How they were executed in the Ottoman Empire. How did the sultan brothers live? Rulers of the Ottoman Empire in chronological order

To eliminate chaos in the election of the head of state, in Ottoman Empire fratricide was legalized.

In all the Turkish states that existed before the Ottoman Empire, there was no system of transfer of power from one person to another. Each member of the dynasty had the right to head the state. History knows many examples of how this situation caused chaos, regularly leading to violent conflicts in the struggle for the throne. Usually members of the dynasty were not in danger as long as they did not claim the throne. There were also cases where those who resisted eventually received a pardon. Nevertheless, this situation has caused the death of tens of thousands of people.

First fratricide

After the death of the first Ottoman Sultan Osman Gazi in 1324, in the absence of a struggle for the sultanate between his three sons, Orhan Gazi inherited the throne. In 1362, his son Murad I ascended the throne, who fought for power with the brothers Ibrahim and Khalil, removing them from government in Eskisehir. According to rumors, the heirs contested the throne from Murad I. With their slaughter, brotherly blood was shed for the first time.

Having inherited the throne from Murad I in 1389, Bayezid I the Lightning ordered his brother Yakub Celebi to be killed on the battlefield, although his brother did not conflict over the succession. The period of interregnum after the death of Bayezid I turned into a difficult test for the Ottomans. The struggle for power between the four sons of Bayezid lasted 11 years, the Ottoman Empire was in crisis. It was this time that paved the way for the legalization of fratricide in the empire.

Code of Laws of Mehmed II

When Mehmed II the Conqueror came to the throne, the Ottoman Empire had not yet recovered from the upheavals of the Ottoman interregnum. Having conquered Istanbul, Mehmed II again gathered the lands of the Ottoman Empire together. Drafting a code of laws on state organization, Mehmed II also included a clause related to the succession of the sultanate:

“If any of my children becomes the head of the Sultanate, then in order to ensure public order, he must kill his brothers. Most ulema ( recognized and authoritative experts on the theoretical and practical aspects of Islam - approx. per.) approves of this. Let this rule be observed.

Mehmed the Conqueror was not the first ruler to introduce fratricide into practice. He only legitimized the practice that had developed much earlier. And in doing this, he proceeded primarily from the experience of the period of the interregnum (1402-1413).

Fratricide

Fratricide must be considered within the conditions of a particular time period. The phenomenon of fratricide, characteristic of the Ottoman Empire, is the question of all Turkish history. It is based primarily on the absence of any system and institution of succession to the throne.

To eradicate fratricide, there is a need to create such a system of inheritance. This could not be done for a long time, but from the beginning of the 17th century, the principle of the accession to the throne of the eldest of the representatives of the dynasty was introduced. However, this did not solve all the problems of the procedure for changing the ruler. An unfavorable imprint was also left by the traditional imprisonment of the heirs to the throne in the palace, in a room called "shimshirlik". Most of the rulers who grew up in this way never managed to learn the life and principles of the state apparatus, which ultimately led to their inability to participate in the process of government.

The legalization of fratricide and the killing of heirs to the throne, even if they did not claim the throne, give the Ottomans a special position throughout Turkish history. In particular, thanks to fratricide, the Ottoman Empire was able to maintain its integrity - in contrast to the Turkish states that existed before the Ottoman Empire.

When analyzing Turkish history, it becomes obvious that the struggle for the throne often ended in the collapse of the state. The Ottomans, who, while maintaining integrity, were able to ensure the power of a single ruler, achieved superiority over Europe, including thanks to this.

Code of laws of Mehmed the Conqueror is not real?

Those who do not want to tarnish the Sultan's name and refuse to attribute the law of fratricide to Mehmed II argue that the famous code of laws was in fact drafted by the West. Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that it exists in a single copy and is located in Vienna? In the meantime, the studies carried out have made it possible to discover new versions of this code.

