Why did Ottoman Sultans insist on taking European slave wives rather than marrying into powerful local dynasties like most monarchies?
seems kind of pathetic, no? I mean most empires at the time looked down upon marrying subjugated peoples
Mehmetmyson.jpg
>>443483
memes are great and all but what actually happened?
>>443469
I'm speaking of reading high level theoretical papers on Byzantine and Ottoman methods of extraction of social surplus but the non-manorial pseudo-"feudalism" in the Marxist sense, which is painted as a "tributary mode of production" by some seems to form a stable aristocracy below the level of state power that has a greater semi-independence in stable extraction but a far weaker control over violence than the European aristocracy.
This would leave marrying into the aristocracy as a less valuable dynastic manoeuvre.
>>443494
but why slave girls? Was it a Byzantine tradition like how Justinian married Theodora ?
>>443469
>marrying into powerful local dynasties
Made most sense in a feudal society, where power is fragmented. Would prevent rebellions.
Marrying into powerful neighboring dynasties came after you had large centralized powers surrounded by other large centralized nations and wanted to prevent war or gain an ally for a different war.
Dunno about Ottomans, but were did they even have cognatic kinship like Christian yuros had? If not, the woman's origin wouldn't be that important.
>>443497
>but why slave girls
They're not aligned to any of the aristocratic power blocks and leave the central apparatus unbeholden.
Regarding Theodora, the analyses I've read are at a level where Theodora didn't appear. So I shouldn't comment.
>>443469
Because Ottoman sultans were hardly monogamous.
>Memehet my son you can have butifel Melike
>Or gaiour girl I brought from balkanlar
>Or both
>>443491
They liked the look of them
>>443505
They didn't have feudal structure and their governance was more based on ministers and couriers appointed by the Sultan.
Still odd how they insisted on almost always marrying foreign women though- especially slaves
>>443469
The feudalism was different in Ottomans, search for tımar. That's why there weren't dynasties, but bureaucrats. Also Mehmet II destroyed all other families with "kut", means something like right to rule(search of Anatolian Beyliks). They didn't let there be different aristocrats other than Ottomans until 18th century.
Though it wasn't uncommon for the Grand Viziers to marry with Ottoman princesses afaik.
>>443522
>>443511
Whats wrong with Turkish qts though?
>>443469
Before Mehmed II, they did that, their princes/sultans either married with Byzantine princesses or daughters of other Oghuz states' rulers.
Mehmed II changed the whole deal by incorporating Byzantine style bureaucracy and disempowering local Oghuz families. Soon, there wasn't any powerful Oghuz "local dynasty" left. It was all devshirmes.
>>443526
They could have it all.
>>443531
afaik almost all harem girls were of christian origin
>>443526
Osman II did that.
It didn't end well for him.
>>443524
>Also Mehmet II destroyed all other families with "kut", means something like right to rule(search of Anatolian Beyliks). They didn't let there be different aristocrats other than Ottomans until 18th century.
Exactly.
"Kut" also means "Holy" in modern Turkish and it pretty much meant "right to rule" back then.
If you were a random noble of Oghuz origin, you had claim in being the supreme ruler of every other tribe/land/nation etc, as long as you have the balls and armies to back that claim up, and skills to rule them. I suppose it was something like Mandate of Heaven.
>>443532
That's because it's kinda hard to get non-gavur slave girl, but they broke that rule with Circassians anyway.
>>443469
>powerful local dynasties
because they did not want any powerful local dynasties. It's not pathetic, It makes sense that you concentrate power in one dynasty one city one autocrat. In a way ottomans succeeded where Byzantines Failed.
In a monarchy where extra princes are killed off to prevent rebellions, it kinda makes sense that they would want the maternal line of a ruler to have absolutely no claim to the throne whatsoever.
Marriages into other houses was more common before 15th century. Especially when they were just getting started. Certain regions under the rule of other turkic houses were acquired simply through marriages (for example see Germiyanids). There were also a few marriages with Byzantines and other Balkan states.
>>443469
It was neither unwise nor pathetic. The governing model of the ottoman empire was an ancient one. Virtually all it's expansion was done through conquest. Conquer some kingdom and then make the ruling elite into ministers or viziers at the other end of your empire both decapitating the local opposition and insuring that your new viziers are dependent on the sultan for authority/power. Given that your ministers are dependent on you, you don't really need to marry their daughters. Since ottoman also practiced open succession, that is the strongest dynasty member succeeds to the throne and that polygamy is commonplace in Islam and that polygamy can blur into concubinage it didn't really matter that the mother of the new sultan was a Greek or a Serb. What mattered was that the new sultan was of the dynasty and that he was the strongest.
>>443541
he was kiled (according to wiki) for opposing the Jannisary system though? what does that have to do with marriage?
>>443597
Her dad, the Shaykh al-Islām was an important figure in Osman's death.
