The custom of killing brothers in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire - the history of the rise and fall of the state. Escape from punishment

The Ottoman Empire, or as it was often called in Europe the Ottoman Empire, for many centuries remained a country - a mystery, full of the most unusual and, at times, terrible secrets.

At the same time, the Sultan's palace was the center of the "darkest" secrets, which were by no means disclosed to guests and "business" partners. It was here that the most bloody dramas and events were hidden behind external luxury and splendor.

The law legalizing fratricide, keeping the heirs of the throne in harsh conditions, massacres and running a race with the executioner as a way to avoid execution - all this was once practiced on the territory of the empire. And later they tried to forget about all this, but ...

Fratricide as a law (Law of Fatih)

The internecine struggle of the heirs to the throne was characteristic of many countries. But in Porto, the situation was complicated by the fact that there were no legalized rules for succession to the throne - each of the sons of the deceased ruler could become a new sultan.

For the first time, in order to strengthen his power, the blood of the brothers decided to shed the grandson of the founder Ottoman Empire Murad I. Later, Bayezid I, nicknamed Lightning, also used his experience of getting rid of rivals.

Sultan Mehmed II, who went down in history as the Conqueror, went much further than his predecessors. He elevated fratricide to the level of the law. This law ordered the ruler who ascended the throne, in without fail take the lives of their brothers.

The law was adopted with the tacit consent of the clergy and existed for about 2 centuries (until mid-seventeenth in).

Shimshirlik or cage for shehzade

After deciding to abandon the Law on Fratricide, the Ottoman sultans invented another way to deal with potential contenders for the throne - they began to imprison all shehzades in Kafes (“cells”) - special rooms located in the main palace of the empire - Topkapi.

Another name for the "cell" is shimshirlik. Here the princes were constantly under reliable protection. As befits the heir to the throne, they were surrounded by luxury and all sorts of amenities. But all this splendor was surrounded on all sides by high walls. And the gates to shimshirlik were closed with heavy chains.

Shehzade were deprived of the opportunity to go outside the doors of their "golden cage" and communicate with anyone, which negatively affected the psyche of the young princes.

Only in the second half of the XVIII century. the heirs to the throne received some indulgences - the walls of the cell became a little lower, more windows appeared in the room itself, and the shehzade himself was sometimes allowed to go out in order to escort the Sultan to another palace.

Maddening silence and endless intrigue

Despite the unlimited power, the sultan in the palace did not live much better than shehzade in shimshirlik.

According to the rules that existed at that time, the Sultan was not supposed to talk a lot - he had to spend his time thinking and thinking about the good of the country.

In order for the sultans to talk as little as possible, a special system of gestures was even developed.

Sultan Mustafa I, having ascended the throne, tried to oppose the system and establish a ban on this rule. However, the viziers did not support their ruler and he had to put up with it. As a result, the Sultan soon went mad.

One of Mustafa's favorite activities was walking along the seashore. During the promenade, he threw coins into the water so that "at least the fish could spend them somewhere."

Along with this order of behavior, numerous intrigues added tension to the palace atmosphere. They never stopped - the struggle for power and influence went on around the clock, 365 days a year. Everyone took part in it - from viziers to eunuchs.

Ambassadors at Topkapi Palace.

Artist Jean Baptiste Vanmour

Combination of positions

Until about the 15th century, there were no executioners at the courts of the Ottoman sultans. However, this does not mean that there were no executions. The duties of executioners were performed by ordinary gardeners.

The most common type of execution was beheading. However, the viziers and relatives of the Sultan were executed by strangulation. It is not surprising that gardeners in those days were selected those who not only mastered the art of caring for flowers and plants, but also possessed significant physical strength.

It is noteworthy that the executions of the guilty and those who were considered as such were carried out right in the palace. In the main palace complex of the empire, two columns were specially installed, on which severed heads were placed. A fountain was provided nearby, intended exclusively for executioner gardeners, who washed their hands in it.

Subsequently, the posts of palace gardener and executioner were divided. Moreover, deaf people were selected for the position of the latter - so that they could not hear the moans of their victims.

Escape from punishment

The only way to avoid death for high-ranking officials of the Porte, starting from late XVIII century, was to learn to run fast. They could save their lives only by running away from the chief gardener of the Sultan through the palace gardens.

It all started with the invitation of the vizier to the palace, where they were already waiting for him with a goblet of frozen sherbet. If the color of the proposed drink was white, then the official received a temporary reprieve and could try to correct the situation.

If there was a red liquid in the goblet, which meant a death sentence, then the vizier had no choice but to run without looking back to the gate on the opposite side of the garden. Anyone who managed to reach them before the gardener could consider himself saved.

The difficulty was that the gardener was usually much younger than his rival, and more prepared for this kind of exercise.

However, several viziers still managed to emerge victorious from the deadly race. One of the lucky ones turned out to be Haji Salih Pasha - the last one who had such a test.

Subsequently, the successful and fast-running vizier became the governor of Damascus.

