Jump to content

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


Mladen

Recommended Posts

Gotta teach these guys what's what...ANY mention of the Ottoman empire must take into account hilliness. Bonus points for working in an organic reference to hovercars and the imaginary polity of Wales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better yet: follow the roman practice of adoption.

It worked with Scipio Aemilianus and Augustus.

If the Kings of the Seven Kingdoms were forced to follow that rule, no more wars for the throne!

Example:

Daenerys choose Edric Storm has her heir.

Edric Storm choose some Stark has his heir.

Stark choose a Martell has his heir.

Martell choose a Lannister has his heir, etc.

Of course, all the heirs will leave the name of their ancient family and adopt the name Targaryen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointless discussion

Look at the Targ family tree which shows them following fairly strict Western laws of primogeniture (there are occasions where the succession was disputed but this was also true of RW history - look at the English Wars of the Roses).

There is no pointless discussion when we are about to enter another civil war due to lack of known primogeniture. Who cares about primogeniture in Westeros? Dany and Aegon are starting new Dance, Renly could have easily defeated Stannis...I am saying that naming an heir would actually not be that terrible idea.

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. :)

And I knew there is something about Ottomans I forgot :). Well, Westeros would be much greater if we flatten it, but then it would be so boring :). We wouldn`t have another `Only Cat` moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Although it seems brutal and barbaric was the reason for the new sultan killing his brothers not seen as for the greater good? It's a lot less upheaval and death killing a handful of kin than going to war and thousands losing there lives fighting a war such as what was happening a lot of the time elsewhere during the ottomans time especially in 15th century Europe.

Another interesting aspect that I'm not clear on was the sultan having multiple woman with the sole purpose of producing heirs because if they where wives this could create the problem of the wives family gaining power due to the childs claim to the throne, in Westeros these would probably be described as bed slaves and in line with the ottomans less serious approach to Islam a lot of these woman where Christian faith woman taken from other parts of the empire such as the Balkans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Thanks for opening such an interesting thread. I want to note that the blood of the Ottoman dynasty is considered sacred as it is the case for most Turkish states. The right to rule is thought to be given by the God. Therefore, the royal blood is never spilled to the ground. The executions are carried by strangulation with an oiled leather rope most of the time, so that no royal blood is spilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fratricide (from the Latin words frater "brother" and cida "killer," or cidum "a killing," both from caedere "to kill, to cut down") is the act of a person killing his or her brother.



In the Ottoman Empire a policy of judicial royal fratricide was introduced by Sultan Mehmet II whose grandfather Mehmed I had to fight a long and bloody civil war against his brothers (which brought the empire near to destruction) to take the throne. When a new Sultan ascended to the throne he would imprison all of his surviving brothers and kill them by strangulation with a silk cord as soon as he had produced his first male heir. The largest killing took place on the succession of Mehmed III when 19 of his brothers were killed and buried with their father. The aim was to prevent civil war. The practice was abandoned in the 17th century by Ahmed I, replaced by imprisonment in the Kafes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear, I have completely forgotten about this thread. Thanks guys for resurrecting it...





Another interesting aspect that I'm not clear on was the sultan having multiple woman with the sole purpose of producing heirs because if they where wives this could create the problem of the wives family gaining power due to the childs claim to the throne, in Westeros these would probably be described as bed slaves and in line with the ottomans less serious approach to Islam a lot of these woman where Christian faith woman taken from other parts of the empire such as the Balkans





AFAIK, and you might want to check this, the sultans preferred to have multiple "haseki" (mistresses), and to have as many sons as he can by each of them. That way killing own brother would be prevented. I think that in Islam they don't recognize half-brothers as close as those that came from the same mother, or at least back then, they didn't. So while it was acceptable to kill half-brothers, it was totally unacceptable to kill the one your mother has given birth too. And for many generations this wasn't the problem. But, it all started when Sultan Suleyman Magnificent married one of his sultanas, Hurrem, and impregnated her with, IIRC, 5 sons... Three died of natural causes, while the two, Bayazit and Selim fought against each other for the throne. Selim won, and since then, tradition was broken, and sultans started marrying wives and having more children from the same woman. The practice ended with Mehmed III, as Lamprey has written it...







Thanks for opening such an interesting thread. I want to note that the blood of the Ottoman dynasty is considered sacred as it is the case for most Turkish states. The right to rule is thought to be given by the God. Therefore, the royal blood is never spilled to the ground. The executions are carried by strangulation with an oiled leather rope most of the time, so that no royal blood is spilled.