After the Conqueror

The meaning of the clause, which was included in the code of laws by Mehmed II, was rethought immediately after the death of the Sultan, when a struggle broke out between his two sons Bayezid II and Cem Sultan, which lasted several years. The first years of the Sultanate of Yavuz Sultan Selim will go down in history as a period when the dispute between the brothers for the throne will reach its climax.

Fatih law(or law of fratricide) - the later name of one of the provisions from Kanun-name (collection of laws) Mehmed Fatih. It allowed that of the heirs of the Ottoman throne, who became the Sultan, to kill the rest for the public good ( Nizam-I Alem) - prevention of wars and unrest.

The existence of this law was not recognized by everyone; a common point of view is that Mehmed could not legalize the killing of innocents. The doubters believed that the Europeans invented this law and falsely attributed it to Fatih. Turkish scientists have proved that this is not so.

The assessment of the legitimacy of such a provision (compliance with Sharia norms), as well as the impact of this law on the history of the Ottoman Empire, is ambiguous. It has been erroneously argued that sharia law cannot approve the killing of an innocent.

Scholars positively evaluating the role of the law pointed out that in the case of the application of the law, a fatwa of a high-ranking mufti was also needed (that is, the expediency of its application was discussed each time) and that the country avoided many fratricidal wars for inheritance. They focus on the fact that this law made it possible to preserve the integrity of the empire, unlike other Turkic states, each of which was fragmented among all members of the ruling dynasty. Scientists who evaluate the role of the law negatively believe that the law provoked wars and rebellions of the sons of the sultans during the life of their fathers.

Law of fratricide

Wording

"The law of fratricide" is contained in the second chapter ( bāb-ı sānī) Eve of Mehmed II. The wording of the law in different manuscripts has minor spelling and stylistic differences from each other. The following is a version from a text published by Mehmed Arif Bey in 1912:

Texts

Two identical lists of Kanun-name are in the Austrian National Library in Vienna (Cod. H. O. 143 and Cod. A. F. 547). One manuscript, dated March 18, 1650, was translated into German with omissions by Josef Hammer and published in 1815 under the title The Code of Sultan Mohammed II. About a century later, Mehmed Arif Bey published the text of an older manuscript dated October 28, 1620, titled Ḳānūnnnāme-i āl-i’Os̠mān("Code of the Ottomans"). This manuscript was published in Russian translation in 1990 . Before the discovery of the second volume of the unfinished chronicle of Koji Hussain Beda'i'u l-veḳā "i("Foundation Times"), these two manuscripts from the Vienna Library remained the only famous lists Eve-name. Koja Hussain, who served reis ul-kittabom(secretary) of the sofa, used records and texts stored in the Ottoman archives. A copy of the chronicle (518 sheets, in Nesta'lī Du-Duktus, sheet size 18 × 28.5 cm, 25 lines per page) was bought from a private collection in St. Petersburg in 1862 and ended up in the Leningrad branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where it is stored (NC 564). The first facsimile publication of this manuscript, after a lengthy preparation, took place in 1961 in the "" series.

Another, shorter and incomplete list of Kanun-name (which lacks the law of fratricide) can be found in the work of Hezarfen Husayn-efendi (died 1691) in the work "Summary of explanations of the laws of the House of Osman". According to the preface, it was written by a certain Leysad Mehmed bin Mustafa, head of the State Chancellery ( tevvi'i), in three sections or chapters. The creation of the manuscript dates back to the time when Karamanli Mehmed Pasha (1477-1481) was the grand vizier.

