It seems early Ottoman sultans abdicated and retired before they died at a higher rate than many other contemporary empires. Why was this?

by abutthole

Bayezid and Murad both did it, I'm sure others did as well. I remember it being a huge deal historically that Diocletian retired in Rome, so what's the situation in the Ottoman Empire? I've heard it suggested that this was to ensure a peaceful transition of power, but the Ottomans had peaceful transitions of power when sultans held on until their deaths, so I'm really not sure about this.

CptBuck

That's two abdications over multiple centuries, which in Murad's case resulted in him having a second reign after his son abdicated to him and then he died in power.

  1. That doesn't look like much of a "higher rate" particularly given that :
  2. Ottoman succession was a fantastically brutal affair. It was "peaceful" in the sense that unlike a number of European states the Ottomans never had a major succession war on the order of the War of the Roses or the wars of Spanish or Austrian Succession but:

The brutality came from the fact that upon succession a new Sultan would, as a matter of course, carry out a massacre of the imperial household, slaughtering his siblings who might compete with him.

That said it's hard to judge them for fratricide given that the alternative might well have been civil war. In the Ottoman view this brief act of personal slaughter was essential to the preservation of the empire.

Source wise: City of the World's Desire by Phillip Mansel goes into this in quite a lot of detail, down to the method of execution (often drowning or strangulation).