• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How far do you agree that the peculiar method of Ottoman succession was ultimately detrimental to Ottoman power?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Ngiam Hui Xin (11) 4H How far do you agree that the peculiar method of Ottoman succession was ultimately detrimental to Ottoman power? Yes I agree that the peculiar method of Ottoman succession was ultimately detrimental to Ottoman power. I would define the ?peculiar method? of succession as the way the sons had to fight over their father?s position of Sultan after he died, rather than the eldest son being the sultan, like the other empires at that time. This method was pretty effective at the start because it was the survival of the fittest, and therefore it was most likely that the surviving prince was the most suitable for the post of the sultan. I would also define ?ultimately detrimental? as the underlying factor that caused all the other problems to arise out of the Ottoman Empire, such that it led to its eventual decline in power. ...read more.

Middle

Although the revolts did clear up by the time the new Sultan had come to place and settled the country, this ultimately led to the decline of the Empire as the social state of the country was unstable. Since the people themselves had the power to make a change to the country, this peculiar method of succession caused the decline of the Ottoman Empire because it, in turn caused instability amongst the people, which proves that it was the underlying factor. However, this is not entirely true as since the Sultan had absolute power and was able to control the people, the people had to maintain the peace within the society or face his punishments, which were usually harsh, in order to discourage people from disobeying again in the future. ...read more.

Conclusion

However, this was ultimately untrue as because of the rivalry between the sons of the Sultan, killing eventually became replaced with keeping all the sons in the Harem in order to prevent them from harming one another. Only when the Sultan passed away were the sons allowed to leave, and usually the eldest son would become the next Sultan. Staying in the Harem meant that the sons were not allowed to gather any support from the people as they were not allowed provincial governorships anymore. And since staying in the Harem for such a long time was detrimental to their mental wellbeing as future leaders, the eldest son was no longer the fittest to be the Sultan, let alone the other sons. This robbed them of their chance to become Sultan, unlike the earlier, more ?meritocratic? system. Therefore, the peculiar method of succession was detrimental to Ottoman power as it ultimately backfired. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. how the nazi's consolidated their power

    and institutions, linked to this was the process of nazification whereby social institutions would be forced to support the Nazi party and also other non-Nazi institutions would be banned, finally was his method of propaganda and this was vital as it allowed him maximise the positive image

  2. Robespierre fell when the Terror had outlived its usefulness- How far do you agree ...

    Many were being sent to the guillotine, and events such as the Great Terror in Paris in 1794 led to many ordinary Parisians and indeed deputies becoming sickened with how extreme the terror had become. Many deputies of the plain now wanted to see an end to the terror, now

  1. How and why did the Bolsheviks gain power in 1917?

    of food and basic supplies; these rumours were later speculated to have been as powerful as fact, inciting the strongest of responses. Bolshevik supporters joined the protest, and soon an extensive range of revolutionaries were in numbers within the city.

  2. The cult of Stalin and the purges of the 1930(TM)s were two aspects of ...

    were tried in secret before being executed or sent to the Gulags (labour camps).[2] On 1st December 1934, a young party member named Leonid Nikolayev murdered Kirov, in the Smolny Institute, in Leningrad and was consequently arrested and executed. To this day there is still a mystery surrounding Kirov's assassination as there were few actual witnesses to the event.

  1. How far was the monarchy stronger in 1603 than in 1485?

    Henry's diplomatic skills appear as a source of strength as seen in the Treaty of Medina del Campo and its outcomes such as the marriage alliance. Similarly the Treaty of Etaples and the Truce of Ayton are also key successes which strengthened the monarchy.

  2. The events in India in 1856/7 were caused by the issue of the new ...

    The Indian people would of seen this as a direct insult to the way they run their economy and would of questioned what right the British had to take more money of them when they were doing all of the hard labour.

  1. Isolated, backwards and weak how far do you agree with this assessment of Russia ...

    There was also salt production on the shores of the white sea at perm and again in the south east in the lower Volga. Tar, pitch, potash and wax were already regular exports. Grain was the main product of the Volga basin and of the lands south of Moscow towards the warm water ports of the black sea.

  2. To What Extent Does History show that there is no such thing as absolute ...

    was an absolute monarch; however, it didn?t necessarily mean that he was bestowed with absolute power. In Ancient Egypt the Pharaoh?s word was law and could rule to his decree and not code of law. However, over history it shows that a Pharaoh?s power was limited within the empire, which was affected by the priesthood, military and the nobility.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work