succession to the throne

For a long time after the formation of the Ottoman state in the ruling dynasty, there was no direct transfer of power from one ruler to the next, there were no clear rules that made it possible to determine the heir. In the east, in particular in the countries of dar al-Islam, as a legacy of nomadic times, a system was preserved in which all male family members descended from the founder of the dynasty in the male line had equal rights ( Ekber-i-Nesebi) . The Sultan did not appoint a successor; it was believed that the ruler did not have the right to determine in advance which of all the applicants and heirs would receive power, since power passed to the one "who [according to Duka] was helped by fate." The appointment of an heir was interpreted as an intervention in divine predestination - "The Sultan is called by the Almighty." Suleiman wrote to his rebellious son Bayazid: “The future had to be left to the Lord, because kingdoms are ruled not by human desires, but by God's will. If he decides to give the state after me to you, then not a single living soul will be able to prevent him. In practice, the throne was occupied by one of the applicants, whose candidacy received the support of the nobility and ulema. Ottoman sources preserved indications that Ertogrul's brother, Dundar Bey, also claimed leadership and the title of leader, but the tribe preferred Osman to him.

In this system, all the sons of the Sultan theoretically had equal rights to the throne. It didn't matter who was older and who was younger, whether it was the son of a wife or a concubine. From a very early time, following the traditions of the peoples of Central Asia, the rulers sent all relatives in the male line to manage various areas. At the same time, the sons of the ruling sultan gained experience in managing the state and the army under the leadership of a lala. With the advent of such administrative units as the sanjak, the sons of the sultan received the post of sanjakbey. In addition to administrative, until the middle of the 16th century, Ottoman princes also received military experience, taking part in battles, commanding troops. The last were the sons of Suleiman: Mehmed and Selim participated in the campaign on the Danube in 1537, Selim and Bayazid participated in the siege of Buda in 1541, Selim and Dzhihangir participated in the Nakhichevan campaign of 1553, Mustafa also took part in this campaign and was executed.

When the sultan died, the new sultan was the one who had previously managed to arrive in the capital after the death of his father and take the oath from officials, ulema and troops. This practice contributed to the fact that experienced and talented politicians who managed to build a good relationship with the elite of the state and get their support. All the sons of the Sultan tried to get an appointment in a sanjak closer to the capital. The riots of shehzade Ahmet and shehzade Selim, sons of Bayezid II, and shehzade Bayazid, son of Suleiman, were connected with the unwillingness to go to a more remote city. But even more than the proximity to the capital, the forces behind this or that son of the Sultan were important. For example, after the death of Mehmed II, letters were sent to both of his sons (Cem and Bayezid) with a message about this. As written Angiolello, who served Mehmed: "It was all about who would arrive in the capital first"; “And seize the treasury,” he clarified Spandunes. The Sanjak of Jem was closer; in addition, there was an opinion that Mehmed favored him more, and besides, he was supported by the Grand Vizier. However, Bayezid's party was stronger. Occupying key positions (beylerbey of Rumelia, sanjakbey in Antalya), Bayazid's supporters intercepted messengers traveling to Cem, blocked all routes, and Cem could not arrive in Istanbul.

The practice of sending shehzade to sanjaks ceased at the end of the 16th century. Of the sons of Sultan Selim II (1566-1574), only his eldest son, the future Sultan Murad III (1574-1595), went to Manisa, in turn, Murad III also sent there only his eldest son, the future Sultan Mehmed III (1595-1603) . Mehmed III was the last sultan to go through the "school" of government in the sanjak. For the next half century, the eldest sons of the sultans held the title of sanjakbey of Manisa while residing in Istanbul.

With the death of Mehmed in December 1603, his third son, thirteen-year-old Ahmed I, became the sultan, since the first two sons of Mehmed III were no longer alive. Since Ahmed had not yet been circumcised and had no concubines, he had no sons. This created a succession problem and so Ahmed's brother, Mustafa, was left alive - contrary to tradition. After the appearance of his sons, Ahmed twice intended to execute Mustafa, but both times for various reasons he postponed the execution. In addition, Kösem Sultan, who had her own reasons, persuaded Mustafa Ahmed not to kill. When Ahmed died on November 22, 1617 at the age of 27, he left behind seven sons and a brother. Ahmed's eldest son was Osman, born in 1604. Ulema, viziers and leaders of the Janissaries decided to put Mustafa on the throne. This was the first time that not the son, but the brother of the previous sultan, became the sultan. From that time on, during the accession, the sultans did not execute the brothers, but locked them in a cafe under constant guard. And, although the heirs were kept, as a rule, in luxury, many shehzades went crazy with boredom or became depraved drunkards. And this is understandable, because they understood that at any moment they could be executed.

