Ottomans end harem cage succession tradition

gochisox

I was wondering what would happen if the Ottoman empire ended the practice of putting all of the eligible rulers and keep them in the cage, a luxurious prison in the Topkapi Palace where all princes were kept. I think this is one of the most damning reasions for the Ottoman fall, they were simply kept there, not educated or taught, much less have any actual experience running the country. While i also think the whole kill all your brothers idea was also ridiculous, they did allow the heir to have experience and actual power, and not be insane.

What do you think would happen if the Ottomans either kept the kill all but one son or maybe move to a primorgate rule without killing your brothers?

My idea is that on its own, thats not enough to save the Ottoman empire, however, i think that if the sons were allowed to actually have an education and govern, they would have a much stronger chance of having rulers that could change the bureaucracy and the jannisarys which would save the Empire
 

rottenvenetic

Every large Islamic and otherwise polygamous world power that I know of except the Ottomans collapsed due to the numerous pretenders who were only too eager to exploit the barest weakness of the monarch - and the Ottomans nearly had it in the interregnum/civil war (1402-1413).

Aside from that, they had incredible luck with leaders with only very capable men reigning from Ertugrul himself through to Suleiman. Just look at their nicknames, all earned: The Warrior/Champion three times, the Most Exalted / Godlike (this in Islam!), the Thunderbolt, the Gentleman (this was the guy who won the aforementioned civil war, mind), the Great, the Conqueror, the Saint, and the Magnificent / Lawgiver.

If I wrote a timeline with a string of ten rulers like this you'd all put my feet over the coal for wanking it so outrageously :p

And once the following Sultan-Khalifas begun to devolve into a more common imperial house, things got more or less out of hands quick-fast and the Kafes was the Empire's way, mostly successful, to try and maintain internal cohesion. For this, they paid the price that they paid, and the collapse of the empire was dragged on and postponed for many years.

If the Kafes doesn't begin as an institution when it did in OTL I expect the Ottoman Empire to collapse as an empire by cca. 1800 (IE, unable to hold many lands beyond the homelands - settled by the Imperial ethnical group - what we now call Turkish nationals - and probably not all the homelands themselves).
 
Russian

Russian

rottenvenetic said:
Every large Islamic and otherwise polygamous world power that I know of except the Ottomans collapsed due to the numerous pretenders who were only too eager to exploit the barest weakness of the monarch - and the Ottomans nearly had it in the interregnum/civil war (1402-1413).

Aside from that, they had incredible luck with leaders with only very capable men reigning from Ertugrul himself through to Suleiman. Just look at their nicknames, all earned: The Warrior/Champion three times, the Most Exalted / Godlike (this in Islam!), the Thunderbolt, the Gentleman (this was the guy who won the aforementioned civil war, mind), the Great, the Conqueror, the Saint, and the Magnificent / Lawgiver.

If I wrote a timeline with a string of ten rulers like this you'd all put my feet over the coal for wanking it so outrageously :p

And once the following Sultan-Khalifas begun to devolve into a more common imperial house, things got more or less out of hands quick-fast and the Kafes was the Empire's way, mostly successful, to try and maintain internal cohesion. For this, they paid the price that they paid, and the collapse of the empire was dragged on and postponed for many years.

If the Kafes doesn't begin as an institution when it did in OTL I expect the Ottoman Empire to collapse as an empire by cca. 1800 (IE, unable to hold many lands beyond the homelands - settled by the Imperial ethnical group - what we now call Turkish nationals - and probably not all the homelands themselves).
Click to expand...

rottenvenetic, that's one of the best well-thought posts, I've read this year. I enjoyed it.
 
Tripledot

Tripledot

rottenvenetic said:
Every large Islamic and otherwise polygamous world power that I know of except the Ottomans collapsed due to the numerous pretenders who were only too eager to exploit the barest weakness of the monarch - and the Ottomans nearly had it in the interregnum/civil war (1402-1413).
Click to expand...
What about China?
 
Green Painting

Green Painting

rottenvenetic said:
Every large Islamic and otherwise polygamous world power that I know of except the Ottomans collapsed due to the numerous pretenders who were only too eager to exploit the barest weakness of the monarch - and the Ottomans nearly had it in the interregnum/civil war (1402-1413).
Click to expand...

Tripledot said:
What about China?
Click to expand...


Saphroneth said:
Which China? China has had a lot of dynasties.
Click to expand...

With the possible exception of the Song, Chinese dynasties are filled with princely rebellions. Although some of the systems did produce good monarchs.

There is almost a pattern: When the dynasty was founded, the sons of the first emperor are given real power in their own kingdoms/princedoms. Then the successive emperors tried to curb their power, provoking a rebellion, in which some dynasties made it, but some are straightaway destroyed.

Example of this pattern could be seen in:
Han Dynasty, in which the dynasty moved on to limit the princes by giving them smaller and smaller estates.
Jin Dynasty, which triggered a "barbarian invasion scenario".
Tang Dynasty Palace intrigues dominated its entire history, even if all the Princes were not given their fiefdoms.
Ming Dynasty, second emperor of the dynasty overthrown by his own uncle in a devastating war, who kept all other princes as virtual prisoners in their own fiefdom. However, the most damning feature of the dynasty's succession system was it rigidity, as arguments which son could succeed the current emperor could drag on for decades.
The Manchu Qing Dynasty is unique (and objectively good despite my dislike of the dynasty), in the way that it lacked a crowned prince, and the fight for the crown was a built-in feature of almost all successions, but such fighting among Manchu princes do not affect the function of Manchu/Mongol/Han bureaucracy in general.
 
Last edited:

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Green Painting said:
With the possible exception of the Song, Chinese dynasties are filled with princely rebellions.

There is almost a pattern: When the dynasty was founded, the sons of the first emperor are given real power in their own kingdoms/princedoms. Then the successive emperors tried to curb their power, provoking a rebellion, in which some dynasties made it, but some are straightaway destroyed.

Example of this pattern could be seen in:
Han Dynasty, in which the dynasty moved on to limit the princes by giving them smaller and smaller estates.
Jin Dynasty, which triggered a "barbarian invasion scenario".
Tang Dynasty Palace intrigues dominated its entire history, even if all the Princes were not given their fiefdoms.
Ming Dynasty, second emperor of the dynasty overthrown by his own uncle in a devastating war, who kept all other princes as virtual prisoners in their own fiefdom. However, the most damning feature of the dynasty's succession system was it rigidity, as arguments which son could succeed the current emperor could drag on for decades.
The Manchu Qing Dynasty is unique (and objectively good despite my dislike of the dynasty), in the way that it lacked a crowned prince, and the fight for the crown was a built-in feature of almost all successions, but such fighting among Manchu princes do not affect the function of Manchu/Mongol/Han bureaucracy in general.
Click to expand...

Why didn't this happen in Rome?
 

Mongo

The Chinese were famous for their competitive examinations for positions in their government. Maybe something similar could be done here? Have each of the eligibles run through a battery of tests of all kinds, from scholarship to warrior ability. Said tests to be conducted by a panel that's as impartial is is possible under the conditions of the day. Maybe have each candidate appoint one panelist, who after each test puts all the candidates in a ranked list, with every candidate's point totals added up. They would each presumably put the candidate who appointed them in first place, canceling all the first-place votes out. There would surely be a lot of political maneuvering to get the second- and third-place votes, but at least it would probably ensure that somebody with some degree of political skill and general competence is selected
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top