r/sultanateofwomen

I like this clip which I think summarizes their dynamic decently (Kosem and Turhan) at least when Turhan was Ibrahim’s consort to some degree:

“Honestly, she’s more of a favorite of Kosem than Sultan Ibrahim’s. She raised her specifically. She’s like Kosem’s shadow. Everyone’s afraid of her.”

Not sure if the Beyhan Sultana part is accurate but I think it summarizes Kosem and Turhans near protege dynamic. Two of the most powerful Valide Sultan's in Ottoman history.

>“[...] As for this humble servant of yours—know that, day and night, I am occupied with offering prayers for your well-being. Yet, know also that I am utterly consumed by grief, sorrow, and indignation.

>Alas! I know not what to do; for the sake of my brother, you have inflicted a terrible injustice upon me; you have torn me from my home and hearth; you have treated me with cruelty and inequity. I never expected such conduct from my Sovereign [Padişah].

>Alas! If you would but exercise fairness, you too would recognize the injustice done to me; where has your sense of chivalry gone? Especially now, in the depths of winter—what am I to do? What recourse do I have? To be sent to a place [Amasya] where one has no desire to go is akin to being cast into a dungeon!

>My deepest grievance is this: that Selim Han’s objective has been realized, and that you have allowed me to be wronged.

>Am I merely a slave of Selim Han—that for so long he should strive, and ceaselessly importune my Sovereign, demanding: "Send Bayezid to Amasya!"—and that you, swayed by Selim Han’s words and for the sake of Selim Han’s favor, should tear me from my home and hearth and cast me off to Amasya? Alas! I am utterly consumed by this indignation.

>If I am to die of this grief, it will be a tragic waste of a life. Alas, alas! Even while the great sorrow and calamity of the passing of my late Sultan mother, has utterly devastated us—while that very affliction has left us utterly broken—you could not bring yourself to wait even for a single year! [before changing his Sancak/Province to the hellish Amasya from the vaunted Kütahya in September, 1558]

>You have disgraced us before the world and left us wandering thus, utterly adrift. What am I to do? How shall I proceed? You have exposed me to public disgrace and left me to wander the world as a destitute vagrant. What am I to do? What recourse do I have?

>I have sworn so many oaths—vowing that I would never go to Amasya—yet what am I to do? What recourse do I have? Alas! I never expected such treatment from my Sovereign; but to what avail?

>You have wronged me, and you have granted Selim Han his every wish. Yet, whatever my shortcomings may be, at least I am not a fornicator/adulterer like Selim Han. I wonder with how many harlots he has committed fornication—even in Bursa?

>The day may well come when [these bastard] sons of Selim Khan emerge in various of your lands. Such transgressions are unbecoming; you must admonish him regarding this matter. May he not [continue to] commit such a shameful act!

>I do not speak falsely in these matters; they are entirely true and are known to the whole world. When Your Majesty was wintering in Aleppo—at the very time Selim Han was wintering in Maraş and Antep—he committed adultery with one or two women in the territory of the Zulkadirs. At that time, the father of one of the women sought to go to Your Majesty to lodge a complaint; only with a thousand difficulties—and by paying him a considerable sum in gold and silver coins—were they able to dissuade the father.

>This incident is extremely well-known. Indeed, it is still rumored in certain places that Selim Han has a son or daughter among the Zulkadirs—a rumor that has become notorious. Now, such conduct is truly shameful.

>Observe for yourself, then, the true character of this "favored son" of yours. My Sovereign! I departed from Kütahya—I swear by God—solely out of consideration for Your Majesty. I have now arrived in the city of Engürü; I shall not linger here, but will proceed on my way.

>However, I shall not go to the city of Amasya. What am I to do? I have sworn so many oaths! My Sovereign, my Emperor! For the sake of Your Majesty, let us winter in the vicinity of Amasya this year; but let it be on this condition: that in the early spring, you graciously bestow upon me the Sanjak of Engürü.

>By God, it would have been perfectly acceptable for me to winter right here in Engürü this season. Yet, I defer to Your Majesty's wishes—let your command be fulfilled—but my sole desire of Your Majesty is this: that you grant me the Sanjak of Engürü in the early spring. By God, my heart will find no solace unless you graciously bestow the Sanjak of Engürü upon me! [...]" — Letter dated around October, 1558 to "my Padişah Hazretleri" from "an insignificant servant" (Sultan Bayezid) in TSMA E-3924— catalogued by Historian Çağatay Uluçay

Gülnuş Sultan [c. 1643 - November 6, 1715], even when we don't include her in this era, still remains a thoroughly AMAZING and powerful woman (+ her portraits are so damn cool and so very many + her philanthropy's probably second only to Hürrem Sultan + she's still one of my top 10 most favourite Ottoman ladies!) but, I think it's not right practically speaking to extend this era just to include her.