In 1876, the Constitution of the Ottoman Empire was adopted, which fixed the de jure de facto seigneurial principle (ekberiyyet) of succession to the throne (inheritance by the eldest in the family) that has existed for centuries:

Application

Cases of the murder of close relatives during the struggle for power (or as a result of it) in the Ottoman dynasty, as in any dynasty, occurred from the very first days: Osman contributed to the death of his uncle, Dundar Bey, not forgiving him that Dundar claimed the role leader. And, of course, when executing an opponent in the struggle for the throne, they often executed all his sons, regardless of age. Before Murad II, in all cases, only guilty princes (and their sons) were executed: rebels and conspirators, opponents in armed struggle. Only death falls out of this row Yakub, who, according to legend, was killed on the orders of his brother, Bayezid, in the field of Kosovo after the death of Murad I. Murad II was the first to impose punishment on minor innocent brothers (8 and 7 years old), ordering them to be blinded absolutely without their fault. His son, Mehmed II, went further. Immediately after the julus (accession to power), Murad's widows came to congratulate Mehmed on his accession. One of them, Hatice Halime-khatun, a representative of the Jandarogullar dynasty, recently gave birth to a son, Kyuchuk Ahmed. While the woman was talking with Mehmed, on his orders, Ali Bey Evrenosoglu, the son of Evrenos Bey, drowned the baby. Duka attached special importance to this son, calling him "porphyry-born" (born after his father became a sultan). In the Byzantine Empire, such children had priority in succession to the throne. In addition, unlike Mehmed, whose mother was a slave, Ahmed was born from a dynastic union. All this made the three-month-old baby a dangerous rival and forced Mehmed to get rid of him. The murder (execution) during the accession of an innocent baby brother only to prevent possible problems before that, the Ottomans did not practice. Babinger calls it "the inauguration of the law of fratricide".

It is difficult to count the victims of this law. It cannot be said that after the adoption of this law it was applied frequently. However, it is possible that some of the rebellions of the princes were due to the fear of being killed during the accession of a brother. In this case, one could consider victims of the law of Fatih shehzade Mehmed, shehzade Korkut, shehzade Ahmet, shehzade Mustafa and shehzade Bayazid, however, in all these cases, the executed princes themselves gave reason to accuse themselves in one way or another: either they rebelled, or participated in a conspiracy, or were suspected of disloyal actions, that is, they were already executed as rebels.

The Ottomans inherited the notion that the shedding of blood of members of the dynasty was unacceptable, so the relatives of the sultans were executed by strangling them with a bowstring. The sons of the Sultan killed in this way were buried with honor, usually next to the deceased father. Bayazid II and Selim I did not apply the Fatih law during the accession, since they sorted out relations with the brothers with weapons in their hands, only one son, Selim II, survived Suleiman I, therefore, in its pure form, the Fatih law was applied from the accession of Murad III in 1574 until his death Murad IV in 1640:

"... Sultan Murat<...>with tears in his eyes, he sent the dumb, instructing them to strangle the brothers, and with his own hands handed over nine handkerchiefs to their elder.

In the future, the Fatih law was no longer applied. It is estimated that 60 princes were executed throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire. Of these, 16 were executed for mutinies and 7 for attempted mutiny. All others - 37 - for reasons of common good.

A turban was placed on the coffin. Most often, innocent executed princes were buried next to their father.
Turban on the coffin of the executed prince, Huner-nam	Turbe Selim II	Turbe Murad III	Turbe of Ahmed I

Grade

The role of fratricide and the Fatih law is assessed differently. According to one view, fratricide spared the Ottoman Empire from civil wars after the death of the sultans and helped preserve the integrity of the empire - in contrast to the Turkish states that existed before it.

