ottoman succession

7/30/2019 Ottoman Succession

1/17

The Ottoman Succession and lts Relation to theTurkish Concept of Sovereignty

A oro*"e at the rree of the Ottoman Sultans will show that until thedeath of Ahmed I (1603-1617) the throne always passed from fatherto son; it is only after that date that we see the accession of brothers.Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall attempted to explain this phenomenonin the following manner: the Ottomans followed the seniority prin-ciple, inherited from the time of Chinggis Khan, whereby the thronedevolved first upon the eldest son or, if there were no son, upon theoldest living relative of the deceased ruler.' Because of the practice offratricide, however, the need to invoke the latter proviso did not ariseuntil 1617 when, for the first time upon the death of a Sultan, a brotherwas found to be still living. Rejecting this explanation, FriedrichGiese put forth the view that there was no law or principle governingS ultanic s ucces sion among the Ottoman s.'? S imilarly, Wilhelm Radloffhad earlier given examples showing that no established rules forsuccession prevailed among any of the Turkish peoples.' Finally,Ldszlo Ferenc viewed the problem from a wider perspective, statingconclusively that among the Turks, "every member of the rulingdynasty has a claim on the right to rule, there exists neither aprimogenitura nor a senioratus principle of succession."oMore recently, proponents of both the senioratus principle,whereby the eldest member of the ruling family assumes the throne,and of the primogenitura principle, whereby only the eldest son hasthe right to succeed, have come forward. Zeki Velidi Togan, forinstance, stated that "because the title of great khan passed to theeldest brother, the area of his residence would become the center ofthe state. This practice was prevalent also among the Karakhanids,successors to the Kdk Tiirks."'Togan elsewhere stated, rather am-biguously, "Among the Karakhanids the right to Kaghanship, accord-ing to old Turkish traditions, belonged to the eldest prince of thatsegment of the family which was predominant."'Osman Turan stated


2/17

38 = Halil Inalc*that among the Anatolian Seljuks the throne belonged to the eldestson.T lbrahim Kafesoflu observed that with the Khwarezmshahs, theeldest son andcandidate for the throne was generally appointed to theprovince of Jend.,In fact, the practice of giving the eldest son domainover Jend, a frontier province of Khwarezm, was connected with adifferent matter, as will be shown below.Among the oldest Sources on the subject of succession, the follow-ing statement from the inscription of Bilgii Kaghan, ruler of the KdkTi.irks, has given rise to argument: "In accordance with the the tdri)(law), my uncle succeeded to the throne."'If torit is understood hereto mean the law as established by the Kaghans, it could be assumedthat succession practices were spelled out by this law. According toGiese, however, it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion onthe basis of this evidence.,o Other passages of the Bilgii Kaghaninscription relating to succession must also be considered. After thedeath of his uncle, Bitg[ Kaghan says of himself: "Because it wasGod's will and it was my destiny, I assumed the status of kaghan.""Here it is only God's will that is mentioned. This statement is alsonoteworthy: "My ancestors Bumin Kaghan and Islimi Kaghan ruledover men; then their younger brothers became kaghan, and then theirsons."" This can only refer to a historical situation. The fact thatamong the Kcik Tiirks succession to the throne was a matter of destiny,left in the hands of God, is shown by the following story from aChinese source, the Chou Shu:

They wanted to make one of the brothers leader, and alltogether they went to the foot of a large tree and made thefollowing agreement: whoever could ju-p the farthest upthe tree would assume the leadership. Although A-shih-na's son was the youngest, he managed to jump the highest,so they agreed to accept him as their leader."

Numerous examples show that in Turko-Islamic States sons andbrothers had an equal right to the throne. For an overall view of theproblem, the genealogies published by Halil Edhem Eldem" and E. deZambaur" show that there is insufficient evidence of a seniorityprinciple. According to M. A. Kdymen, in early Seljuk history "theoldest living member of the family" assumed the leadership, with thetitle Yabghu. Nevertheless, after the victory at Serahs, Tughrul wasmade head of the newly founded state, in preference to his brother

The Onoman Succession = 39Chaghn Beg and his uncle Arslan Yabghu. Subsequenrly rhe sultanaredevolved upon the family of Chaghrr Beg; nor did the descendents ofArslan Yabghu abandon their claim ro the Grear Seljuk throne.,6Chaghn Beg's eldest son Kavurd laid claim first to the rhrone of hisbrother Alp Arslan and then to that of his nephew Malikshah.Neither is there any evidence of the existence of any law or customregulating the royal succession among the Khwarezmshahs."AldeddinMuhammad (1200-20) passed over both his eldest son Jeldleddin andhis second son Rukneddin in designaring his youngest son Kutbeddinheir apparent. Then, while fleeing the Mongols in 1220, he replacedhim with the seemingly more capable Jeldleddin."Among the Anatolian seljuks, the sultan chose one of his sons asheir apparent without consideration of age. on condition that theyremain loyal to the Sultan who exercised authority in the capital city,the other sons would be given the title malikand appointed to governin the various provinces of the realm. The presence of an heir apparentdid not prevent the other brothers from claiming a right to the throneupon the death of the Sultan. Before his death,.Izzeddin Krhch ArsianII (1 1 56-92) designated his youngesr son Ghrydseddin Kaykhusrav asheir apparent. The latter's personal virtues were mentioned as the onlymotive for his preference over his brothers. His elder brothers refused,out of jealousy, to accept his appointment and, gathering aroundRukneddin Siileymdn, raised the standard of revolt. Upon the death ofKrhch Arslan II (1192), Rukneddin besieged Konya and seized thethrone from his brother.,s on the death of Rukneddin ( 1204),in spiteof the fact that his son Krhch Arslan III had been proclaimed Sultan,the young man's uncle GhryAseddin Kaykhusrav seized the thronewith the aid of the frontier lords.'e on his death in 7211, his eldest son"Izzeddin Kaykdvfis I (12rr-19) ascended the rhrone. His brother,"AlAeddin Kaykubad, refused to reco gnize him and took up anns

against him.'o on the death of .Izzeddin Kayk6v0s I, the problem ofwho should succeed to the throne once again arose. For some time, nodecision could be made berween his brotherTughrul shah, his middleson "Aldeddin Kaykubdd, and his youngest son Kay Ferid0n. Eventu-ally the choice fell upon .Aleddin Kaykubdd, (lZI9-311."An examination of the principle of succession among the Mongolsis necessary forthe present study because the Mongols both continuedthe traditions of the old rurkish empires of central Asia in theirpurity,and exerted an immense influence upon the public institutions ofAnatolia and the enrire Middle Easr.',


3/17

40 = Halil Inalc*No fixed rules govemed succession among the Mongols.23 Sons ofKa'an' s wives (khatun) with equivalent origin and standing pos-

sessed the same degree of claim to the throne. But in 1282, TegtiderAhmed, the Ilkhanid ruler of Persia (1282-84), declared, in oppositionto his nephew Arghun (1284-91), that the eldest son had a greaterclaim than the others. Having become a Muslim, however, Ahmedhad turned away from the tradition and come under the stronginfluence of the Muslim community. Even if the ka' an did choose anheir apparent, after his death his choice was considered no obstacle toa different prince's accession to the throne.'o The Mongol kurtltaywhich chose Ogedey (1227 -1241) acted in accordance with thewishes of Chinggis. Ogedey's words to his older brother Chaghatayafter the election merit attention: "I sat on a throne prepared for me bymy father, Chinggis Khan; is it not possible that later some will ask,behind my back, 'on the basis of which of his virtues did he merit thethrone?' If my brotheris in agreement, I would like to continue the waragainst the Altan Khan, of the Kitans, which my father began but didnot finish."" His statement clearly shows that among the brotherspersonal virtue and achievement were considered requisite for rule.Being heir apparent, achieving precedence by timely arrival at thekurtltay, and most important of all, securing the support of theinfluential tribal chiefs through personal relations and negotiations,were the principal means of acquiring the throne.Similarly, foreign observers indicate even in the fifteenth centurythat no established principles or laws governed the Ottoman succes-sion. Dukas states, "Whomever kingship passes to, whether fromfather to son or from brother to brother, in short to whomever fortuneaids, the kuls give faithful allegiance to this new leader.'h'Angiolello,who lived in the Ottoman palace from I470 to 1481, writes, "BAyezidand Jem, the two sons of the Sultan fMehemmed II] . . . each claimedto succede his father. The entire matter was who could first arrive atIstanbul. The greater part of the palace people would easily recog-nized him as Sultan whether he was a minor or had reached the age ofmajority. Whoever would take possession of the imperial treasurywould arrange everything in his favor.""Theodore Spandugino, writ-ing around 1510 about the struggle between BAyezid and Jem, saysthat the two were considered equal candidates for the throne.2EIn conclusion, it can be said that a tradition limiting succession tothe throne to a particular member of the dynasty never existed inTurkish states. It is true that from time to time certain tendencies

The Ottoman Succession = 41appeared, such as the designation of an heir apparent or the preferencefor an elder or a younger son. But the fundamental principle wasalways that the succession to the throne should be left to divinedispensation. All other traditions andpractices remained secondary tothis one. once a member of the dynasty actually seized the throne, bywhatever means, there was no further theoretical or legal question ofhis legitimacy. Unaitered by the centuries, this fundamental attitudewas related to Turkish conceptions that were deeply rooted in ancientreligious beliefs concerning the nature and origin of sovereignty, andwas more readily apparent in those Turkish tribes which remainedcloser to their Cenrral Asian traditions. We shall consider below therelationship of this concept of sovereignty to the present subject.