Vizier - the cause of all troubles

Viziers in the Ottoman Empire special position. Their power was practically unlimited and was second only to the Sultan's power.

However, sometimes approaching the ruler and the possession of power played a cruel joke with the viziers - often high-ranking officials were made "scapegoats". They were "hung" with responsibility for literally everything - for an unsuccessful military campaign, famine, impoverishment of the people, etc.

No one was immune from this, and no one could know in advance what and when he was accused. It got to the point that many viziers began to constantly carry their own wills with them.

The obligation to pacify the crowd also represented a considerable danger for the officials - it was the viziers who negotiated with the disgruntled people, who often came to the Sultan's palace with demands or discontent.

Affairs of love or the Sultan's harem

One of the most exotic and at the same time "secret" places of the Topkapi Palace was the Sultan's harem. During the heyday of the empire, it was a whole state within a state - up to 2 thousand women lived here at the same time, most of whom were slaves bought in slave markets or abducted from territories controlled by the Sultan.

Only a few had access to the harem - those who guarded the women. strangers, who dared to look at the concubines and wives of the Sultan, were executed without trial or investigation.

Most of the inhabitants of the harem might never even see their master, but there were those who not only often visited the Sultan's chambers, but also had a rather strong influence on him.

The first woman who managed to force the ruler of the empire to listen to her opinion was a simple girl from Ukraine Alexandra Lisovskaya, better known as Roksolana or Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska Sultan. Once in the harem of Suleiman I, she captivated him so much that he made her his lawful wife and his adviser.

In the footsteps of Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska, the Venetian beauty Cecilia Venier-Baffo, the concubine of Sultan Selim II, also followed. In the empire, she bore the name Nurbanu Sultan and was the beloved wife of the ruler.

It was with Nurbanu Sultan, according to historians - experts in the Ottoman Empire, that the period that went down in history as the "women's sultanate" began. During this period, almost all the affairs of the state were in the hands of women.

Nurban was replaced by her compatriot Sofia Baffo or Safiye Sultan.

The concubine went furthest, and then the wife of Ahmed I Mahpeyker or Kesem Sultan. After the death of the ruler, who made Kesem his lawful wife, she ruled the empire for almost 30 years as regent, first for her sons, and then for her grandson.

The last representative of the "female sultanate" Turhan Sultan, who eliminated her predecessor and mother-in-law Kesem. She, like Roksolana, was from Ukraine, and before she got into the Sultan's harem she was called Nadezhda.

blood tax

The third ruler of the Ottoman Empire, Murad I, went down in history not only as a sultan who legalized fratricide, but also as the "inventor" of devshirme or blood tribute.

Devshirme was taxed by the inhabitants of the empire who did not profess Islam. The essence of the tax was that boys aged 12-14 were periodically selected from Christian families to serve the Sultan. Most of those selected became janissaries or went to work on farms, others ended up in the palace and could "reach" to very high government positions.

However, before being sent to work or service, the young men were forcibly converted to the Islamic faith.

The reason for the appearance of devshirme was the distrust of the Sultan to his Turkic environment. Sultan Murad and many of his followers believed that converted Christians, deprived of parents and home, would serve much more zealously and be more faithful to their master.

It is worth noting that the corps of the Janissaries was indeed the most faithful and effective in the army of the Sultan.

Slavery

Slavery was widespread in the Ottoman Empire from the first days of its creation. Moreover, the system lasted until late XIX in.

Most of the slaves were slaves brought from Africa and the Caucasus. Also among them were many Russians, Ukrainians and Poles taken prisoner during the raids.

It is noteworthy that according to existing laws, a Muslim could not become a slave - this was the "prerogative" exclusively of people of a non-Muslim faith.

Slavery in Porto differed significantly from its European counterpart. It was easier for Ottoman slaves to gain freedom and even achieve a certain amount of influence. But at the same time, the treatment of slaves was much more cruel - slaves died by the millions from hard overwork and terrible working conditions.

Many researchers believe that after the abolition of slavery, there were practically no immigrants from Africa or the Caucasus as evidence of the high mortality among slaves. And this despite the fact that they were brought into the empire by the millions!

Ottoman genocide

In general, the Ottomans were quite loyal to representatives of other faiths and nationalities. However, in some cases, they changed their usual democracy.

So, under Selim the Terrible, a massacre of Shiites was organized, who dared not recognize the Sultan as the defender of Islam. More than 40,000 Shiites and their families died as a result of the "purge". Settlements where they lived were wiped off the face of the earth.

Procession of the Sultan in Istanbul

Artist Jean Baptiste van Moore.

The more the influence of the empire decreased, the less the tolerance of the sultans towards other peoples living on the territory of the empire became less.

By the 19th century massacres became practically the norm of life in the Porte. The system reached its peak in 1915, when more than 75% of the Armenian population of the country was destroyed (over 1.5 million people died as a result of the genocide).

