Fratricide in Ottoman Word
Ottomans, Seljuks, Turks, Huns…
Each of them left a great mark on Turkish political history, whether we like it or not. The great ruler of the Huns, Modu Chanyu, Bumin and Ishtemi Sir Yabghu Khagan, Alparslan, Malik-Shah, Alaaddin Keykubat, Otman Gazi, Bayezid 2, Mehmed the Conqueror, Suleiman the Magnificent, and Atatürk…
What all these leaders had in common was that while they were fighting external enemies, they were also fighting a great internal war. These transcending figures of Turkish history fought both external and internal enemies. What is certain is that the bloodiest and certainly the most damaging of these wars were the civil wars. And one of the most important reasons for this was the fight for the throne.
For example, the mood that suffocated Selim 1 throughout his life and often led him to take harsh decisions was actually due to the struggle for the throne. His father, Veli Sultan Beyazıt Khan, was also challenged the most by both his son and his brother. The Pope himself or Shah Ismail did not tire Bayezid 2 that much.
Suleiman the Magnificent, on the other hand, although he ascended the throne with ease, had many difficulties during his long reign. He had to slay his most trusted man, Pargali Ibrahim Pasha, in the burning heat of power, because of the enormous shadow he cast over his power and his identity as sultan. But his sons… Mustafa and Bayezid…
İlber Ortaylı puts it as follows;
The Great Shahzade Sultan Mustafa is about to enter a state of rebellion. The head of state cannot accept such a situation. As a father, it is seen that he is suffering. If we look at the chronicles, his scolding of Rüstem Pasha on the subject also shows this. It is not possible for us to understand this state of mind. Because it is the sultan who experiences this. We cannot think like a sultan and perceive the world.
The issue of Beyazıt was obviously more troublesome. Because there was a serious quarrel and eventually the Safavids took refuge in Persia…
Not to mention the ambassadors going back and forth and the official promises made by Selim II when he was a prince… What happened in the end? The Safavids were paid a fortune for Bayezid’s head and Selim’s eastern policy was limited by his own will. The troubles of Sultan Beyazıt, the son of Mehmet the Conqueror, with the West because of Sultan Cem should also be remembered here. Even though times have changed, the existence of hostile ranks within the country has also affected foreign policy and security.
These and many similar incidents were also common in other Turkish states. As the intensity of the conflict increased, the state had been on the verge of extinction. This situation was of course not unique to us. It happened in every country.
What have we found to reduce the number of these? Actually, we legalized it, not found it. Fratricide…
Was Mehmet the Conqueror a genius?
I don’t know, but it is clear that he had great practical intelligence. He carried out important reforms and legalization movements. He regulated the administration of the state and minimized arbitrariness. He institutionalized the state and minimized fratricidal wars by legalizing fratricide and by attributing sovereignty only to the sultan and in fact to a certain bureaucratic system instead of the dynasty.
For years, in our country, our historical section in which we were ruled by the Ottoman dynasty, especially him, was tried to be hit with the issue of fratricide, which was seen as the softest belly. The biggest weapon of those who pursued Ottoman enmity as a political ideology was the issue of fratricide. Conscientiously and religiously, the killing of young children without regard for their eyes is of course painful. Ultimately, this situation is not defensible. However, was it not Ebussuud Efendi, the great sheikhulislam of the Ottoman Empire, who tried to initiate a practice close to the present day by raising the age of puberty to 16 for girls and 17 for boys, and in this way wanted to end the issue of child brides… I mean, was the Ottoman Empire that murderous?…
Ideology aside, a rational political view sees that civil war would cause much greater suffering. After all, as Machiavelli said, those who rule the state should produce good results, not moral behavior. This is what the famous Ottoman political treatises also advise. After all, in a war for the throne, many lives will be forcibly taken to the battlefields and citizens will kill each other. The order of the world will be disrupted.
For this reason, those who are born to power live for power, and it is best to die for power.
After all, the Ottomans took many actions with this consciousness, they wanted to produce good results, that is, they tried to prevent the waste of resources for the proper functioning of the country. Fratricide was a good or bad method for this purpose. In the end, this practice was abolished as of the beginning of the 17th century due to the impact of the conditions and eventually disappeared from history except for some isolated practices. In short, when the political — social — economic necessity disappeared, this practice disappeared from the stage of history.