In the orkhon Kok Ttirk inscriptions, rhe Proto-Bulgarian inscrip-tions andthe uyghurdocuments,',dating fromthe seventh through theninth centuries, the titles of the kaghans reveal a belief not only in thedivine origin of sovereignty, but in their own divine origin, and statethat they are the bearers of kut. Tengrtde bulmush, tengride kutbulmush, or kutlugharerepeatedly encountered as components of thetitles. The idea that the king had come down from God can be tracedback to the Hsiung-nu, who provide the first example of the organi-zation of a Central Asian nomadic empire, in the third century beforeChrist. Especially noreworthy are the following words artributed toB ilgii Ka gh an in the orkhon in scrip tio ns : "7 e n g ri y arltkaduh n ilc hun[oJzilm kuttm bar tichiln kaghan olurnm." m Thus he ascribes hisposition as kaghan to divine grace and his own personal kut.In theSecret History of the Mongols,3' written about 1240, Chinggis Khanstates, "With the strength given to me by Eternal God (mengtitengri)I gathered the entire nation under my rule." Likewise the formula "bythe power of Eternal God" (mengu tengri ktichtindlir) is always to befound as the title of the Mongol khans in their documents and seals.3'what is the meaning of kut, which seems to have such an importantplace in the Turko-Mongol concept of sovereignty? Mahm0d al-Kash ghari give s as equ ivale nts u g hur (au spiciou snes s ), daw I at (power),baht (fortune), tdli' luck), and sa"ddat (felicity)." ZiyaGokalp saysthat kut is like mana in primitive societies, a magical power rhatinfluences everything and bestows a sacred significance.* In shaman-rsm kut is used in the sense of life-element or spirit. It is usuallydescribedby theTurks andMongols as acolumn of lightthatdescends


4/17

42 = Halil Inalc*from the heavens. From it the lineage of the kaghans were created. Akaghan bearing kut is sacred. Among the Khazars the kaghan, like thekam(shaman), came from a sacred family and would not show his faceto the people.35In the religio-political gathering in which Temuchin, under the titleChinggis Khan, assumed the leadership of the central Asian nomadicempire, he was proclaimed by the shaman Kokochii to have been sentdown as ka'anby the Heavens God."Chinggis and his sons believedthat they had been granted sovereignty over all the earth. The titleChinggis ka'an itself came to take on the meaning of universalemperor.3TThe only lineage suited to bear the title ke'en, kaghan," whichpresumed universal sovereignty, was one which had been sent byGod.,o All the Turkish and Mongol dynasties which claimed this titlelinked themselves to such a lineage, tracing their family trees back,whether legitimately or not, to a common ancestor. The dynasty of theKok Tiirks, referred to in the Chinese sources as the sons of A-Shih-na,4o the T'u-Ko' of the Hsiung states of northern China,4' the MongolAltan- fJrug,o' and the Oghuz Turkish dynasties who traced theirgenealogies to Oghuz Khan, all claimed a common ancestor. From thetime of Deguignes onward, specialists in Turkish history have re-peated that the legendary Oghuz Khan was most likely the great Shan-yti of the Hsiung-flu, Mete.o'Just as the Danubian Bulghar Khans arelinked by ancestry to the Shan- yii of the Hsiung-nu,'o so according tothe Chinese sources is the royal family of the Kok Tiirks (T'u-kiiie)considered to be from among the Hsiung-nu.o'The kaghan's lineage has an origin which is sacred, deriving fromGod. Usually the kaghans were thought to be the children of a princessimpregnated by a light emanating from the heavens. Such a beliefprevailed among the Uyghurs, the Khitays, the Kirghrz, and theMongols.46 According to the Secret Htstory of the Mongols,o'Alan-ho'a (Alangoa) was thus impregnated, and the children whom shebore became "the ka'ans of ali mankind."o' Chinggis Khan wasaccounted to be of this descent. Another belief has it that the lineageof the kaghans descends from the coupling of a wolf, sent by God, witha prince or princess. This legend, ascribing lupine origins to sover-eigns, can be traced back as far as the Wu-sun in the second centurybefore Christ.o'It is found among the Kok Ttirks and other Turkishtribes, as well as among the Mongols.'o

The Ottoman Succession = 43Both of these beliefs, in a light or a lupine origin, have been linkedto shamanism. ziya Gokalp thought that the wolf was originally atotem. If so, how did it happen that a rotem which was originallyconsidered the forefather of the entire nation or tribe came to beconsidered the progenitor of a specific, dominant kaghan family?Gdkalp attempted to answer this question by viewing it as the resultof a socio-political ffansformation from the level of clan to that ofterritorial state. In this process the public guardianship was central-ized, and devolved upon the ruling family, which had adopted thetotem.5' The standard of Chinggis Khan incorporated the totem of histribe, the Si.ilde. He believed that he would conquer the world becauseof this pennant. Whatever the source of the idea, it is apparent that boththe kaghanate and the kaghan family were accounted sacred and ofdivine origin. The titles they employed," the ceremonies sunoundingthe royal accession, and the supernatural qualities ascribed to thekaghan all demonstrate this clearly.s, Such an explanation, whichfinds the sources of authority to be rooted in ancient magical- religiousbeliefs, makes futile any human attempt to organize and establish lawsfor the accession to the kaghan' s throne. The throne belongs to the A-

shih-na, the sons of oghuz Khan. God ordained it, as he likewisedetermined which son would ascend the throne. God's will wasmanifested in the power and success he gave to his chosen one; thatwas the divine confirmation.where this belief was strongly held even powerful leaders such asNoghay, Mamay and Idigu (Edike) did not presume to take the title ofkhan. Even Timur, who founded a world empire, did not take uponhimself this title. In the inscription on his grave, however, his familyis traced back to Budhunchar, the son of Alangoa by divine impreg-nation, on the one hand, and on the other hand to the family of theProphet.5o This last point shows that Islamic considerarions had gainedequal importance. Idigu also traced his line back to rhe Caliph AbuBakr." In the Krpchak steppe, where Islam was beginning to take hold,only the Prophet and his caliph possessed prestige equal ro that of theold Turco-Mongol tradition.Among the ottomans, various views prevailed regarding the ori-gins of the dynasty and its sovereignty. As expressed in varioushistorical narratives, each interpretation naturally bears the mark of acertain environment, period, or political viewpoint. In spite of theirlegendary character, these narratives are important for the particular


5/17

44 = Halil Inalctktraditions and biases they express. As has been Shown, the oldest ofsuch narratives appeared toward the end of the fourteenth century56and proposed that'Osmdn, or his father Ertughrul, was given hisrulership by the Seljuk sultans or, alternatively, that "Osmdn wasselected to succeed the last of the Seljuk sultans. This story dates fromthe period of Biyezid I (1389-1402),when the Ottomans were for thefirst time thinking of their history as a single continuum, and reflectsthe Ottoman ambitions and claims of that time. In other words, itattempts to show Timur on the one side, and the Egyptian Mamlukson the other, the legitimacy of the Ottoman expansion in Anatolia. Inessence this claim is based on the Islamic conceptions of caliphate(khildfa) andpublic guardianship (wald' ). The Seljuk sultan, who wasseen to have received his authority from the Caliph, delegated it in theform of an emirate to the frontier begs, among them "OsmAn orErtughrul. Upon his investiture with certain symbolic instruments ofsovereignty,, dldt-i mulfikiyye (patent, flag, sword, horse and drum),.OsmAn assumed authority over a territory. In other versions of thisnarTative, it is said that sword of "Osmdn, the third Caliph, was sent tothe Ottoman chief, orthat the last Seljuk sultan made "OsmAn the heirapparent. The story must have originated in and been fostered bypalace and,ulemd circles. We know that BAyezidI, influenced andinspired by the same circles and seeking to legitimize his claims toauthodty in Anatolia, asked the Abbasid Caliph in Egypt for the titleSultAn al- ROm, Sultan of Asia Minor (R0m)." This title was onepreviously granted to the Seljuk sultans by the Caliphs of Baghdad."Alongside this Islamic interpretation of their origins, which can befraced back to the conditions of their ascendancy at the time, anotherexplanation is found, which later gained strength.The narrative which puts forward this second interpretation ap-pears in historical works which date from the first reign of Murdd II(1421-5 1;" and is clearly linked to the traditional Cenral Asian theoryof the Turkish state. According to it,'OsmAn GhAzi was a descendantof Kayr Khan, the son of Giln Khan, the eldest son of Oghuz Khan."Osmdn's tribe was the Kayr tribe and he its hereditary leader."OsmAn's lineage was adapted into a forged genealogy that went backto Oghuz Khan..o This inte pretation finds its strongest proponent inYazrj-zdde "Ali,.' in whose works we find Turkish traditions woveninto the history of the Ottomans and even of the Anatolian Seljuks ina mannerrepresentative of the concerns of the period. Thus he writes:

The Ottoman Succession = 45Gathering together in counc\l(kuriltay) the Turkish begson the frontier ascertained what the oghuz traditions wereand they proclaimed as Khan "OsmAn Beg, son of Ertughrulof the Kayr . . , by the requiremenr of the Oghuz traditions

as they were handed down from Gtin Khan; so long as theline of the Kayr survives, the khanate and sultanate(pddishdhltk) musr not pass to the line of the rulers of anyother clan.