Cruel customs of the Ottomans

Almost all the laws by which the Ottomans lived for many centuries were created by Mehmed the Conqueror. These rules, in particular, allowed the Sultan to kill the entire male half of his relatives in order to secure the throne for his own offspring. The result of this in 1595 was a terrible bloodshed, when Mehmed III, on the moralizing of his mother, executed nineteen of his brothers, including babies, and ordered seven pregnant concubines of his father to be tied in bags and drowned in the Sea of Marmara.

« After the funeral of the princes, crowds of people gathered near the palace to watch the mothers of the murdered princes and the wives of the old sultan leave their homes. For their export, all carriages, carriages, horses and mules that were available in the palace were used. In addition to the wives of the old sultan, under the protection of eunuchs, twenty-seven of his daughters and more than two hundred odalisques were sent to the Old Palace ... There they could mourn their murdered sons as much as they wanted, ” writes Ambassador G.D. Rosedale in Queen Elizabeth and the Levantine Company (1604).

How did the sultan brothers live?

In 1666, Selim II softened such harsh laws by his decree. Under the new decree, the rest of the heirs were allowed to live life, but until the death of the ruling sultan, they were forbidden to participate in public affairs.

From that moment on, the princes were kept in a cafe (golden cage), a room adjacent to the harem, but reliably isolated from it.

Kafesas

Kafesas literally translates as a cage, they also called this room as a "Cold cage". The princes lived in luxury, but they could not even get out of there. Often, potential heirs living in cafes began to go crazy locked up and ended their lives by suicide.

Life in a golden cage.

The whole life of the princes passed without any connection with other people, except for a few concubines who had their ovaries or uterus removed. If, due to someone's oversight, a woman became pregnant from an imprisoned prince, she was immediately drowned in the sea. The princes were guarded by guards whose eardrums were pierced and their tongues cut. This deaf-mute guard could become, if necessary, the murderers of imprisoned princes.

Life in the Golden Cage was a torture of fear and torment. The unfortunate did not know anything about what was happening outside the walls of the Golden Cage. At any moment, the sultan or the palace conspirators could kill everyone. If the prince survived in such conditions and became the heir to the throne, he was most often simply not ready to rule a huge empire. When Murad IV died in 1640, his brother and successor Ibrahim I was so frightened by the crowd rushing into the Golden Cage to proclaim him the new Sultan that he barricaded himself in his chambers and did not come out until they brought and showed him the body of the dead Sultan. Suleiman II, having spent thirty-nine years in a cafe, became a real ascetic and became interested in calligraphy. Already being a sultan, he more than once expressed a desire to return to this quiet occupation in solitude. Other princes, like the aforementioned Ibrahim I, having broken free, indulged in wild revelry, as if taking revenge on fate for the ruined years. golden cage devoured its creators and turned them into slaves.

Each residence in the "Golden Cage" consisted of two or three rooms. The princes were forbidden to leave them, each had separate servants.

Any empire rests not only on military conquests, economic strength and powerful ideology. An empire cannot exist for a long time and develop effectively without a stable system of succession to the supreme power. What anarchy can lead to in an empire can be traced to the example of the Roman Empire during its decline, when virtually anyone who offered more money to the Praetorians, the capital guard, could become emperor. In the Ottoman Empire, the question of the order of coming to power was regulated primarily by the Fatih law, cited by many as an example of cruelty and political cynicism.

The Fatih law of succession came about thanks to one of the most famous and successful sultans of the Ottoman Empire , Mehmed II (r. 1444-1446, 1451-1481). The respectful epithet "Fatih", that is, the Conqueror, was given to him by admiring subjects and descendants as recognition of his outstanding merits in expanding the territory of the empire. Mehmed II really did his best, having carried out numerous victorious campaigns both in the East and in the West, primarily in the Balkans and in Southern Europe. But his main military act was the capture of Constantinople in 1453. By that time, the Byzantine Empire had actually ceased to exist, its territory was controlled by the Ottomans. But the fall of the great city, the capital of a monumental empire, was a momentous event that marked the end of one era and the beginning of the next. The era in which the Ottoman Empire had a new capital, renamed Istanbul, and she herself became one of the leading forces in the international arena.

However, there are many conquerors in the history of mankind, much less than the great conquerors. The greatness of the conqueror is measured not only by the scale of the lands conquered by him or the number of enemies killed. First of all, it is a concern to preserve what has been conquered and turn it into a powerful and prosperous state. Mehmed II Fatih was a great conqueror - after many victories, he thought about how to ensure the stability of the empire in the future. First of all, this required a simple and clear system of inheritance of power. By that time, one of the mechanisms had already been developed. It was concluded in principle, on which the life of the Sultan's harem was built - "one concubine - one son." Sultans very rarely entered into official marriages, usually concubines gave birth to children. So that one concubine does not receive too much influence and does not start intrigues against sons from other concubines, she could have only one son from the Sultan. After his birth, she was no longer allowed to have intimacy with the master. Moreover, when the son reached a more or less sane age, he was appointed governor in one of the provinces - and his mother had to accompany him.

