The dismissed Mayor of Esenyurt Prof. Dr. Ahmet Özer's statement “We fought together against Shah Ismail in Çaldıran” drew the reaction of Alevis in particular.
As an Alevi, I can say this. It would be extremely wrong to interpret Özer's words as anti-Alawi. I don't think he had such an intention. For this reason, one should not lose measure in criticizing him.
However, as a history buff, I think Özer, like many others, exaggerates the role of Kurds in Malazgirt and Chaldiran. Unfortunately, some Kurds claim that “If it wasn't for us, the Turks wouldn't have won at Malazgirt and the Ottomans wouldn't have won at Chaldiran”, but this is not the case.
When the Ottoman Sultan Yavuz Sultan Selim reached the east for the Persian campaign, he had an army of 100 thousand men with him. The Ottoman Army had the greatest firepower of that period. According to sources, the army had 14 thousand riflemen and nearly 300 cannons. At the time, when two big countries were at war, small states usually sided with whichever was stronger and preserved their existence. The Kurdish Khanate of Bitlis also chose its side, probably ostensibly because of sectarian differences, but I think more likely because of the overwhelming power of the Ottomans.
Ottoman firepower decided the fate of the war
In fact, Shah Ismail also knew that he was weaker than the Ottomans. For this reason, even though his territory started from Erzincan, he avoided a pitched battle with the Ottomans until almost near Tabriz. He stopped at the point where he could no longer retreat. Therefore, there is no evidence in the sources that a few fighters provided by the Bitlis Khanate changed the balance of the war. Ottoman artillery and muskets decided the fate of the war. Outnumbered and outgunned, the Safavids, despite their success in hand-to-hand combat, disintegrated in the face of Ottoman artillery and muskets.
Serbs fought alongside the Ottoman Army
The other thing is that at that time, small states would give some kind of conscripts to the powerful states whose protectorates they recognized. For example, there were 10 thousand Serbs in the Ottoman army at the Battle of Ankara; 20 thousand Romanians and 20 thousand Hungarians at the Siege of Vienna II. Likewise, there were always Georgian and Armenian troops in the Seljuk army. Not to mention the European armies: In the 18th century, the French king was protected by Swiss and Scottish soldiers. In those times, everyone fought together or against each other. Therefore, the claim that “we fought together” is nothing more than a romantic interpretation.
Of course, this does not diminish the historical importance of the Kurds. But there is no need for constant reminders of Chaldiran and Malazgirt to emphasize Turkish-Kurdish unity. The real historical role of the Kurds is that, despite the collapse of an empire in World War I, they have mostly continued with the Republic of Turkey instead of pushing for independence. The Seljuks were at the height of their power at the Battle of Malazgirt and the Ottomans at Chaldiran.
20 years after Çaldıran, this time the Kurds were dealt a blow
Many Kurdish intellectuals boast about the role of the Kurdish Bitlis Khanate at Chaldiran, but make little reference to what happened afterwards. Because their support at Chaldiran obviously did not impress the Ottomans much. 20 years later, the Ottomans captured Bitlis, the center of the Bitlis Khanate, and beheaded Şeref Khan, the ruler of the Bitlis Khanate, who had sided with them at Chaldiran. Moreover, this was done by Ulama Pasha, a former Safavid commander who had fled Iran and sought refuge with the Ottomans. Ulama was a Kizilbash who had participated in the Shahkulu Rebellion led by Tekeli Turkmens in Antalya in 1510 and had migrated with them to Iran. There he rose to become a provincial official, but years later, when he fell out with the Safavid Khan Tahmasb, he rebelled and joined the Ottoman side again. The Ottomans, who had gone against the Safavids with Kurdish soldiers, sent an army under the command of a former Kizilbash rebel against the Kurdish principality.
Kurds have shown their friendship in the most difficult times
Therefore, the unity at Çaldıran was not very beneficial for the Kurds either. However, after the First World War, if they had pushed a little harder, they might even have become independent. “Kurds are a society that has shown their brotherhood and bravery in the most difficult times. This is the point they need to be reminded of.