we know that the ottoman dynasty favored and adopted thisinterpretation to such a degree that under Murdd II, for the first time,the seal of the Kayr clan began to be stamped on Ottoman coinage.5zI believe it is incorrect to see this trend simply as representative ofromantic concerns. Its true purpose must be viewed as an attempt tostrengthen the Ottoman dynasty in the face of the threats and claimsof Timur and his sons, and also to express to a certain extent acommitment to the traditions prevalent among the Turkish tribalgroups of the frontiers. Finally, it should also be noted that Timur'sinvasion was followed by a strong revival of nomadic state traditionsin all the countries of the Near East.63During the first half of the fifteenrh cenrury, the Timurids pro-claimed theirprecedence and sovereignty over the Ottomans. Actingas a representative of the sons of Chinggis Khan, Timur allowed theottomans, whom he described as frontier lords, legitimate authorityonly over the frontier lands outside the traditional boundaries of theSeljuk state, and expected submission and obedience from them, as inIlkhanid times.e Bdyezid I refused to accept those claims and took, asa challenge, the title of sultan of R0m, but he was crushed by hisopponent. His sons and all the Anatolian begs then recognizedTimur's suzerainty. Timur's son ShAhrukh wanted to maintain thissituation. In works written in the East during this period, the Ottomandynasty was pofirayed as of unknown, low-class origins.., onlyfriendly rulers, such as Jihan Shah of the Karakoyunlu, placed anyvalue in the genealogy that tied the Ottoman sultan to Oghuz Khan.uuMurad II did not dare to deny Shdhrukh's claims of suzerainty.'In1435, when Sh6hrukh sent ceremonial robes ro the Anatolian rulers,including MurAd II, and demanded that they wear them as a sign oftheir allegiance, the ottoman Sultan, though unwilling, felt obliged tosee that the order was carried out. The Arab source that reports the


6/17

46 = Halil Inalc*event notes, however, that the Ottoman Sultan effected this at aprivate, not an official, meeting, and did not accord it much impor-tance.6t Under these conditions it is evident why in this period theOttomans placed so much importance upon the Kayr and Oghuz Khantraditions. The Ottoman Sultan was trying to raise himself to the levelof those Turkish and Mongol dynasties that were then ruling theEastern world. In other words, he aspired to legitimacy as defined bythe Turco-Mongol state raditions.At the same time, the Sultan's claim was specifically addressed tothe Turcoman ghdzis on the Ottoman frontiers and the Turcomangoups in Anatolia. The Karakoyunlu and the Dulkadrrh Turcomansaccepted this Ottoman position. It is worth noting here that when theRamadAnid dynasty gained importance during the sruggle against theMamluks during the reign of B6,yezid II (1481-1,512), Ottomanhistorians espoused the theory of kinship between the Ottomans andthe Turcoman tribes to whom the Ramaddnids belonged.'Thus, ingeneral, the Ottoman Kayr genealogy had a response among theTurcoman groups faithful to the Central Asian traditions.Finally, the old Turkish frontier traditions remained vibrant on theOttoman frontiers in Rumelia. Whether in the frontier regions ofSkopje, Karinabad-Deliorman, or Serez-Tirhala, a major part of thefrontier forces consisted of Turcoman-Yi,iriik groups who had emi-grated from Anatolia.'o Their ideal of a leader-beg is emphaticallypornayed in the works written outside the palace environment andaddressed to the ghdzis thernselves, the Tevdrtkh-t At-t "Osmdn, andin the history of "Ashrk Pasha-zdde.'' The ideal leader is described asone who, as among the Khazars, does not seek to accumulate goodsand treasures and, although poor, is scrupulously just. Just as we findin the Orkhon inscriptions, the leader's concern is to clothe and feedhis people. In fact, among the Ottomans, we find public feasts, /oy,resembling those of Central Asia pointed out and emphasized duringthis period.One of these narratives, which contains many elements fromCentral Asian legends and concerns the rise to power of SultanOrkhan, is particularly pertinent to the present subject. According tothis narrative, "Osm6.n had a dream in which a tree grew out of his bellyand covered the entire world; in the morning, the sheikh whose guesthe was interpreted the dream to mean that God had granted to hisbloodline authority over the world. The story gives as the reason forthis divine favor the reverence that "Osm6,n had shown to the Holy

The Ottoman Succession = 47Qur'an before going to sleep that night. Alongside this Islamic motif,which is wholly explicable in these ghdzi surroundings, other motifs,such as God's bestowal of earthly dominion in a particular symbolicway, the interpretation of this symbolic message by a holy man, andelements such as a dream and a tree, can be traced back in each caseto folklore of Central Asian origin." In fact, as Fuad Kdpriilii hasshown, this tradition was used earlier in relation to other Turkish-Islamic dynasties."

What is important for us here is that the Ottomans appropriated it.In the Islamic world, the view that the right to sovereignty over anIslamic community was granted directly to sultans by God and that theactive seizure of sovereignty constituted, in effect, a divine designa-tion, had gained acceptance in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Theold caliphal view, the theory that sovereignty was delegated by theCaliph, no longer prevailed. It is accepted that the Turkish statetradition had an influence on this change.Ta In any case, Central AsianTurkish traditions are to be found persisting in the Ottoman dynasty'sinterpretation of the origin of its sovereignty. The question of the suc-cession is connected to this general interpretation. That is to say, theOttomans believed that it was God, not human laws or organizations,who determined that sovereignty should be in one line, in one memberof a ruling family and, finally, in one people and territory.

The selection of a kaghan atakuriltay is strong evidence that amongthe Central Asian Turks and Mongols there was no specific law ofsuccession. We find that among the Kdk Tiirks, the Mongols of Iran,and the Golden Horde, kaghans were proclaimed from among princesof those branches in which predecessors had become khans a fewgenerations earlier . Kuriltays were meetings attendedby the membersof the ruling family, important military leaders, bureaucrats, andvassal princes, and were quite different from a real electoral council.Much is known about the institution of the kuriltay as it continued inits basic form in the Crimean khanate.In the Crimea, the primary role in the selection of the Khan wasplayed by the four strongest tribal heads, the karachu begs, and inparticular their leader, the beg of the Shirin tribe. These tribes wouldcommonly take to arrns when they did not want to recognize the khanplaced over them by the Ottoman pddtshdh. The situation was muchthe same among the Mongols of Iran and the Goiden Horde. That is,in general, a prince who had the support of a strong beg would becomekhan, and the kuriltay remained in practice a semi-religious ceremony


7/17

48 = Halil Inalctkof accession and allegiance which followed the lines of old shamanisttraditions. The begs and vezirs who had the allegiance of militaryforces most often determined who was to accede to the throne. Suchwas the case among the Kok Ti.irks.T5Upon the death of the AnatolianSeljuk "Izzeddin KaykAv0s (1220), the most important military com-manders and the vezirs, gathering together with the "tughrd,t vemunsht-i khdss", discussed whom they would designate as Sultan. Inthe end, the word of the principal commander, Seyfeddin Ay-Apa,was followed.T6Among the Ottomans, the Grand Vizir generally played the pri-mary role in this matter. If we look at the earlier period, however, wesee that the frontier lords were capable of acting quite independentlyof the center in these affairs and at times even determined who was tobe the possessor of the throne (especially during the interregnum andthe reigns of Mehemmed I and MurAd II). In the old Ottomantraditions, according to Yazrj vzdde on the one hand and Neshri on theother, it is put forward that "OsmAn GhAzi was chosen beg at a tribalmeeting. The relevant passage in Neshri reads as follows:

Some of the nomads (gocher-evler) wished to make"OsmAn their beg, and some wished to have "Osmdn'suncle, Dtindar, the brother of Ertughrul; but his own tribepreferred "OsmAn and sent out word [of this] secretly, andwhen Dtindar came out among the people he saw that theypreferred and gave obeisance to "OsmAn, whereupon herenounced his claims to the beglik and proclaimed hisallegiance to cosmdn.77In contrast to this, "Ashrk Pasha-z6de?sreports that Orkhan assumedthe position of beg at a conference of akhis. On the death of MurAd I,"the begs gathered together and came to an agreement. They deemedBAyezid the proper one to take his father's place."7e Vizirs played asmajor a role in the accessions of Murdd I and MurAd II as did thetestament of the sultans' fathers. In subsequent periods, the sultansmade it their habit to announce in theirfermans of accession that theyhad succeeded to the throne with the favor of God and the "commonagreement of the possessors of the power of decision, gatheredtogether in council." But by this time what is under consideration isno longer the Turco-Mongol tradition of kurihay but the totallyIslamic institution of homage (bay'a).Evenif consideration of power

The Ottoman Succession = 49and interest played an active role in the old kurtltays and in thecouncils of vezirs and emirs gathered in Seljuk and Ottoman times forthe selection of a sultan, nevertheless the principle that God's willdetermined the outcome was deemed fundamental. Presumably,therefore, such councils cannot be compared to the Roman Senate,which ffansferred to the emperor tlie rights of authority that were theproper possession of the people.

Whether or not the mothers of siblings who were rivals for thethrone were of noble lineage was a matter of considerable conse-quence. Among the Kok Ti.irks, Ta-lo-pien, in spite of his brother'stestament in his favor, was not chosen to rule because his mother wasnot of noble birth. Instead, his nephew An-lo became kaghan.8OAmong the Mongols, too, the mother's origin had an influence on therights of the crown prince.8l There are indications that this was trueamong the Ottomans in the early period. For example, the Arabhistorian Ibn Hajer reports that Savjr (this must be Ya'k0b) was notgranted the throne because his mother was a Christian.82 Shtikrulldh,who held various important positions in the Ottoman palace in the firsthalf of the fifteenth century, noted in his history whether the motherof each crown prince was a concubine (jdriye) or a free-born lady ofnoble origins (beg hzt). Nonetheless, it is certain that by the fifteenthcentury, the Ottomans did not give the matter much importance,although the Karamanids, more closely bound to ancient Turkishcustoms, still took this distinction into consideration. We should alsonote that this factor was not decisive amone the Kdk Tiirks, either.THE DYNASTY AND TTM APPAN AGE (ULUSH) SYSTEM

A principal feature of the Turkish concept of authority is the tenetthat authority does not reside with one particular member of the khanfamily, but rather with the whole of the family. Omeljan Pritsak is themost recent researcher to show that steppe empires are formed froma confederation of tribes in accordance with an established model, andthat among the various levels of the confederation authority is dividedamong the members of the kaghan family.s3The same principle can beobserved among the Hsiung-ou, the Kok Ti-irks, and in the MongolEmpire of Chinggis Khan. Since we have relatively extensive infor-mation on this last group, our examples will come from them.Unquestionably, the notion that the country is the joint possessionand inheritance of the kaghan family and the division of the country

r$f{ri$,{$$'$.