In politics, brothers are the most dangerous

Nevertheless, difficulties with the succession to the throne still remained - the sultans were not limited in terms of the number of concubines, so they could have many sons. Taking into account the fact that every adult son could be considered a full-fledged heir, the struggle for future power often began even before the death of the previous sultan. In addition, even having received power, the new sultan could not be completely calm, knowing that his brothers were capable of revolting at any moment. Mehmed II himself, having finally come to power, resolved this issue simply and radically - he killed his half-brother, a potential rival in the struggle for power. And then he issued a law according to which the Sultan, after ascending the throne, has the right to execute his brothers in order to preserve the stability of the state and in order to avoid future rebellions.

Fatih law in the Ottoman Empire formally acted for more than four centuries, until the end of the existence of the sultanate, abolished in 1922. At the same time, one should not make a fanatic out of Mehmed II, who allegedly bequeathed to his descendants to mercilessly destroy all brothers. The Fatih law did not say that each new sultan was obliged to kill his closest relatives. And many sultans did not resort to such drastic measures. However, this law gave the head of the empire the right to ensure the political stability of the entire state through such intra-family “bleeding”. By the way, this law was not a cruel whim of a maniac sultan: it was approved by the legal and religious authorities of the Ottoman Empire, who considered that such a measure was justified and expedient. The Fatih law was often used by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire. So, during his accession to the throne in 1595, Sultan Mehmed III ordered the death of 19 brothers. However, the last case of the application of this extraordinary legal norm was noted long before the fall of the empire: in 1808, Murad II, who came to power, ordered the murder of his brother, the previous Sultan Mustafa IV.

Fatih law: laws and serials

It is unlikely that such a large number of non-Turkish people, that is, those who did not study the acts of Mehmed II in the school history course, would have remembered the Fatih law in our time, if it were not for the notorious TV series “The Magnificent Age”. The fact is that the scriptwriters made the Fatih law one of the main plot springs of the whole story. According to the script, Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska, the famous concubine and beloved wife of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, began to weave her intrigues against other concubines and the eldest son of Sultan Suleiman. At the same time, her main activity was directed precisely against the Fatih law on succession to the throne. The logic was this: Sultan Suleiman had an eldest son born to another concubine. Therefore, it was he who had the most high chances take the father's throne. In this case, the new sultan could use the law of Fatih and kill his brothers, the sons of Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska.

Therefore, Hürrem Sultan allegedly sought to get Suleiman to repeal this law. When the Sultan did not want to repeal the law even for the sake of his beloved wife, she redirected her activities. Not being able to abolish the law as a threat to her sons, she decided to abolish the root cause - and began to intrigue against her eldest son Suleiman in order to discredit him in the eyes of his father, and, if possible, destroy him. This activity led to the strengthening of the influence of Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska, which thus became the ancestor of the tradition that is known in the history of the Ottoman Empire as the "Women's Sultanate".

The version as a whole is interesting and not devoid of logic, however, it is just an artistic version. Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska is not an activist of the "Women's Sultanate", this phenomenon, characterized by the great influence of harem women on the political situation in the country and even on the supreme power, arose half a century after her death.

In addition, it is again worth remembering that the Fatih law did not provide for the inevitable reprisal of the Sultan over the brothers. It is characteristic that in some cases the law was circumvented: for example, in 1640, before his death, Sultan Murad IV ordered the death of his brother. However, the order was not carried out, since if it was carried out, there would be no direct heirs in the male line. True, the next sultan went down in history as Ibrahim I the Crazy, so the big question is whether the order was not followed correctly - but that's another story ...

Alexander Babitsky

Fatih law- the law of the Ottoman Empire, allowing one of the heirs to the throne to kill the rest in order to prevent wars and unrest.

Law of fratricide

Wording

"The law of fratricide" is contained in the second chapter ( bāb-ı sānī) Eve-name of Mehmed II. Two versions of the wording of the law, preserved in the sources, have only minor spelling and stylistic differences from each other. The following is a version from a text published by Mehmed Erif Bey in 1912:

Original text (pers.)

و هر کمسنه یه اولادمدن سلطنت میسر اوله قرنداشلرین نظام عالم ایچون قتل ایتمك مناسبدر اکثر علما دخی تجویز ایتمشدر انکله عامل اولهلر

Original text (tur.)

Ve her kimseye evlâdımdan saltanat müyesser ola, karındaşların Nizâm-ı Âlem için katl eylemek münasiptir. Ekser ûlema dahi tecviz etmiştir. AnInla amil olalar

Texts

The so-called Fatih law on fratricide can be found in Mehmed II's Qanunnam in the second part, setting out the rules of the court and state organization. The text of Kanun-name has not come down to us in the original language, only copies of the 17th century have survived. For a long period, the opinion was expressed that Mehmed could not legalize fratricide. The doubters believed that the Europeans invented this law and falsely attributed it to Fatih. The supposedly irrefutable proof of this, from their point of view, was the fact that the law existed for a long time in the only list of Kanun-name in the archives of Vienna. However, during the research, other specimens dating back to the times of the Ottoman Empire were found. Historians Khalil Inaldjik and Abdulkadir Ozjan showed that Kanun-name, except for a small part of it, was created by Fatih, but the lists that have survived to this day contain inclusions dating back to the reign of Fatih's son and his successor Bayazid II.

