Ich hatte hier schon mal auf eine interessante Dissertation verwiesen:
http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f28/war-augustus-ein-idealer-kaiser-18316/
bezugnehmend auf diese Dissertation, die damals noch von dem Link downloadbar war:
http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f42/interessante-dokumente-ebooks-und-artikel-13930/#post223914
Teil des Abstracts:
"This study examines the characteristics of the
ideal ruler as seen through the eyes of the members of late medieval societies. Throughout the study,
main features attributed to the ideal ruler in various cultures have been pursued. Comparing the concepts and attributes apparent in these cultures, it has become possible to talk about a shared ideal of kingship as far as the 'Christian' and 'Muslim' realms of the late medieval era is concerned...."
Sabanci University Research Database
In der Conclusion kommt folgendes heraus:
"While conducting the research for this study, I came to an unexpected conclusion.
One Ottoman ruler seems to stand out among the rest when the attributes discussed
throughout this study are applied to each of them. Although a seemingly silent figure in
Ottoman historiography and not yet a point of focus for thorough research,
Murad II appears to conform to the ideals of the age.
...
He even pardoned
Dracula, who had plundered some Ottoman lands
while the sultan was engaged with his brother. Murad first ordered a campaign on
Dracula to take revenge and to destroy his land. However, the voivode came along with
his two sons and asked for pardon. The sultan forgave him and even presented him a
robe of honor before he was sent back home.532 Such behavior conforms with the
principle of showing mercy to those asking for pardon and those who submit.
The chronicles all agree that justice reigned supreme all around the realm during
Murad’s rule.
...
Murad seems to have been true to his word all throughout his career. Dukas points
out that he always cherished his oaths to the Christians and kept his word, although
some Christian rulers have broken theirs. However, God had punished them through
Murad’s vengeance.551 Both Thuroczy and Dukas blame the Hungarians for the defeat
at Varna for they have broken the oath given to Murad II. Dukas even says that Murad
was very much surprised when he heard that the Hungarians were preparing to wage
war on the Ottomans, acting contrary their oath.
..."
Mehmed II. wurde wohl in diese Betrachtung nicht mehr hineingenommen:
"Although Mehmed can be considered a “late medieval ruler” in many respects, he
also heralds the approaching of a new age. Mehmed resembles a Machiavellian prince
rather than his father Murad, who conforms more to the ideals of Erasmus. In a society
which believes in the wisdom of “ancient custom” and regards change as a painful
process without much good, Murad II appears as the last full-representative of “how
things used to be”. "
Die Attribute eines "guten Herrschers" zu jener Zeit waren:
"The main principles in both this work and the discussions of European scholars as well as Islamic ones can be listed as being honest, possessing divine sanction and favor, obligation to consult, being prudent, avoiding oppression and cruelty, refraining from pride and vanity, being serious, being kind and generous, showing mercy, being brave and most importantly being just. As for Murad, if we are to trust the chronicles, he kept in step with all.
...
Within this frame, the texts seem to reflect the ideal ruler as such: A divinely ordained king, who has inherited this position from his ancestors. Although God selected his dynasty to rule over and take care of the people, he has the merit and virtue to deserve kingship by his own right. He protects his people and religion, working for their welfare. He opposes any kind of oppression and takes justice as the main value in all his deeds. He does not blindly go his own way, but employs the opinions of others so that he can do what is right for his realm. He is generous in giving and makes it his responsibility to make sure that everyone is well taken care of. He avoids vices like anger, pride, lust and so forth both for salvation in the next world and for a good reputation on earth. Ultimately, he is the father and the shepherd to his people."
Also, mal ein Name eines Sultans, der hier bislang noch keine Rolle spielte, aber laut obiger Untersuchung dem mittelalterlichen Ideal eines "guten Herrschers" sehr nahe kam. Der freiwillig auf den Thron verzichtete, zugunsten seines Sohnes Mehmeds II., und als dieser aufgrund seiner Jugend versagte, doch wieder auf den Thron zurückkehrte.