There is a point of view that the Fatih law is a fiction. The fact that until the 20th century only one copy of the Kanun-name containing the Fatih law was known, and this copy was in Vienna, gave reason to say that the codex is a Western fake. However, in the course of research, other specimens were also found. Historians Khalil Inaldzhik and Abdulkadir Ozjan showed that Kanunname was created by Fatih, but copies from the reign of Fatih's son (Bayazid II) have survived to this day, containing later inclusions and edits.

Some modern scholars believe that the execution of princes who were not guilty of anything, did not rebel, and did not correspond with the conspirators, were illegal and violated Sharia rules. Punishing an innocent person to prevent possible future crime is against the law under the presumption of innocence. But Ottoman (Sharia) law, in most of its provisions, did not deny the need to prove guilt. The execution of an innocent person was recognized as legal (justified) only as “the lesser of possible evils”, and this point of view was based on the principle maslakha. "Maslacha" means the priority of public benefit over personal. According to the Koran, fitna (chaos, rebellion, rebellion) is worse than killing a person, and therefore some interpreters of Islamic laws believe that they allow the killing of an innocent person for the common good. "Fitnah is worse than killing", Koran 2:217. Each such act required a "sanction" - a fatwa, while different ulema, having the right to interpret the law and make a decision, could have a different understanding of the situation and opinion. For example, Ottoman sultan Osman II wanted to execute his brother before leaving for Khotyn in order to avoid a possible rebellion. Osman first turned to Sheikh al-Islam Khojazade Esadu-efendi, but he refused the Sultan. Then Osman turned to the kadiasker of Rumelia Tashkopruzade Mehmed-efendi, he judged differently than Sheikh al-Islam, and sanctioned the execution of shehzade Mehmed.

see also

Comments

Notes

Literature

• “Kanun-name” by Mehmed II Fatih on the military-administrative and civil bureaucracy of the Ottoman Empire // Ottoman Empire. State power and socio-political structure / USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Studies; resp. ed. S. F. Oreshkova. - M.: Nauka, 1990. - ISBN 5-02-016943-9.
• Hussein. Beda'i "ul-veka'i" (Amazing events), Ch. 1, 2 / Edition of the text, introduction and general edition by A. S. Tveritinova. Annotated table of contents and indexes by Yu. A. Petrosyan. - M., 1961. - T. 29 (XIV, 1), 30 (XIV, 2). - 1122 p. - (Monuments of literature of the peoples of the East. Texts. Large series).
• Finkel K. History of the Ottoman Empire: Vision of Osman. - Moscow: AST, 2017.

• Kanunname-i Al-i Osman قانوننامهء آل عثمان .
• Inaljik G. Ottoman Empire: classical doba, 1300-1600 / transl. from English Oleksandr Galenko; Institute of similarity im. A. Krimsky NAS of Ukraine. - K.: Criticism, 1998. - 286, p. - ISBN 966-02-0564-3.(ukr.)
• Akgunduz A.; Ozturk S. Ottoman History - Misperceptions and Truths. - IUR Press, 2011. - 694 p. - ISBN 978-9090261-08-9.
• Alderson, Anthony Dolphin. The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. - 186 p.(English)
• Babinger F. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time / Edited by William C. Hickman, translated from the German by Ralph Manheim. - Princeton University Press, 1992. - 549 p. - ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6.(English)
• Babinger F. Sawdji / In Houtsma, Martijn Theodoor. - Leiden: BRILL, 2000. - Vol. IX. - S. 93. - (E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936). - ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6.(English)
• Emecen F. Osman II: Islamansiklopedisi. - 2007. - No. 33. - P. 453-456.(tour.)
• Emecen F. Selîm I: Islamansiklopedisi. - 2009. - T. 36. - P. 407-414.(tour.)
• Eroglu H. Shehzade-2. bölüm (madde 2 bölümden olusmaktadır) : Islamansiklopedisi. - 2010. - T. 38. - P. 480-483.(tour.)
• Fisher A. Musrafa / In Houtsma, Martijn Theodoor. - Leiden: BRILL, 1993. - Vol. VII. - S. 710-713. - (E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936). - ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6.
• Hammer-Purgstall J.F. Des Osmanischen Reichs Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung, dargestellt aus den Quellen seiner Grundgesetze . - 1815. - 532 p.