$$#]

fi'#l:i$$&&Kfi$t$${


8/17

50 = Halil Inalc*among the members of the dynasty can be linkedto the nomadic tribalethos and organization. According to Mongol law existing prior toChinggis Khan, the sons would split up the inheritance of theirmothers and fathers, and the youngest son would inherit the house andpossessions of the father.to By the terms of the Oyrat law of 1640, thesons were the benefactors of the father's estate, the youngest of theminheriting the hearth of the father.8sChildren who married and left thehousehold while theirfathers were still alive wouldreceive their shareof the inheritance, but the youngest son would always remain attachedto the hearth. According to the Yasa of Chinggis Khan, on the otherhand, the eldest son would receive more than the youngest son in thedivision of property. Each memberof the family of thekaghan, whichremained a single unit, had a claim on the public revenue.86 Conqueredterritories were considered the private possession of the ruler, denotedas injil. This property would be divided among the members of thedynasty. Aside from these injils,to be found scattered in various partsof the empire, certain other areas, designated asyarrs, were given overto the command of princes.8TWhile still alive, Chinggis Khan gave tohis eldest son, Jochi those lands stretching west from the Irtish rivertowards eastern Europe, that is, that section furthest from the centralulughyurt;to his second son, Chaghatay (Cha'adai) he gave the areacomprising present day Turkestan and Afghanistan; to Ogedei hegave Jungaria; and his youngest son Tului, in the central yurt, tookKarakorum and Mongolia, the core of the Mongol Empire. By the endof the thirteenth century, these regions had become, in effect, indepen-dent khanates. What is important to note here is that the empire wasdivided among the members of the dynasty according to tribal rulesof private property.The conventions regarding the apportioning of the country amongsons are clearly reflected in the epic of Oghuz Khan. In the Uyghurversion of the Oghuzndme, those brothers sent to the west areconsidered subordinate to those sent to the east.In the period before the Great Seljuks had emerged as a politicalpower, when they were still active on the Jend frontier (beginning ofthe eleventh century), we see that Seljuk's sons and grandsonsoperated within certain defined areas. Thus, the eldest son Mika'ilwas sent at this time to the ghazd areas on the frontier.88 The GreatSeljuks and the Anatolian Seljuks conscientiously followed the prac-tice of parcelling out the country among the members of the dynastyinto specific areas of dominion. When Mik0'il died while his father

The Onoman Succession = 51was still alive, Isrd'il Arslan became head of the family. Later thefurthest frontierdistrictin the west, Anatolia, was leftto his grandsonsas appanage. The division of his domains among his sons by theAnatolian Seljuk Krhch Arslan II while he was still alive (ca. 1195)is particularly worthy of note. Each son behaved as an independentruler within his own domain.Ee Tnki Velidi Togan links this divisionof the country to the illiishsystem.e0Abdtilkadir Inan, who studied theorun (position) and tililsh (apportioning) system in tribal law, hasshown that when the tribes set up camp, the tents of the sons werearranged according to a definite rank iurangement.er The youngest sonstayed in the centrally located tent of his father, while the tent next inimportance to the central tent was the tent of the eldest son.

Ibn Battuta, who visited the Turcoman principalities of Anatolia in the1330s, emphasized the method by which the country was apportionedamong the sons.e2These raditional ways were more srongly practicedinthe Anatolian principalities than they had been in the Seljuk sultanate,which was under srong Iranian influence.e3It was natural that this be soin the frontier Turcoman states, where Central Asian naditions survivedin their purer forms. We will now discuss several aspects of the way inwhich this system was applied among the Ottomans, one of the frontierstates which rose to prominence on the stage of world history.According to an anecdote in Neshri it was after a victory over theforces of the Byzantine Empire that "Osmdn Ghdzi rose to thecommand of a genuine political organization and srructured hisstate.e4 At that time "he gave the sanjak of Karajahisar to his sonOrkhan Ghdzi", and "he gave the position of subasht to his brotherGiindiiz . . . he kept one son, "AlAeddin Pasha, by his side."e5In all theold traditions we find that "Aldeddin Pasha was "OsrnAn's youngestson. He kept him by his side, while to his elder son Orkhan he gave thefrontier sanjak in the east. Later, Orkhan came to the western frontierand captured Bursa in 1326.In 1331, after Orkhan was ruler himself"he gave Bursa to one son, MutAd Khan GhAzi, naming it the BegSanjak, and Karajahisar he gave to the son of his uncle, Gi.indiiz."e6Later, when Akcha Koja died, Orkhan gave his frontier area to hiseldest son StileymAn.eT "He gave the sanjak of In-onii to Murdd Ghdzi,who was his youngest son."eE Meanwhile, Stileymdn continued hisconquests on the Izmit borderlands. When the principality of Karesiwas annexed Orkhan "brought forward his elder son Si.ileymdn Pashaand [gave] him title to Karesi-eli."eeBeginning his conquest of Rumelifrom there, StileymAn then became the beg of the Gallipoli marches.


9/17

52 = Halil Inalc*Murdd | (1362-1389) gave to his eldest son BAyezid the newly ac-quired frontier land of Ktiahya and, in l3'13, he left his youngest sonSavjr at the center.lm

Si.ileymAn, the son of Orkhan, is the only Ottoman prince to havebeen a sanjakbegi in Rumelia. The nearly contemporary sourcesclearly indicate that the important conquests he made on this frontgained him unparalleled prestige and power.i0l One should also notethat, in 1313, Savjr was the instigator of a rebellion in Rumelia.Thereafter one sees that crown princes were always appointed to thecapitals of the old principalities in Anatolia. Mehemmed I, MurAd IIand Mehemmed II all sent their eldest sons to Amasya, which gainedimportance during this period because of events on the easternfrontier.In short, there is no question but that the appanage system in all ofits major characteristics lived on among the Ottomans. In particular,one sees that the most important border lands were given to the eldestson and that, in the beginning, the nuclear area, the beg-saniagt, wasput in the hands of the youngest.DESIGNATION OF SUCCESSIONWe have seen that in the Central Asian feudal empires, in which tribalcuStoms prevailed, the concept of sovereignty and of the nature of ruledetermined the form in which this authority was transferred. We havealso seen that a number of internal developments and outside influ-ences brought about changes in the fundamental tradition. The kaghan,when his absolute authority was established, gained the right toinstitute an organic law, tore andyasaand,based on this, to secure thetransfer of authority directly to his own sons, or by selecting one ofthem to be the heir apparent, and to ensure that this son succeeded tothe throne.The designation of a successor is thought to have been an ancientpractice in the Turkish and Mongol states of Central Asia. We know,for example, that in7 59 A.D. the Uyghur ruler selected his eldest sonas heir apparent.ro2Chinggis Khan chose his third son Ogedei as heirapparent and had his other sons confirm this.103When Chinggis Khandied, the Mongols, fiercely ioyal to the memory of the great worldconqueror, met in assembly and placed Ogedei on the throne, therebycarrying out the terms of the wi1l. "They placed under his commandthe bodyguard and central regions of the State."l@ We know of cases

The Ottoman Succession = 53also, however, where heirs apparent designated by Mongol Khanswere not confirmed by the kurtltay, and others were brought ro rhethrone in their place.losAmong the Anatolian Seljuks, the designated heirapparent was oftenremoved from the throne by his brothers. A noteworthy case is that ofMes"Od I, who, when he divided the realm among his three sons,proclaimed Krhch Arslan heir apparent and sovereign over the others,with the title of S ultan of Kony a. He sat Krhch Arslan on the throne in frontof all the emirs and placed the royal crown on his head. All the emirs thenkneltdown in frontof Krhch Arslan and gave theritual oath ofallegiance.Upon his father's death, Krhch Arslan ascendedthe throne. Nevertheless,his authority was not recognized by his brother Shdhinshah.ro6 Here wesee the designation of heir, even the oath of allegiance, losing its bindinglegal character upon the death of a ruler. Indeed, we know that with thedeath of a ruler, laws and legal dispositions lost their validity and wereaccounted without authority until once again confirmed by a new ruIer.107Brothers would sometimes come out in opposition to the choice of onefrom amongst them as heir apparent and would revolt against it.108Theyconsidered the appointment of an heir apparent to be an infringemenrupon their own rights, for each considered himself ro be, God willing, anominee for the throne.

The Old Ottoman traditions tell us that'Osm6n designated Orkhan asan heirof sorts. He also said, "lrt my son Orkhan find majesty during mylifetime."loe When "OsmAn died, orkhan's brother'Aldeddin said to him,"When my father was alive, he entrusted the kingship to you."rr0On theirdeathbeds, Murddl and Mehemmed I designated theireldest sons as heirs,leaving this as theirlast testaments.lllMurAd Ilrelinquished the throne tohis son Mehemmed II in l444,and when he returned to power two yearslater, Mehemmed was understood to be heir apparent.rl2Mehemmed theConqueror and his successors, however, did not dare to take a standopenly in favor of one of their sons. Such displays of par:tiality were tobring the sons of BAyezid II and of Stileymdn the Lawgiver into openconflict with their fathers.

