This article is about the historical royal family. For the territorial state over which it ruled, seeOttoman Empire. For current members of the House of Osman, seeOsmanoğlu family.
During much of the Empire's history, the sultan was the absolute regent, head of state, and head of government, though much of the power often shifted to other officials such as theGrand Vizier. During theFirst (1876–78) andSecond Constitutional Eras (1908–20) of the late Empire, a shift to a constitutional monarchy was enacted, with the Grand Vizier taking on a prime ministerial role as head of government and heading an electedGeneral Assembly.
The imperial family was deposed from power andthe sultanate was abolished on 1 November 1922 immediately after theTurkish War of Independence. TheRepublic of Turkey was declared the following year. The living members of the dynasty were initially sent into exile aspersonae non-gratae, though some have been allowed to return and live as private citizens in Turkey. In its current form, the family is known as theOsmanoğlu family.
The Ottoman dynasty operated under several basic premises: that the Sultan governed the empire's entire territory, that every male member of the dynastic family was hypothetically eligible to become Sultan, and that only one person at a time could be the Sultan.[3] Such rules were fairly standard for monarchic empires of the time. The certain processes through which men rose to the Sultanate, however, were very specific to the Ottoman Empire. To go into greater detail about these processes, the history of succession between Sultans can be divided into two eras: the period between the reign ofOrhan (1323–1362), the first person to inherit the Ottoman sultanate, and the reign ofAhmed I (1603–1617); and the period following Ahmed I's reign.
The succession process during the first period was dominated by violence and intra-familial conflict, in which the various sons of the deceased Sultan fought until only one remained alive and, thus, inherited the throne. This tradition was known as fratricide in the Ottoman Empire but may have evolved fromtanistry, a similar succession procedure that existed in manyTurco-Mongolic dynasties predating the Ottomans.[4] Sons of the Sultan were often given provincial territories to govern until the Sultan's death, at which point they would each vie for the throne.[5] Each son had to, according to historian H. Erdem Cipa, "demonstrate that his fortune was superior to the fortunes of his rivals", a demonstration that often took the form of military accomplishment and ruthlessness.[6] This violence was not considered particularly unexpected or unusual. As Cipa has noted, the Ottoman words for "successor" and "conflict" share the same Arabic root,[7] and indeed, all but one of the successions in this roughly 200-year period involved a resolution by combat.[8] Over time, the combat became increasingly prevalent and recognized, especially after aJanissary uprising negatedMurad II's attempt to abdicate the throne peacefully to his son,Mehmed II, in 1444. During the eventual reign of Mehmed II (1451–1481), fratricide was legalized as an official practice; during the reign ofBayezid II (1481–1512), fratricide between Bayezid II's sons occurred before Bayezid II himself died;[9] and after the reign ofMurad III (1574–1595), his successorMehmed III executed 19 brothers to claim the throne.[10]
During the second period, the tradition of fratricide was replaced by a simpler and less violent procedure. Starting with the succession from Ahmed I toMustafa I in 1617, the Ottoman throne was inherited by the eldest male blood relative – not necessarily the son – of the Sultan, regardless of how many eligible family members were alive.[11] The change in succession procedure was likely instigated by numerous factors, including fratricide's decline in popularity among Ottoman elites[12] and Ahmed I's decision not to kill Mustafa when inheriting the throne from Mehmed III in 1603. With the door open for a policy change, a political debate arose between those who supported unrestricted Sultanic privilege and those who supported a stronger, centralized law system that would supersede even the Sultan's power to an extent. Historian Baki Tezcan has argued that the latter faction – with the help of the influentialşeyhülislamHocazade Esad Efendi – was able to prevail in this instance.[11] The bloodless succession from Ahmed I to Mustafa I in 1617 "provided a reference for the eventual stabilization of the rule of Ottoman succession, the very regulation of which by an outside force was in effect a constitutional check on the dynastic prerogative," Tezcan has written.[13] The precedent set in 1617 stuck, as the eldest living family member successfully inherited the throne in each of the following 21 successions, with relatively few instances of a son inheriting the throne.[14]
From the fourteenth through the late sixteenth centuries, the Ottomans practiced open succession – something historianDonald Quataert has described as "survival of the fittest, noteldest, son."[15] During their father's lifetime, all adult sons of the reigningOsmanoğlu family's sultan were given provincial governorships in order to gain experience in administration (a practice commonly found in Central Asian tradition), accompanied and mentored by their retinues and tutors. Upon the death of their father, the reigning sultan, these sons would fight amongst themselves for the succession until one emerged triumphant. The first son to reach the capital and seize control of the court would usually become the new ruler.[16] The proximity of a Şehzade (Prince) toConstantinople improved his chances of success, simply because he could hear of his father's death, seize control of the Ottoman court in the capital, and declare himself Sultan first.[citation needed] A Sultan could thus hint at his preferred successor by giving a favourite son a closer governorship.[citation needed]Bayezid II, for instance, had to fight his brotherCem Sultan in the 1480s for the right to rule.[citation needed]
