Ottomans Female Heir

[alqemist]

The thread isn't about women's rights. It is about the credibility of female Muslim, specifically Ottoman, rulers/heirs in game. Discounting Aceh, there have been two female Muslim rulers uncovered in the 1000-1950 time period. I think they should be very rare in game.

 

[Chamboozer]

It seems rather clear that the succession laws and importance of dynasty over all else, NOT views about women, were what led to the high number of Christian monarchs in the game's time period compared to elsewhere.

Pretty much this.

Besides, people are focusing far too much on the position of the sovereign. It's not like female as a ruler = tolerance towards women and no female rulers = intolerance towards women. The women of the Ottoman family had massive institutional power within the empire and their authority was not by and large considered illegitimate. Women could play a significant role in politics without needing to be the padishah.

But it is christian world that is anti-women

 

[Ashantai]

Having just done the stats, the Ottomans in the game have 10 possible female rulers, each with a -1 chance (the - indicating they are female). This compared with the combined male probabilities of 550 means the chance of getting an Ottoman female heir is about 1.78%. This excludes events, naturally. On the other hand Pretenders are never female so it balances out.

I think that's an acceptable amount to make it possible, but very unlikely.

 

[Dakilla TM]

You know which nations has a high chance of getting females? Castille/Aragon/Spain!

 

[Sian]

Discounting Aceh, there have been two female Muslim rulers uncovered in the 1000-1950 time period. I think they should be very rare in game.

You failed to see my example that Pattani had a string of Female Rulers for nearly 100 years?

otherwise theres Shajar Al-Durr who spearheaded the dynasty change in Egypt from Ayyubid to Mamluk, even if she only ruled in her own name for 80 days

 

[alqemist]

You failed to see my example that Pattani had a string of Female Rulers for nearly 100 years?

otherwise theres Shajar Al-Durr who spearheaded the dynasty change in Egypt from Ayyubid to Mamluk, even if she only ruled in her own name for 80 days

She was one of the two whom I counted. Was Pattani an independent state? It's Wikipedia history is vague and weaseled ("She is believed to be the last of four successive female rulers"). No female rulers of Pattani are mentioned by Abdul Basit in his list of female Muslim rulers (Basit, Abdul. "Removing the Veil: Clarifying the Role of Women in Islam." The Global Muslim Community at a Crossroads: Understanding Religious Beliefs, Practices, and Infighting to End the Conflict (2012): 65-70.)

 

[Kyoumen]

The most famous ruler of Yemen (by a wide margin) was female. I have no idea how any amount of research on Muslim female rulers could have missed Arwa al-Sulayhi (well, discounting the fact Crusader Kings still has fictional rulers instead of her for some reason).

 

[alqemist]

The most famous ruler of Yemen (by a wide margin) was female. I have no idea how any amount of research on Muslim female rulers could have missed Arwa al-Sulayhi (well, discounting the fact Crusader Kings still has fictional rulers instead of her for some reason).

Why don't you post your sources?

 

[Sian]

Was Pattani an independent state?

I call moving the goalposts ...

 

[PhroX]

The thread isn't about women's rights. It is about the credibility of female Muslim, specifically Ottoman, rulers/heirs in game. Discounting Aceh, there have been two female Muslim rulers uncovered in the 1000-1950 time period. I think they should be very rare in game.

And they are. End of story.

 

[alqemist]

I call moving the goalposts ...

Tell me where the goal posts you speak of are defined. You seem to have an antagonistic attitude to discussion that makes it difficult.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Actually, if you look back through to the dawn of the Muslim faith, then you will find that their stance towards females in power has been pretty consistent up until recent extremism. However, for many centuries, Christian nations didn't give women any rights, let alone the chance to govern a nation. If you specifically look at the EU4 time frame, sure, women rulers are fairly common in the Christian nations compared to the Muslim nations, but before that, they were almost non-existent.

This isn't SJW, this is history. If you believe women have been equal since the birth of Christ, then you might want to re-read the history books.

The reason for the extremely low numbers before the EU4 time period is that in the preceding time period the ruler was a military leader and expected to go to war.

 

[alqemist]

The reason for the extremely low numbers before the EU4 time period is that in the preceding time period the ruler was a military leader and expected to go to war.

