The House of Giray & The Ottoman Empire

The Girays of the Crimean Khanate are regarded by some as the second family of the Ottoman Empire after the House of Osman it's self. Sebag Montfiore's book of Potemkin, an important advisor to Catherine II of Russia asserts: "If Rome and Byzantium represented two of the three international traditions of imperial legitimacy, the blood of Genghis Khan was the third... If ever the Ottomans became extinct, it was understood that the Genghisid Girays would succeed them."

The Ottoman line it's self never seemed very close to going extinct, but still -- was this true? If the Ottoman line had went extinct, would the Girays succeed them? I'm talking more in the early modern period, when the Girays still ruled over the Crimean Khanate, possibly in the 17th century. Was it an unspoken agreement? If the Ottoman line went extinct, would the House of Giray be welcomed into Instanbul, no questions asked?

I know this has been discussed before, but I haven't been able to find any of the topics on it. If the Ottoman line went extinct sometime in the 17th century, what would be the ramifications, especially regarding the Girays. Is their gaining the throne plausible? If not, what would be a likely consequence? If they do gain the Ottoman Throne, might effects might this have on the empire politically, socially, and culturally?
 
The Giray's wouldn't have the same legitimacy, but I suppose if one married a female member of the House of Osman, or maybe a descendent of Muhammad, it would help. In any case, if there's no other option...

I've heard it said it was an unspoken but accepted contingency, but I've never really looked into it. The Ottoman line was very close to extinction in 1809 or so when there was only one surviving make, Mahmud II. There were still Giray's around if he had died, but I think the empire was too weak and decentralized at this time for a Giray to be accepted without challenge.
 
The Girays of the Crimean Khanate are regarded by some as the second family of the Ottoman Empire after the House of Osman it's self. Sebag Montfiore's book of Potemkin, an important advisor to Catherine II of Russia asserts: "If Rome and Byzantium represented two of the three international traditions of imperial legitimacy, the blood of Genghis Khan was the third... If ever the Ottomans became extinct, it was understood that the Genghisid Girays would succeed them."

The Ottoman line it's self never seemed very close to going extinct, but still -- was this true? If the Ottoman line had went extinct, would the Girays succeed them? I'm talking more in the early modern period, when the Girays still ruled over the Crimean Khanate, possibly in the 17th century. Was it an unspoken agreement? If the Ottoman line went extinct, would the House of Giray be welcomed into Instanbul, no questions asked?

I know this has been discussed before, but I haven't been able to find any of the topics on it. If the Ottoman line went extinct sometime in the 17th century, what would be the ramifications, especially regarding the Girays. Is their gaining the throne plausible? If not, what would be a likely consequence? If they do gain the Ottoman Throne, might effects might this have on the empire politically, socially, and culturally?

I've thought about this idea before, and I think the best moment to have it happen is during the reign of Murad IV, when he ordered to kill three of his brothers, and only spared the future Ibrahim I (although the ordered to have him killed after his death too his wish wasn't followed). So, if Murad IV decides not to spare Ibrahim when he kills his other brothers, or if Ibrahim dies from natural causes before the succession, maybe it could happen.

I don't know how much of an agreement really existed at the time providing that the Gyrays would replace the House of Osman in the throne if it went extinct (where's Abdul when we need him??) but given how succession crisis were elsewhere I wouldn't doubt if some important military leader or governor of some province, who could provide some link with the Imperial family through a female line, wouldn't try to push for his claim to the throne.

EDIT: Thanks Abdul, I did't see your post when I started to answer.
 

wormyguy

Banned
or maybe a descendent of Muhammad.
I've read somewhere that something like a quarter of all Muslims worldwide claim to be somehow related to Muhammad. Considering his fruitfulness in life, it's entirely possible that there really are millions of his descendants living today. I doubt that being married to a *real* descendant of Muhammad would do much for their legitimacy if Ibn the shoemaker down the street also says he's a descendant of Muhammmad.

