Ottoman Fratricide Halted or curtailed.

What circumstances could make the Ottomans halt or curtail the practice of royal fratricide, preferably during the reign of Suliemon the Magnificent?

Edit: Ottoman familial relations don't have to be warm, but they could return to the traditional central asian nomad methods of fratricidal civil war. The Mughal princes for example killed many of their siblings, but also left others alive based on rather or not it suited them. The Ottoman system of systematic slaughter regardless of age or political intent seems unique in the Islamic world.
 
Last edited:
What circumstances could make the Ottomans halt or curtail the practice of royal fratricide, preferably during the reign of Suliemon the Magnificent?

Edit: Ottoman familial relations don't have to be warm, but they could return to the traditional central asian nomad methods of fratricidal civil war. The Mughal princes for example killed many of their siblings, but also left others alive based on rather or not it suited them. The Ottoman system of systematic slaughter regardless of age or political intent seems unique in the Islamic world.
Option 1: succession of oldest of the family

Option 2: castration of the brothers (unlikely but still...)

Option 3: get a clear succession line like (Suleiman rules)
1. Mustafa is the first heir, then his children then his brothers based on ages. So Mustafa 1st, then his son (Ahmed?), then his brother Selim, then Bayezid then Cihangir.
2. Brothers get random titles like the Bourbons in France. Example: Mustafa is Sultan. Selim is Beylerbey of Bosnia. Bayezid is Beylerbey of Buda. Cihangir is Beylerbey of Aleppo. Their offspring get the title of those regions. The use of the title Sehzade is only for the Sultan's sons and their sons. The grandsons of those who have not become Sultans will not become Sehzade and not eglible for the throne. You prevent too much heirs for the throne.
3. Also, avoid anyone above 50 to the throne. Ottoman Sultans rarely reached 60 until the 20th century. It won't help with a new sultan every 5-6 years.

It was unique but effective. The populace however was not pleased. Especially when Mehmed III (1595-1603) ordered the execution of 19 of his younger brothers most being babies and todlers. He also executed his popular son Mahmud in the year he died.
 
Last edited:
What I'm thinking of is two options. One, Suliemon adopts the Byzantine principle of Porphyrogenitus, or born in the Purple. This would exclude Mustafa and allow his favorite son Mehmed to succeed to the throne. Mustafa and Mehmed were purportedly close so maybe something could be worked out.
 
Have Suleiman die early and Mustafa succeed him, preferably in the mid to late 1530's. Mustafa is still in Manisa, the princes are yet young, Hurrem Sultan has not yet garnered enough political power or influence and Rustem Pasha has not yet risen to power at all. Depending on exact date of Suleiman's death, Ibrahim Pasha may or may not be still alive, it would suit Mustafa better if he is, as he was a well known supporter of the prince and his mother Mahidevran and seems to have loathed Hurrem.

Mustafa seemed to actually like his brothers, so I could see him perhaps defying the tradition and sparing the boys and taking them from their mother, of courses. Selim and Bayezid should be granted distant and hereditary governorships and princely harems, Cihangir would probably remain in the capital due to his disabilities. Mehmed should be made governor as well, but it would be wiser to keep him closer, as he is the one true threat to Mustafa's reign.
 
It's a hard thing to get rid of, because "on the tin" it's meritocratic, ie the intent is that the most "competent" son inherits
 
Top