Welcome back everyone, my name is Robius and
today I present to you the seventh episode
in the revival series of Assassin’s Creed
the Real History.
In these videos, I guide you through the depiction
of a character in the Assassin’s Creed franchise
while comparing their representation in the
game to the historical source material that
inspired their appearance.
For that reason, please be aware of potential
spoilers for the rest of the video.
This episode will concentrate on a rather
obscure religious and military leader who
championed a 16th Century rebellion against
the Ottoman Empire, and was known as Şahkulu,
an individual we briefly met during the events
of Assassin’s Creed Revelations.
Before beginning, please note this video will
be a bit odd, both in reason of the limited
and contested historical records we have about
this individual’s life, but also because
his appearance in Assassin’s Creed occurs
after the point where most historians agree
he died.
Having said that, let’s begin by discussing
the events in his life, which technically
all took place before he was introduced in
Revelations.
Although his date of birth is unknown, and
certain sources even argue his name, the man
thought to have been called Karabıyıkoğlu
was born in Anatolia, likely in the late 15th
Century.
He lived in a tumultuous time, largely marked
by the expansionist agenda of the Ottoman
Empire in which they acquired territories
and imposed their laws, taxes and sometimes
their Sunni influences in areas where these
were all foreign.
This expansionism was historically opposed
by multiple factions, among which stood Ismail
I, Shah of Iran and founder of its Safavid
dynasty.
A follower of Shia Islam and the ruler of
his own empire, Ismail had many reasons to
oppose Ottoman expansionism as it came into
direct conflict with his plans for extending
his own territory.
In an attempt to disrupt Ottoman growth in
certain regions, the Shah deployed agents
to his adversary’s dominion with the goal
of recruiting citizens and nomads alike who
were dissatisfied with Ottoman rule and sought
change.
His messengers shared the Shah’s words of
support, his promises for a more accepting
future and ultimately, his call to arms against
the Ottomans.
It is believed by most sources that Karabıyıkoğlu
was among these new recruits.
At that time, he and his father were known
as religious figures within their community.
Upon joining the movement, he quickly reached
a leading position within the ranks of the
discontent population and eventually either
adopted, or was bestowed by his followers
the title of Şahkulu, which meant “The
Servant of the Shah”.
In this time, Şahkulu became an iconic figure
of the rebellion, ascending to the role of
their religious and military leader, who championed
these growing forces under Ismail I’s banner.
Due to its nature as a rebelling force, it
is difficult to state how many men followed
Şahkulu, although certain sources estimate
that he may have possessed a force of anywhere
between 2,000 – 20,000 Shiite troops.
It is important to understand however that
for the most part, these were not military-trained
soldiers but rather simply villagers, farmers,
herders and even criminals who took up arms
at the opportunity to oust Ottoman rule, which
was seen as tyrannical.
Most of these volunteers initially came from
Turcoman tribes, but the ideological struggle
soon spread and support was gained from around
the region.
The so-called servant of the Shah is thought to have
patiently gathered his forces, waiting for
an opportune moment to strike.
When the sons of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid
II started an escalating conflict among themselves
to determine his successor, the time was right
and Şahkulu led his attack.
With provincial administrators watching as
the princes quarrelled for dominance, the
Ottoman Empire’s attention was concentrated
inward on their political structure instead
of paying attention to the management of their
territory.
For that reason, Şahkulu is said to have
met Ottoman forces on his way to and at the
capital of Anatolia, successfully defeated
them and building an infamous reputation.
His victories inspired others to join his
cause, including once-conscripted Ottoman
troops who deserted, wishing to free their
lands from the empire.
With bolstered numbers, the Servant of the
Shah initiated raids and assaults on small
villages and convoys, culminating in his capture
of Prince Korkut’s caravan from which they
stole all of the treasure within.
Despite sources disagreeing on this matter,
many point to the brutal tactics employed
by the rebels which included killing their
opposition, plundering conquered territory
for resources and burning down symbols and
places of worship which opposed their Shia
ideology.
