There are 75 known manuscripts, some of which do not include the history of the Ottomans. The manuscripts were abundantly copied throughout the fifteenth century. His work was strongly criticized during the sixteenth century from a poetical point of view.
Previous [to Ottomans] kings were infidels or showed cruelty; Mongol rulers oppressed people with the law (zulm itdiler velî kânûnıla), without painting their hands with blood. “Lawful oppression and confiscation are amenable to the people as a form of justice” (zulm kim kânûn u zabtıla ola / ‘adl gibi halka ol âsân gele) (v. 7-8). Ottomans came in the end as everything good; like God bestowed man with power, life and intelligence (kudret ü ‘akl u hayât), with the latter coming last as the most important of all three (v. 17-18). Orhan was equitable and a dispenser of justice (munsıfıdı Orhân u dâdger), his justice (‘adl) being so excellent that the justice of Caliph Ömer was forgotten; he established mosques and alms houses; he was a true believer and loved people of science (v. 68ff). His nature was to give and to strive (bahşişi varıdı... kûşişi varıdı); he was merciful to the believers and destructive to the infidels (v. 90-91). His son, Süleyman Paşa, had all the qualities of leadership (şart-ı serverlik): courage (şecâ’at), generosity (sehâvet), administrative and ruling abilities (hem siyâset hem riyâset ehlidi), good judgment, military qualities (v. 94ff). As for Murad I, he was a perfect and wise king of circumspect and perceptive nature (sâib-i tedbîr ü ehl-i râyıdı), humble in heart and lofty in zeal, strong and mighty, with great generosity: he helped the poor and destitute, and he did not hesitate to give high posts to destitute people, because “a Padishah needs a vision such that dust and gold look the same in his presence”. Even a mendicant could become king, if the Bird of Paradise happened to come over him [legend of medieval Islamic poetry] (v. 136 ff). Bayezid I, he was just (‘âdil) and of perfect conduct; he respected and supported people of science, as well as the devout, to whom he was very generous (v. 254 ff). He established great justice and equity in the country (‘adl ü dâd); “since the people received that justice from him, whether big or small (ulu kiçi ise), they became industrious”, and every land became a sown field, a garden or an orchard (v. 267-70). He also was very pious. “He knew that the judges were dispensers of injustice. Their deeds were bribery and corruption of the holy law”. He assembled all of them and punished them as necessary (v. 273-78). As for Timur, because he lacked any justice at all, necessarily he possessed much cruelty and tyranny (hiç ‘adlı yoğıdı, lâcirem kim zulm ü cevri çoğıdı) (v. 295).
Next, Ahmedi proceeds to a eulogy of Emir Süleyman [Çelebi] (v. 298ff). He describes him as just, generous, magnanimous and munificent (mürüvvet, fütüvvet). “Despite having troops and wealth, treasure and capability, still he does not fancy seizing domains (lîkin itmez mülk almağa heves)… Necessarily, he should attain prosperity and glory. The kingdom and the sultan have an aspect of generosity. The one who gives his money to something will be like them (nesneye nakdin viren eyle olur). The one who does a job carelessly will go astray”.