Two identical manuscripts in the Austrian National Library, Vienna (Cod. H. O. 143 and Cod. A. F. 547). One manuscript, dated March 18, 1650, was published in 1815 by Josef Hammer under the title "Codex of Sultan Mohammed II" and was translated into German with omissions. About a century later, Mehmed Arif Bey published the text of an older manuscript dated October 28, 1620, titled Ḳānūnnnāme-i āl-i’Os̠mān("Code of the Ottomans"). Copies other than these two were unknown until the discovery of the second volume of Koji Hussain's unfinished chronicle. Beda'i'u l-veḳā "i, "Foundation Times". Koca Hussain, in his own words, used records and texts stored in the archives.

A copy of the chronicle (518 sheets, in Nesta'lī Du-Duktus, sheet dimensions 18 x 28.5 cm, 25 lines per page) was bought from a private collection in 1862 in St. Petersburg and ended up in the Leningrad branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, where it is stored (NC 564). The first facsimile publication of this manuscript, after a lengthy preparation, took place in 1961.

Another, shorter and incomplete list of Kanun-name (which lacks the law of fratricide) can be found in the work of Hezarfen Husayn-efendi (died 1691) in Telshiyu l-bekan-fa-āavānīn-i āl-i'Os̠mān ", "Summary of explanations of the laws of the House of Osman". According to the preface, it was written by a certain Leysad Mehmed b. Mustafa, head of the State Chancellery (tevvi'i) in three sections or chapters. The creation of the manuscript dates back to the time when Karamanli Mehmed Pasha (1477-1481) was the grand vizier.

One of the first Ottoman chroniclers who commented on Kanunname and quoted him was Mustafa Ali Efendi (1541-1600).

Succession and dynastic assassinations

Before the introduction of the Fatih Law

For a long time after the formation of the Ottoman state in the ruling dynasty, there was no direct transfer of power from one ruler to the next. In the east, in particular, in the countries of dar al Islam, as a legacy of nomadic times, a system was preserved in which all family members descended from the founder of the dynasty in the male line had equal rights ( Ekber-i-Nesebi). The Sultan did not appoint a successor; it was believed that the ruler did not have the right to determine in advance which of all the applicants and heirs would receive power. As Mehmed II said about this: "The Almighty calls the Sultan." The appointment of an heir was interpreted as an intervention in divine predestination. The throne was occupied by that of the applicants, whose candidacy received the support of the nobility and ulema. In Ottoman sources, there are indications that Ertogrul's brother, Dundar Bey, also claimed leadership and the title of leader, but the tribe preferred Osman to him.

In this system, all the sons of the Sultan theoretically had equal rights to the throne. It didn't matter who was older and who was younger, whether it was the son of a wife or a concubine. From a very early time, following the traditions of the peoples of Central Asia, a system was established in which all the sons of the ruling sultan went to sanjaks in order to gain experience in governing the state and the army under the leadership of a lala. (Under Osman there were no sanjaks yet, but all his male relatives (brothers, sons, father-in-law) ruled various cities. In addition to administrative, until 1537, Ottoman princes also received military experience, taking part in battles, commanding troops. When the sultan died, the new sultan was the one who had previously managed to arrive in the capital after the death of his father and take the oath from officials, ulema and troops.This method contributed to the fact that experienced and talented politicians who managed to build good relations with the elite of the state and get its support came to power. For example, after the death of Mehmed II, letters were sent to both of his sons informing him of this.The Sanjak of Cema was closer; there was an opinion that Mehmed favored him more; Cema was supported by the Grand Vizier. However, Bayazid's party was stronger. sanjakbeys in Antalya), Bayezid's supporters intercepted the messengers who were going to Cem, blocked all routes, and Cem could not arrive in Istanbul.

Before Mehmed II, cases of murder of close relatives in the dynasty occurred more than once. So, Osman contributed to the death of his uncle, Dundar Bey, not forgiving him that Dundar claimed the role of leader. Savji, the son of Murad, with the help of the Byzantines, raised an uprising against his father, was captured and executed in 1385. Yakub, according to legend, was killed on the orders of his brother, Bayezid, in the Kosovo field after the death of Murad. The sons of Bayezid fought against each other for a long time, as a result, Mustafa-chelebi was executed in 1422 (if he did not die in 1402), Suleiman-chelebi in 1411, probably Musa-chelebi in 1413. In addition, Mehmed, who turned out to be the winner in this fratricidal war, ordered Orhan's nephew to be blinded for his participation in the conspiracy and connection with Byzantium. Mehmed's son, Murad, executed only one of his brothers - Mustafa "Kucuk" in 1423. Other brothers - Ahmed, Mahmud, Yusuf - he ordered to blind. Beloved son of Murad, Alaeddin Ali(1430-1442 / 1443) according to the traditional version presented by Babinger, he was executed along with his sons for an unknown reason on the orders of his father.

