WI: Murad IV Leaves a Surviving Son

One of the better Ottoman sultans during the 17th century had truly abysmal luck as far as surviving sons were concerned. In fact, had Murad's order to execute his brother Ibrahim been carried out, the Ottoman (male) line would've gone extinct come Murad's sonless death.

So, how's this for a POD:
1) Murad has at least 1 surviving son (his eldest was about 11 when he died)
2) Ibrahim gets executed leaving only Murad's kids in the male line.
3) Murad gets at least a few more years (although he might need to hold off on the drinking. Since he died of cirrhosis of the liver).
 
Perhaps his son won't be insane. I can see Kosem acting as regent or the sultana mother of the heir.

It would be fun to see (but that's if it's completely ASB for Murad to get a few more years). However, I'm not sure what to make of Kösem. She encouraged Ibrahim to spend more time with the girls of the harem than ruling so that she could rule in his name. Whether she's capable TO rule I'm not sure.

What might change in the Ottoman Empire if Murad only has one son to succeed him. Ibrahim (Murad's brother) made a start -with the help of Kara Mustafa Pasha -before he got distracted on stuff like currency reform, limiting of the janissaries etc.
 

Marc

Donor
...had Murad's order to execute his brother Ibrahim been carried out, the Ottoman (male) line would've gone extinct come Murad's sonless death...

Pray tell, how would this have been a bad thing?

I would suggest that for the lives and fortunes of people being ruled over, it actually might have been a positive if that dynasty vanished.

Let's not be too romantic about history...
 
Last edited:
...had Murad's order to execute his brother Ibrahim been carried out, the Ottoman (male) line would've gone extinct come Murad's sonless death...

Pray tell, how would this have been a bad thing?

I would suggest that for the lives and fortunes of people being ruled over, it actually might have been a positive if that dynasty vanished.

Let's not be too romantic about history...

Care to elaborate, please? I'm the first to admit I know very little about the Ottoman Empire (at any given period) where they AREN'T interracting with their European peers.
 
Perhaps his son won't be insane. I can see Kosem acting as regent or the sultana mother of the heir.

The reason why Ibrahim turned 'insane' was due to his brothers being executed and he feared he was next and the executioners can come any moment. So if thus continues with Murad IV children you might expect more Mustafa I/Ibrahim I.
 
One of the better Ottoman sultans during the 17th century had truly abysmal luck as far as surviving sons were concerned. In fact, had Murad's order to execute his brother Ibrahim been carried out, the Ottoman (male) line would've gone extinct come Murad's sonless death.

So, how's this for a POD:
1) Murad has at least 1 surviving son (his eldest was about 11 when he died)
2) Ibrahim gets executed leaving only Murad's kids in the male line.
3) Murad gets at least a few more years (although he might need to hold off on the drinking. Since he died of cirrhosis of the liver).

Add the years of Ibrahim I reign to Murad IV and he might be the Selim I of his century.

Murad died at the age of 27. If he lived longer he could have more sons. Kinda unlucky.

Consider this: Suleimans 3 of his 1st 4 sons died in the same year. He was 27 then. He lived longer and got 5 sons in return.
 

Marc

Donor
Well, it's fairly clear that the House of Osman, certainly after the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, was in varying degrees indolent, incompetent, or just simply mad (and routinely, just about uniquely, fratricidal). In most civilizations, from China to Western Europe, they wouldn't have lasted for more than a handful of sultans - certainly not the 36. As dynasties go, they were rather terrible on all levels, and lucky.
 
...had Murad's order to execute his brother Ibrahim been carried out, the Ottoman (male) line would've gone extinct come Murad's sonless death...

Pray tell, how would this have been a bad thing?

I would suggest that for the lives and fortunes of people being ruled over, it actually might have been a positive if that dynasty vanished.

Let's not be too romantic about history...

That may be. But the Ottomans had more prestige among the Pasha's, Janissary Corps for example than the Crimean-Tatar Giray Dynasty. One could think about Janissaries demanding more from the new dynasty sultans. Sure it would be better than Ibrahim. But the succesion will have its toll.
 
If Murad's son was a good ruler he might have been able to deal with many of the issues that plauged the ottoman empire at that time.
 
Well, it's fairly clear that the House of Osman, certainly after the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, was in varying degrees indolent, incompetent, or just simply mad (and routinely, just about uniquely, fratricidal). In most civilizations, from China to Western Europe, they wouldn't have lasted for more than a handful of sultans - certainly not the 36. As dynasties go, they were rather terrible on all levels, and lucky.

With Murad III, I agree. He spent 21 years not leaving for campaigns, having tons children (which some got executed after Mehmed III succesion), destroying the rules and structure of Janissary Corps and leaving his son Mehmed III with all the mess. When Mehmed succeeded, he had to execute 19 brothers most of them babies (didn't need to but 19 is too much to control and if they end up in enemy hands...), a war with the Holy League, A Corps filled with opportunists with no millitary function.

Mehmed III died young at 37 and left the mess of his father to Ahmed I who was 14 at the time.

So there aren't too much incompetent rulers. If you look at the sultans after Suleiman until Mehmed IV, 6 sultans did not reach the age of 40 during their rule. That is crucial.
 
Top