Discerning_The_Truth_About_Osman_Gazi

Discerning The Truth About Osman Gazi One of the primary frustrations of Ottoman historians from the last two centuries is the lack of objectivity and historical fact in some of the original writings—namely the Anonymous Chronicles and Asikpasazade’s History. Some have gone as far as saying that these writings have little to no value, while other historians have based their theories mainly upon events reported in the aforementioned works. Though, to cast aside any source based on the fact that it displays political bias or folklore instead of history would be a blunder from which we might not be able to recover, save the discovery of another, better “original” source. Holding out hope for something like this is worthless, though, and disregarding one’s responsibility as an historian. There must be a middle ground—distinguishable from the chronicles—to stand upon when viewing Ottoman history. As a result, the Anonymous Chronicles and Asikpasazade’s History need to be contextualized, not simply thrown out from the discussion. Many historians have tried to do this, but after all is said and done, many also neglect to comment on what the sources actually do end up offering us. After each source has been dismantled into its constituent parts (which osman, asikpasazade, history, historians, ottoman, been, about, time, likely, original, tribe, ottomans, one, empire, chronicles, anonymous, though, sources, rather, political, existed, each, different, began, asikpasazade’s, thesis, stance, small, shown, people, osman’s, must, infidels, however, historical