Before Murad, in all cases, the execution or blinding of a relative was provoked by the executed himself: rebels and conspirators were executed, opponents were executed in armed struggle. Murad was the first to order the underage brothers to be blinded. His son, Mehmed II, went further. Immediately after the julus (accession to power), Murad's widows came to congratulate Mehmed on his accession. One of them, Hatice Halime-Khatun, a representative of the Djandarogullar dynasty, recently gave birth to a son, Kuchuk Ahmed. While the woman was talking with Mehmed, on his orders, Ali Bey Evrenosoglu, the son of Evrenos Bey, drowned the baby. Duka attached special importance to this son, calling him "porphyry-born" (born after his father became a sultan). In the Byzantine Empire, such children had priority in succession to the throne. In addition, unlike Mehmed, whose mother was a slave, Ahmed was born from a dynastic union. All this made the three-month-old baby a dangerous rival and forced Mehmed to get rid of him. The murder (execution) during the accession of an innocent baby brother only to prevent possible problems was not practiced by the Ottomans before. Babinger calls it "the inauguration of the law of fratricide".

After the introduction of the Fatih law

Suleiman did not have to kill his brothers, mustafa and bayazid

5 brothers murad 3

19 brothers of mehmed 3 + son mahmud

mehmed, brother of osman

three brothers murad 4 + wanted ibrahim

mustafa 4

The practice of sending shehzade to sanjaks ceased at the end of the 16th century. Of the sons of Sultan Selim II (1566-1574), only his eldest son, the future Murad III (1574-1595), went to Manisa, in turn Murad III also sent only his eldest son, the future Mehmed III (1595-1603). Mehmet III was the last sultan to go through the "school" of government in the sanjak. For another half century, the eldest sons of the sultans will bear the title of sanjakbey of Manisa, living in Istanbul.

With the death of Mehmed in December 1603, his third son, thirteen-year-old Ahmed I, became the sultan, since the first two sons of Mehmed III were no longer alive (Shehzade Mahmud was executed by his father in the summer of 1603, Shehzade Selim died even earlier from an illness). Since Ahmed had not yet been circumcised and had no concubines, he had no sons. This created an inheritance problem. Therefore, Ahmed's brother, Mustafa, was left alive, contrary to tradition. After the appearance of his sons, Ahmed was going to execute Mustafa twice, but both times various reasons postponed the execution. In addition, Kösem Sultan persuaded not to kill Mustafa Ahmed, who had her own reasons for this. When Ahmed died on November 22, 1617 at the age of 27, he left behind seven sons and a brother. Ahmed's eldest son was Osman, born in 1604.

cafes

The policy of fratricide was never popular with the people and the clergy, and when Ahmed I died suddenly in 1617, it was abandoned. Instead of killing all potential heirs to the throne, they began to imprison them in the Topkapı Palace in Istanbul in special rooms known as Kafes ("cages"). An Ottoman prince could spend his entire life imprisoned in Kafes, under constant guards. And although the heirs were kept, as a rule, in luxury, many shehzade (sons of the sultans) went crazy with boredom or became depraved drunkards. And this is understandable, because they understood that at any moment they could be executed.

Literature

"Kanun-name" Mehmed II Fatih on military-administrative and civil bureaucracy Ottoman empire // Ottoman Empire. State power and socio-political structure. - M., 1990.
Kinross Lord.. - Litres, 2017.
Petrosyan Yu.A. Ottoman Empire . - Moscow: Nauka, 1993. - 185 p.
Finkel K. History of the Ottoman Empire: Vision of Osman. - Moscow: AST.

Encyclopaedia of Islam / Bosworth C.E. - Brill Archive, 1986. - Vol. V (Khe-Mahi). - 1333 p. - ISBN 9004078193, 9789004078192.(English)
Alderson Anthony Dolphin. The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty . - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. - 186 p.(English)
Babinger F. Sawdji / In Houtsma, Martijn Theodoor. - Leiden: BRILL, 2000. - Vol. IX. - S. 93. - (E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913–1936). - ISBN 978-0-691-01078-6.
Colin Imber. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power . - New York: en: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. - P. 66-68, 97-99. - $448 - ISBN 1137014067, 9781137014061.(English)

On the Internet, the Fatih Law is often called the “fratricidal law”, while forgetting that the Fatih Law (QANUN-NAME-I AL-I OSMAN) is not only a legislative norm, but also a whole set of laws of the Ottoman Empire.

This legal document covered almost all aspects of the life of subjects and slaves of the Ottoman state, establishes rules of conduct for society, the nobility and heirs of the Sultan.

The legislator tried to take into account everything to the smallest detail. He established the system of military and civil ranks of the Ottoman Empire, the order of rewards and punishments, fixes the norms of diplomatic protocol and court etiquette.

