ABSTRACT
Gazavatnames are often read and categorised by scholars today as being generically closer to literature than history. Their primary functions are seen as didactic or entertaining; they "were not primarily written to contribute to the historical record". As such, historians frequently treat gazavatname accounts as if they are less reliable than other historical sources because of their supposed pronounced eulogistic and semi-fictional, literary or epic character. Their usefulness for the historian is considered limited and restricted to helping fill in the gaps in the historical record, the provision of evidence for the development of Ottoman literary genres, or descriptions of the virtues that the Ottomans regarded as suitable for their rulers to exhibit. This chapter argues that the idea of readers and writers approaching a text with different expectations concerning orthographic, grammatical and 'factual' stability is a more plausible explanation of instances of 'error' than the notions of the Ottomans being a culture beset with residual orality.
