive operations. There are
theories advanced so far on this point** no references made in the orders to Lafosn to
the
the province and its garrison in the sixteenth campaign plans for the siege and occupation of
century were considered by the Ottoman central Hormuz, Oman, or for the expulsion of the Portu-
government to be a first line of defensive military gucse from Gulf politics. During the first twenty-
operations against the Portuguese. It was a fron- five years of the occupation the primary' goals
tier province; even after the naval campaign in the of Ottoman policy seem to have been to consoli-
Indian Ocean against the Portuguese had been date local control and in cooperation with other
abandoned it was continued and maintained in Muslim rulers of the area to fend off Portuguese
this character by Istanbul, still occasionally raids on the coastal towns and shipping of the
functioning as a bulwark against aggression from Gulf. The abortive invasion of Bahrein in 1558
external enemies—European freebooters and Safa- seems to have been neither initiated nor sanc-
vid pressure—but especially intended now to tioned by the central government;11 later plans
cooperate with Basra and sometimes the Hijaz for the conquest of that island had little or nothing
to keep peace and order in the desert fringe areas to do with the Portuguese.1*
of the empire. By 1566 if not before, some attempts were being
All of the muhimme documents of the period made to establish regular peaceful relations in
under review addressed to the administrators of the Gulf with the Portuguese Hormuz base. The
Lahsa and containing in them references to the kapuddn of Hormuz in that year passed word to
Portuguese support the thesis that the province Basra that he wished permission for himself and
in its relations with this power was seen by Istan- one hundred men to visit Jerusalem. The request
was forwarded to Istanbul, where it was de­
liberated upon then somewhat gingerly granted.
Lah.s£ to Istanbul (mentioned in lines one and two) com­
plaining of illegal market taxes. "Twenty years pre­ Instead of one hundred, only ten men were to be
viously" would place the lahrlr around 1560, but "twenty allowed to pass.17
years" here seems certainly to have been used as a round Two months after this order was dispatched,
figure, in which case it is perfectly possible that this is a another was sent to Basra in response to a report
reference to a survey undertaken seven or eight years
earlier. from its governor general that an ambassador
** As for example those of Longrigg, op. cit., p. 40, and (il$i) had arrived from Hormuz requesting nego-
Wilson op. dt., pp. 125-26. It might be noted here that tiations for peace between the two powers in the
few of the accounts mentioned in footnotes 5-5 above Gulf. Men had been sent from Basra to Hormuz
give any precise dale of occupation. There is nothing to continue the talks there. These men had not
in the muhimme entries either to confirm or deny the
first part of Wilson’s statement, toe. cit. (paralleling returned, but they had sent letters saying that no
Longrigg, toe. cit., who presumably used the same Por­ new troops from Portugal were evident and that
tuguese source, Faria Y Sousa) that Katlf was occupied merchants were sailing through unharmed. Istan-
iu 1550, raided by the Portuguese and abandoned (Wilson bill’s orders in reply to this report were to con­
implies) by the Ottomans soon after, and only much tinue negotiations, taking care to ensure the safety
later (if at all) reoccupied by them. Philby’s chronology
the initial occupation take place in ISO 1 (Saudi of merchant ships coming from and going to the
Arabia, pp. 11-12); bis dates are an example of the pit- Indian Ocean. In the meantime the porta (bender-
falls involved in the use of sources which rely on oral
tradition. According to this account a certaia Murid 11 M 3:364, 26 ZQ’l-Bicce (hence abbreviated as ZH)
6ey was the first governor, whereas the mtfAimms docu­ 966/8 October, 1559. §afvet, "Babreyn’de bir Vaka’a",
ments state that Mehmed was the first. See also Tbr&hlm Turk Tarih Encumcni Mecmu'ari, No. 18 (Istanbul,
• $Alih b. Is&, Ta r!^ ba's al-hav&dil al-v&ki'a fl Sejd, 1912) p. 1141.
Riyadh, 1966, p. 48, and editor’s comment on the same *• See p. 490 f., below.
Page, n. 1. u M 6:757, 24 Receb 973/14 February 1566.