The Law also embodied cutting-edge legislative innovations at the time, such as "freedom of religion" and a progressive rate of taxation and fines (depending on income and religion). Of course, the Ottomans weren't all that charitable. The non-Muslim population had the right to practice their religion (applied to Christians and Jews), but for this they paid a tax both in monetary terms (jizya) and in human terms - devshirme (set of Christian boys in the Janissary corps).

For the first time in the history of this empire, the legislator allowed the sultan the right to kill members of his family. In the translated text of Kanun-name, this norm reads as follows:

And which of my sons will get the sultanate in the name of the common good, it is permissible to kill half-brothers. This is supported by the majority of ulema. Let them act on it.

According to the legislator, the lives of individuals are nothing compared to the integrity of the state. And it doesn’t matter that under the law, people were guilty only of the fact that their father was the ruling sultan. Since any of the sons of the sultan could become the next padishah, the “presumption of guilt” was applied to his brothers, which consisted in their indispensable desire to raise an uprising and, if not recapture the sultan’s throne, then win back part of the Ottoman state for themselves.

In order to prevent such a state of affairs, Mehmed Fatih placed himself above the Almighty (Allah among Muslims) and allowed his descendants to follow the path of Kabil (Cain) who killed his brother Abil (Abel).

At the same time, Kanun-nam emphasizes that the legislation was sent down by the Almighty. This is stated at the beginning of the document.

Praise and thanks be to Allah that the all-merciful Creator of everything that exists for the best organization and order in his monastery sent down legislation to the people and made it a guiding principle for all. Therefore, pray tirelessly to the creator of the world and to his noble creation, the messenger of God, the blessed prophet, whose sacred tradition, sunnah and sharia are also undeniable sources for the development of religious and judicial acts.

There is no contradiction in this, because this state of affairs was characteristic of the Ottoman Empire. According to Muslim legal theory, the highest state bodies could use limited legislative powers on issues not regulated by the Koran and Sunnah, which is clearly seen in the example of the Ottoman Empire. Published regulations states, after being approved by the supreme mufti, became part of the general legal system, supplementing Islamic law, but not merging with it, since they often directly contradicted the prescriptions of Sharia.

In the TV series Magnificent Age, this Law hangs like a "sword of Damocles" over all the shehzade, the sons of the Sultan. He is of particular concern to the mothers of shehzadeh. Each sultana wants to see her son on the throne, and is ready to make such sacrifices as the sons of her rival.

The Fatih law runs like a red thread through all the series of six seasons. Sultan Suleiman did not apply this Law only because his brothers were dead by that time. Sultan Selim II, by the time of his accession to the throne, remained the only son-heir to the throne (one brother died, two brothers were executed by his father). His grandson Sultan Mehmed III executed seventeen half-brothers, regardless of age.

After Mehmed III, the sultans begin to think that this legislative norm is not as good as it seems at first glance. Yes, and in the Kanun-name itself there is a line that prescribes improvements in the state organization.

It sounds like this: let the sons of my noble offspring now try to improve it.

Noteworthy is the legal precedent, according to which the Sultan has the right to cancel the custom that took place at the court of his predecessor, replacing it with another.

In Mehmed the Conqueror, it is presented in this way: It is not in the rules of my blessed majesty to eat with anyone, except with the household. It is known that my great ancestors ate together with their viziers. I abolished it.

The question of whether it was possible to abolish this rule on fratricide becomes the subject of heated debate and battles. Some participants in the disputes call for accepting the Turkish point of view, according to which the law was necessary and the killing of innocent people is permissible in order to maintain peace and order. Other participants say that the law could have been repealed, but none of the sultans had the political will to do so.

In the Magnificent Age, both Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska and Kösem tried to achieve the abolition of the Law, but the sultans, who fulfilled their every whim, each time refused them. The possibility of repealing this law was discussed by shehzade Mehmed and Mustafa, but the intrigues of their mothers first turned the brothers into enemies, and then led to the death of both shehzade. But if the Law cannot be repealed, then it can be circumvented.

Sultan Ahmed did this when he left the life of his brother Mustafa despite tremendous pressure from the courtiers, mentors and his own mother. He did this for several reasons, and not only because of the unwillingness to repeat the mistakes of his father, but also because by the time of accession to the throne, Ahmed had not yet had children and the Ottoman dynasty could be interrupted if Ahmed died without leaving an heir.

Even when Ahmed had children, he preferred to keep his brother in a "kafes" - a kind of prison. Thus, the Sultan calmed his conscience and made it impossible for ill-wishers to raise an uprising or start a coup to put Mustafa on the throne.

After his death, Mustafa briefly became sultan, not by his own will, but by the will of the forces that placed him on the throne. It happened just because there was new law about succession to the throne, according to which the throne "goes to the oldest and wisest." In the series, the authorship of this law is attributed to Kösem Sultan. In this case, it does not matter who wrote this law: Kösem, Ahmed or one of the viziers. The main thing is that this law made it possible to circumvent the Fatih Law, while not canceling it.