FATIHA LAW AND WOMEN'S SULTANATE. Part 2. Historical facts. Thus, the most correct option for the date of the beginning of the period of the "Women's Sultanate" is 1574, the year of receiving the title of "Valide" by Nurbanu Sultan, the real founder of this era. And although Nurbanu Sultan began to manage the Sultan's harem as early as 1566, her contemporaries did not note her special influence on the decisions of her husband, Sultan Selim II, which confirmed the fact that Nurbanu Sultan acquired truly serious power only by the beginning of her son's reign, Sultan Murad III. In the same year, the first serious blow to the Ottoman Empire took place, which brings us back to the original topic of this refutation, namely, to the application of the "law of Fatih", since Murad III, who ascended the throne after the death of his father, on the instructions of his mother, who was supported by the Great Vizier Mehmed Pasha Sokollu (by that time already completely under the influence of Nurbanu), ordered the execution of five half-brothers. Prior to this event, the law had not been applied for 62 years. Later, in response to a question about the need for such radical measures, Murad III referred precisely to the law of his ancestor Mehmed II "On Succession", adopted in 1478. After 21 years, his son Sultan Mehmed III will again apply this law, and again, at the insistence of his mother, the next Valide Safiye Sultan, and after ascending the throne, he will execute 19 of his own brothers. Thus, the execution of 1595 will go down in history as the bloodiest case of the application of this law. After the reign of Mehmed III, during the time of Ahmed I, (it was his concubine that later became the legendary Valide Kösem Sultan), the practice of confining the brothers of the current Sultans in a separate pavilion of the palace, the so-called “Kafes” (“cage”), would be introduced, which did not at all mean the abolition "Law of Fatih". In addition, Kösem Sultan herself has nothing to do with this, she became famous much later and for somewhat different things. By the way, it is from her image that many negative traits attributed to Haseki Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska Sultan. But within the framework of this article, it is worth noting only that one of the sons of Kösem, namely Murad IV, who left no children behind him, in 1640 ( Last year of his reign) before his death, he will try again (after a 45-year break) to apply the "Fatih law", giving the order to kill his own brother, the future Sultan Ibrahim I the Crazy. Kesem, who at that time already had a huge influence, would not allow this order to be carried out, since its execution would mean an instant termination of the 341-year existence of the Ottoman dynasty. In general, the Fatih law was never officially repealed and legally operated until the cessation of the existence of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the first quarter of the 20th century. Its last application dates back to 1808, that is, 121 years after the end of the period of the "Women's Sultanate" (which ended in 1687, 4 years after the death of the last influential Valide in the history of the Ottoman Empire, Turhan Sultan). Then (in 1808), by order of Sultan Mahmud II, who ascended the throne, his brother will be killed, former Sultan Mustafa IV. As for the influence of the era of the female Sultanate on the history of the Ottoman Empire, it cannot be denied that the actions of the women of this era indirectly pushed the empire to stagnation, and then for the most part due to Turhan Sultan and her son Mehmed IV, who lost the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683 . But no more than that, that is, “the main reason for the decline of the Ottoman Empire”, despite all the efforts of Danishmend, the “Women's Sultanate” cannot be called in any way. And the popular phrase: “It began with a Ukrainian, and ended with a Ukrainian,” hinting at Hürrem as the founder of this period, turned out to be absolutely untenable. Later, more precisely early XVIII century, the throne began to be occupied by heirs, who, in comparison with previous sultans, by the time they received the throne, it was very difficult to call young. And their mothers by that time were either already dead, or were at a very respectable age and did not show much activity in the affairs of the state, thus by the middle of the 18th century the influence and significance of Valide had greatly weakened, and the last matriarchal elements in all more or less serious state affairs have completely disappeared. If we talk about other events that originated during the era of the “Sultanate of Women” and continued to operate after the end of this period, then we should note only the found alternative to the “Fatih law”, namely the imprisonment in the Kafes pavilion, which, despite all its humanity, did not bring much benefit, because due to the termination of the appointment of heirs by provincial governors, this alternative only gave the empire a few bankrupt politicians and cowardly rulers. And also the fact that it was Turhan Sultan who advised her son to appoint Mehmed Köprülü as the Grand Vizier, which gave rise to a new era of the Ottoman state, but this is a completely different story.

