Fratricide in the Ottoman Empire. Fatih Law: in the struggle for power all means are fair When fratricide stopped in the Ottoman Empire

30.11.202327.05.2017

1. Was Fatih inclined towards Christianity?

After the conquest of Istanbul, Fatih allowed the Christians who lived here to remain and made efforts to return those who had left the city. Many Byzantine Greeks, whether they converted to Islam or not, were accepted into the civil service of the Ottoman Empire. Fatih enters into a polemic about Christianity with Patriarch Gennady II Scholarius (in the world - George) in the monastery of Our Lady of Pammakarista (Fethiye Mosque) and wants this polemic to be documented. These events gave rise to some rumors in the West, and the opinion was put forward that Fatih was inclined towards Christianity.

Mehmed II the Conqueror (Fatih) presents Gennady II with patriarchal letters

Pope Pius II personally wrote a letter to Fatih (in 1461-1464), inviting him to convert to Christianity and undergo baptism with a couple of drops of holy water. Both the letter and the response to it were printed in Treviso during Fatih’s lifetime in 1475. However, interestingly, this letter was not sent to Fatih. And of course, what could be the answer to an “unsent letter”! The dad who wrote the letter came up with an answer to it on behalf of Fatih!

Fatih’s “good attitude” towards the Orthodox after the conquest of Istanbul is based on his condescension and desire to help split the Christian world. The Sultan had a very broad outlook, and this is what gave rise to his interest in Christianity. It is believed that he had an interest in this religion because his mother was a Christian. One of the wives of Murad II was the daughter of King George Brankovic of Serbia - Mara Despina. She married Murad II in 1435, but did not change her faith and remained a Christian until the end of her days. Fatih’s words “The greatest of Christians is my mother Despina Hatun,” which he said when transferring the land and the Little Hagia Sophia monastery in Thessaloniki to Christians, can only be explained by the fact that it was his own mother. However, this is an erroneous interpretation. Because Mehmed the Conqueror’s own mother was Hüma Hatun, who died in 1449 in Bursa, that is, even before her son ascended the throne.

2. Is the “Fatih Law” real?

Fatih Sultan Mehmed Khan through the eyes of the miniaturist Levni (from Kebir Musavver Silsilename)

The first set of laws of the Ottoman Empire was written during the time of Fatih. But there are opinions that this code was not written during the time of Fatih, that important parts of it were added later and the full text of the law does not belong to the pen of Fatih. It is argued that since some characteristics of the polity did not appear until some time later, the law was not written during the Fatih era. Those who believe that Fatih could not write the law on fratricide argue that this law was drawn up by representatives of the Western world. To prove these versions, a single copy of the Law is shown, stored in the Vienna Archives. However, in the process of research in Ottoman history, other specimens were found. Research by Ottoman historians such as Halil İnalcık or Abdulkadir Özcan confirms that the above claims are baseless and the text of the Law, with the exception of a small part, belongs to Fatih. And the text that is available to us today also includes additions made by Fatih’s son and successor Bayezid II.

3. Which country was Fatih’s last campaign?

In his last years, Fatih sent two armies - one to conquer Rhodes, the second to take Italy. The second was defeated, and the first took the fortress of Otranto, which opened the way for the conquest of Italy. Under these conditions, Fatih set out on a new campaign in March 1481, but died in Hunkar Çayırı in Gebze. Since the army's goal remained a mystery, the question "Where was Fatih going?" became the subject of controversy, it was believed that the army was marching either to Rhodes or to Italy. However, the presence of military forces in Anatolia clearly indicates that Italy was not the target.

The problem that arose before Fatih's death changed the priorities of the Ottoman state. Tensions developed between the Ottoman Empire and the Memluk state due to the fact that Fatih, for the convenience of pilgrims to Mecca, wanted to repair the aqueducts along the Hajj route. But the Memluks did not allow this, considering it a violation of their dominance in these lands. The main reason for the clashes was the question of which state the lands of the Dulkadiri kingdom, located nearby Marash and Elbistan, would belong to. For this reason, Fatih, before his death, sent his troops to the Memluk kingdom. But the final point on this issue will be put by Fatih’s grandson, Sultan Yavuz Selim.

4. Was Fatih's death due to natural causes or was he poisoned?

Famous astronomer Ali Kuscu at a reception with Fatih Sultan Mehmed

Fatih died in Gebze in a place called Hünkar Çayırı in May 1481, while setting off on another campaign. This death sparked debate both in academic circles and among amateur historians. Previously, it was widely believed that the cause of his death was gout. Symptoms of this disease include pain in the fingers, heels and joints. But the German historian Franz Babinger, in one of his articles, based on an excerpt from the “History of Ashikpashazade” and a document stored in the Venice archive, came to the conclusion that the Sultan was poisoned. Other authors claiming that Fatih was poisoned referred to this article by Babinger. There are two versions regarding the identity of the poisoner. First: the governor in Amasya, Shehzade Baezid, poisoned his father at the hands of the chief Iranian physician Ajem Lyari, having learned about the efforts of the Grand Vizier Karamani Mehmed Pasha in favor of his younger brother Cem Sultan. Second: Yakup Pasha (Maestro Lacoppo), a former chief physician who converted to Islam as a Jew. He served Fatih for more than 30 years, earned his trust and held important positions in the rank of Vizier. The Venetians, who made more than a dozen failed attempts on Fatih's life, bought out Yakup Pasha and, with his help, poisoned the Sultan.

In Turkish sources, besides the poetic lines in the “History of Ashikpaşazade”, nowhere else is there even a hint of the poisoning of the sick Fatih, who was able to get to Hünkar Çayıra only by carriage. There is no similar mention in Arabic or Italian sources of that time.

The poetic lines from which some historians conclude that Fatih was poisoned are as follows:

Who gave Khan this medical syrup?
That Khan drank it to his heart's content.

This sherbet exhausted Khan’s soul,
His whole body was tormented by pain.