I think that if the Girays succeed the Osmans as the Caliphate's dynasty (through marriage), they would probably pull a Lorraine and rename themselves the House of Osman-Giray (sorry folks, no Giraynid Empire).

If there ever were a case where it looked like the male-line Osmans were facing extinction, the Sultan would probably either try to legitimize an illegitimate son/nephew/half-brother or even attempt to allow female succession, which would most likely lead to a civil war in the Empire. Depending on the time period, the loser (if he lives) would probably flee to Hungary/Persia/Egypt/Austria/Russia and be used as a figurehead either to incite revolts or as a pretext for war.
 
The succession of the Ghirays seem like they would be healthy change for the Ottomans, since eventually the sultans never bothered governing or leaving their seralgio.
 
If there ever were a case where it looked like the male-line Osmans were facing extinction, the Sultan would probably either try to legitimize an illegitimate son/nephew/half-brother or even attempt to allow female succession, which would most likely lead to a civil war in the Empire. Depending on the time period, the loser (if he lives) would probably flee to Hungary/Persia/Egypt/Austria/Russia and be used as a figurehead either to incite revolts or as a pretext for war.
As far as I know illegitimacy never came into it. As long as he had Osman's blood by a male in his veins, he's a full Ottoman. The numerous kids from the harem that ended up sultan testify to that. The question is Giray or other female based succession.
 

wormyguy

Banned
As far as I know illegitimacy never came into it. As long as he had Osman's blood by a male in his veins, he's a full Ottoman. The numerous kids from the harem that ended up sultan testify to that. The question is Giray or other female based succession.
I was assuming that there would be no legal heir - so the son of an Osman and an attractive slave girl, for example.
 
I've read somewhere that something like a quarter of all Muslims worldwide claim to be somehow related to Muhammad. Considering his fruitfulness in life, it's entirely possible that there really are millions of his descendants living today. I doubt that being married to a *real* descendant of Muhammad would do much for their legitimacy if Ibn the shoemaker down the street also says he's a descendant of Muhammmad.

I think that if the Girays succeed the Osmans as the Caliphate's dynasty (through marriage), they would probably pull a Lorraine and rename themselves the House of Osman-Giray (sorry folks, no Giraynid Empire).

If there ever were a case where it looked like the male-line Osmans were facing extinction, the Sultan would probably either try to legitimize an illegitimate son/nephew/half-brother or even attempt to allow female succession, which would most likely lead to a civil war in the Empire. Depending on the time period, the loser (if he lives) would probably flee to Hungary/Persia/Egypt/Austria/Russia and be used as a figurehead either to incite revolts or as a pretext for war.

Well, there's the Sherif of Mecca. Nobody would question his family's pedigree. They ended up with Jordan and Iraq after the war.
 
The succession of the Ghirays seem like they would be healthy change for the Ottomans, since eventually the sultans never bothered governing or leaving their seralgio.

That's not really true - some of the best Sultans, like Mahmud II, Abdul Mecid, and Abdul Hamid II came toward the end of the empire. The picture of Sultans lying around in the harem all day is largely Western orientalist fantasy.

In any case, the Sultans theoretically had autocratic power, but in practice they had strong constitutional checks on them, and at certain periods, the bureaucracy was ascendent. That's not necessarily a bad thing. In the 19th c., modern technology and communications tilted the balance dangerously in favor of the Sultan, which led to a constitutionalist movement.
 
I was assuming that there would be no legal heir - so the son of an Osman and an attractive slave girl, for example.

There's no such thing as illegitimacy. Almost all the Sultans were the sons of slave girls. Slaves don't have the same social status in Islam that they do in Western plantation slavery - they share the status of their master, so a slave that's the mother of a prince is one of the most powerful people in the empire. And if her son is Sultan, she's second in power only to him, and at times greater. Slaves aren't autonomous, but they aren't property, either.
 

wormyguy

Banned
There's no such thing as illegitimacy. Almost all the Sultans were the sons of slave girls. Slaves don't have the same social status in Islam that they do in Western plantation slavery - they share the status of their master, so a slave that's the mother of a prince is one of the most powerful people in the empire. And if her son is Sultan, she's second in power only to him, and at times greater. Slaves aren't autonomous, but they aren't property, either.
Okay - I admit I know very little about Ottoman court politics, although you make a good point about slaves - a simple ivory porter had the same or lower status to a Western plantation slave, while those who had positions of authority in the harem or the Janissary corps maintained positions of power and respect that equaled their western equivalents.

