Jump to content

Law of succession...Osmanli vs European...which one is better for Targaryens?


Mladen

Recommended Posts

I want this to be strictly academic discussion about approaches in Law of succession. I was researching a bit about dynastic turmoils in Ottoman Empire during Suleyman the Magnifiecent and I wanted to know what kind of succession law should Targaryens stick to.

1. Law of succession in Ottoman Empire

Established somewhere in 14th century, Law of succession in Ottoman Empire has been very clear and was based on principle `survival of the fittest, not eldest son`. Basically, current Sultan would choose one of his son(Sehzade) as his future heir, not caring about whether he`s the first or the last son. After Sultan`s death, the chosen son would immediately kill all his brothers, so they would never oppose him. Law, to some may be brutal, but was indeed very effective. The end of this law was in 16th century, when Sehzade ordered the beheadings of 19 brothers and nephews, and put their heads on spikes for display to entire Istanbul. After this, competitive brothers were not murdered, then imprisoned for lifetime in Harem.

2. Law of succession in Christian Empires (Spain, France, England, Russia etc)

This one is commonly known. The first son would be taught from his earliest years how to become King. Other sons would be prepared to take some role in Kingdom, if that. Girls of course were to be married. This law had its bad sides, for first son would also carry all the burden. His education would usually be much stricter and there were always special rules for him. Best example for this are arthur, Prince of Wales and Henry VIII. Arthur as older was taught his entire lie how to rule, and Heny was all and all man of many pleasures. With Arthur`s death, Henry became the heir to the Throne, quite unfitting for that (something like Brandon and Eddard Stark in ASOIAF). Of course, unlike in Ottoman Empire, the older brother would always live in fear of reclaiming the throne and plots against him.

And now we have to deal with Tagaryens. Their Law of succession is very alike those in Christian lands but it also proved to be wrong in many occasions. With situation we have, wuth not one, then three Targaryen heirs (Dany, Jon and Aegon) what do you think how the winner should treat the others? Should he/she see them as threat, or allies? And how do you think expected Dance of Dragons will end in light of succession laws? And at last, do they really matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you give an Ottoman example?? You should have known that kills the topic :)). Anyway, purely academic... the Ottoman example is impossible in Westeros. Kinslaying is forbidden by the gods... probably the oldest rule in their religion. You can't go against that. Anyway, the Turk custom always seemed crazy to me, barbaric.... it shows a weakness in the system. I think it started after Baiazid I, when his 3 sons fought for years, and almost destroyed the empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's certainly a good way to avoid a succession crisis but I think it probably weakens the dynasty as a whole by eliminating collateral branches which does potentially make the succession precarious should a king die without any issue. Then there's the issue of marriage alliances, by killing off a Prince (and presumably disinheriting his children rather than killing them too) you could create an LP with a pretender in the hand and a grudge against the throne for the perceived insult to their family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you give an Ottoman example?? You should have known that kills the topic :)). Anyway, purely academic... the Ottoman example is impossible in Westeros. Kinslaying is forbidden by the gods... probably the oldest rule in their religion. You can't go against that.

I thought it may be interesting, but it seems I was wrong :) . As for that kinslaying, I wouldn`t dismiss it so easily. Maekar killed Baelor in D&E stories, unintenionally of course, but there were always struggles and battles even between brothers, look at Stannis and Renly. Should we by default say that Stannis is going to pay for Renly`s death? No, I don`t think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it may be interesting, but it seems I was wrong :) . As for that kinslaying, I wouldn`t dismiss it so easily. Maekar killed Baelor in D&E stories, unintenionally of course, but there were always struggles and battles even between brothers, look at Stannis and Renly. Should we by default say that Stannis is going to pay for Renly`s death? No, I don`t think so.

I bolded the importand part. I wasn't murder it was an accident. during a trial by combat.there was no intention for maekar to kill Baelor(unlike tyrion). despite what other say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bolded the importand part. I wasn't murder it was an accident. during a trial by combat.there was no intention for maekar to kill Baelor(unlike tyrion). despite what other say

Forgive me, but I think word unintentionally means there was no intention. I don`t get the comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it may be interesting, but it seems I was wrong :) . As for that kinslaying, I wouldn`t dismiss it so easily. Maekar killed Baelor in D&E stories, unintenionally of course, but there were always struggles and battles even between brothers, look at Stannis and Renly. Should we by default say that Stannis is going to pay for Renly`s death? No, I don`t think so.

Of course there's the occasional ambitious younger brother who challenges his elder's claim, but I think you're getting off track if you consider Stannis and Renly the rule rather than the exception: The laws of succession in Westeros were crystal clear on the matter, and Renly never bothered to claim that he was in any way following the law when he crowned himself - he simply didn't care. As for Stannis getting punished for Renly's death: Who's blaming him? As far as anyone but a handful of people knows, Renly was cut down by a jealous member of his Rainbow Guard, who fled the scene afterwards.

Also, if Maekar killing Baelor was an accident, as you say, why mention it at all? It's frankly useless as an example to the topic; In fact, Maekar being laden down by guilt afterwards only reinforces that the kinslaying taboo applies to Targaeryens as well as any other Westerosi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you give an Ottoman example?? You should have known that kills the topic :)). Anyway, purely academic... the Ottoman example is impossible in Westeros. Kinslaying is forbidden by the gods... probably the oldest rule in their religion. You can't go against that. Anyway, the Turk custom always seemed crazy to me, barbaric.... it shows a weakness in the system. I think it started after Baiazid I, when his 3 sons fought for years, and almost destroyed the empire.

Barbaric? Callng names is a bad thing.Shame on you :dunce:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osman succession rules were almost certainly a reaction to the extreme hilliness of the Ottoman Empire. It's extremely doubtful if the method should, or even can, be separated from the geographical imperative that shaped it.

On the other hand succession in the style of Ivan the Terrible might work for Westeros

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on how steep the hills of King's Landing really are.

Yep, and how far armies would need to march if said hills were flattened out. In that case, Westeros would certainly be bigger than Essos, at least if you count fractals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the Targ line of succession, plus there are several instances when an individual was passed over. One that comes to my head is Aerion Brightflame, but there is destined to be conflict in any line of succession. Even if you kill your 19 brothers and nephews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have suggestions of vulcanism in Valyria. Perhaps it was equally hilly...of course, then it should have been undefeatable.

only if their opponents lacked hovercars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

excuse me guys, but what does "being hilly" has to do with succession laws 0_o

Very old joke about the Ottoman Empire being the largest empire on earth if you count in the hills, since flattened hills are large tracts of land! ;) The discussion went on for well over 300 posts and hit legendary status quite early on, like around 2005 or so. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very old joke about the Ottoman Empire being the largest empire on earth if you count in the hills, since flattened hills are large tracts of land! ;) The discussion went on for well over 300 posts and hit legendary status quite early on, like around 2005 or so. :)

Ah okay, thanks Miss Jon´s Mom :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...