And he said: “Why are you doing this to me, healers,
My insides are filled with blood"

The medicinal infusion did not help,
It only brought harm.

The doctors harmed the Sultan,
And this is the honest truth, nothing can be done.

Although there is a hint in these effluents that the Padishah was given a suspicious medicine, a more likely version seems to be Fatih’s complaints about the torment he was experiencing due to the treatment that did not bring relief.

When Fatih fell ill with gout, which almost all Ottoman Sultans suffered from, the chief healer Lyari began treatment, but he could not cope with the disease, so the responsibility for treating the Padishah was transferred to the former chief healer Yakup Pasha. Yakup Pasha did not approve of the medicine used by Lyari, so he refused to start treatment. However, when other healers remained powerless against the disease, he gave the Sultan an analgesic drug, which they used, trying only to relieve the sharp pain. But the medicine did not work, and Fatih, after a short coma, died on the afternoon of Thursday, May 31, 1481.

5. Did Fatih really order the galleys to be dragged by land during the capture of Istanbul?

The most striking scene during the capture of Istanbul is the dragging of ships over land and their launching in the Golden Horn. It is believed that the Ottomans, who lost the naval battle on April 20, dragged about 70 ships from Tophane or Besiktas overland on the night of April 22 and lowered them to Kasimpasa. But no matter how brilliant they may seem, did these legendary events actually happen? Were the galleys actually dragged overland to lower them to the waters of the Golden Horn?

The sources describing the conquest of Istanbul do not describe these events in detail. Especially Turkish historians do not give enough information about dragging ships overland. Various researchers who have addressed this topic from time to time in different historical periods argue that events could not have developed as in the legends. It does not seem possible to transport ships overland to the Golden Horn overnight. In order to do this, long preparation was needed. Determining the route along which the ships will move, preparing the site, removing obstacles and preparing mechanisms that will help move the galleys - all this requires more than one day of preparation. In addition, the places that are pointed to as the points at which the ships were pulled onto land - Tophane and Besiktas - are not suitable for this. Because they are easily viewed by the Byzantines. There are also those who claim that the ships were pulled onto land near Rumeli Hisary. But if we take into account in this case the duration of the route that the ships had to overcome, it will be extremely clear that under the conditions of that time this was impossible.

Mehmed bin Mehmed, Evliya Çelebi and Münedcibaşı, who wrote their works a couple of centuries later, after the conquest of Istanbul, bring a different view of these events: the ships were built on Okmeydan and launched directly from here. This interpretation of events looks more harmonious compared to the theory of dragging ships over land.

6. Was it really possible to take Istanbul only thanks to the gates that they forgot to lock?

Portrait of Fatih Sultan Mehmed by Bellini

Many Western historians and writers, from Hammer to Stefan Zweig, describe the last stage of the capture of Istanbul in this way: “Several Turkish soldiers walking along the defensive walls of Constantinople noticed between Edirnekapi and Egrikapi a gate left open by someone’s unimaginable forgetfulness, called “ Kerkoporta". They immediately informed others, and the Turks took Istanbul, entering the city through this open gate. Thus, due to a small accident - an open door - the course of all world history changed.

Thus, only the Byzantine historian Ducas described the events, and this is not confirmed by any other sources of the designated period. If, along with Turkish sources, we examine the works of Franzi and Barbaro, it becomes clear that the last stage of the conquest took place completely differently. In the mentioned works there is no talk of an open door. The Osamnian army, which was besieging the city, entered the city near modern Topkapi. After the capture, this area became known as the “Cannon Ruins Mahalla.”

7. Was Ulubatli Hassan the first to enter Istanbul?

It is believed that the first person to hoist the Ottoman banner on the Byzantine fortress walls was Ulubatli Hasan. The way he climbed the walls and planted the flag there is described in history books as a heroic epic. The source for this event was the Byzantine historian Franzi, who became a direct witness to the fall of Constantinople.

Franzi describes this event as follows:
“And then the Janissary named Hasan (he comes from Ulubat (the outskirts of Bursa), he himself is of strong build)” held a shield above his head with his left hand, pulled out a sword with his right, ours retreated in confusion, and jumped onto the wall. Thirty others rushed after him, wanting to show the same courage.

Those of us who still remained on the fortress walls threw stones at him. But Hassan, with his still inherent strength, managed to climb the walls and force our people to flee. This success inspired the others, and they also did not miss the chance to climb the walls. Due to our small numbers, ours could not prevent others from climbing the walls; the enemy’s forces were too great. Despite this, our people attacked those who climbed and killed many of them.

During this battle, one of the stones hit Hassan and knocked him to the ground. Seeing him on the ground, our men began to throw stones at him from all sides. But he knelt down and tried to fight back. But from many wounds his right arm was paralyzed, and he himself was covered with arrows. Then many more people died…” (“The City Has Fallen!”, trans. Kriton Dinchmen, Istanbul, 1992, pp. 95-96).

There is no more information about Ulubatly Hasan in other sources. Neither Turkish sources nor the works of foreign historians who were present at the conquest of Istanbul mention it. Turkish sources contain many legends about who was the first to enter captured Istanbul. For example, Bikhishti claims that it was his father, Karyshdiran Suleyman Bey.

8. Was Istanbul sacked after the conquest?

According to Islamic law, all goods in a captured city are the spoils of the military, so the city is allowed to be plundered. After the conquest of Istanbul, this rule was also implemented.

The city was plundered for three days, the population was taken prisoner. Fatih not only allowed Byzantine Greeks to settle in the city, who had bought themselves out of slavery, or returned from where they had fled, but also, at his own expense, bought back some of the Greeks from slavery and granted them freedom.

