What should I do next?

It is so stunning that there was so many competent ottomam leaders until selim the drunk, no wonder why they became this powerful

Strong men create good times Good times create weak men Weak men create bad times Bad times made Ottoman Empire fall. No other empire have this many amazing geniuses follow each other at the beginning of the Empire and nothing but pathetic idiots at the end, who destroyed all that their glorious ancestors had built. Mahmud II being an exception, obviously.

I think Mehmed IV's reign was only effective because of the Koprulus. When the Koprulu Vizier lost the Battle of Vienna, he was immediately executed by the Sultan. Which sent the Ottomans into a free fall, until the last straw at the Battle of Mohacs, where Mehmed IV was deposed.

On the defense side of Mehmed V, he was reigning the empire during the terrible time he had no control over and considering most of Turkey was in control of his ministers, who controled the army, this wasnt a good position to start with

damnit, Mustafa II reconquered many cities in hungary and bosnia until he was defeated in Zenta by austrians, he did his best during his reign . I’d rank him as Good/Medium

Good ranking

The onion heads were OP

I would rate the Abdulhamid II good he litteraly prolonged the empire for 30 years after his deposition, empire teared apart. My ratings compared to yours +education +railway and infastructure +budget control +was a good diplomat + prolonged the empire + good spy networks for control over fracturing state + modernized the army -lost bosnia serbia tunisia serbia egypt and east africa coasts - revolution target - seen as evil by european public, therefore low support from european society during crises - he was paranoid

Suleiman the Magnificient killed his eldest son, who was incredibly competent, and essentially made it so that Selim the Drunk would take the throne.

Hi! I am your big fan but can you make videos on Ranking Umayyad Caliphate leaders and also Ranking Safavid rulers please!

The fact that you had to put a good point on Abdulmejid I just because he didn't lose any territories is just show how bad the previous rulers were at keeping Ottoman territory intact

I hope you remake the bizantine or the roman one

I think Abdulkhamid II period wasn't bad

Could have a special rank for Suleiman. Magnificent :)

Even though I am a huge Fan of the Eastern Roman Empire. I wonder how the Ottoman Sultans decrease in quality. Like they where almost unstoppable at first.

plsss do parthian kings next and finish irans ancient history on kings

Okey to be honest the part of abdul hamid II needed to be researched if he would have introduced absolutism there would have been no ottomans due to him the ottomans collapse delayed and he gave the control of empire finances to european power so that they won’t interfere in their countries Internal affairs and moreover he wasn’t overthrown by army he was slandered And overthrown by fatwa he was a good ruler if he would have got empire in good state he would had take empire to its peak for sure due to his intelligence

Être fort comme un Turc (‘to be strong like a turk’): This expression originates in the 15th century when the Turks had a reputation for being strong, almost unbeatable warriors due to their numerous victories. At the time, the Ottoman Empire ruled large parts of south-east Europe, north Africa and western Asia. It is said that François I, King of France, was gifted Turkish armour by Suleiman the Magnificent (the tenth and most famous sultan of the Ottoman Empire) during their alliance. When he wore it, he is said to have exclaimed: “Here I am now, strong as a Turk!”.

The war against the poles was looking good for osman ii at the start despite him being a teenage sultan, a solid good would be fitting for him

Can you do Moroccan rulers, from idrisid to Mohamed vi

Murad the 4th shouldn't have that negative because he was only 7 when he took the ottoman throne, so he needed a regent until he got a little older.

Selim II was not as bad as people think he was actually a good ruler, not on his father's lever but at least good, sultan Ahmed I was also good not bad, and sultan Abdulhamid II is not bad at all, he lost a lot of territories but he saved the empire from collapsing and gave him 30 more years

THE TURKS AND THE WEST. Europe stood in awe of the Ottomans who crushed many states and conquered vast territories, going, as all patriotic Turks will proudly point out, "all the way to the gates of Vienna." European literature is replete with the depictions of the Turk as the hated enemy. The English often thought of the Turk as awe-inspiring and destructive. Thomas Fuller wrote in The Holy Warre (1639): "The Turkish Empire is the greatest... the sun ever saw. ...Grass springeth not where the grand signior's horse setteth his foot."

Is it true the eastern church gave the title of caesar to mehmed ll?

