Three madrasas, the Buruciye Medrese, the Çifte Minareli Medrese, and the Gök Medrese were built in the central Anatolian city of Sivas in 1271-72 CE. This paper examines the connection between architectural style and political power in these monuments within the broader context of Anatolia under Mongol rule. Upon close inspection of the monuments, their patrons, style, and spatial concerns subtle changes appear that distinguish them from earlier monuments in the region. The patrons of the three monuments operated within the possibilities of Sivas, employing local workshops who often relied on locally available materials and motifs. Hence, style does not necessarily correlate with political affiliation, unsettling the classification of these monuments as ‘Seljuk’ while not making them ‘Mongol’ or ‘Ilkhanid,’ or otherwise assigning them to a readily available dynastic label. The patron of the Gök Medrese, Sahib ‘At? Fakhr al-D?n ?Al?, had commissioned several monuments in and near Konya before the monument in Sivas. The shape of the portal block and the use of marble on the Gök Medrese refer to S?hib ?At?’s earlier commissions in the region of Konya. An architect’s signature on the portal enforces this connection to the patron’s earlier foundations, suggesting the use of a personal aesthetic preference, and a stable record in employing members of certain construction crews. In details of the decoration, however, references to monuments in Sivas suggest the participation of local workshops. Shams al-D?n Muhammad al-Juwayn?, the patron of the Çifte Minareli Medrese, was a high functionary of the Ilkhanid administration. The patron of the Buruciye Medrese, Muzaffar al-D?n Hib?t-all?h al-Bar?jird? is only known from the inscriptions on his monument. In stylistic terms, the stone carvings on these two monuments are closely related, and show an affinity with the Great Mosque and Hospital in Divri?i (1228-29 CE). Moreover, they are positioned closely together, while the Gök Medrese was built in a different part of the city, suggesting spatial divisions that reflect the distribution of power between competing notables. The stylistic subtleties of the architecture, the spatial logic of their placement within the city, and the use of inscription constitute sources that are more eloquent than any chronicle of the period. The monuments speak to the intentions of their patrons, and reflect the increasingly localization of architectural culture in Anatolia as the region was integrated into the Mongol empire.