9. Did Grand Vizier Candarli Khalil Pasha receive bribes from the Byzantine Empire?

After the capture of the city, Fatih ordered the execution of the Grand Vizier Candarli Khalil Pasha. Khalil Pasha, who was against the siege of Istanbul from the very beginning, was in favor of maintaining good relations with Byzantium. Other viziers believed that the source of Chandara’s policy was the bribes he received from the Byzantine Empire. However, in fact, the reason for his position was the likelihood of an attack on Osan by the Crusader forces. Therefore, he wanted to continue the peaceful policy of Murad II. In addition, he also realized that, due to his differences with Fatih, the conquest of Istanbul would bring Fatih unlimited power, but for him personally it would be the end. That is why he opposed it. And allegations of bribes from Byzantium are groundless.

During Fatih's first rise to power (1555-1446), friction arose between him and Candarli Halil Pasha; Fatih, because of Halil Pasha, was forced to leave the throne to his father. In addition, the Kapikulu viziers surrounding Fatih set the Sultan against Khalil Pasha. Fatih saw Candarli as a threat to his power, so immediately after the capture of Istanbul, he eliminated him under the pretext of bribes received from Byzantium.

10. Did the conquest of Istanbul mark the beginning of a new historical era?

Almost everyone has heard the cliché that the conquest of Istanbul marked the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Modern Age. Has there actually been a change of eras or is this just a convention to simplify classification?
The shock into which the conquest of Istanbul plunged the entire Christian world and the belief that the Byzantine scientists who fled to Europe after the fall of Constantinople became the cause of the Renaissance is the reason why the Capture of Istanbul is considered the beginning of the Modern Age. The fall of Constantinople is an important event for both the Islamic and Christian worlds. However, the beginning of the Renaissance has nothing to do with Byzantine scientists. History books written in the 19th and 20th centuries actually wrote that the Renaissance happened thanks to Byzantine scientists who fled to Europe. But later studies have proven that this is not the case.
There is no generally accepted date that would be considered the beginning of the New Era. Today, the number of those who, besides Turkish historians, consider the conquest of Istanbul to be the beginning of the New Era is negligible. The discovery of America in 1492 is usually considered the beginning of the Modern Age. There are also those who consider the invention of printing in 1440 to be this date.

Fatih Law- a law of the Ottoman Empire that allows one of the heirs to the throne to kill the others in order to prevent wars and unrest.

Law of fratricide

Formulation

The "law on fratricide" is contained in the second chapter ( bāb-ı sānī) Eve-name of Mehmed II. The 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 (Turkish)

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

Lyrics

The so-called Fatih law of fratricide can be found in the Qanun-nama of Mehmed II in the second part, setting out the rules of the court and state organization. The text of Kanun-name has not reached us in the original language; only copies of the 17th century have survived. For a long period it was believed that Mehmed could not legalize fratricide. Doubters believed that Europeans had invented this law and falsely attributed it to Fatih. The supposedly irrefutable proof of this, from their point of view, was that the law existed for a long time in the only list of Kanun-name in the Vienna archive. However, during the research, other specimens were found dating back to the times of the Ottoman Empire. Historians Halil Inalcık and Abdulkadir Özcan have shown 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 Bayezid II.

Two identical manuscripts in the Austrian National Library in Vienna (Cod. H. O. 143 and Cod. A. F. 547). One manuscript, dated 18 March 1650, was published in 1815 by Joseph Hammer under the title Codex of Sultan Muhammad 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, entitled Ḳānūnnnāme-i āl-i’Os̠mān(“Code of the Ottomans”). Other copies besides these two were unknown until the discovery of the second volume of Koji Hussein's unfinished chronicle Beda'i'u l-veḳā"i, "Founding Times". Koca Hussein, in his own words, used notes and texts stored in archives.

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

Another, shorter and incomplete list of Kanun-name (which does not contain the law of fratricide) can be found in the work of Hezarfen Hüseyin-effendi (died 1691) in the work “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, the 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 to comment on Kanun-name and quote it was Mustafa Ali Effendi (1541-1600).

Succession to the throne and dynastic assassinations

Before the introduction of the Fatih Law

For a long time after the formation of the Ottoman state, there was no direct transfer of power from one ruler to the next in the ruling dynasty. 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 contenders and heirs would receive power. As Mehmed II said about it: “The Almighty calls the Sultan.” The appointment of an heir was interpreted as an intervention in divine predestination. The throne was occupied by one of the applicants whose candidacy received the support of the nobility and ulema. There are indications in Ottoman sources that Ertogrul's brother, Dundar Bey, also claimed leadership and the title of chief, but the tribe preferred Osman to him.

In this system, all the sons of the Sultan theoretically had equal rights to the throne. It did not 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 were sent to the sanjaks in order to gain experience in managing the state and the army under the leadership of the 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 gained military experience, taking part in battles, commanding troops. When the Sultan died, the new sultan became the one who had previously managed to arrive in the capital after the death of his father and take the oath from officials, ulemas and troops.This method contributed to the coming to power of experienced and talented politicians who were able to build good relations with the elite of the state and receive their support. 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; it was believed that Mehmed was more favorable towards him; Cema was supported by the Grand Vizier. However, Bayezid's party was stronger. Occupying key positions (Beylerbey of Rumelia, Sancakbeys in Antalya), Bayezid's supporters intercepted the messengers traveling to Cem, blocked all the roads, and Cem was unable to arrive in Istanbul.