And finally, we note that the Fatih Law was valid until the beginning of the 20th century, until the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. And it is Nurban Sultan who should be considered the first representative of the historical period of the Ottoman Empire called the "Women's Sultanate". Mehmed III executed 19 of his half-brothers in 1595. This year will go down in history as the bloodiest year of the application of the Fatih law.

According to legend: Roksolana failed to achieve the abolition of the law adopted by Mehmed II Fatih in 1478 "On fratricide." She fought this law all her life. However, in this matter, Suleiman the Magnificent, despite his boundless love for her, remained adamant. Suleiman in this matter, one of the few, did not agree with Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska. As a result, Roksolana was unable to carry out all her plans, in many respects this was also prevented by the early death of Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska.

Fatih law: in the struggle for power, all means are good

This ban is the only positive moment in this historical period. In itself, the Women's Sultanate for the Ottoman Empire became a great evil, which destroyed the Empire. Of course, the position of the sons of Roksolana was very precarious, but scientists have not found any evidence that Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska Sultan opposed this law and wanted to get it banned.

The Fatih law was often used by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire

Many researchers do not quite correctly when they connect the activities of women of this period to abolish the "Fatih Law" with Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska Sultan, who allegedly also fought against this law. As for the "Women's Sultanate" itself, most historians consider this period destructive for the Empire and characterize it as a negative phenomenon. But the writer Danishmend Ismail Khani speaks about the Women's Sultanate: “The reasons that manifested themselves in the days of its greatest prosperity led to the stagnation (collapse) of the Ottoman Empire.

First of all, "stagnation" and "collapse" cannot be synonyms, since they denote different phenomena in the life of the state. Almost a century and a half passed between collapse and stagnation in the Ottoman Empire. Stagnation began in the empire after the end of the period of the Women's Sultanate, when the territorial and economic development of the country stopped.

Nevertheless, difficulties with the succession to the throne still remained - the sultans were not limited in terms of the number of concubines, so they could have many sons

Naturally, Danishmend does not dispute these obvious conclusions, although none of them can be used to characterize Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska Sultan. It is simply impossible to call the reign of Suleiman I the collapse of the Empire, if indeed the Women's Sultanate is called the result of the collapse of the empire.

After 21 years, the son of Murad III, Mehmed III, again uses this law and again this will be done at the insistence of the mother of the Sultan, already Valide Safie Sultan

After Mehmed III, Ahmed I will ascend the throne, whose concubine will be the famous Kösem, in the future the domineering and cunning Valide Sultan. Ahmed I will introduce the practice of imprisoning the brothers of the ruling sultans in one of the palace pavilions, in "Cafes" (translated as a cage), which, however, was not a repeal of the Fatih law.

Women's Sultanate" or "Sultanate of Women", on the contrary, is a very real historical period in the life of the Ottoman Empire

The common phrase "Ukrainian began, and ended in Ukrainian", directly hinting at Roksolana Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska, as the first representative of this period, is clearly inaccurate, erroneous. Later, at the beginning of the 18th century. heirs began to take the throne at a fairly mature age. Therefore, by the middle of the 18th century, the Valides did not have much power at the court and did not influence the ruling sultans; they no longer interfered in the solution of any issues of the country.

