
The Ottoman Empire: Succession, Deposition and Fratricide - diodorus
https://www.historytoday.com/gemma-masson/ottoman-empire-succession-deposition-and-fratricide
======
aaron-lebo
The Ottomans (and Turks by extension) are absolutely fascinating.

Consider that from the time of the Roman Empire until the fall of
Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantines considered themselves Roman. The Turks
considered themselves successors of that (Kayser-i Rum) and at various points
had a territory that looked a lot like the old Empire. Of course the societies
were very different, but if you try hard enough you can imagine the last
vestiges of Rome finally falling after WW1.

But the Turks, they were Central Asian tribes (closer to the Mongols than to
Arabs or Europeans) who ended up conquering the Eastern Roman Empire (over
centuries) and eventually ended up at the gates of Vienna.

The amount of mixing of cultures, religions (consider the Janisseries) and
races is crazy. Check out depictions of the first Ottoman Emperors compared to
the last. Another example of how people are a lot more connected than we
think.

This was a great read:

[https://www.amazon.com/1453-Holy-Constantinople-Clash-
Islam/...](https://www.amazon.com/1453-Holy-Constantinople-Clash-
Islam/dp/1401308503/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=XC8QFDCFAWDQ0RCFN2HJ)

The Arabs, Avars, and others were besieging Constantinople in the 700s. It
took another 700 years and Mehmet's use of cannon to bring the walls down and
really change history.

Also Manizkert and other events are interesting. Really an underrated part of
history. Fun to geek out over it.

~~~
gkya
> But the Turks, they were Central Asian tribes (closer to the Mongols than to
> Arabs or Europeans) who ended up conquering the Eastern Roman Empire (over
> centuries) and eventually ended up at the gates of Vienna.

This is Turkey's official rhetoric, but hardly the general truth. In today's
Turkey, and in the Ottoman Empire, the only thing that was really Central
Asian was the Turkish language. The reality is that most possibly the
Turkification of Asia Minor was a case of "elite dominance", as allowed by the
gap of historical knowledge in the region for many centuries during the Middle
Ages and as backed by contemporaneous genetical studies (which relate the
local population to Mediterraneans rather than Central Asians).

The fact is lots of pseudo science was involved in building a Turkish identity
decoupled from Islam during the process of the establisment of the modern
Turkish Republic. That's not unlike the similar and similarly funny stories
some Hungarians entertain these days, and based mostly on linguistic
relations. The Central Asian Turks migrated, thoroughout decades and
centuries, westwards, and firstly became Persianised and Islamised, and then
became the Muslim warrior elite, and then they built multiple states during
some centuries around and in Asia minor, and they begat ultimately the Ottoman
Empire, and the peoples were Turkified; but the only concrete thing that
change were the lords. At least, this is what genetical data suggests (Arnaiz-
Villena et al. 2001, Hodoğlugil, and Yardumian are some examples).

I take an issue with this narrative as a Turk because that's a fundamental lie
the current national identity that we sport is based on, which renders it
unsound.

> It took another 700 years and Mehmet's use of cannon to bring the walls down
> and really change history.

That's debated too. But cannons or not, what remained for him to conquer was
the crumbs of the empire, fitted into a city which you can walk across in both
axes with slow tempo in a bit more than an hour. The west left them alone, and
the 4th crusade had already rendered them terminally moribund. It's indeed
fascinating that he declared himself the new Emperor of Rome, but it's still
so w/o the mythology.

~~~
Jun8
I'm curious as to what part of the assertion that cannon superiority was one
of the biggest factors in the Fall of the City is being debated, can you
provide some resources?

The bombards (muzzle loaded cannons) were widely known and used in Europe,
e.g. the famous Mons Meg
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg);](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg\);)
what distinguishes the cannons that Mehmet had Orban built
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban))
were their sheer size and the technological knowledge in casting such massive
bronze bombards, that Western Europe lacked at that time. For an informal
description of Orban's work see [http://www.camrea.org/2017/09/11/orban-the-
man-who-brought-d...](http://www.camrea.org/2017/09/11/orban-the-man-who-
brought-down-the-walls-of-constantinople-part-i/)

Note that just having this massive cannon did not make it a done deal: due to
overheating, the bombard had to be cooled for a long period after each shot in
which time the Byzantine defenders quickly mended the walls with rubble and
any other materials they could find. In the end they just got overwhelmed.

~~~
jcranmer
The Ottomans had the men and materiel to besiege Constantinople for an
extended period of time, and the Byzantines didn't have much means to bear the
siege or relieve it (although the Venetians were en route). Note that Mehmet
also pulled off the trick of moving his navy into the Goldern Horn, thus
completing the encirclement on sea and on land.

Constantinople would likely have fallen anyways, it was just a matter of how
long it would have taken and how many lives would have been lost.

------
DrScump
"Osman II had not endeared himself to the military by closing the coffee
houses owned by many of their members, as they were suspected to be places
where seditious groups met to plot rebellion."

This reminded me of England's Charles II[0], who decreed that coffeehouses
were "..."nurseries of sedition and rebellion."

[0]
[http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publication...](http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/5806/580603.html)

~~~
trhway
>This reminded me of England's Charles II[0], who decreed that coffeehouses
were "..."nurseries of sedition and rebellion."