Before Mehmed II, cases of murder of close relatives in the dynasty occurred more than once. Thus, Osman contributed to the death of his uncle, Dundar Bey, without forgiving him for the fact that Dundar claimed to be a leader. Savci, the son of Murad, with the help of the Byzantines, rebelled against his father, was captured and executed in 1385. Yakub, according to legend, was killed on the orders of his brother, Bayazid, on the Kosovo field after the death of Murad. The sons of Bayazid fought against each other for a long time, and as a result, Mustafa Celebi was executed in 1422 (if he did not die in 1402), Suleiman Celebi in 1411, probably Musa Celebi 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 "Kyuchuk" in 1423. He ordered the other brothers - Ahmed, Mahmud, Yusuf - to be blinded. Beloved son of Murad, Alaeddin Ali(1430-1442 / 1443) according to the traditional version set out 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 person: rebels and conspirators were executed, opponents in armed struggle were executed. Murad was the first to order the underage brothers to be blinded. His son, Mehmed II, went further. Immediately after julyus (assuming power), Murad's widows came to congratulate Mehmed on his accession to the throne. One of them, Hatice Halime Khatun, a representative of the Jandarogullar dynasty, recently gave birth to a son, Küçük Ahmed. While the woman was talking with Mehmed, on his orders, Ali Bey Evrenosoglu, the son of Evrenos Bey, drowned the baby. Ducas attached special importance to this son, calling him "porphyry-born" (born after his father became sultan). In the Byzantine Empire, such children had priority in inheriting the throne. Moreover, unlike Mehmed, whose mother was a slave, Ahmed was born from a dynastic union. All this made the three-month-old baby a dangerous opponent and forced Mehmed to get rid of him. Murder (execution) during the accession of an innocent baby brother only to prevent possible problems was not practiced by the Ottomans before. Babinger calls this “the inauguration of the law of fratricide.”

After the introduction of the Fatih Law

Suleiman did not have to kill his brothers, Mustafa and Bayezid

5 Murad Brothers 3

19 brothers of Mehmed 3 + son Mahmud

Mehmed, Osman's brother

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), there. Mehmet III was the last sultan to go through the “school” of management in the sanjak. For another half century, the eldest sons of the sultans would bear the title of Sanjakbeys 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 earlier from illness). Since Ahmed was not yet 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 twice going to execute Mustafa, but both times he postponed the execution for various reasons. In addition, Kösem Sultan, who had her own reasons for this, persuaded him not to kill Mustafa Ahmed. When Ahmed died on November 22, 1617, at the age of 27, he left seven sons and a brother. Ahmed's eldest son was Osman, born in 1604.

cafe

The policy of fratricide was never popular with the people and clergy, and when Ahmed I died suddenly in 1617, it was abandoned. Instead of killing all potential heirs to the throne, they began to be imprisoned in the Topkapi 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, as a rule, kept in luxury, many shehzade (sons of the sultans) went crazy from boredom or became debauched drunkards. And this is understandable, because they understood that they could be executed at any moment.

Literature

“Eve-name” of Mehmed II Fatih on the military-administrative and civil bureaucracy of the Ottoman Empire // Ottoman Empire. State power and socio-political structure. - M., 1990.
Kinross Lord.. - Litres, 2017.
Petrosyan Yu.A. Ottoman Empire . - Moscow: Science, 1993. - 185 p.
Finkel K. History of the Ottoman Empire: Osman's Vision. - 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. - P. 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 p. - ISBN 1137014067, 9781137014061.(English)

Any empire rests not only on military conquests, economic strength and a powerful ideology. An empire cannot exist for a long time and develop effectively without a stable system of succession to supreme power. What anarchy in an empire can lead to can be seen in the example of the Roman Empire during its decline, when virtually anyone who offered more money to the praetorians, the capital’s guard, could become emperor. In the Ottoman Empire, the question of the procedure for 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 into being thanks to one of the most famous and successful sultans of the Ottoman Empire , Mehmed II (reigned 1444-1446, 1451-1481). The respectful epithet “Fatih”, that is, Conqueror, was given to him by his admiring subjects and descendants in recognition of his outstanding services in expanding the territory of the empire. Mehmed II really did his best, conducting numerous victorious campaigns both in the East and in the West, primarily in the Balkans and 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, marking the end of one era and the beginning of the next. An era in which the Ottoman Empire had a new capital, renamed Istanbul, and it itself became one of the leading forces in the international arena.

However, there are many conquerors in the history of mankind, much less great conquerors. The greatness of a conqueror is measured not only by the scale of the lands he conquered or the number of enemies he killed. First of all, this is a concern for preserving what was conquered and turning it into a powerful and prosperous state. Mehmed II Fatih was a great conqueror - after many victories, he thought about how to ensure stability for 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 consisted in the principle on which the life of the Sultan’s harem was built - “one concubine - one son.” Sultans very rarely entered into official marriage; usually their children were born to their concubines. To prevent one concubine from gaining too much influence and starting intrigues against the sons of other concubines, she could only have one son from the Sultan. After his birth, she was no longer allowed to have intimacy with the ruler. Moreover, when the son reached more or less sane age, he was appointed governor of one of the provinces - and his mother had to accompany him.

In politics, brothers are the most dangerous

However, difficulties with inheriting the throne still remained - the sultans were not limited in the number of concubines, so they could have many sons. Taking into account the fact that every adult son could be considered a rightful heir, the struggle for future power often began even before the death of the previous sultan. In addition, even after gaining 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 maintain the stability of the state and to avoid future revolts.

Fatih Law in the Ottoman Empire formally operated for more than four centuries, until the end of the sultanate, which was abolished in 1922. At the same time, one should not make Mehmed II a fanatic, who supposedly bequeathed to his descendants to mercilessly destroy all his brothers. The Fatih Law did not say that every new sultan was obliged to kill his closest relatives. And many sultans did not resort to such radical measures. However, this law gave the head of the empire the right, through such intra-family “bloodletting,” to ensure the political stability of the entire state. By the way, this law was not the cruel whim of the 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. Thus, upon his accession to the throne in 1595, Sultan Mehmed III ordered the death of 19 brothers. However, the last case of application of this emergency 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 series

It is unlikely that such a large number of non-Turkish people, that is, those who did not study the actions of Mehmed II in a school history course, would remember about the Fatih law in our time, if not for the notorious TV series “The Magnificent Century”. The fact is that the screenwriters made the Fatih law one of the main plot springs of the entire narrative. According to the script, Hurrem, 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 of another concubine. Consequently, it was he who had the highest chances of taking his father's throne. In this case, the new Sultan could use the Fatih law and kill his brothers, the sons of Hurrem.