I'm Turkish, here is my opinions: Bayezid II wasn't a good Sultan. He did not conquer important countries in his long reign, he did not take advantage of the many chances that came to him. He rejected Christopher Columbus' request to give him a ship and in return connect the places that Christopher would explore (America) to the Ottoman Empire. Murad III greatly disrupted the education system of the Janissaries during his reign. Education time decreased, strict rules for education were abolished. So, the discipline of the army fell further. Also, corruption started during his reign. Osman II is a underrated leader, wanted to abolish the Janissaries and gather an army including only of Turks, as the Janissary Corps was constantly deteriorating, becoming corrupt and constantly causing trouble for the state. He tried to reforming the empire, but were dethroned by Janissaries. Mehmed IV was a terrible leader. He literally did nothing in his 39-year reign. All of conquests in his reign were carried by viziers. In his reign, Ottomans lost the Battle of Vienna because of betrayal of Crimean Khan, and Mehmed IV did nothing but ex*cuting the Grand Vizier who laid the siege. After the battle, Ottomans start to fall. Mustafa II was a good leader. When he became sultan, Ottomans were in a great war with Austria, Poland, Venice and Russia; and lost Hungary, Transilvania, Azov and Morea. The empire was literally in its death throes. He became the head of army and started campaigns to Austria. He won the battles of Lugos and Olasch. He tried to reviving the empire but gained a crushing defeat in the Battle of Zenta. Mahmud I became Sultan in a retreat of empire, he ensured peace in the country and slowed down the decline of the Ottoman Empire. He won the war with Austria, reconquered Belgrade, northern Bosnia and western Wallachia. He was a good sultan.

Murad 1 has founded the unit of Janissary

After Suleiman I, the Ottoman Sultans became increasingly irrelevant. Nevertheless, the Ottomans were still a superpower until 1683, and the eventual collapse of the European territories. But the Ottomans continued to be a great power until the mid 18th century, when there started to be a significant difference in military technology, inferior to the West. The true decline began in the Egyptian War, where only with the allied powers they were able to kick out Napoleon. The reforms began, but it was too late to stop the tide of nationalism and foreign aggression.

I do think that you are a little bit harsh on Selim II

=Sultan abdul hamid II was great. He didnot lose any of his lands.

Que bien

You have to khow the real history of Sultan Abdulaziz & Sultan Abdülhamid II. Don’t make wrong information about them.Do you know who was Sultan Abdülhamid ll.He faced many problems and faced many kinds of assassination attempts. After all he was a very good sultan of the Ottoman empire.

👍

One of my favorite states of the Turks is the Ottomans :> Great vidoe!

The only Ottoman sultan I know here is Murad V

It was actually mehmed ii who conquered karamanids

You have underrated abdulhamid 2. I think you are European

Bayezid demi god

In My Opinion Osman I Great Orhan I Great Murad I Great Bayzeid I Very Good Mehmed I Good Murad II Very Good Mehmed II Great Bayzeid II Good Selim I Great Suleiman I Great Selim II Medium Murad III Medium Mehmed III Very Good Ahmed I Bad Mustafa I Bad Osman II Bad Murad IV Very Good Ibrahim I Bad Mehmed IV Bad Suleiman II Good Ahmed II Bad Mustafa II Medium Ahmed III Medium Mahmud I Medium Osman III Bad Mustafa III Bad Abdulhamid I Medium Selim III Good Mustafa IV Bad Mahmud II Very Good Abdulmecid I Good Abdulaziz I Good Murad V Bad Abdulhamid II Great Mehmed V Bad Mehmed VI Bad

Personally id say mehmed IV gets too much of a bad rap. He was in my opinion very good if not great ottoman sultan. He won wars after wars. The only reason he lost in vienna was because of incompetent generals and viziers. If that werent the case he wouldve been up there with the like of mehmed II and suleiman I

The list has some awful takes

Abdul Hamid ii was a very good ruler actually because he was actually able to fight zionism alone and he fended off all the challenges that wanted to end the ottomans.

Sultan Abdul Hamid bad.. Bute whay. He is one of the best sultan muslim saltant

fact: Osman II r**ed by Janissaries

if you had put ataturk on here, he would definetly be great

Not Great, Magnicifent!..

Sultan Abdul Hamid 2nd not a bad sultan He is a great on that time

abdulhamid and abdulaziz was great

Bayezid wasnt overthrown rather his own givernment generals lost confidence in him after his son ahmed betrayal Selim greatest feet was turning ottoman into a calipha and left the treasury like no other sultan did. Suleiman down point would ge although he ruled at peak he also made all the mistakes to start the ottoman downfall

sultan mehmed 3 was bad his son ahmed the first was a very great sultan !!!