In addition, during the period of the Women's Sultanate, Turhan Sultan contributed to the fact that her son appointed Mehmed Koprulu as the Grand Vizier. This marked the beginning of a new period in the history of the Ottoman state, but this fact deserves a separate article. Any empire rests not only on military conquests, economic strength and powerful ideology.

First of all, this needed a simple and clear system of inheritance of power

The respectful epithet "Fatih", that is, the Conqueror, was given to him by admiring subjects and descendants as recognition of his outstanding merits in expanding the territory of the empire. Mehmed II really did his best, having carried out numerous victorious campaigns both in the East and in the West, primarily in the Balkans and in Southern Europe.

The correct date of the "Women's Sultanate" should be considered 1574, when Valide Sultan became Nurbanu. Therefore, it was he who had the most high chances take the father's throne. In this case, the new sultan could use the law of Fatih and kill his brothers, the sons of Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska.

The Ottoman Empire in the six centuries of its existence knew both the greatest triumphs and humiliating defeats. She undeniably played one of the key roles in world history, being closely connected both with the Christian world and with the world of the East. In the Ottoman emperors, European ambitions intertwined with the severity of Eastern despotism, forcing them to keep at court a whole staff of executioners who executed violators of the law of the great Eastern empire.

In books about the history of the Ottoman Empire, executions are often given a separate chapter - so many traditions and features have accumulated in the work of executioners for almost 6 centuries! Each class in the empire had its own methods of execution: for example, commoners who could not have committed serious crimes were often subjected to the most painful executions, such as hanging on a hook by the rib, impaling or quartering. Civil servants were usually beheaded with a sword, but for the upper class, including employees of the Sultan's court and his entourage, exclusively bloodless methods of execution were chosen: for example, strangulation with a bowstring or a silk scarf. But for different classes, not only certain methods of execution were relied upon, but also certain executioners. So, the lower classes executed the executioners, who were selected from the palace guards of the Sultan's court. Mostly, they were deaf, so that their hand would not tremble when they heard the terrible cries of the condemned during the execution. The elite could only be executed by the head of the palace guard, who tried to finish his job as quickly and painlessly as possible for the condemned.

Each case was individually considered by the Supreme Court, and at this time the convict was waiting for the verdict in the Topkapi Palace. He learned the decision of the court in a very peculiar way: the guard brought him a bowl of sherbet. Each accused wanted to get a cup of white drink - this would mean the removal of all charges. If the sherbet was red, it meant death penalty. Then the convict drank the drink and within three days the death sentence was carried out. For all estates, this procedure was the same.

But for some people who occupied a particularly high position in the state, the hope of avoiding execution remained even after they were offered red sherbet. The head of the palace guard offered the convict to pass the test: to win a race through the palace to the place of execution - the entire distance took about 300 meters. If a prisoner was the first to run to the place of execution, his punishment was immediately mitigated, replacing the death penalty with expulsion from the state. If the head of the guard wins, he immediately executed the convict through strangulation.

Despite the apparent simplicity of the competition, the prisoner's chances of favorable outcome were extremely small: only athletes served in the palace guard, and it was extremely difficult to defeat them. In addition, the guards knew perfectly well all the tricks and traps of the path along which they would run. In the entire history of the tradition, only a few prisoners managed to escape death, ahead of the head of the palace guard. One of the lucky ones, Haji Salih Pasha, convicted in November 1822, was able to win the competition. He was doubly lucky: the sultan not only replaced his death penalty with exile, but also offered the post of governor-general of Damascus. However, such cases were rather the exception to the rule: the head of the guard usually easily won the race.

How exactly this tradition began is unknown. The first mention of it dates back to the end of the 18th century, and it ends approximately closer to the middle of the 19th century.

Illustration: "The Grand Vizier gives an audience in Kubbealti", Jean Baptiste Vanmour

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.