Therefore, Hurrem 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 Hurrem, who thus became the founder of the tradition that in the history of the Ottoman Empire is known as the “Women’s Sultanate”.

The version as a whole is interesting and not devoid of logic, however, it is just an artistic version. Hurrem Sultan is not an activist of the “Women’s Sultanate”; this phenomenon, characterized by the great influence of the women of the harem 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 against his 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 Madman, so the big question is whether the order was not carried out correctly - but that’s another story...

Alexander Babitsky

FATIHA LAW.

3 messages

In this topic we will talk about the Mehmed II Fatih Law and what the “Women's Sultanate” is.

A little history. What kind of power awaits our Nurbana, the wife of Sultan Selim II?

The Women's Sultanate was a historical period in the life of the Ottoman Empire that lasted just over a century. It is characterized by the transfer of actual power into the hands of four mothers of the sultans’ sons, whose sons, the ruling padishahs, obeyed them unconditionally, making decisions on domestic, foreign policy, and national issues.

So these women were:

Afife Nurbanu Sultan (1525-1583) - Venetian by origin, birth name Cecilia Baffo.

Safiye Sultan (1550-1603) - Venetian by origin, birth name Sofia Baffo.

Mahpeyker Kösem Sultan (1589-1651) - Anastasia, most likely from Greece.

Hatice Turhan Sultan (1627-1683) - Nadezhda, originally from Ukraine.

The correct date for the “Women’s Sultanate” should be considered 1574, when Nurbanu became Valide Sultan. And it is Nurbana Sultan who should be considered the first representative of the historical period of the Ottoman Empire called the “Women’s Sultanate”.

Nurbanu began leading the harem in 1566. But Nurban managed to seize real power only during the reign of her son Murad III.

In the year of his accession to the throne, Murad III, succumbing to the influence of Nurbanu's mother and the Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha Sokollu, who was an obedient executor of Nurbanu's will, gave the order to execute all his half-brothers, explaining his decision with the Mehmed Fatih Law on Fratricide, issued in 1478. Before this, the Law had not been used for 62 years, so there was no need for it.
When Suleiman ascended the throne, at that time he had no competing brothers.
Also, when his son Selim ascended the throne, he (Selim) no longer had brothers. (Mustafa and Bayazet were executed by Suleiman, Cihangir died of natural causes and he was not a contender for the throne due to illness, and Mehmet was specifically infected with smallpox back in Manisa by competitors for the throne.

21 years later, when Sultan Murad III, the son of Selim II, dies, the new Sultan, the son of Murad III, Mehmed III, will again use this law and again this will be done at the insistence of the Sultan’s mother, Valide Safiye Sultan.
Mehmed III executed 19 of his half-brothers in 1595. This year will go down in history as the bloodiest year of application of the Fatih Law.

After Mehmed III, Ahmed I will ascend the throne, whose concubine will be the famous Kösem, in the future the powerful and cunning Valide Sultan.
Ahmed I will introduce the practice of imprisoning the brothers of the ruling sultans in one of the palace pavilions, in the “Cafes” (translated as “Cage”), which, however, is not the abolition of the Fatih law, but only complements it with the right to choose - death or a cell for life imprisonment And Kösem Sultan did not make any effort to introduce this practice, since she was able to interfere in the decisions of the sultans much later.
Let us only mention that the ruling Sultan Murad IV, son of Kösem, in 1640, left without heirs, for fear of competition, tried to kill his brother, another son of Kösem. However, Kösem, who had enormous power at that time, would prevent this, because otherwise, the rule of the Ottoman dynasty would have ended, and the Ottomans ruled the empire for 341 years.
To be fair, we note that the Fatih Law was in force until the beginning of the 20th century, until the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. The last time it was used was in 1808, when Sultan Mahmud II, who had taken the throne, killed his brother Sultan Mustafa IV.

Who is Mehmet Fatih? Whose name made powerful sultanas and their heirs to the throne tremble with fear throughout almost the entire existence of the Ottoman Empire?
The mention of the name Mehmet Fatih made Hurrem Sultan and her sons tremble, only Mahidevran slept peacefully, not fearing that her son would come under attack.
The fault is none other than the LAW OF FRATRICIDE, a law that was invented and introduced by Mehmet Fatih (Conqueror), the ancestor of Sultan Suleiman, the same one who conquered Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul. The law allows the reigning brother to kill all the remaining brothers so that later they do not encroach on his throne.
Mustafa, the son of Mahidevran, did not fall under the Fatih law, since he was the eldest and main heir to the Ottoman throne. Of course, Makhidevran was lucky in this, because before him the Sultan had sons from previous concubines - from Fulane and Gulfem. But they died of illness during the years of epidemics, and THEREFORE, Mustafa became the first and main contender for the Ottoman throne.
Mahidevran was not afraid of the Fatih law.
After Mustafa, the Sultan had 6 children from his new beloved concubine and future wife, Hurrem: daughter Mihrimah and 5 sons (Mehmet, Abdallah, Selim, Bayazet, Jihangir.) Abdallah died in infancy, so they did not consider it necessary to introduce him into the series, it wasn't even mentioned.
In addition to all of the above, Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska was afraid of this damned law more than anyone, because she knew that having reigned, Mustafa would kill her sons, no matter how kind or merciful he may seem - the law is the law, and the Council will insist on the implementation of this law in order to live in peace, without fear that one of the brothers would encroach on the throne.

And now more about the Fatih law:

In 1478, Mehmet II Fatih the Conqueror introduced the law “On Succession to the Throne,” the second more common name is the law “On Fratricide.”
The law states: “Any person who dares to encroach on the Sultan’s throne must be immediately executed. Even if my brother wants to take the throne. Therefore, the heir who becomes Sultan must immediately execute his brothers to maintain order.”