In conclusion, both in the Ottoman state and in the Turkish states whichpreceded it, heir apparency was never firrniy established as the method byrvhich Sultanic authority was Eansmitted. The belief that the entiredynasty shared jointly in the possession of the realm, and that it was Godwho selected the actual ruler, was stiU too strong to ignore.

w.$


10/17

54 = Halil Inalc*THE ELDEST SON AND TFIE RULING BRANCHIt has been pointed out above that the first Ottoman sultans were alleldest sons and that the eldest son was chosen heir apparent. Was thissimply a coincidence, or was it the result of a particular tradition? Wehave already made clear the favored position of the eldest son in theappanage system. Among the Kazaks, tents ranked in order ofimportance from the father's to the eldest son'S and then to the eldestbrother's sons.l13We mightrepeat here that the eldest son received thelargest share of the inheritance and that in the apporrionment of therealm he was granted the most important frontier region. Finally, wefind that in the Oghuzndme,Kay1 the eldest son of Gtin Khan, whowas in turn the eldest son of Oghuz Khan, and his descendents, a.reshown as the legitimate successors.The Old Ottoman sources report the following conversation be-tween Orkhan and his younger brother after the death of 'Osmdn:lra

"Aldeddin Pasha said, "this country is yours by right; itneeds as its shepherd apddishdh.... And these sheep are forthe public banquets of thepddishdh.Now, whatdo we havethat might be divided up." Orkhan GhAzi said, "Come now,you be that shepherd."'Aldeddin Pasha said, "Brother, ourfather's prayers and support are with you; for the samereason that in his time he had you lead the army, now theshepherdship is also yours."

(Neshri adds, "While you are alive what would there be for me todo; you are my elder brother, to take my father's place."t15) From thisanecdote we see first that rulership and realm were seen aS the jointinheritance of the entire family, both brothers being felt to have equalclaim to them. Second, a basis for preference between the two wassupplied by the fact that, in the "Ashrk Pasha-zade version, Orkhanhad been given command of the army by "OsmAn Ghdzi and, in theNeshri version, that Orkhan was the elder brother.By receiving the most important frontier region during this earlyperiod, the eldest prince was unquestionably put in an advantageousposition, as is evident from "AlAeddin's reply to Orkhan. In thatperiod, the state'S most powerful forces were in the frontier region.The elder brother who found himself in possession of the frontier

The Ottoman Succession = 55region was not only defacto in the strongestposition, but his militaryexperience would also be far greater than that of his brothers. (Onemight recall here that the Seljuk ruler Ghrydseddin Kaykhusrav seizedthe throne from his nephew Krhch Arslan with the backing of thefrontier lords.) orkhan's brother was in no position to deny orkhanthe throne. Murdd I, because he was at the head of the frontier forceswhen his father died, was successful in putting down those brotherswho came against him. BAyezid, the eldest son of Murdd I, gainedgreat renown and importance as a military leadereven while his fatherwas still alive. At the war council held before the battle of Kosova,Murdd gave him the right to speak first. BAyezid was, in everybody'seyes, the obvious candidate for the throne. on his deathbed, Murddwilled the throne to him. In short, we can speak here of a situation thatactively favored the eldest brother.It was also within the confines of traditional practice in Turkishstates for the brother of the deceased Sultan to be installed on thethrone.l16In this fashion, numerous branches might develop within adynasty, each stemming from the accession of a relative other than ason. we have seen how rulers tried to make use of the practice ofdesignating an heir as a means of securing the throne for their ownsons. Often this measure was unsuccessful. Among the Great Seljuksand especially among the Mongols of the Golden Horde, the princesof the various branches of the dynasty waged prolonged and bloodystruggles over the throne.In the ottoman case, the struggle for the succession after the deathof BAyezid the Thunderbolt was not only carried out among his sons,but also continued among his grandsons. That is to say, the dynastysplit into different lines, each descending from one of Bdyezid's sons,all of whom had been rulers. The Ottoman chronicles use the title ofSultan for Chelebi Mehemmed (I) alone, seeking to hide the legiti-mate claims of the other contesrants. Contemporary Egyptian Mamluksources, however, speak of Siileym?^n(1402-11) and M0sd (1411-13)as the successors of Bdyezid.llTThe son of Si.ileymdn (I), Orkhan, putforth a claim to the throne against his uncle, Mehemmed I, and wasable to muster support from among the ottoman begs. Nevertheless,the throne remained in the hands of the offspring of Mehemmed I untilthe reign of Ahmed I (1603-17), passing always from father to son.What made this in fact possible was the establishment of the practiceof fratricide.

ilr


11/17

56 = Halil Inalc*THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TFM, PRACTICE OF FRATRICIDEThe establishment of the practice of fratricide can be closely linked to afundamental change in the Ottornan concept of sovereignty. We havetried to show to what extent the Ottoman concept of sovereignty was tiedto Central Asian traditions. Despite this fact, it is evident that often thesetraditions lost their original strength and meaning and retained only asymbolic significance, oI that under diverse influences theil whole.h*u.t.t was altered. In fact, in the later development of the Ottomanstate, a more impersonal, absolute and indivisible perception of theauthority of the ruler became predominant. ln a parallel fashion, totallydifferent notions of how authority should be transfened became preva-lent. The firstimponant snge in the state clevelopment was the transitionfrom afeudal principality to a sultanate. SiileymAn Pasha, son of Orkhan,pushed into Rumelia, beyond the sea, Uansforming that province into thenew Ottoman frontier region, and after his widespread conquests inThrace, emerged as a second figure of power. MurAd I gave the positionof beglerbegi of Rumelia to his tutor, Shahin, who had come up fromamon g the palace s laves, and s ubj ec ted the powerftrl frontier be g Evrenos,who had maintained a semi- feudal status on the furthermost frontier' tohis command. Murdd I also built up a janissary corps loyal to his ownperson that would support the central authority in its struggle against thelrontier lords. The rebellion of Savjr \n 1373 showed that, despite thesemeasures, the frontier forces still predominated.ll8 The centralizationmeaslues, begun in the time of MurAd I, greatly increased in tempo duringthe reign of BAyezid I. As a result of the changes made in palaceorganiiation and in administrative and financial methods, and of theexpansion and strengthening of the kaptkultt system, the Ottoman Begwas ffansformed from a frontier lord (in Arab sources, sdhibu'I- uidt)toa Great S ultan ( s uh Anu' I - a" z am )pos ses sin g centralized absolute author-ity. We have mentioned that Bdyezid I sought a patent (manshfir) ofsultanate from the Abbasid Caliph in Egypt. Ibn HAjer tells us that neverbefore Bayezid had any Ottoman ruler been honored with the title ofsultan or malik.tleThe frontier lords, who were strongly bound to the oldtrad.itions, and conservative circles in general, reacted Strenuously tothese developments, reactions which found powerful expression in theanonymous popular chronicles.l2OWith Timur, the traditions of Central Asia were once again broughtback to Anatolia. Timur divided the Ottoman territories among the

The Ottoman Succession = 57sons of Bdyezid as autonomous regions. Under Chelebi Mehemmed(I), who reunited the Ottoman lands under one sultan, the Ottomanstate returned to its natural path of development. Protesting thebreakup of the status quo established by his father, Timnr's sonShahrukh sent a letter to Mehemmed in which he compared theOttoman regime with the Cenral Asian tradition in these noteworthylines: "As required by the Ottoman law (tore ) , you have removed fromcontention all of your brothers. This type of activity between bloodbrothers is not in accordance with the Turco-Mongol (llkhdnt) tradi-tions." Mehemmed I replied,

Your advice with regard to brothers is well taken. Howsver,from the very beginnings of the Ottoman state, our fore-fathers have used the hand of experience to solve theirproblems . . . Onerealmcannot sheltertwopddishAhs. Andin particular, the enemies that surround us are alwayswatching for an opportunity.tt,By the time of Mehemmed I, the cusrom of assigning appanages

(yurtluk) to uncles and brothers, seen in the anecdotes concerning'Osmdn GhAzi, had been totally abandoned. Only the sons of the rulerwere sent to the provinces, and the real conffol in those regions wasin the hands of the tutors (mm) who accompanied the princes. Theseldlds (previously, atabegs) were, for the most part, loyal slaves (kul)who had come up through the palace services. The princes controlledonly those revenues (sdlydne) and ttmdrs which had been assigned tothem by the central authority. Dispensations, similar to pious founda-tions (evlg,df), and freehold land, which Orkhan's son Stileymdn hadlavishly distributed in the frontier province of Koca-eli, were foundonly rarely in later times. In short, these princes were in a vastlydifferent position than that of the tekins and shehzides observed inother Turkish states. B y way of contrast, one might recall that the sonsof Krhch Arslan II ruled their own provinces without consulting rhecentral council (dtvdn).t22In the reigns of BAyezid II and Stileymdn theLawgiver, the practice of assigning sanjaks to princes gave rise to suchextreme crises that finally, in the name of the absolute and centralizedauthority of the Ottoman ruler, modifications were introduced intothis old Turkish practice. First, under Selim II (1566-74) andMurAdIII (1574-95), only eldest sons were assigned a province.Then, under

tI$${


12/17

58 = Halil Inalc*Mehemmed III (1595-1603), even this practice was abandoned' Thepractice of fratricide is yet another example of divergence from oldTurkish traditions of state.When we speak here of fratricide we do not include the executionof brothers orothermembers of the dynasty guilty of rebellion orotheractions deemed to be criminal. Rather, we refer to that practice or lawwhich condones in advance the execution of members of the dynasty'not because they have been shown to be criminally guilty, but becausethey are by their very existence natural contestants for the throne'Among the Arsakids of ancient Iran, where any member of thedynasty Jould rightfully be chosen ruler, the king would executethemembers of his immediate family as a way of ridding himself ofrivals.l23 In the Turkish and Mongol Central Asian steppe states'however, the execution of members of the dynasty was not consideredproper unless they had committed some grave offense. The Ilkhanidbnaran Ozg5 -r gb+l hanged five princes of the royal family in r7,9 6'with the justification that ihey were conspiring against him.tzln 1282Tektidar Ahmed (1282-84) considered the execution of all of hisChristian and Buddhist relatives simply to ensure that none of themwouldcome to the throne. Among the Anatolian Seljuks one finds thesame manner of fratricide as that practiced by the Ottomans' WhenKrhch Arslan II succeeded to the throne (1155) he had his middlebrother, whom he perceived as a rival, drowned.ts GhryaseddinKaykhusrav II held his brothers in prison until he succeeded inproducing a male child, then killed them. In conformity with anancient Turkish custom, they were strangled with a bowstring't2uwriting in about I4g3,Neshri claimed that fratricide was an "oldtradition" among the Ottomans.r2? According to one anecdote, when.Osmdn Ghazi.i-. to power, he took no immediate action against hisrival uncle, but later accused him of disloyalty and had himkilled.l2sNevertheless, it has been established that in both "OsmAn'sand Orkhan's reigns brothers and uncles received appanage s (yurtluk)in diverse regions of the country. It would appear that MurAd I put todeath his two brothers, Khalil and IbrAhim, who revolted againsthim.l2e When his own son, Savjr, raised a revolt and tried to seizepower, Murdd punished him by having him blinded't30It was at Kosova in 1389, where BAyezid I had his brother killed onthe field of battle, that we first encounter the ottomans practicingfratricide simply as a way of eliminating potential rivals for thethrone. A numblr of special circumstances show this action to have

