east in the minds, in the “Classic” or the traditional period of theOttoman Empire. This relationship is evidenced within the courtrecords, which are defined as the concept of “mahrûse” of Amasyaduring that period. The relationship between the sultan and the city hasbegun to change along with the changes in the “mahrûse”, which refersto the place where the divine origin power of sultan is visible, especiallyin the 17th Century. Some small groups of come to power in the citiesand they acquire a socio-economic basis with tenure system and theexpansion of the money economy. In Amasya, household cavalry havethe control of this tenure system; thus, they start to gain socioeconomicpower by using these socio-economic dynamics over theirsocio-political privileges. The household cavalry that spread across theprovinces from Sultan’s house have turned into a bureaucratic classfrom a group that has responsibilities such as being deputies oradministrators of the foundations. They have acquired many propertiesand become mesne lords in the city, and also they have begun to makecommercial agriculture in their farms. These troops have tried to spreadtheir activities to the entire city by some non-judicial transactions, andthey are responsible for the gaps occurred in the connection betweenthe Sultan and city by becoming a new power in “mahrûse”. Thehousehold cavalry have probably appropriated Amasya due to themotives resulted by being settled, and acted by considering theirindividual or factional interests rather than being a homogeneous groupfor sure. Therefore, after the second half of 17th Century, Amasya hasbeen defined with the concept of “medine” rather than with the conceptof “mahrûse”. In the 18th Century which is the century of landedproprietors in Ottoman Empire, the concept of “mahrûse” has beenforgotten and Amasya has been referred to the concept of “medine” only.What is the response of this change, experienced in the concepts, in theminds and practice?Trabzon was started to be described with the concept of“mahruse” rather than “medine” just around the same dates. It isnecessary to understand this conceptual changes taking place in courtrecords regarding Trabzon and Amasya. It is also possible to relatethese changes with individual disposal of clerks. However, sinceconcepts of “mahrûse” and “mahmiye” were completely disappearedfrom documents produced in cities, we may be faced with a moresophisticated manner. In fact, the concepts of “mahrûse” and“Medine-i Amasya Sâkinlerinden Kapıkulu Sipahileri”: 17. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında… 3Turkish StudiesInternational Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or TurkicVolume 10/1 Winter 2015“mahmiye”, which constitute the conceptual dimension of ruler andruling power over cities, lost power in favor of “medine” in the secondhalf of the 17th century in Amasya in addition to Trabzon and theyalmost didn’t show up at the end of 17th century and in the 18thcentury; therefore, it is possible to point out that the perception ofpower and may be the ruling power itself have been changed.As a matter of fact, the city of Amasya in the second half of 17thcentury and in the 18th century should be analysed from the concept ofhistorical perspective in order to discuss this issue in a more clear andconcrete way. In addition, the possible connections that can beestablished between other cities in the Ottoman geography are quiteimportant in terms of understanding the “victory” of “medine”, which isconsidered as a city in these days, in the 18th century. It would be alsoquite useful to understand the relationship between “medine” andnotables in Ottoman Empire, who played important roles in theadministration of cities, increased their influence and wealth by beingcivil servants until the 18th century. Because it is logical to think thatpositions and titles gained by notables had a contribution to thetransformation of “mahrûse” into “medine”. It can lead us to importantconclusions to follow whether their public institutions are establishedeven with some differences in cities, where landed proprietors, whoestablished their own publicities, say that Hamerbas’s bourgeois publicinstitutions are substituted.Before 1730, “bölükbaşı” household cavalry, the people titled“beşe” and “çavuş” were involved in the city administration andcollection of taxes in general in Trabzon; however, after 1730s, thepeople titled “zâde” were involved more in these duties. These familieshad voice in the administration of the city, and their testimony oropinions were taken in almost every case in the courts. In addition,these families obtained the best farmland and countryside fields in thecity. In the 17th century, the situation was not that much different forAmasya. The activities of landed proprietor families in Amasya in the18th century should be investigated within the scope of changesexperienced from “mahruse” into “medine”. In fact, a member of animportant landed proprietor family Canikli Hacı Ali has taken Amasyaunder his responsibility as a mansion in 1772.In addition, one of the important similarities with “era of notables”was dating substitution of bourgeois publicity in the 18th century byHabermas. Kemal Karpat considers notables of the 18th century as anaspect of modernization. According to him, the welfare of notablesappears to be related to “land ownership, buying and selling ofagricultural products and tax collection concession goes hand in handwith land ownership”. In this regard, “the main factors behind the riseof this group are Europe's growing demand for agricultural products,relatively free trade and government policy that allows accumulation ofagricultural capital”. This period should be considered as “rich people”rather than people taking up positions as part of determination ofnota