Munich Beer Hall Putsch comes to mind too.

Also reminded an opening scene of a movie that i don't remember the title of -
year 195x, Australia, mandatory pub closing time is 18:00, chaotic scene of
people in a bar rushing to finish their beers in the last minutes right before
closing, a woman at one table (a company of Marxists) exclaims "How can one
make a Revolution when pubs are closing at 6pm!"

------
craftyguy
> in that the House of Osman managed to maintain an unbroken line of
> succession from its founding in the 13th century through to the family
> members who are still alive today.

If Crusader Kings 2 has taught me anything, it's that if this claim is true it
would be quite an achievement to not have any cuckolds in your dynasty.

~~~
lainga
The converse lesson from CKII: the wiser sultans would look the other way at
being cuckolded, if the children had good stats (how they could determine
these is another matter)...

~~~
craftyguy
Totally. Good stats > preserving some blood line.

~~~
flukus
Just marry his oldest daughter to your second son and you can keep both.

------
vowelless
> appropriate citations from the Quran, such as: ‘The execution of a prince is
> preferable to the loss of a province.’

Citation with Surah and ayah, please. I don't remember this one.

~~~
nafizh
There is no such verse in the Quran. I am astounded by such a huge error.

------
Merty_Coologan
The Ottoman child "collecting" (Turkish: devşirme, devisirme) was an Ottoman
practice of kidnapping young boys, especially Christians in the Balkans, for
the purpose of raising them as soldiers or staffing sultan services( mainly
sexual services)

~~~
Symmetry
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that last part. There were a lot of slaves
taken as devşirme from various parts of Europe and Anatolia. Most of them
became soldiers but the ones who did the best on the exams they were given
became bureaucrats instead. And so the Ottomans became the second state, after
China, to choose its bureaucrats by exam and gained all the advantages that
implied. The system decayed, though, and the whole thing was over by around
1700.

There was certainly sexual slavery in the Ottoman empire too. But it was more
common after 1700, the people taken were mostly from the Caucasus instead of
Eastern Europe, and it involved far fewer individuals.

~~~
gkya
Paderasty was indeed common in the imperial palace. How much of that was
forced, slavery-like relations are beyond me though.

~~~
candiodari
Isn't there slavery (sexual and otherwise) everywhere islam went ? I mean, the
prophet kept slaves (and had extramarital sex with some of them, and this is
not doubted or controversial). He also forced some of his other slaves to
work, and he confirmed the right for an owner to do whatever he wanted with
his/her slaves, including controversially kill them without the need for an
explanation.

Why would it be any different in the Ottoman empire ?

~~~
gkya
First of all, I did not say slavery did not exist in the Empire. It did. But
the Janissary/Devsirme is not it. IDK much facts with their proofs about
slavery in the Ottoman Empire or Islam, but I doubt the truth of your
statements. I'm not here to defend the religion or the empire, but I have
never heard of those things (except the liberated Zayd), and I'd be reluctant
to take religious myths and gossip as literal facts, especially if there are
doubts the people we're talking about ever lived. Then, even if we accept your
affirmations, there's no reason to believe that it inevitably causes the
Empire to behave in a certain way. Moreover, slavery existed in almost all
parts of the world and for the most of our common past, and even made its way
into the 20th century in _some_. So tieing it to a religion is not really
logical. I think of religion as a consolidation of a people's tradition, and
looking at Ancient Greek and Ancient Mesopotamian literature, it's not hard to
find where slavery comes from in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Returning to the original topic, the devsirme is nominally slavery, but the
substance of the phaenomenon is not really. And some sultans practiced
paderasty, but again reducing the devsirme to a periodical collection of
homosexual male sex slaves is just not correct. We're talking about the most
powerful men in the Ottoman society for the entire existence of the
Janissary/Devsirme system. On many occasions they decided and/or dethroned
sultans. Many devsirme dynasties obtained immense power and wealth. The
Sokollu family ruled the empire for decades and decades. Mehmed Sokollu
created the Bulgarian Church and made his brother the patriarch. Until Mahmud
II, not bribing the Janissaries enough meant death for the sultans. Now don't
tell me these men were succumbed into a system of involuntary rape by that one
guy which they get rid of when they want anyways.