The Onoman Succession = 59been justified and necessary. Ya"k0b was in command of one part ofthe army, and the outcome of the battle with the Serbians could not yetbe determined. Furthermore, it appears that the powerful men of stateplayed a decisive role in bringing Bdyezid to the throne and in havinghis brother killed.r3lThe long and bloody struggle for the throneamong the sons of B6yezid I, and the upheavals caused by rivalclaimants forpower all the way up to 1453, reinforced the opinion thatthe removal of princes from contention was necessary for the safetyand unity of the state. In the course of these struggles, "Is0, Si.ileymAn,M0sd, and finally Mustafd were all eliminated by execution, but theirsons, who succeeded in escaping to Byzantium, Hungary and Alba-nia, all continued seriously to threaten the security of the state. Fromthis point of view the period 1403-7453, because of its far-reachingimplications for Ottoman history, is a period of crucial importance.According to Byzantine chroniclers @ucas and Chalcocondyles), itappears that before his death Mehemmed I took a number of precautionsto ensure that his sons would be spared civil war and inevitable death:Murdd was to be made Beg of Rumelia and Mustaf6 Beg of Anatolia; hissons Y0suf, eight years old, and Mahm0d, a year younger, were,according to an understanding reached with the Byzantines, to beentrusted to the Emperor. MurAd did not, however, hand the children overto Byzantium, but rendered them unfit for the sultanate by depriving themof sight and imprisoning them in Tokat. When he felt that his authority hadbeen well established, he brought them back to Bursa and attempted towin their allegiance.l32 When Mehemmed tr came to the throne, hedrowned his brother Ahmed, who was still an infant.133 Thus it wasMehemmed the Conqueror who frst had his brother, who was innocentunder ordinary circumstances, executed.This same sultan inserted into his law code (kdnfindnme) an articleby which fratricide was made permisstbre (jd'iz.).lsThe social con-science of the time does not seem to have opposed the incorporationof this custom into the law code. Chalcocondyles, speaking of thecrisis of 1444,wrote that there was nothing the people of the ottomanEmpire feared more than internecine warfare.r3sDucas added, "It hasbecome a custom for revolt to break out at each change of Turkishrulers."136 Presumably the common people, the men of state, and theulema all looked with approval upon a measure that wouldprevent thervarring between brothers that had threatened the existence of the stateand opened the way to civil war and the destruction of lives andproperty. In his history, Karamanh Mehemmed Pasha, who was


13/17

60 = Halil InalctkGrand Vizir at the time that Mehemmed the Conqueror's law codewas drawn up, approves of the execution of his brother Yak0b byBdyezid I, saying that had he remained alive, great turmoil would haveresulted.1t Alsonoteworthy is the statement, attributed to Shar0bdArIlyds, who was responsible for the capture and execution of youngMustafA, brother of Murdd II, that

Even if formally I committed tleason, still in essence Iremained loyal. If I had allowed it, these two would haveravaged the entire country by their struggle. Harm to theroyal family is preferable to harm to the public welfare; infact, this action was in line with ancient tradition.138Thereference to "public ord.er" (nizdm-i'dlem),by which fratricide

was justified in the law code of Mehemmed II, merely reiterated thatview.The absence of any principle by which one brother might bepreferred to another meant that neither the army nor the masses hadgrounds forrefusing obedience to whichever actually tookthe throne.l3eFor this reason the most effective weapon in the struggle againstrivalclaimants for the sultanate was the prociamation that these contenderswere not of the Ottoman line, that they were false pretenders (diizme).The Ottomans firmly believed that God determined who wouldpossess the sultanate. When Chelebi Mehemmed, during his cam-paign against his brother M0sd, arrived at Edirne, the townspeoplesaid to him, "We will not surrend,er to you the town and fortress; Godthe beloved being willing, you will confront each other, and whoeverthen receives the devlef (fortune, state power) will also receive theforffess . . . when the Sultan (Mehemmed) heard this, he agreed."ra0War was thought of as an ordeal by which God's decision regardingwho would rule was made known. Mehemmed defeated and killedM0sA. The unhappy fate of the Ottoman princes was always met withresignation, as tlie foreordainedresult of a divine decree, beyond theircontrol. When father and son came face to face in battle order, as didBdyezid II and Selim, and Siileymdn the Lawgiver and MustafA, theybelieved themselves to be not acting of theirown free will, but subjectto an abstract force, to the will of God and devlet'By the fifteenth centllry, as a result of particular historical circum-stances, the concept of royal authority as absolute and indivisible hadbecome established among the Ottomans.l4r No longer was the state

rtr$

$

The Ottoman Succession = 61thought of as the joint property and inheritance of the dynasty. Thepddtshdh was seen, like a caliph or an emperor, as the bearer of anabsolute and abstract authority. State power was believed to manifestitself in the person of one ruler, the unique and absolute source andsupport of positive law and all forms of privilege and dispositions. Inthis interpretation, which equated state and ruler, and in which thenotion of authority pulled immeasurably more weight than did terri-tclrial and human components, the state came to be seen simply as anabsolute and indivisible will. Having removed in this manner thetribal traditions of statehood, in a fashion similar to Roman develop*ment, a notion of absoiute and abstract authority was attained. Thestruggles for the throne which fill the first centuries of Ottomanhistory might, in fact, be interpreted as the clash between the tradi-tional concept and the more rational concept of state and sovereignty.In the later stage of development, the old traditions of statehood lostrelevance and strength to such an extent that the establishment of theprinciple of succession according to seniority was easily realized.

NOTES1. J. von Hammer, Histoire de l'empire ottoman, trans. J. J.Hellert (Paris, 1837),vol. 8, pp.237-38. In the Crimean Khanare, rheeldest succeeded to the throne; see Seyyid Muhammad Riza , Al-sab'u

' s-Sayydr fi AkhbAr-i Mulirk'ut-Tatar, Kazan, 7832, p. 262.2. Friedrich Giese, "Das Seniorat im osmanischenHerrscherhaus e," M i n e tlun g e n z ur O s mant s c he G e s c hi c hte 2 (L925),pp.248-56.3. W. Radloff, Das Kudatkubilik des Jusuf Chass-Hadschtb ausBdlasagun, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1891), p. LII, cited by Giese,"Seniorat," p.249.4. LdszloFerenc, "A kagiin 6s csaliidj a," Korosi CzomaArchivum,3lI (1941), pp. I-39, trans. ,$. Bagtav, "Kagan ve ailesi," Ttirk HukukTarihi Dergisi I (1944), p. 42.5. Z.V. Togan, Umumt Ttirk Tarihine GiriE (Istanbul, 1946),p.42.6. Ibid., p. 57.7. Osman Turan, "Krhg Arslan II," Isldm Ansiklopedisi (citedhereafter as /A), vol. 6, fas. 63 (1954), pp.682-703.8. Ibrahim Kafeso$u, Harezmgahlar Devleti Tartht (485-6171

I 092- 1229) (Ankara, 1956), pp. 84, 92.


14/17

62 = Halil Inalctk9. H. N. Orkun,EskiTiirkYazfilart,vol. I (Istanbul, 1936), p.37 ,ID 16.

10. Giese, "Das Seniorat," p. 250; Orkun, Eski Tilrk Yautlan,p.37,I D 16.1 1. Orkun, ibtd., pp.26-27, I C 9.t2. Inisi kaghan bolmtsh erinch, oghlttt kaghan bolmsh erinch(Orkun, ibtd., p. 30, I D 4-5).13. B. Ogel, "Dopu Gokttirkleri hakknda vesikalar ve notlar,"BelletenZI (1957), p. 87.14. H. Edhem (Eldem), Diivel-i Isldmiyye (Istanbul,1927). This

is a translation, with significant additions, of the work of S. L. Poole,The Mohammadan Dynasties (Westminster, 1 893).

15. E. de Zambaur, Manuel de Gdndalogie et de Chronologtepour l' histoire de I'lslam (Hanover, 1927).16. M. A. Kdymen, "Btiyi.ik Selquklu imperatorlufunun kurulu;u,"Dil ve Tarth-Co[rafya Fakiiltesi Dergist I5lI-3 (1957), p. I20,178ff., l5l4 (1957), pp. 99-100.17. Kafesoflu, Harezmsahlar Devleti, p. 283.18. Ibn Bibi, Al-Awdmiru' IjAla' iyyaft ' l-Umfiri' l'Ala' iyya, ed.

