The relationship between the state and the dynasty in the Ottoman Empire

This study aims to analyze the unique dynamics of the state–dynasty relationship that enabled the Ottoman Empire to be ruled by a single dynasty for more than six centuries, from a historical-sociological perspective and through a comparative method. The scope of the research is to compare the Ottoman political structure with European (England, Sweden, Denmark), Middle Eastern (Safavid, Mamluk), and East Asian (Japan, China) monarchies in terms of legitimacy, the limits of power, succession, and the role of female members of the dynasty. Adopting a qualitative research design, the thesis examines primary and secondary historical sources through document analysis. The key findings reveal that the Ottoman model diverged from other monarchies. While power in Europe was shared with the aristocracy and representative assemblies, dynasties in East Asia functioned with a notion of power that was "transferable" or "divided." In contrast, the Ottoman system, through the kul system rooted in devshirme, prevented the rise of a rival aristocracy and concentrated all authority in the person of the sultan. In this structure, where the dynasty was inseparable from the state, radical solutions to succession crises—such as fratricide—were institutionalized for the survival of the empire. This demonstrates that in the Ottoman Empire, the dynasty was regarded as indispensable for the continuity of the state, whereas in other models dynasties were considered replaceable in the interest of preserving the state.