That sounds reasonable but I'm not sure it's a complete explanation.Several of the examples are from the pre-1500 period, and the ones after are all from South East Asian sultanates who were not renown for their orthodoxy. The hypothesized need to lead troops into battle didn't stop Irene of Athens in the 8th century or Wu Zetian in the 7th.

 

[Sun_Wu]

That sounds reasonable but I'm not sure it's a complete explanation.Several of the examples are from the pre-1500 period, and the ones after are all from South East Asian sultanates who were not renown for their orthodoxy. The hypothesized need to lead troops into battle didn't stop Irene of Athens in the 8th century or Wu Zetian in the 7th.

I was specifically talking about Christian Europe.

 

[alqemist]

I was specifically talking about Christian Europe.

Yeah well Europe was a pretty uncivilized place for about a millennium. The European monarchies started out as the chiefs of the nomadic tribes that over-ran the Romans. The thread is about Muslims though.

 

[Sian]

Tell me where the goal posts you speak of are defined. You seem to have an antagonistic attitude to discussion that makes it difficult.

Funny, in my mind its you that have an antagonistic attitude, folding your arms saying that it didn't happen or was very exceptional.

My whole point is that i'm yet to see proof that Muslim leaders (even if of what would equal christian duchies, or ruling in act instead of name), was so much less female than Christian Europe was, and that if you're allowed to not count Aceh as had an exceptional run of female leaders, i'm just as allowed to not counting England which have just an exceptional line of female rulers. For an example, Queen Margeret I of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (the instigator of Kalmar Union), strictly speaking was never the Monarch (and certainly not of the Norwegian and Swedish throne), but just a regent (even if between the death of her son and adoption of her great-grand nephew, was regent to an empty throne) that was so competent and shrewd, with lengths of personal power (and the heir so little of the same due to infancy in the case of Olaf, and lack of charisma in case of Eric of Pomerania) that she stayed around until her death, being the effective ruler even after Eric of Pomerania was crowned.

Yes, Female Rulers in the Muslim world was rare, but my core point is that it was no rarer than in Christian Europe, and that any disperency is due to a lack of awareness of them in Western history, paired with a dispropotional interest and awareness to the few female rulers that were around in Europe.

 

[Kyoumen]

Why don't you post your sources?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arwa+al-Sulayhi

 

[SaphireSeas]

Actually, if you look back through to the dawn of the Muslim faith, then you will find that their stance towards females in power has been pretty consistent up until recent extremism. However, for many centuries, Christian nations didn't give women any rights, let alone the chance to govern a nation. If you specifically look at the EU4 time frame, sure, women rulers are fairly common in the Christian nations compared to the Muslim nations, but before that, they were almost non-existent.

*Remembers strolls trough CK2 History files in choose a character section*
I think Female rulers are more likely in Christian nations. As for rights between the two, Ive heard people stating both ways, so I'll wait until someone can give me proof.

My general stance to any faith that allows polygamy is suspicious on a women's rights front. But I'm sure you can prove my suspitions unfounded.

 

[mangalore]

Actually, if you look back through to the dawn of the Muslim faith, then you will find that their stance towards females in power has been pretty consistent up until recent extremism. However, for many centuries, Christian nations didn't give women any rights, let alone the chance to govern a nation. If you specifically look at the EU4 time frame, sure, women rulers are fairly common in the Christian nations compared to the Muslim nations, but before that, they were almost non-existent.

This isn't SJW, this is history. If you believe women have been equal since the birth of Christ, then you might want to re-read the history books.

Actually there is a complicating factor. The usual way any woman could get into power was as mother via regency. And there were plenty. Additionally what gets underreported because the husbands got the credit is that in a feudal state status and dynasty matters more than anything so the wife of the king was the highest representative in his absence and thus nominal (as nominal as the guy could be ) in his absence.

A quite telling thing is how Henry VIII made Catherine of Aragon (yes, the wife he started a fight over with the pope to divorce) his regent in his absence when campaigning in France. This included military high command and she put down a rebellion (obviously not sword swinging but she was the one in England who had command).


It's not that women had no rights, they had crappier ones and for all people before modern times status and bloodlines were far more important. So good luck being a peasant guy when meeting a noblewoman on who had the better legal status.

I do think Muslim dynasty practiced polygamy more often so usually the most influential woman could only be the mother because there was more competition for wives to claim to represent their husband.