N. Lugal and A.S. Erzi, vol. I (Ankara, 1957), pp. 30-50. OsmanTuran, "Keyhusrev I," IA, vol.6, fasc. 62 (1954), pp. 613-20.19. Ibn Bibi, ed. Lugal and Erzi, vol. 1, p. 109ff.20. Ibid., pp. 159-63; Osman Turan, "Keykubad I," IA, vol. 6,fasc. 63 (1954), pp. 647-61.21. Ibn Bibi, Ibid., pp. 273-78.22. SeeFuad Koprtilii, inTilrk Hukukve lktisatTarihi Mecmuafl,I,p. 184; and idem, "Ortazaffran Tiirk Hukuki Mdessesseleri," in tr. TurkTarih Kongresi (Istanbul, 1943),pp.412-14; Togan, Giti$, p. 330.23. Bertold Spuler, Iran Mogollarl, Turk. trans. C. Kdprtilii(Ankara, 1956), pp. 280-83.24. Ibid., pp. 27 4,27 6.25. M anghol-unNiugaTobga' an (Ytian-cha' ao pi'shi) :Mo gollannGizli Tarihi, trans. A. Temir, vol. I (Ankara, 1948), p. I92.26. Ducas,Bi,zans tarihi,trans. V. Mrrmrro$lu (Istanbul, 1956), p.

84.27 . Donado da Lezze (J. M. Angiolell o), HistoriaTurchesca, ed.I. Ursu (Bucharest, 1909), p. 164: "Seguitando la nostra Historiatornaremo a Baiasit et Gien, figliuoli del Gran Turco, che ciascuno diloro pretendeva di succedere al padre et il tutto era chi fosse primo agiongere a Constantinopoli che facilmente per la maggior parte dalla

The Ottoman Succession = 63corte saria stato accettato, cos'il minore di tempo com'il maggiore,che si havesse havuto il tesoro havrebbe stabilito il tutto."28. Spandugino, Petit Traicti de l'origine des Tu,rcz, ed. Ch.Schefer (Paris, 1896), p.43.29. on the Kok riirks, see orkun , Eskirtirkyantlart,4 vols. onthe Proto-Bulgars, see K. H. Menges, "Altaic elements in the proto-B ulgarian Inscriptio ns," By zantio n, no. 2I ( 1 95 1 ), pp. 8 5- 1 1 8. On theuyghurs, see A. caferoglu, "Tukyu ve uygurlarda Han unvanlan,"Turk Hukukve lkttsatTarihi Mecmuas,, 1, pp. 105-19.30. Orkun, Eski Tilrk Yaatlart, vol. 1, pp. 26-27,I C 9. TheOttoman Sultan Murad IV declared in his accession decree that he hadascended to the throne by the gtace of God, through his "personalabilities, his boundless other all-encompassing talents, and with theunanimous approval of the state dignitaries andreligious authorities."31. A. Temir rrans., pp. 135-36.32. Spuler,lran Mogollan, p.296.33. see Divanti Lttgat-it-Tilrk, rrans. B. Atalay, vol. IV (Ankara,1943), p. 388; the date of writing was 1077.34. ZiyaGdkalp, Tilrk MedeniyetiTarihi,pp. 33, 66,7 Z, l4I, I5g,793, lgg.35. Comparc Z.Y. Togan, Ibn Fadlan's Reisebertcht S-eipzig,1939), Exk. 100a, pp. 77lff.; Abdtilkadir Inan, Tarihte ve bugttnEamanizm: Materyaller ve Arasnrmalar (Ankara, 1954), pp. 37 ,156;among the Seljuks of Anatolia the title Ulugh Kutlugh Inanch Bilgewas used for vizirs (see Ibn Bibi, pp. 1 6,29). In the inshd' manualK av d' idu' r -r e s d' tl v e fer d' idu' I -fe dd' il (see the MS. Esad Efendi no.3369 in the Stileymaniye Library, Istanbul), the trtre Kutlugh Bilgewas used for lords. It appears that the title Oghurlu, used alongsideKutlu among the Seljuks of Anatolia, carried a similar meaning. Thekaghan was killed when disasters befell the state by the Khazars,believing that kut (fortune) had deserted him. In Turkish-Islamicstates, among them that of the Ottomans, the word kut lost its oldshamanist significance and took on an Islamic content, in many casesbeing interchangeable with milbarek.36. B. Y. vladimirtsov, cengtz Han, rrans. H.A. Ediz (Istanbul,1950), p. 54.37. See osman Turan, "Cingiz adr hakkrnda," Beileten 5 (1941),pp. 267 -7 6.

38. No clear and concise conclusions have been reachecl concern-ing the titles Kaghan, Ka'an, Kapkan, Khan, and Khakan, thetr


15/17

64 = Halil Inalctkorigins and meaning. See L6szlo, "Kagan ve ailesi," F' Altheim andR. Stiehl, "Qagan un.l V.t*andtes," Sildost-F orschungen 15 (1956),pp. 69-85. With regard to Denis Sinor's thesis concerning thedistinction betwee n gopgon and Qavqon (sinor, "Qapqan," Journalof the Royal Asiattc Soc'iity l|gsal, pp. 17 4-84),we note that in a letterwritten to Shahrukh, Sultan Murad II usecl the title Khavkan (see theMS. of the tnshd' manual of Sal Abdullah' Esad Efendi no' 3333' p'364, in the stiteymaniye Library, Istanbul). See also A. Cafero[lu,"Han unvanlarl," PP. 1I7 -I9.39. Togan, Ibn F adlan, Exk' 100a'40. B. 6gel, ,.Do[u Gdktiirkleri," p. g7, from the chou-Shou.41. See Mustafa K6ymen, "Hsiung-nu'lann Tuku (T'u-ko)kabilesi," DtlveTarih-CiPrafya Fakultesi Dergisi 3lI (1944), p' 56;omeljan Pritsak, "Die sogennante bulgarische Fijrstenliste und dieSprache der Protobul garen," (J r aI- Altai s c lrc J al rb uc h 26 I 3 - 4 ( 1 9 5 4)'pp.219-220.42. Spuler,lran Mogollarl, P. 280'43.Togan, GiriS, P. 405.44. Pritsak, "Sogennante," p.220.45. Liu Mau-Tsa i, Die chinesischen Nachrtchten zur Geschichteder O st-Ttirken (T' u-kl)e ). Gottinge n asiatts c he n F ors c hungen' v oI'10 (Wiesbaden, 1958), P. 5.' 46. n. o get, "uy gurlarln men $e efs ane si, " D il v e T ar t h- c o lr afy aF aktiltesi D er gisi, 6l I -2 (19 41), pp. 20-22'

47 . A. Temir trans., P. 8'48. E. Herzfeld,.Alango a,,, Der lslam 6( 1915), pp.322ff. Herzfeldrejects the theory of a relationship between-the Alangoa legend andthe story of Mary, the mother of i.trt (the thesis of Ostrup), findingrather a connection to the Alexander tradition'49. ogel, .,uygurlann menge efsanesi," p. 97 . The motif of theprincess who marries God, manifested in the form of a wolf, appearsamong the Kao-ches.

5 0. M. Fu ad Kdpriilti zade,T tir k E deb iy att T ar i hi (Istanbul, 1920)'pp. 56-75. B. Y. Vladimirtsov, ibid., ffans' Abdiilkadir Inan, p. 84.On the diffusion of the wolf legend, see Inan, "Tijrk rivAyetlerinde'Boz-kurt'," tbid.,Tt)rktyat MecmuastZ (1926), p' 131'51. Goka\p,Ttirk Medeniyeti Tarihi, pp' 88, 193'52. The title "son of the Heavens God" for the emperor waswidespread within Far Eastern cultural bounds. The Turkish andChinese interpretations of sovereignty have not been sufficiently

The Otmman Succession = 65researched. on the chinese concept of state and sovereignty, see o.Franke, Aus Kultur und Geschichte chinas (peking, D+s;, "pp.27l-3rz.

53. Togan,lbn Fadlan, Exk. 100a, pp.273ff .54. Herzfeld, "Alango&,', p.322.55. "Abdulgaffar, ""lJrndetu' t-tevarih," T7EM, supplement, p.204; Abdtilkadir Inan, "orun ve ultig Meselesi ,,, TtirE Hukuk veIktisat Tarihi Mecmuay l, p. lZ5.56. see H. Inalcrk, "The Rise of ottoman Historiography," His-torians of the Middle East, eds. B. Lewis and p. M. Holi (London.1962), pp. I 52-67.51 . P . wittek, citing Ibn al-Fur6t, in "Le sultan de RDm ,,, Annuairede l'lnstitut Orientale, 6 (1938) Brussels .58. rbid.59. See note 57.60. The most comprehensive study of these genealogies is that ofPaul wittek, The Rise of the ottoman Empire (t-onoon, 1936); seealso M. Fuad Kciprtilti, "osmanh Imparatorlu[u,nun Etnik MengeiMes'eleleri," B elleten J (1943),pp. 2g4_303.61. on the work of yanjrzade "Ali, Tdrikh-i At-t setiuk (see theMS. Revan no. 1390, in the Topkap Sarayr Library, Istanbur), seeA. S. Erzi, "Ibn Bibi," 1A,5, fas. 47 (1950), pp.7lS_I7.62. Halil Edhem (Eldem), Meskilkdt-i osmdnqyye (Istanbul, 1934),pp. 58, 68; M. Fuad Kopriilti, "Ernik Mengei," p.294;Faruk Stimer,"Kay1," 1A,6, fasc. 60 (1953), pp. 461-62.63. The invasions of the Mongols and of Timur left a deepimpression on the Islamic world. similar developments were seen inthe Maghreb and in Spain. These developm.nt, iunnor but have hadan impacr on rhe thought of Ibn Khald0n, who assigned a major roleto tribal solidarity in the establishment of the srate. yazrjnddJ *.or","whether Arab, Persian or Turk, kings emerge from the nomadic

e lements of each nation. Ail who study histoiies are aware of thisunderlying fact."64. see M. Halil yrnang, "Bayezid r," 1A,2, fasc. 15 (1 943),pp.369-92.65. In "Aziz Astarabddi's Bazm u Razm, dedicatecl to KadiBurhdneddin (ed. Istanbul, lg2i, p. 3g2), rhe son of .osman isconsidered a "simple Mongol." But this source considers nomadic\{ongol and rurk to be the same; compare p. 340. And according toTimur's offical chronicle , the zaferndme (irans. N. Lugal [Anklra,


16/17

66 = Halil Inalc*19401 ,p.260) he is reported as saying to Bdyezid I, "We know yourorigins and ancestors . . . you are making grandiose claims."66. ShiikruIldh, Behietti ' t-tevdrtkh (Istanbul , 1949), p. 5 1 .67. Letterfrom Murdd to Shdhrukh, MS. EsadEfendi no. 3333, f.23a-28b;note also the letters reproduced in the Milnshe' dtu' s'Saldttnof Feridun Beg, vol. 1 (Istanbul , L27 411857) pp. 150, 192. See alsomy "Murad II," IA vol. 8, fasc. 86 (1959), pp. 598-615.