Mehmed II introduced his law at the end of his reign. It was supposed to serve the heirs of Mehmed II as reliable protection from pretenders to the throne who were dissatisfied with the power of their opponents, primarily from the siblings and half-brothers of the ruling Sultan, who could openly oppose the Padishah and start a rebellion.
To prevent such unrest, the brothers were to be executed immediately after the new sultan ascended the throne, regardless of whether they encroached on the throne or not. This was very easy to do, since it was impossible to deny that at least once in their lives the legitimate shehzade did not think about the throne.

And finally, we note that the Fatih Law was in force until the beginning of the 20th century, until the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. The last time it was used was in 1808, when Sultan Mahmud II, who had taken the throne, killed his brother Sultan Mustafa IV.
The Ottoman Empire lasted until 1922 and collapsed due to defeat in the First World War.

The Fatih Law or what the great Hurrem Sultan feared most in the world.

Law of Fatih. A cruel and immutable rule of the existence of the powerful Ottoman dynasty, an inevitable fate that plunges into horror the powerful sultanas who gave birth to their ruler Shehzade. How was this custom established, which gave rise to many intrigues at the foot of the Sultan’s throne?

Just the thought that her sons would become victims of the Fatih Law made Hurrem Sultan’s heart clench with burning anxiety. On the contrary, Makhidevran was not very worried that this norm would bring misfortune to her son Mustafa in the future. The fact is that Mehmet Fatih legalized real fratricide- the heir who was lucky enough to become the chosen one of Allah and ascend the throne was obliged to kill his brothers in order to avoid unrest and disobedience.

Mustafa was lucky: he was the eldest boy among the children of Sultan Suleiman and was not subject to the Fatih Law. Of course, if the sons from previous favorites, Gulfem and Fulane, had survived, then Makhidevran would have had to desperately intrigue to save the life of his only shehzade. However, fate for the time being allowed the ruler’s main wife to remain calm and not think about the sad fate of the mother who lost her son.

But over the heads of the sons of the red-haired Hurrem Sultan, the Law of Fatih swung like the sword of Damocles. The mother of five boys understood perfectly well that if the son of her rival became the sultan, they would not live. No matter how kind and understanding brother Mustafa is, he will stop at nothing to save the state from collapse and civil war. The law is strong, but it's law. The Council will insist on its implementation, denying kinship feelings in the name of the interests of the country.

More about the Fatih Law

Mehmed Fatih, who carried out many glorious campaigns, became famous among his subjects not only as a conqueror, but also as a legislator. The Law on Succession to the Throne, issued in 1478, which went down in the annals of history as the law on fratricide, stated that any person who dared to encroach on the throne of the ruler should be executed. Even if it is a close relative. It followed from this that the new sultan would first of all be obliged to destroy all potential rivals for supreme power.

This norm appeared at the end of the reign of Mehmed II and was supposed to help consolidate the rights to the throne of the heirs of Fatih himself, and not his half-brothers and uncles, who had the opportunity to oppose the reigning padishah and lead the population dissatisfied with the rule. For the purposes of internal security, the empire had to immediately secretly or openly eliminate male competitors, especially since there were always reasons: every legitimate shehzade dreamed of the throne at least once in his life.

The last time the law on fratricide was implemented was in 1808, when Mahmud II dealt with his brother Mustafa IV. Subsequently, this norm will cease to exist with the collapse of the Ottoman state after the defeat in the First World War in 1922.

Fatih Law: in the struggle for power, all means are fair

The Fatih Law of Succession came into being thanks to one of the most famous and successful sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Sultans of the Ottoman Empire: 600 years of conquest, luxury and power , Mehmed II (reigned 1444-1446, 1451-1481). The respectful epithet “Fatih”, that is, Conqueror, was given to him by his admiring subjects and descendants in recognition of his outstanding services in expanding the territory of the empire. Mehmed II really did his best, conducting numerous victorious campaigns both in the East and in the West, primarily in the Balkans and 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, marking the end of one era and the beginning of the next. An era in which the Ottoman Empire had a new capital, renamed Istanbul, and it itself became one of the leading forces in the international arena.

In politics, brothers are the most dangerous

Fatih Law in the Ottoman Empire Ottoman Empire: the southern bridge between East and West formally operated for more than four centuries, until the end of the sultanate, which was abolished in 1922. At the same time, one should not make Mehmed II a fanatic, who supposedly bequeathed to his descendants to mercilessly destroy all his brothers. The Fatih Law did not say that every new sultan was obliged to kill his closest relatives. And many sultans did not resort to such radical measures. However, this law gave the head of the empire the right, through such intra-family “bloodletting,” to ensure the political stability of the entire state. By the way, this law was not the cruel whim of the 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. Thus, upon his accession to the throne in 1595, Sultan Mehmed III ordered the death of 19 brothers. However, the last case of application of this emergency 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 series

www.chuchotezvous.ru

Fatih Law

Name of the law

Founder of the Law

Fatih Law- one of the sacred traditions of the Ottoman Empire, used by the sultans upon accession to the throne. The Fatih Law called upon the sultans who received the throne to kill all their brothers and their male descendants in order to prevent internecine wars in the future.

Cases of murder of close relatives during the struggle for power in the Ottoman dynasty occurred from the very first days. When a rival in the struggle for the throne was executed, all his sons were often executed, regardless of age. Before Murad II, in all cases, only guilty princes were executed: rebels and conspirators, opponents in the armed struggle. Murad II was the first to impose punishment on the innocent minor brothers, ordering them to be blinded absolutely without their guilt. His son, Mehmed II, immediately after ascending the throne executed his newly born brother. Later, the Sultan issued a collection of laws, one of the provisions of which recognized the killing of innocent shehzade for the sake of maintaining order as legal.