Occasionally, the half-brothers would begin the struggle even before the death of their father. UnderSuleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), strife between his sonsŞehzade Mustafa and Şehzade Selim (laterSelim II) caused such internal turmoil that Suleiman ordered the deaths of both Şehzade Mustafa and another son,Şehzade Bayezid, leaving Şehzade Selim the sole heir.[citation needed]
During the reigns ofSuleiman I andSelim II, theHaseki Sultan (Ottoman Turkish: خاصکى سلطان) or chief consort rose to greater prominence. Gaining power within theImperial Harem, thefavourite was able to manoeuvre to ensure the succession for one of her sons. This led to a short period of effectiveprimogeniture. However, unlike in 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 rival factions. Thus, to prevent attempts at seizing the throne, reigning sultans practicedfratricide upon accession, starting withMurad I in 1362.[17] BothMurad III and his sonMehmed III had their half-brothers murdered. The killing of all the new sultan's brothers and half-brothers (who were usually quite numerous) was traditionally done by manual strangling with asilk cord. As the centuries passed, the ritual killing was gradually replaced by lifetime solitary confinement in the "Golden Cage" orkafes, a room in the harem from where the sultan's brothers could never escape, unless perchance they became heir presumptive. Some had already become mentally unstable by the time they were asked to reign.[citation needed]
Mehmed III was the last sultan to have previously held a provincial governorship. Sons now remained within the harem until the death of their father. This not only denied them 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 asAhmed 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 (laterMustafa I). Similarly,Osman II allowed his half-brothersMurad IV andIbrahim to live. This led to a shift in the 17th century from a system of primogeniture to one based onagnatic seniority, in which the eldest male within the dynasty succeeded, also to guarantee adult sultans and prevent both fratricides as well as thesultanate of women. Thus, Mustafa succeeded his brother Ahmed;Suleiman II andAhmed II succeeded their brotherMehmed IV before being succeeded in turn by Mehmed's sonMustafa II. Agnatic seniority explains why from the 17th century onwards a deceased sultan was rarely succeeded by his son, but usually by an uncle or brother. It also meant that potential rulers had to wait a long time in thekafes before ascending the throne, hence the old age of certain sultans upon their enthronement.[18] Although attempts were made in the 19th century to replace agnatic seniority withprimogeniture, they were unsuccessful, and seniority was retained until the abolition of the sultanate in 1922.[19]
The Ottoman dynasty was expelled from Turkey in 1924 and most members took on the surnameOsmanoğlu, meaning "son ofOsman." The female members of the dynasty were allowed to return after 1951,[45] and the male members after 1973.[46] Below is a list of people who would have been heirs to the Ottoman throne following theabolition of the sultanate on 1 November 1922.[46] These people have not necessarily made any claim to the throne; for example,Ertuğrul Osman said "Democracy works well in Turkey."[47]
^A claim which has come under criticism from many historians, who argue either that the Kayı genealogy was fabricated in the fifteenth century, or that there is otherwise insufficient evidence to believe in it.[1]
^Kafadar, Cemal (1995).Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. p. 122.ISBN978-0-520-20600-7.That they hailed from the Kayı branch of the Oğuz confederacy seems to be a creative "rediscovery" in the genealogical concoction of the fifteenth century. It is missing not only in Ahmedi but also, and more importantly, in the Yahşi Fakih-Aşıkpaşazade narrative, which gives its own version of an elaborate genealogical family tree going back to Noah. If there was a particularly significant claim to Kayı lineage, it is hard to imagine that Yahşi Fakih would not have heard of it
Lowry, Heath (2003).The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. SUNY Press. p. 78.ISBN0-7914-5636-6.Based on these charters, all of which were drawn up between 1324 and 1360 (almost one hundred fifty years prior to the emergence of the Ottoman dynastic myth identifying them as members of the Kayı branch of the Oguz federation of Turkish tribes), we may posit that...
Shaw, Stanford (1976).History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge University Press. p. 13.The problem of Ottoman origins has preoccupied students of history, but because of both the absence of contemporary source materials and conflicting accounts written subsequent to the events there seems to be no basis for a definitive statement.
^Çıpa, H. Erdem. The Making of Selim: Succession, Legitimacy, and Memory in the Early Modern Ottoman World. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2017. Page 29.
^Fletcher, Joseph. Turco-Mongolian Monarchic Tradition in the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Ukrainian Research Institute, 1979. Pages 236–251.
^Tezcan, Baki. The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Page 46.
^Peirce, Leslie P. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. Studies in Middle Eastern History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Page 21.
^Diyanet İslâm Ansiklopedisi, vol: 36, pages: 407-414, 2009 (Âişe Hâtûn is the daughter ofAlaüddevle Bozkurt Bey fromDulkadiroğulları. (Although her name was indicated asGül-Bahar bint-i Abdü's-Samed in some sources, it can easily be understood that this is not true.)
.svg)
.svg)
_cropped.png)
.jpg)
.svg)
.jpg)