Well, royal blood has always been considered sacred, and not just in Ottoman Empire, but also in Western cultures... We see that idea in Targaryens and their delusional ideas of grandeur, their dreams of dragons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTTOMAN SUCCESSION PRACTICES


In the early period (from the 14th through the late 16th centuries), the Ottomans practiced open succession, or what historian Donald Quataert has described as "survival of the fittest, not eldest, son." During their father's lifetime, all of the adult sons of the reigning sultan would hold provincial governorships. Accompanied and mentored by their mothers, they would gather supporters while ostensibly following a Ghazw ethos. Upon the death of their father, the sons would fight among themselves until one emerged triumphant. How remote a province the son governed was of great significance. The closer the region that a particular son was in charge of the better the chances were of that son succeeding, simply because he would be told of the news of his father's death and be able to get to Constantinople first and declare himself Sultan. Thus a father could hint at whom he preferred by giving his favourite son a closer governorship. Bayezid II, for instance had to fight his brother Cem Sultan in the 1480s for the right to rule. Occasionally, the half-brothers would even begin the struggle before the death of their father. During the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), strife among his sons Selim and Mustafa caused enough internal turmoil that Suleiman ordered the death of Mustafa, leaving Selim II the sole heir.


With Suleiman and Selim, the favourite concubine (haseki) of the Sultan achieved new prominence. Gaining power within the harem, the favourite was able to manoeuvre to ensure the succession for one of her sons. This led to a short period of effective primogeniture. However, unlike the earlier period, when the sultan had already defeated his brothers (and potential rivals for the throne) in battle, these sultans had the problem of many half-brothers who could act as the focus for factions that could threaten the sultan. Thus, to prevent attempts upon his throne, the sultan practiced fratricide upon ascending the throne. The practice of fratricide, first employed by Mehmed II, soon became widespread.[2] Both Murad III and his son Mehmed III had their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's brothers and half-brothers (which were usually quite numerous) was traditionally done by manual strangling with a silk cord. As the centuries passed, the ritual killing was gradually replaced by lifetime solitary confinement in the kafes ("Golden Cage"), a room in the Imperial Harem from where the sultan's brothers could never escape, unless perchance they became next in line to the throne. Some had already become mentally unstable by the time they were asked to reign.


Mehmed III, however, was the last sultan to have previously held a provincial governorship. Sons now remained within the imperial harem until the death of their father. This denied them not only the ability to form powerful factions capable of usurping their father, but also denied them the opportunity to have children while their father remained alive. Thus when Mehmet's son came to the throne as Ahmed I, he had no children of his own. Moreover, as a minor, there was no evidence he could have children. This had the potential to create a crisis of succession and led to a gradual end to fratricide. Ahmed had some of his brothers killed, but not Mustafa (later Mustafa I). Similarly, Osman II allowed his half-brothers Murad and Ibrahim to live. This led to a shift in the 17th century from a system of primogeniture to one based on agnatic seniority, in which the eldest male within the dynasty succeeded, also to guarantee adult sultans and prevent both fratricides as well as the sultanate of women. Thus, Mustafa succeeded his brother Ahmed; Suleiman II and Ahmed II succeeded their brother Mehmed IV before being succeeded in turn by Mehmed's son Mustafa II. Agnatic seniority explains why from the 17th century onwards a deceased sultan was rarely succeeded by his own son, but usually by an uncle or brother. It also meant that potential rulers had to wait a long time in the kafes before ascending the throne, hence the old age of certain sultans upon their enthronement.[3] Although attempts were made in the 19th century to replace agnatic seniority with primogeniture, they were unsuccessful, and seniority was retained until the abolition of the sultanate in 1922.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a ottoman... I should say ottoman law of course, but kinslaying is really bothers me though, especially Sultan Suleyman killed his talented son Sehzade Mustafa, it was really a turning point for entire Ottoman Empire, Suleyman knows Mustafa was the best fitted but he was a threat for his rule, and just for ruling another 10 year more, he killed him. Then incompetent sehzade selim become sultan and ottoman empire began to fall...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem of any dynasty is that you cannot avoid some undeserving jerk ending up on the throne to ruin everything. With primogeniture, it is obvious that someone like Aerys the Mad can be the king and you dont have much to do. The survival of the fittest type succession has its own disadvantages. First of all, the fittest survive but they dont necessarily be the right person who is more able. For example the struggle between Bayezid II and Cem Sultan is highly controversial and majority of the people today think that Cem Sultan would make a great ruler. The fight for throne comes down to who are supporting your claim. Bayezid II has more powerful men siding him so he managed to take the throne. He is the fittest but Cem Sultan was more deserving than him.