However, it’s worth noting that other sources
believe those last claims about destroying
religious symbols were baseless accusation
made by the Ottomans chroniclers who wished to
paint the rebels as blasphemers and enemies
of Islam, noting the fact that they went so
far as to record its leader as being the Servant
of the Devil, as opposed to the Servant of
the Shah.
This upstart movement was soon named the Şahkulu
rebellion, after its leader, and rapidly became
synonymous with quick and vicious attacks
that eliminated Ottoman influence from regional
villages with the goal of freeing the population.
Only after this continuous barrage of attacks,
did the Ottoman Empire finally acknowledge
the rebels as a threat and sent an initial
force to subdue them.
This delayed response is attributed to both
the ongoing struggle between Bayezid II’s
sons for control, and to the structure of
the Empire at the time, which had many levels of
administration causing less-efficient communication
of these developments.
The Ottoman military response was then defeated
by Şahkulu’s men, thus further increasing
the reputation and influence of the rebellion.
It is estimated that this long streak of victories
aided in doubling their numbers.
Soon after they were met by another, larger
Ottoman army and although the battle was long
and bloody, the rebels were again the victors
and successful captured the opposition’s
commanding officer.
He was thereafter executed before the gates
of a fortified city in an unsuccessful attempt
of forcing a surrender.
Instead, Şahkulu had his men return to their
tactics of quick raids and assaults.
With incredibly few failures to his name,
Şahkulu was revered by his followers and
seen as invincible, with some records claiming
certain of his extreme messengers spoke of
him as if he was a messiah, a prophet, or
even the savior of mankind.
Now recognizing this rebellion as a significant
threat, due to its ability to rally the local
population against them in Asia Minor, the
Ottomans prepared a calculated response.
Marshalling a sizeable army, filled with their
elite Janissary troops, the command was passed
to the Grand Vizier Hadim Ali Pasha who was
to be supported by Prince Ahmet in his goal
of quelling this rebellion and stopping its
leader.
Acknowledging that their adversaries were
superior, Şahkulu had his forces fortify
themselves before the battle.
When the Ottoman army finally clashed with
the rebel position, it is believed the confrontation
stretched for nearly 40 days until Şahkulu
finally ordered a retreat to avoid the utter
destruction of his forces.
Although the rebels were vulnerable as they
withdrew, the Ottomans did not press their
clear advantage, with Prince Ahmet instead
using this time to attempt a negotiation with
the Janissaries to secure their support in
his venture to become Sultan.
Failing in his effort, Ahmet departed.
Şahkulu successfully fled, but lost many
men in the initial battle and more during
their retreat.
They met a small Ottoman force during the
escape, defeated them, and continued to fall
back.
Unfortunately for the Servant of the Shah,
the Grand Vizier’s forces eventually cornered
them, leading to a final battle between their
troops in July of 1511.
Their armies clashed as the rebel forces,
greatly diminished due to their previous conflict,
were met by the remaining troops under the
Grand Vizier, who did not wish to wait for
reinforcements.
Although sources disagree on whether the rebels
were defeated or if the fight was a draw,
it is generally acknowledged that both sides
suffered heavy casualties and that both Şahkulu
and Ali Pasha were among the dead when the
fighting ended.
Notwithstanding that, it is worth mentioning
that a few sources question whether Şahkulu
actually died in that battle, despite the
general consensus being that he did.
Nonetheless, the apparent death of this movement’s
leader marked the end of the pro-Shia and
pro-Safavid rebellion against the Ottomans
in Anatolia, with their remaining forces fleeing
the region.
At this point, we’ll proceed with the next
chapter to discuss his appearance in the game.
Although Assassin’s Creed Revelations does
make a few references about this individual’s
past, which partly fall in line with his history,
for the most part his entire depiction in
the game occurs after his historically-recorded
death.
In the AC mythos, Şahkulu was orphaned in
his youth when his tribe was killed by Ottoman
troops, leading him to join the fictional
iteration of the Templar order.
