RIP Pronounciation of Turkish names. Sorry if the audio seems a bit off for this video, the original recording had constant peaking, which led to me re-recording the whole thing again, and in the end I ended up combining both audio files. Also, I did consider saying the time periods of each reign, but chose not to, as I felt it would break the "pace" of the video. Hope you enjoy it!
What if Suleiman the Magnificient had the technology from Mustafa IV's reign when he was a child? 1500s Ottomans with early-1800s tech would be incredible!
The ottoman and Roman empires are very similar. in one point you got the first 10 rulers being absolute chads while the rest caused the collapse of the empire, both empires fought the persians 24/7 in the east and Germans in the north, and you have the personal guards being the catalyst for most rulers being ki11ed/disposed
Whether you think the Ottoman Empire should or shouldn't be compared to Rome we can all agree creating a private military force meant to protect the absolute ruler of the state has never worked even once in history.
@@braziliankaiser8304 They worked until the Crusaders killed them all. Plus they had no motivation to shadow rule as they were recruited solely from abroad.
@@braziliankaiser8304 they worked as long as you paid them, much like the Praetorians. Definitely a lot more loyal and easy to control though, so they've got that going for them. The fact that they were essentially mercenaries helped, as they could just leave if they weren't paid enough, unlike the Praetorians
@@braziliankaiser8304 The problem with the Varangians, is that they were super expensive, so they really only worked when the Byzantine Empire was rich, and they came from very specific warrior cultures so when they were gone they were gone. Also they aren't a great example as they really only existed as we would think of them for about 100 to 200 years. Which is very short compared to the Praetorian Guard or the Janissaries.
Osman the Second could have been a great leader though, he had big ambitions, most of them actually useful, but his plan on getting rid of the Janissaries was discovered and he was brutally tortured and killed by the Janissaries because of that.
@@KayserathePoetKiller o Osman farklı Osman, Genç Osman Türküsü, genç yaşlarında Osmanlı padişahı IV. Murad'ın Bağdat Seferi'ne katılan ve hayatını kaybeden Osman ismindeki bir yeniçeri için yazılmış bir türkü (wikiden aldım sen de bakabilirsin istersen).
Nice video but as a Turkish person I'd rank Mehmed II the best Ottoman sultan of all. Suleyman's reign was the height of Ottoman power that's true but, he only reaped the fruits of his father Selim I's and his great-grandfather Mehmet II's reigns, imo. Mehmet was the best of the trio because of his vision, his intellectual nature and his statesmanship. Suleyman's 46 six year reign also marks the beginning of corruption in Ottoman State. His execution of his closest companion, grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha and his son Sehzade Mustafa is pivotal, those two were incredibly talented individuals. Especially Mustafa had a deeper understanding of geo-politics than his father and his brothers as he wanted wanted to expand the navy, colonize Americas and beyond, dominate the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean and adapt to the changing of the global trade routes. Suleyman's successor instead of Mustafa, Selim II the Drunk was the one lost at Lepanto and that made Ottomans an increasingly land force over the centuries. They rebuilt their navy that they lost in Lepanto but the experienced marines and seaman and their tradition to some extent that were lost did not come back. Suleyman does seem nice from afar but he is not that good in my honest opinion. His clinging to power and breaking Ottoman tradition of not having multiple sons from a single mother as to not produce political instability, may have cost the Ottomans their future. I'm not saying he was disastrous or not good but I would never put him #1.
Maybe i agree with you, i'm not really sure on who was the best Sultan politically. But i'm sure that in the military the best Sultans were Selim Yavuz and Murad II
@@cantthinkofacreativename1769 I see your point but to be honest, to lose to Tamerlane when invasion wasn't caused by your undoings isn't that much of a failure. Guy was like the force of nature. And Nikopolis was a brilliant and odd victory.
The fact that Ibraham, who was literally not mentally capable of ruling, did a better job than some of these people is... impressive. I also can't believe you didn't mention that Ibraham was assassinated on the orders _of his mother, Kosem Sultan_ . She did, however, kill at least two Sultans and depose a third (twice), so she was basically the Sultan in her own right for 5 different reigns.
About Bayezid the Thunderbolt, his cool nickname actually foreshadowed his downfall. He got it on account of how quickly he went from one front to the other, which, while cool, wasn't a sustainable state of affairs as most of his reign was spent fighting a war on multiple fronts, much of it being against the other Anatolian beyliks, whom he continually failed to make lasting peace with and who eventually sided with Timur over him.
He also insulted Timur which led to Timur invasion which destroyed him. An Ottoman writer from that era wrote that the ego of Beyazid is what killed him.
@@tanura5830 Yeah, his prior military successes and belligerent attitude probably had something to do with how he couldn't make peace with the rest of Anatolia as well.
@@kenanmemedov5002 No, I don't really use discord for anything besides gaming. But it's nice to hear I'm not the only guy with this kind of thought process.
As a Turk all i can say is putting Suleiman in front of Mehmed II the Conqueror or Selim I or maybe even Murad II (my personal favorite thx to Battle of Varna) is insane to me.
This is actually a really good list. I thought for sure you were gonna miss a lot of things because generally westerns don't care that much about Ottomans but that was quite surprising. Your list was pretty objective and informative.
Because I uploaded and unlisted it all the while putting it on the Historical Monarchs playlist, which enabled people to find it. Also, it was available on Patreon before being public on UA-cam.
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire.
