WI: Murad IV’s order to execute Ibrahim is carried out

The Girays were Genghisids and close associates of the Ottoman empire, so they were always considered the dynasty that would take the throne should the Ottomans go extinct.

I agree, and it’s a similar story when it comes to the Ottomans going extinct in the early nineteenth century.

Would a Giray marry an Ottoman princess and proclaim the child a member of the House of Osman? It would serve to legitimize the line further.
 
Hmmm, the Girays as sultans opens up a few interesting options.

If they are a puppet dynasty, then there will be considerable political instability, at least initially; the Grand Vizier has a strong institutional position, but in the Ottoman Empire, his authority ultimately rested on the sultan, whose deputy in all matters he was. If the sultan is weak, the Grand Vizier is weakened as well against challengers such as the Janissaries or rival viziers. On might see a family like the Köprülüs seizing the office and establishing it as a sort of shogunate, but if incompetent or short-lived rulers prevail, one might also see a spiral of increasing instability, which instead of a Köprülü recovery and new golden age might see centrifugal tendencies becoming stronger. If the new regime is weak, however, the Giray are discredited, and some powerful general is bound to seize the throne and establish a new dynasty. Again, this will not help stability, and it is likely that some of the far-off provinces (North Africa in effect did so IOTL) might beak away under their own dynasties. The dynastic loyalty to the Ottomans was remarkable, but any other dynasty that lacks the spectacular achievements of the first Ottoman sultans will not have anywhere near that amount of legitimacy. This means that they will have to prove themselves in jihad, in person, and quickly, but on the other hand they will not be able to weather setbacks easily, while not being able to rely on the loyalty of their subjects, which might constrain a more cautious military policy.

Also, while initially the Girays may be puppet rulers, if they somehow manage to gain actual power, might the focus of Ottoman expansion be diverted towards Ukraine and the Northern Caucasus? The Girays IOTL had close connections to the Poles. This bodes ill for the Russians.

Venice on the other hand might benefit, as the conquest of Crete did not begin until 1645 (and any political instability will only make it more unlikely or at least postpone it). While a Venetian imperial renaissance is unlikely on its own (IOTL they were able to make spectacular gains in the 1680s, but only because the main Ottoman armies were being mauled by the Habsburgs, and were completely unable to defend their gains against a determined Ottoman offensive), if an alt-Great Turkish War comes around, Crete is an excellent base of operations, and a Crete that is not conquered by the Turks (or is conquered significantly later) has major implications once (barring butterflies) the age of revolutions comes around.
 
Also, while initially the Girays may be puppet rulers, if they somehow manage to gain actual power, might the focus of Ottoman expansion be diverted towards Ukraine and the Northern Caucasus? The Girays IOTL had close connections to the Poles. This bodes ill for the Russians.
I wonder what happens to Austria and Hungary in this TL.
Will the viennese siege of 1683 still happen?
 
Because its the Ottomans? The dudes who let the Jannissaries lapse into a military caste that decided the succession?

When you put it that way the Romans are not much better. Both kinds of romans. See: the Varagian and the Praetorian Guards.
 
Top