Despite the game not really discussing his
role in the rebellion, it is implied he survived
the final battle, which his ally Manuel refers
to as the point where the Ottomans further
humiliated his people by defeating them.
Continuing onwards with this entirely fictional
depiction, Şahkulu is then shown supporting
this same fellow Templar, Manuel Palaiologos,
by helping him arm and train his troops in
an attempt to topple the Ottoman power base
in Constantinople.
This leads to the game’s eventual confrontation
months later between Şahkulu, who was savagely
beating Ottoman spies to death with his bare
hands at the time, and Ezio Auditore.
Although he deflected the assassin’s initial
attempt to kill him, Şahkulu was later defeated
and killed by Ezio after a drawn out battle
in 1512.
Having said that, we’ve reached the final
chapter in the video where I like to review
everything we’ve learned so far about the
individual and compare his game depiction
to the available historical documentation.
As I mentioned earlier, given the circumstances,
all of the events in which he was depicted
were completely fictionalized.
In terms of obvious differences, he was clearly
not a Templar, but was rather a semi-independent
military leader who operated in the name of
the Shah of Iran.
In addition, equally as obvious, he was not
assassinated by Ezio Auditore in 1512 while
in Cappadocia, but rather is thought to have
died on the battlefield of the final confrontation
in the Şahkulu rebellion.
In terms of more subtle differences, Şahkulu’s
reason for hating the Ottomans was not because
they orphaned him as a child, as the game
mentions, but rather because he felt they
oppressed his people when occupying their
lands.
He is believed by most sources to have not
survived the end of his rebellion, and lastly
he was not an ally of the Byzantine Empire’s
remnants, although they did share a disdain
for the Ottomans, which made for a somewhat
logical alliance in the game’s narrative.
Now, although in terms of events there really isn’t
much to talk about what the game got right,
I’d like to instead concentrate on how the game 
was representing him as an individual.
Revelations depicts him as a veteran soldier
of sorts, with a deep-seated hatred for the
Ottomans that he expressed through his brutal
torture and execution tactics.
Manuel: "Ah. What the hell is that smell?"
Shahkulu: "Apologies, Manuel. Some of these Ottoman prisoners are so... fragile."
Despite the limited historical records on
the man himself, a few pointed to Şahkulu’s
military prowess, his combat efficiency and
at times his brutality, which means that in
light of that information the character could
be seen as well depicted.
In one of his few speaking scenes, Şahkulu mentions
the ongoing struggle for the Ottoman throne,
which he had used to his advantage in the
past, and in turn is referred to as a man
of great influence, a remark that brings to
mind his legendary status in the eyes of his
followers.
With all of that in mind, when asking ourselves
if Şahkulu was properly depicted in Assassin’s
Creed Revelations, it’s best to say that
it depends on your interpretation.
When speaking about his role in history, the
game is completely inaccurate as he is thought
to have already been dead before he appeared
in Revelations, without considering the heavily
debated concept of his potential survival.
In contrast, looking at Şahkulu as an individual,
his representation in the game appears to
generally fall in line with the limited records
we possess about his personality and actions,
however the game does seem to omit any religious
role he may have held.
Nevertheless, keep in mind that many of the
records about him were written by his enemies,
for which some sources state they may not
have been completely accurate.
The only remaining point I wished to discuss
was his fictional role as a Templar in the
game.
I personally found this interesting, since
they could have tied it into the historical
point where Prince Ahmet decided not to chase
his forces when they retreated, since at this
point both men should have been Templar allies
on opposing ends of the conflict.
However, to be fair I believe the reason the
writers chose to omit this historical tidbit
was because the actions of the Şahkulu rebellion
unintentionally weakened Ahmet’s claim to
the throne and actually helped his brother
Selim in taking it for himself in mid-1512,
which would have been hard to explain since
again, they were supposed to be allies.
Anyways, with that we have finished this episode
of Assassin’s Creed the Real History.
If you enjoyed the video, please share this
series with your friends.
Should you have any requests for a future
video topic, feel free to leave it in the
comment section.
My sources for making this video can be found
in the description bar below.
Thank you for watching.