Even though she did have significant influence, it wasn't at par with her predecessors, the SUPER 6: Hürrem Sultan, Mihrümah Sultan, Nurbanu Sultan, Safiye Sultan, Kösem Sultan,Turhan Sultan— and in fact, while her second regnal son, Ahmed III's (1703-30) reign was indeed incredibly better stability wise (until the later years), than her older son Mustafa II's reign (1695-1703) and as such she could actually wield power FAR more effectively, it was reported that:

>“The validé, living queen mother, [Gülnuş Sultan] does not, however, reign over the will of her son [Ahmed III] with as much authority as she did over that of the other [Mustafa II], although she is revered, esteemed and sometimes listened to. The mothers of the sultans always used to have great strength and great credit in that court, and were often even able to set themselves up as arbiters of maxims and of command [in the past].” — Translated from the Relazione of Venetian ambassador, Carlo Ruzzini (1706)

However, her influence seems to have picked up as Ahmed's reign progressed at times and she was quite very influential, but not ever really decisively (let alone, absolutely) so. But also, at a closer look, notice that her daughter Hatice and granddaughter Fatma were getting more powerful and would come to influence Ahmed III the most! Anyways, the second-half of this quote actually seals the deal "used to" and "were"— past tense.

If you see, not all powerful Ottoman women were restricted to the SoW era, anyways: there're Queen Mothers like Bezmiâlem Sultan, Mihrişah Sultan, Nakşidil Sultan, and princesses like Hatice Sultan (Gülnuş's oldest surviving daughter), Fatma Sultan during Tulip era (Ahmed III's daughter), Esma Sultan the younger— to name a few.

The quote about Turhan Sultan being “the strongest prop of the state” is very telling, prophetic and symbolic when it comes to the SoW era coming to its end— as without their patron, the Koprülüs fell very soon as well within months, as did the state until Ahmed III's reign for some time (and then too, Ahmed III was deposed in 1730 because of his unpopularity owing to his excessive lavishness).

After reading multiple works on Gülnuş (even with the authors like Muzaffer Özgüleş arguing for her to be included therein), in my opinion that she could never reach the status of being “the sole arbiter of power” throughout her political tenure (which had spanned for an incredible duration from her Haseki to Vâlide eras for nearly 6 decades)— is notable.

And during these 6 decades, she was not only the second senior-most (between ~1658-1683), then senior-most (between 1683-1715) but also the most powerful woman in the Empire (1695-1715).

It bears to mention that next to Safiye, Gülnuş was indeed the most powerful Haseki Sultan in the post-Süleymanic era or the Age of the Queen Mother (which lasted from 1578-1683), but that was until, ironically her (de-facto) mother-in-law, “the strongest prop of the Sultanate/State” Turhan Sultan was alive.

Interestingly, she had superceded Turhan in the last ~5 years over influencing Mehmed IV (r. 1648-87) but her husband's sultanate was viable only until his mother lived, so indirectly it was her great rival who was enabling her superceding influence...

Once Turhan was gone, everything started to go into disarray eventually leading to Mehmed's deposition in 1687, after which even after her concerted efforts, Gülnuş didn't get to enthrone her son, Mustafa in place of his uncles (whom she had earlier tried to get rid of but Turhan countermanded and forbade their executions).

Thus, it was only after there was no other viable choice that Mustafa II ascended and even then after the defeat of 1697, things got largely out of control and it was actually Feyzullah Efendi controlling practically everything, and Gülnuş enabled him exacerbating everything (not that she could've hampered him anyways, honestly).

And then the Edirne Incident happened in 1703 leading to the deposition of Mustafa, her own banishment and the shifting back of the capital from Edirne to Istanbul.

ETA: I like Historian Betül's take much better, realistic and practical:

>“ [...] limiting the influence of the valide sultans on the workings of the imperial court and Ottoman internal and international politics to the era of "the sultanate of women" does injustice to historical reality. Shared patterns tied Gülnûş's career to a tradition of queen mothers that had existed since antiquity, thus well before the Ottoman period itself. The women sought to promote their own interests and those of their sons, but also devoted themselves to the maintenance of order and the well-being of dynasty and empire.” — Argit, Betül İpşirli; A Queen Mother and the Ottoman Imperial Harem: Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Valide Sultan (1640-1715)

Of course, we can talk about any and all Ottoman ladies even after this, but it's just that it's more fitting practically speaking to demarcate the era as 1523-1683.

I'm still open-minded albeit, if I made a mistake in excluding her and I find genuine evidence to the contrary, I'll rectify it, but so far after reading quite much, it doesn't seem like I'm changing my mind.

Anyhoo, of course lemme know what you guys think!