If "illegitimacy" is no bar from becoming Sultan (as in Western monarchies, or contemporary Muslim ones, for that matter), then you would either have to have a situation where all or most of the male line Osman family is simultaneously wiped out (battle? earthquake?), or where the Sultan is an only child and also infertile/gay.
 
or where the Sultan is an only child and also gay.

Probably not this one, IIRC their was'nt as much a distinction in sexuality (Vlad the Impaler's brother was a lover of one the Sultans),
so even if the vast majority of the time they preferred guys it's still likely that they'd have a child just to continue the lineage.
 

Susano

Banned
If "illegitimacy" is no bar from becoming Sultan (as in Western monarchies, or contemporary Muslim ones, for that matter), then you would either have to have a situation where all or most of the male line Osman family is simultaneously wiped out (battle? earthquake?),
How about fratricide? The Ottoman dynasty was big on that before the 18th century. That is, since there were no clear succession rules, succession was usually determined by one son killing the others. I suppose that could indeed lead to dangerously close calls...
 
The Giray's wouldn't have the same legitimacy, but I suppose if one married a female member of the House of Osman, or maybe a descendent of Muhammad, it would help. In any case, if there's no other option...

I've heard it said it was an unspoken but accepted contingency, but I've never really looked into it. The Ottoman line was very close to extinction in 1809 or so when there was only one surviving make, Mahmud II. There were still Giray's around if he had died, but I think the empire was too weak and decentralized at this time for a Giray to be accepted without challenge.

I agree, 1809 is rather too late. The decentralized state of the empire is one thing, but secondly the Crimean Khanate had already been annexed to Russia and the last Khan, Sahin Giray had been executed in Rhodes for apparently posing a threat to the Ottoman throne. They would also lack that appeal -- in the 16th, 17th or even early 18th century they at least still rule over the Crimea and have some unspoken right to the throne should the Ottomans go extinct. Otherwise, the Girays are just another aristocratic family. Why bring them up the throne if they have already been disgraced some thirty or forty years before?

I've thought about this idea before, and I think the best moment to have it happen is during the reign of Murad IV, when he ordered to kill three of his brothers, and only spared the future Ibrahim I (although the ordered to have him killed after his death too his wish wasn't followed). So, if Murad IV decides not to spare Ibrahim when he kills his other brothers, or if Ibrahim dies from natural causes before the succession, maybe it could happen.

I don't know how much of an agreement really existed at the time providing that the Gyrays would replace the House of Osman in the throne if it went extinct (where's Abdul when we need him??) but given how succession crisis were elsewhere I wouldn't doubt if some important military leader or governor of some province, who could provide some link with the Imperial family through a female line, wouldn't try to push for his claim to the throne.

EDIT: Thanks Abdul, I did't see your post when I started to answer.

Yes, this seems like the perfect time period. The 16th or 17th century seems best, although probably more the 17th (the 1620s seemed to be rather destabilizing to the Ottoman Empire). This is also better because the early 19th century empire had it's own share of problems and the Girays gaining the throne seems rather unlikely at best. At this point in time the empire isn't really top-heavy: as Abdul stated, the Sultan had a lot of checks and balances, and as evidenced by the the period, the Janissaries deposed Osman II because he wished to do away with them, while a coup led by the Grand Mufti saw Ibrahim overthrown. Mustafa I himself had been overthrown on two different occasions.

While some unrest would no doubt occur from unruly governors and perhaps on the periphery of the empire, might the Crimean Khans be able to call upon some interior help in exchange for some concessions? The Hospodars of the Danubian principalities come to mind...
 
Top