The fate of shehzade from this did not become easier. For many years they were locked in a "cafes", and either died or lived to the Sultan's throne.

Couldn't this law have been repealed? Before trying to answer this question, let's look at how this law was treated and what people in the Ottoman Empire gained:

1. Ordinary inhabitants of cities and villages, petty nobility.
- Benefit. The integrity of the state was preserved, the strongest of the shekhzade ascended the throne, who could become a victorious sultan.
- Losses. The state pursued an active policy of conquest, and victories alternated with defeats. The empire was shaken by the uprisings of the dzhelali, the rebellious pashas, which lasted for years and decades.

2. Harem elite (mothers of shehzade).
- Benefit. This law made it possible to secure the throne of the son-sultan from possible applicants. Even if shehzade himself did not rebel against the Sultan, this did not mean that people who wanted to gain power could use him (the examples of shehzade Mustafa, brother of Ahmed and shehzade Bayazed, son of Ahmed are very remarkable in this regard).
- Losses. If a woman had not one, but several sons, then the mother could not send her children to death (Kösem Sultan, for example). The presence of the Law stimulated enmity between the mothers of shehzade, who walked over the corpses, if only their son would take the throne, and they would receive the coveted title of valid sultan.

3. Janissary top.
- Benefit: had no direct benefit. They could support one of the shehzade, but this did not mean that their favorite became a sultan. Rather, they benefited from power confusion: julus-baksheesh from each new sultan, kuyuju-akchesi from the grand vizier, not counting gifts from valide and other dignitaries. This is better than risking your life in battle, fighting with the army of the Safavids, Harsburgs, Poles, Venetians. After all, with each century, the combat effectiveness and training of the Janissaries fell.
- Losses: the throne was occupied by shekhzade, who did not enjoy the support of the Janissaries. Over time, the Janissaries began to play a big role in the overthrow and accession of the sultans. They killed Sultan Osman, removed and enthroned Sultan Mustafa, and achieved the execution of Sultan Ibrahim. And even Kösem Sultan, who believed that the Janissaries were faithful to her, could not do anything to replace the execution for Ibrahim with traditional imprisonment in a cafe. From the support of the throne and the Sultan, the Janissaries became a destabilizing force and one of the main instigators of conspiracies and uprisings.

4. Muslim clergy: ulema, imams, muftis of all ranks.
- Benefit: they had nothing to gain from the support of the law.
- Losses: such a law undermined their authority, because the sultan placed himself above the law. Depending on the personality of the sultan, the clergy sometimes took the side of the law (issued fatwas for the execution of shehzade), sometimes softened the law, advising the sultan to spare his brother or brothers. Few of them dared to openly oppose this law.

5. Sultan:
- Benefit: Eliminate rivals.
- Losses: Before he became a sultan, he could sit for many years in a cafe.

From time to time, the sultans used the Fatih Law to get rid of the next pretender brother. In Turkey, the Fatih Law is unequivocally assessed in a positive way, despite the sediment associated with the dubious legality of such a rule. But if the Law of Fatih really was so wonderful, then why was it necessary to look for workarounds, change the order of succession to the throne and introduce into the masses the idea that severe punishments overtake the Ottoman people for fratricide?

The harsh winter of 1620-1621 was explained by the punishment of the Almighty for the fact that Sultan Osman ordered the execution of his brother. The same act was imputed to Sultan Murad IV, whose heirs died of the plague. Before the death of his sons, he managed to execute two brothers, and the people, dissatisfied with the cruelty of the Sultan, whispered about the punishment of the Almighty for fratricide. Sultan Mehmed IV also executed one of his brothers when he had sons of his own, against the wishes of his mother. The sultana intervened to protect the surviving shehzade, although he was not her own son. The last time the Fatih Law was applied was in 1808, when the next sultan, Mahmud II, who took the throne, killed his brother, the former sultan.

Thus, despite the existence of theoretical arguments for the abolition of the fratricidal law, the sultans of the Ottoman dynasty had less and less opportunities to implement this provision. The Sultan increasingly depended on the palace environment and the Janissary elite, often ascended the throne straight from the cafes and arranged for everyone the order in which the death penalty for heirs was replaced by imprisonment.
And since the sultans no longer had the opportunity to cancel this rule, which, in fact, did not work, the "fratricidal law" lost its legal force with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Turkish Republic in the first quarter of the 20th century. And the new state no longer needed the Ottoman dynasty and its medieval laws.

Notes:

1. www.vostlit.info/Texts/Documenty/Turk/XV/1460-1... - the text of the Fatih law on succession to the throne
2. www.vostlit.info/Texts/Documenty/Turk/XV/Agrar_... - excerpts from the Fatih law on taxes and fines
3. www.islamquest.net/ru/archive/question/fa729 - about the story of Cain and Abel in the Muslim variation
4. dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_law/1284/%D0%9C%D0%... - a brief description of Islamic law