A.D. | A.D.
1. Othman I, gazi, 1299 | 18. Ibrahim I, 1640
2. Orkhan I, gazi, 1327 | 19. Mohammed IV, 1648
3. Murad I, gazi, 1360 | 20. Suleyman II, 1687
4. Bayazid I, yelderim, 1389 | 21. Ahmed II, 1691
5. Mohammed I, chelebi, 1413 | 22. Mustafa II, 1695
6. Murad II, gazi, 1421 | 23. Ahmed III, gazi, 1702
7. Mohammed II, fatih, 1451 | 24. Mahmud I, gazi, 1730
8. Bayazid II, gazi, 1481 | 25. Othman III, 1754
9. Selim I, yavouz, 1512 | 26. Mustafa III, gazi, 1757
10. Suleyman I, kanooni, 1520 | 27. Abdul Hamid I, gazi, 1773
11. Selim II, gazi, 1566 | 28. Selim III, 1789
12. Murad III, gazi, 1574 | 29. Mustafa IV, 1807
13. Mohammed III, gazi, 1595 | 30. Mahmud II, adil, 1808
14. Ahmed I, gazi, 1603 | 31. Abdul Mejid I, gazi, 1839
15. Mustafa I, 1617 | 32. Abdul Aziz I, 1861
16. Othman II, guendj, 1618 | 33. Murad V, 1876
17. Murad IV, gazi, 1622 | 34. Abdul Hamid II, gazi, 1876
Some of the above Sultans have special titles, like our "William the
Conqueror," "Charles the Bold," "Henry Beauclerk," etc. Thus, gazi and
fatih mean conqueror; adil, righteous; guendj, young; yavouz, brave;
kanooni, law-giver; yelderim, lightning; chelebi, gentleman. Most
of them have the title gazi, or conqueror; the present Sultan bears
it because he fought with Russia. He was beaten, to be sure, but he
took the title all the same.
Sultan Mohammed II, who captured the city of Constantinople,
established an Armenian Patriarchate there in 1461 A.D. The first
Patriarch was Hovaguem, the Bishop of Broosa, a friend of the
Sultan. Mohammed II had two motives in this: first, to have an
Armenian ecclesiastical center in Constantinople for the nucleus of
a strong Armenian settlement there, to play off against the Greeks
from whom the city was taken and who might be dangerous, whereas the
feud between Armenians and Greeks would make each weaken the other;
second, to have a hostage for the Armenians, responsible for their not
breaking into revolt; not at all for the benefit of the Armenians,
but for that of the Sultan. The same reason obtains to this day. If
there was no Patriarch, their cause would be much better off. After
the establishment of this Patriarchate the Armenians had no more
kings or princes; their political head was the Patriarch. Even after
the Patriarchate was established they were not safe. They yielded
to the Sultans, they became slaves to the Sultans, but the Persian
Mohammedans were foes of the Turkish Mohammedans, and Armenia, as
of old in Roman times, was the battle-ground. In the time of Sultan
Ahmed and Shah Appas, the latter overran Armenia and carried away
the people to captivity, besides killing hundreds of thousands. Then
it was retaken by the Turks. Then a part of it was captured by the
Russians. Historians write of the Huguenots and their sufferings; of
the conflicts in Europe between the Catholics and the Protestants. How
many centuries were the Protestants persecuted and martyred? How many
millions were killed by the Roman Catholics? Do all the Protestant
martyrs in Europe number as many as the Armenian martyrs? I doubt it.
And let it not be said that these were not religious martyrs, but
merely victims of the fortunes of war or political conflicts. The
wars were three times out of four based on real if not nominal
grounds of religious antagonism,--Mohammedan or Zoroastrian against
Christian,--or claims of religious protectorate, as Russia over
the Armenian Christians; the political exigencies which called or
formed a pretext for the massacre of myriads of men and old women,
the outrage of the young brides and maidens, the enslavement of the
children, were without a single exception created by the resistance
of Christians to forced conversion, or the fear of Mohammedan rulers
that as Christians they meant to revolt, or sheer blind hatred to
men of another creed. The victims were truly martyrs to Christianity.