There is another highly controversial issue that Suleiman the Magnificent himself ordered the death of his son Mustafa, who was like the Rhaegar of his time, beloved by the folk and a very able swordsman and leader.



To conclude, dynasty type of ruling is always doomed. In an ideal state, all the positions must be reserved for those who are most fitted to the job. Blood and interest relations corrupt the state.



In the history, I know two examples in which the best men were appointed to the ruling positions regardless of blood relations or any interest. First was the Mongols, who managed to make one of the greatest war machines in the history. And the second was Mamluk Sultanate, who under the command of former slave Baibars, defeated the Mongols for the first time in the history.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem of any dynasty is that you cannot avoid some undeserving jerk ending up on the throne to ruin everything. With primogeniture, it is obvious that someone like Aerys the Mad can be the king and you dont have much to do. The survival of the fittest type succession has its own disadvantages. First of all, the fittest survive but they dont necessarily be the right person who is more able. For example the struggle between Bayezid II and Cem Sultan is highly controversial and majority of the people today think that Cem Sultan would make a great ruler. The fight for throne comes down to who are supporting your claim. Bayezid II has more powerful men siding him so he managed to take the throne. He is the fittest but Cem Sultan was more deserving than him.

There is another highly controversial issue that Suleiman the Magnificent himself ordered the death of his son Mustafa, who was like the Rhaegar of his time, beloved by the folk and a very able swordsman and leader.

To conclude, dynasty type of ruling is always doomed. In an ideal state, all the positions must be reserved for those who are most fitted to the job. Blood and interest relations corrupt the state.

In the history, I know two examples in which the best men were appointed to the ruling positions regardless of blood relations or any interest. First was the Mongols, who managed to make one of the greatest war machines in the history. And the second was Mamluk Sultanate, who under the command of former slave Baibars, defeated the Mongols for the first time in the history.

Which why I find it interesting in next coming books if we are going to see the dynasty type of ruling fall and maybe ruling similar which was in Rome before it became emprire or maybe like in Athens would come in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sounds like House Frey. Notice how old man Walder has no brothers ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we install something like the Holy Roman Empire succession system in Westeros where the Lords of Westeros would just elect anyone who they deem to be fit for the position of the King or Queen after the current King or Queen dies?

We had that once... It;s called Great Council. That is how Aegon V came to rule...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

If the Targaryen followed Ottoman rules of successions the line would come to a end very quickly. I think it was impractical and produced many sociopathic kings in the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand the European rules of succession is not only rational, it is practical and realistic, because I believe educated rulers equals better conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Targaryen followed Ottoman rules of successions the line would come to a end very quickly. I think it was impractical and produced many sociopathic kings in the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand the European rules of succession is not only rational, it is practical and realistic, because I believe educated rulers equals better conditions.

Would it? Ottoman succession worked far quite some time... and they haven't ended that easily... perhaps it is impractical and unrealistic, but unlike in European courts where every generation fought for power, in Ottoman Empire they handled it in the privacy and silence of harem. Naturally, every once and a while, something would happen, but the thing is, it worked, the system actually worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every younger brother is plotting against his elder brother and king? Sure, more like over 70% is supporting the cause of his king/brother. Killing all your brothers when ascending the throne only makes sure the brothers try to kill you before you ascend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every younger brother is plotting against his elder brother and king? Sure, more like over 70% is supporting the cause of his king/brother. Killing all your brothers when ascending the throne only makes sure the brothers try to kill you before you ascend.

I agree with this sentiment. :p
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Targaryen followed Ottoman rules of successions the line would come to a end very quickly. I think it was impractical and produced many sociopathic kings in the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand the European rules of succession is not only rational, it is practical and realistic, because I believe educated rulers equals better conditions.

So every younger brother is plotting against his elder brother and king? Sure, more like over 70% is supporting the cause of his king/brother. Killing all your brothers when ascending the throne only makes sure the brothers try to kill you before you ascend.

Ottoman Dynasty ruled over 500 years. There are not much dynasties as long as this. Fratricide has been practiced only about 200 years. As with all dynasties, some of the Ottoman Sultans were musicians, composers, poets, artists, pious men, and almost anything except a ruler. Some of the latter Sultans were clearly mad and this may be due to Kafes. But as far as I know, no Ottoman Sultan was reported to be a sociopath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...