The Ottomans inherited the idea that shedding the blood of members of the dynasty was unacceptable, so the relatives of the sultans were executed by strangling them with a bowstring. The sons of the Sultan killed in this way were buried with honor, usually next to their deceased father. Bayazid II and Selim I did not apply the Fatih law during their accession, since relations with their brothers were sorted out with arms in hand. Suleiman I was survived by only one son, therefore, in its pure form, the Fatih law was applied from the accession of Murad III in 1574 until the death of Murad IV in 1640:

Murad III, the eldest son of Selim II, upon his accession to the throne in 1574, exercised his right to execute innocent young brothers under the Fatih law. The number of those executed is estimated at five or nine. Mehmed III, the eldest son of Murad III, also ordered the execution of his young brothers upon his accession to the throne. He had 19 of them. Fearing a conspiracy on the part of his own sons, Mehmed introduced the harmful custom of not sending sehzade to sanjaks, but keeping them with him on the territory of the Sultan’s palace. Ahmed I, the eldest son of Mehmed III who survived him, twice ordered the execution of Mustafa, but both times troubles occurred, forcing the superstitious Sultan to cancel the order. Ahmed's son, Osman, ordered the execution of his brother, Mehmed. Osman himself was soon overthrown and killed. Murad IV ordered the execution of at least two of his minor brothers. Despite never having any sons who survived infancy, Murad ordered the execution of his last brother and only heir, Ibrahim, but he was saved by his mother and Ibrahim succeeded Murad on the throne. Ibrahim was killed later, after the rebellion of the Janissaries and overthrow.

Subsequently, the Fatih law was no longer applied. It is estimated that 60 sehzade were executed throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire. Of these, 16 were executed for rebellion and 7 for attempted rebellion. All others - 37 - for reasons of general benefit.

Magnificent century

Mustafa swears that he will never execute Mehmed

The law ordering the death of one's brothers upon accession to the throne is first mentioned in the third season. While hunting, Suleiman tells his son Mehmed about this, and he, meeting Mustafa, asks him if his brother can execute his brother. Shehzade swear to each other that no matter which of them ascends the throne, he will never execute the other.

Execution of Bayezid and his sons

In the fourth season, the Fatih law is mentioned in almost every episode. There are three contenders for the throne - Shehzade Mustafa, Selim and Bayezid. The mother of Selim and Bayezid Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska is ready to do anything to ensure that the throne goes to one of her children, and for this purpose she begins to weave intrigues around Mustafa. Bayezid and Mustafa swear to each other that if one of them ascends the throne, he will not kill the other, but the mothers of Shehzade actively oppose this. After the execution of Mustafa, only two rivals remain - Selim and Bayazid, and each of them knows that either the throne or death awaits him. Behind Selim is his father, behind Bayezid is his mother. More than one battle takes place between the Shehzade, and as a result, their youngest Shehzade ends up in Persian captivity, from where Selim ransoms him and executes him along with all his sons in order to ensure a quiet reign for himself.

Kösem Empire

Little Mustafa I before his execution in prison

The Law of Fatih is mentioned in the first episode. Ahmed talks about his childhood, marred by the death of his brothers and the cruelty of his father, who died due to illness and thereby allowed Ahmed to ascend to the throne. In front of Sehzade, his elder brother, Mahmud, was killed, and Dervish Pasha later recalls that if he had not poisoned Mehmed III, Ahmed himself would have been executed. Following the law, the new Sultan must take the life of his younger brother Mustafa, but cannot do this despite pressure from both his mother and Safiye Sultan. He makes several attempts to kill the boy, but each time something stops him. As a result, Ahmed never commits a crime, which deserves universal recognition. However, because of his mercy, Mustafa has to sit in a cafe all his life, which is why the latter goes crazy.

Execution of Shehzade by order of Halime Sultan

After Ahmed’s death, Fatih’s law becomes perhaps the main character of the series: in order to protect both his children and all the sehzade who will still be born in the Empire, Kösem Sultan cancels the fratricide. On behalf of her husband, she passes a new law on “the eldest and wisest,” according to which the eldest of the Ottoman family becomes the sultan. But this does not help to stop the bloodshed: on the orders of Valide Halima Sultan, who does not take into account the new order, all the nephews of the new padishah are almost executed, twice. Osman II, having finally ascended the throne, repeals the law adopted by his stepmother and returns fratricide. This makes it possible to execute his brother, Sehzade Mehmed. Also, during Ahmed’s life, Iskender, the “lost shehzade,” is executed, but later he turns out to be alive, and Kösem, in order to ensure a calm reign for his son in the future and deprive Safiye Sultan of an heir, does everything to deal with him. During the second reign of the insane Mustafa, in order to preserve order, the children of Kösem are again almost executed, and Osman is killed by the Janissaries. His son, Mustafa, is also executed.

Execution of Shehzade Bayezid

In the second season, the Law of Fatih reigns from the first episode to the last: as soon as Sultan Murad takes power into his own hands, his brothers begin to fear for their freedom, and then for their lives. Gulbahar Sultan, as soon as he arrived at the palace, immediately begins to tell his son that one day the Sultan will execute him anyway, and therefore it is necessary to overthrow the current padishah before this happens. As soon as Shehzade Kasym commits an offense, he is imprisoned in a cafe, and a few years later, due to the intrigues of his mother, he is completely executed. Despite all attempts by Valide Kösem Sultan to save the lives of all the shehzade, Bayazid is the first to die at the hands of the executioners, having gotten involved in his mother’s game, Kasym is killed second, and Ibrahim, who also spent several years in the cafe, is literally protected by Kösem with his body. Later, the padishah executes the elderly Mustafa I, still sitting in the cafe.

ru.muhtesemyuzyil.wikia.com

to Home Page

Süleyman ve Roksolana / Suleiman and Roksolana

Fatih Law
Why is it needed?! And who invented it?!

Well, first of all, let me remind you, for those who forgot or simply did not know what this law is called. The Fatih Law is the same law that allows you to kill all your brothers and completely interrupt their line (that is, kill all their descendants in the male line), if (you are lucky) you took the throne, that is, became the Sultan.

To begin with, not much about the creator of this very law. Sultan Mehmed II, popularly known as Fatih, which means Conqueror, was the Ottoman Sultan from 1444 to 1446 and from 1451 to 1481. (Great-grandfather of Sultan Suleiman Kanuni).