68. Ibn Tagribirdt, An-nuifim az-2dhira, ed. Popper, vol. VI-2, p.734.69. Oruj, at the beginning of the Manisa MS.70. See M. Tayyib Gokbil gtn, Rumeli'de Yiirtikler, Tatarlar veEvldd-i Fdtihdn (Istanbul , 1957); O. L. Barkan, "Osmanh Impa-ratorlu$unda bir IskAn ve Kolonizasyon Metodu olarak Stirgtinler,"Iktisat Fakilltesi Mecmuasl 15, map.71. 'Ashrk Pasha-zdde, Tevdrtkh-t At-t 'Osmdn, ed. FriedrichGiese, D i e al to s ma ni s c he C hr o nik de s' AS ikp a S az ade (Leipzi g, 1929),pp. 34-35; idem, Die altosmanischen anonymen Chrontken, vol. I(Breslau, L922), p. 31.72. Seeabove, note 51; on the tree motif see B. Ogel, "Uygurlarnmen$e efs anesi, " p. 20; Zty aG okalp, T tir k M e de niy e ti T ar ihi, pp. 5 4'69, 7 r, 94.73.M. Fuad Kdprtili.i, Les ortgines de l'empire ottoman (Paris,1935), p.23.74.H.A.R. Gibb, "Constitutional Organization," in Law tn theMiddle East, ed. Khadduri and Liebesny (Washington, 1955), p-2I.But Gibb adds the influence of ancient Iran.75. See Liu Mau-Tsai, Chinesischen Nachrichten, p. 44.76. Ibn Bibi, p.273.

77 . Nes h ri, Gthannilma. D te alt o smani s c he C hr o nik de s M ev I anaMehemmed NeschrI, ed. Franz Taeschner, vol. 1, (Leipzig, 1951), p.25. 78. 'Ashrk Pasha- zdde, ed. Giese , p. 34.79. Oruj, Tevdrtkh-i At-i "Osmdn, ed. Franz Babinger, Dte frtih-osmantschen Jahrbilcher des Urudscft (Flannover, 1925), p.26.80. See Liu Mau-Tsai, C hinesischen Nachrichten, pp- 44-45'81. Spuler, op.cit., pp.276-17.

82. Ibn Hajer, Anbd'ul-Ghurnr, trans. $evkiye Inalctk, Dil veTarih-CoPrafya Fakultesi Dergisi 6 (1948), events of 199 A.H.83. Pritsak, "Sogennante," pp. 218ff.

The Ottoman Succession = 6784. c. Alinge, "Mogol Kanunlan," trans. c. Ugok, Ankara HukukFakilltesi Mecmuasr 1 1 ( 1954), pp. 297 -98.85. rbid.86. Vladimirtsov, op. cit., p. 86, note 84.87. Togan, GiriE, pp.278-79.88. M. A. Kdymen, "Kurulug," p. 119.89. Osman Turan, "KrhE Arslan II," p. 696.90. Togan, GiriS, pp. 201 ,278.91. Inan, "Orun ve Ultig meselesi," p. IZ7.92.Ibn Battuta, trans. $erif pag, vol. 1, pp. 311-56.93. see I. H. UzunEarg:|'r, osmanh Devleti reskildnna Medhal(Istanbul, 1941), pp. 143-86; H. Edhem , Dilvel-i Isldmiyye,pp.269-320.94. Neshri, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, pp. 32-34.95.'osman's campaign resulted in a victory over Muzalon atBapheus. Pachymeres' Bapheus must be identical with the battle de-scribed by Neshri (p. 32) under the heading "lstiklaLi "osmdnGhdzt'. Bapheus must have been located between yalova and Izmit.Since Hammer this place has been misidentified with Koyun-hisan,

with the result that all the information on the battle of Koyun-hisan,which opened the way to the ottoman invasion of the Bursa plain, wasmistakenly transferred to the battle of Bapheus.96. Neshri, ed. Taeschner, vol. I,p.46.97 . Ibid., p. 43.98. oruj, p. 15. Khalil and Ibrdhim hadprobably nor yerbeen bornat that time.99. Neshri, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1,p.47.100. Sa'deddin, Tdju' t-tevdrtkh, vol.1 (Istanbul, l27g), p. 100.101. See Ahmedi, Iskenderndme, ed. N. S. Banarh, "Ahmedi veDasitan-i Tevdrikh-i At-i osman," Ti)rkiyat Mecmuasr 6 (1939), pp.r19-20.

102. Ogel, "UygurDevletinin Tegekktil ve yiikselig Devri,"B elleten,19 (1955), p.351.103. Mogollarm GizliTarihi, trans. A. Temir, p. 96.I04.lbid, p. 191.105. Spuler,lran Mogollarr, pp. 280-81.106. Osman Turan, "Krhg Arslan II,,,p. 688.107. The ottoman law required that not only the appointmentdiplomas of officials and military personnel, but ali documents related


17/17

68 = Halil Inalctkto land possession as well, be renewed by the new sultan. For thisreason the Ottoman lands were, in principle, to be resurveyed at theaccession of each new sultan. Thus, all laws originating in thepersonal decree of the sultan were affirmed. Likewise, foreign stateswere obliged to renew their treaties with the new sultan. On theconcept of law among the Ottomans, see my "Osmanh hukukunagirig," Siyasal Bilgiler Faktiltesi Dergisi 13 (1958), pp. 106-107.

108. One example from the Seljuks of Anatolia is the rebellion ofthe sons of Krhg Arslan II against their father.1 09. "Ashrk Pasha- zdde, 30.110. Neshri, ed. Taeschner, vol. I,p.43.L I I . B e hj et' t- tev drtkh, ed.Th. Seif i n M itteilung e n zLff o smani s c heGeschichte 1 (1920), p. 45; compare Omj, ed. Babinger, p. 45;Anonymous, ed. Giese, vol. 1, p. 55; Neshri, ed. Taeschner, p. 147. OnMurAd I, see Ibn Hajer, Anbd' ii l-Ghumr, p. 350.112. See my Fatih Devri izerinde Tetktkler tte Vesikalar, vol l(Ankara, 1954), p. 106.1 13. Inan, op. cit., p. 127 . Among the KrrghLz,, onthe death of thekhan the elder brother succeeded to the throne, or in his absence the

eldest son, and in his absence the brother's eldest son.1 14. "Ashrk Pasha- zdde, ed. Giese , p.34.1 15. Neshri, ed. Taeschner, p. 43.116. This has been noted among the KdkTtirks, see above. Onother Turkish states, see H. Edhem (Eldem), Duvel-i Isldmiyye, pp.zl8, 223, 226, 235 , 241 .117. Al-Ayni,"lkdu 'l-Jumdn, events of 807, 813 and 8i4 A.H.118. There is no reliable study of Savjr, concerning whom theOttoman narratives and Byzantine sollrces differ with regard tofundamental points. According to Chalcocondyles the events tookplace in Rumelia, and the frontier lords in that region played a majorrole; see N. Jorga, GOR,I,25l-52.119. Anbd' ti' l-Gumr, p. I92.120. Anonymous, ed. Giese (Breslau, t922), pp. 31ff.121. Feridun Beg, op. cit., vol. 1,pp. 151,-52.122. Ibn Bibi, p. 3 1.123. A. Christensen, L'lran sous les Sassanides (Copenhagen,

1944), p. 24.1 24. S pu \er, op . c it., pp. 107,,27 4.As soon as Oljeytti received the news

of the death of his brother GhAzAn Khan, he had his uncle's sons, Alafrenkand Horkodak, whom he considered rivals, killed (Spuler, p. 119).

The Omoman Succession = 69125. Osman Turan, "Krhg Arslan II," p. 682.126. The tradition of strangling with a bowstring rarher thanspilling the blood of a member of the dynasty was, on the one hand,connected with the tribal blood taboo. M. Fuad Koprtitti (in TilrkHukukTarihi Dergisi, I Ug44l,pp. 1-9) has traced this tradition to thebelief, among the Turks and the Mongols, that "the d.ynasty was ofdivine origin," and its blood was holy.127. Neshf, ed. Taeschner, 1, p. 153.l28. Ibid , pp. 25, 29.129 . rn the v alcftyye of orkhan G hAzA dated the end of Re bf ti' l-6hrr749 A.H. (Argiv Krlavuzu [Istanbul, 1938], plate 1), his sons are, inorder, Siileyman, Murad, Khalil and Ibrdhim. I. H. uzunganh (os-manh rarihi,I, 160) was of the opinion that when Murad took thethrone he did away with Khalil and IbrAhim.130. See above, note 118.131. Neshri, ed. Taeschner, vol. 1, p. 83; Anonymous, ed. Giese,v

ottoman succession

Documents