Mehmed II was born on March 29, 1432 in Edirne. He was the fourth son of Murad II by his concubine Huma Khatun (presumed to be of Greek descent).

When Mehmet was six years old, he was sent to the sanjak-saruhan of Manisa, where he remained until August 1444 (until he was 12 years old), that is, until he took the throne.

At the time of his accession to the throne, Mehmed II ordered the drowning of his half-brother Akhmed-Kuchuk. After this, in fact, Mehmed II legitimized this custom with his decree, which read: “Whichever of my sons who ascends the throne has the RIGHT to kill his brothers so that there is order on earth.” Most experts in judicial affairs approved of this law. THIS IS HOW THE FATIHA LAW APPEARED.

In fact, this sultan became famous not only for his famous laws, he led numerous conquests during the Balkan Wars and conquered Serbia, Herzegovina, and Albania. In 1467, Mehmed II approached the possessions of the Mamluk rulers of the Karamanids - Ak-Koyunlu - Memluk. In 1479, the Sultan launched a campaign against the Venetians, who controlled the vast territory of Albania. Mehmed II besieged the fortresses of Shkoder (Ishkodra) and Kruja (Akcahisar). His most important conquest, for which he actually received the nickname “Fatih,” was the conquest of Constantinople in May 1453 (at that time he was 21 years old).

Wives and concubines:

Since the beginning of the reign of Sultan Mehmet II (from 1444), the main element of Ottoman family policy was living with concubines without officially marrying them, as well as the main principle (which I think many people have heard of) “one concubine one son ( shehzade)", as well as the policy of limiting childbearing for wives from noble families, was carried out through sexual abstinence. Inside the Sultan's harem, a kind of policy was probably used to prevent those concubines who had already given birth to sons from entering the Sultan's bed. One of the reasons for applying the “one concubine, one son” policy was that the mothers of the Sultan’s children, when sending their sons to govern the sanjaks, accompanied them and headed their household in the provinces.

1. Emine Gülbahar Hatun: mother of Cevher Hatun and adoptive mother of Bayezid II (As the adoptive mother of Bayezid and the widow of Mehmed, she received a title equal to the title Valide Sultan that appeared later. She died in 1492 in Istanbul. She was buried in the Fatih Mosque. In memory of her adoptive mother After her death, Bayezid II built the Khatuniye Mosque in Tokat).

2. Sitti Mükrime Hatun: was the LEGAL wife of Mehmet, daughter of the sixth ruler of Dulkadirida Suleiman Bey and biological mother of Bayezid II. (Her son ascended the throne 14 years later, after the death of Mükrime. Mehmed's other wife Emine Gülbahar Hatun received the then equivalent title of Valide Sultan, like his adoptive mother).

3. Gulshah Khatun: mother of the beloved son of Sultan Mehmed II - Shehzade Mustafa (1450-1474). (Shehzade died of illness in June 1474, at the age of 24. His death was blamed on the Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha, who had a bad relationship with Mustafa. He was strangled, but buried in his mausoleum, which he built and bears his name. And most importantly, on the day of his funeral, the Sultan declared mourning, which was a sign of his changeable character).

4. Chichek Khatun: mother of Shehzade Cem
5.Helena Khatun
6.Anna Khatun
7.Alexis Khatun

Sons: Sultan Bayezid II, Shehzade Mustafa, Shehzade Cem and Shehzade Korkut.

Daughters: Cevger Khatun, Seljuk Khatun, Hatice Khatun, Iladi Khatun, Ayse Khatun, Hindi Khatun, Aynishah Khatun, Fatma Khatun, Shah Khatun, Huma Sultan and Ikmar Sultan. (I think many people are interested in why the first daughters were called Khatun, and the last 2 Sultans, I explain, before the reign of Bazid II, the daughters of the Sultan were called Khatun, and after his ascension to the throne, the daughters of the Sultans began to be called Sultanas).

Mehmed II died when he moved from Istanbul to Gebze for the final formation of the army (for the next campaign). While in the military camp, Mehmed II fell ill and died suddenly, as was supposed from food poisoning or due to his chronic illness. There was also a version of poisoning. The body of the ruler was brought by Karamani Ahmet Pasha to Istanbul and was laid out for farewell for twenty days. On the second day after Bayezid II ascended the throne, the body was interred in the mausoleum of the Fatih Mosque. The funeral took place on May 21, 1481.

Fire safety requirements for oil and petroleum products warehouses Warehouse buildings intended for storing oil and petroleum products, due to their explosion and fire hazard, must be equipped appropriately for […]

Forensic research of traces of biological origin Traces of biological origin include: blood and its traces; traces of semen; hair and other secretions of the human body. These traces carry the search [...]

Fatih Law(or law of fratricide) - later name of one of the provisions from the Kanun-name (collection of laws) of Mehmed Fatih. It allowed the heir to the Ottoman throne who became sultan to kill the others for the public good ( Nizam-I Alem) - preventing wars and unrest.

The existence of this law was not recognized by everyone; a common view is that Mehmed could not legalize the killing of innocents. Doubters believed that Europeans had invented this law and falsely attributed it to Fatih. Turkish scientists have proven that this is not so.

The assessment of the legitimacy of this provision (compliance with Sharia norms), as well as the influence of this law on the history of the Ottoman Empire, is ambiguous. It has been erroneously believed that Sharia law cannot condone the killing of an innocent person.

Scholars who positively assessed the role of the law pointed out that if the law was applied, a fatwa from a high-ranking mufti was also necessary (that is, the appropriateness of its application was discussed each time) and that the country avoided many fratricidal wars for inheritance. They focus on the fact that this law made it possible to maintain the integrity of the empire, in contrast to other Turkic states, each of which was fragmented among all members of the ruling dynasty. Scientists who assess the role of the law negatively believe that the law provoked wars and riots of the sons of the sultans during the lifetime of their fathers.