I agree with you for the most part. But Vahidettin Mehmed VI should be WAAY lower. Osman II had his reforms etc. Selim II at least kept the most skilled grand vizier the Ottomans ever saw. But Mehmed VI, he was so easy to manipulate. During his trip with Mustafa Kemal Pasha to Germany, Kemal Pasha almost managed to get him to his side, then somehow despite hating him Mehmed VI done what Enver Pasha told him to do once he got the throne. And then his groom and the British. He was a pushover. Also according to many Murad I was the one who formed the Jannisaries
Selim the Resolute better known by others as Selim the Grim XD Also yea dont feel sorry about the names haha, you pronounced them beautifully, no "k" at c or "j" at "ch" clearly you did research how to pronounce these names. And nice tier list. Although I would perhaps put Mehmed II ahead of Suleiman; purely because while the west knows Mehmed through his conquest, he was what you could call a Renaissance ruler through and through, knew over 6 languages, read Persian, Greek, Roman, Arabic and Indian Classics, held court with Byzantine philosophers and had them on Imperial pay, something later Emperors did not do, as well as many other aspects. I would say it was during Mehmed II's time that Ottomans went from being a beylik to being an Empire.
These videos put me to sleep instantly without fail. They’re not boring or anything I love watching them. I just always fall asleep in seconds if I put these videos on as background noise, especially the English kings one.
It’s too weird to see Mehmed IV that high and Bayezid I that low on the tier list Also Abdulaziz and Abdulhamid II were compenent leaders but at the worst time of the empire I’d just change places of Mehmed II and Suleiman I and besides these the tier list is correct
@@Emil.Fontanot he was a good ruler and a good general but had to face a good ruler like himself but one of the greatest generals of all time, same situation kind of happened in the reign of selim the grim facing safavid ismail shah but reverse this time
Abdulaziz was basically a puppet meanwhile Abdulhamit did everything he can do keep his absolute tyrannical power even if it meant sabotaging the empire in the process. Neither are good rulers.
Abdulhamid II is somewhat underrated, the fact he ranked lower than his mentally ill half-brother is a little weird, in my opinion he would be a bit higher.
@@gathrawn6822 mishandled european relations and caused loss of cyprus, total loss and alienation of egypt lost the balkan wars, destroyed reformist movements and ruled with tyranny and secret police, demolished free press and movement of knowledge. He is the reason in the modern Turkey why Ottoman state is mostly remembered as something that had to go. Oh also for Islamists that love him and he bent the knee to americans and told Sulu Sultanate and Moro people as Caliph to not protest american occupation and americans broke their promises of freedom to practice islam and proceeded to kill them here goes your Caliph bro. Mad Ibrahim was a puppet that ruler for a short amount of time Abdulhamid ruled for long, long enough that the ships Abdulaziz bought (Ottomans reformed the navy together with the Army and had a modern navy that was the third biggest in the world) rotted away in Haliç because he bent the knee against British fear of Ottomans establishing as a naval power in the mediterrenean again... He has some redeeming facts such as paying a substantial amount of debt and not letting zionists in Palestine but thats pretty much it. He destroyed Ottomanist ideology, Parlamentiarism and got rightfully deposed.
An amazing video, the only one I didn't agree with was Ahmed I, I really think he could have been a great sultan if he had lived longer... ( given that he died before the age of 30 ) not to mention he was the first Ottoman sultan to break the tradition of Fratricide and refused to kill his brothers, something his sons would end up continuing... I think the next ranking video should be one of the three... 1 - Poland 2 - Hungary 3 - Holy Roman Empire
Decline started with Selim II. It didn’t show until another 70 years but Suleiman’s reign although from outside look most magnificent for the empire but internally his mistakes within the family led to the eventual decline of the empire. His Decision to murder his own son Mustafa was the worst of them but women gaining control in managerial roles started during his reign which also played a pivotal role long term in decline of the empire.
You forgot the funniest thing about Ibrahim I "The Mad". You mentioned that he preferred spending time in the harem to actually ruling, but it should be noted that his harem was populated by obese women, which was his preference. One of the "unsuitable people he came under the influence of" was his favourite courtesan. He had ordered his men to find the fattest woman in Istanbul, which turned out to be the daughter of an Armenian merchant. He quickly fell in love with her and she ended up wielding a huge amount of influence, which did not work out so good for the Empire.
Im not sure if youre planning on ranking any more sets of Monarchs, although if you are it would be awesome if you ranked the Scottish Monarchs (Kennith I up to Queen Anne when the Act of Union was passed) one day
As a turk I Thınk Fatih Sultan Mehmet (conqueror) Is the greatest Sultan ın ottoman history. He is a military genious but also he is genious about other things. He knows multiple languages. He knows math he knows history geography etc. And he is founder of many Important education centers.(Sahn-ı seman medresesi) . Ali Kuşçu is the one of the best scientist of his era and he talked with him personally and Gave him a most important job in Sahn ı saman. Add all of this things his conquests and Istanbul. Suleyman was the ruler of best era in the ottomans but this is because Selim Firsts and Mehmet seconds eras victories. Mehmet the conqueror is a absolute genious.
One of the stories I enjoy the most about Mahmud the Second is HOW he dissolved the Janissaries. Dude told them to piss off, but they refused and began gathering at their conclave to plan the Sultan's removal. Mahmud called the fucking artillery regiments within the city, declared Janissaries enemies of the state, and bombarded their enclave with cannons. I absolutely love how unhinged that response is.
When I heard Abdulaziz's name on the 35th place out of 36, I laughed and closed the video's tab, then after I closed it, I made ctrl+shift+tab, then made this comment. "Understandable, have a great day" video :)
Süleyman married a concubine, he undermined so many traditions that worked for the Ottoman Empire so well… He had taken a full treasury and left none to his son Selim. How is he the best emperor. Let’s not begin with the power vacuum he created with the rise of his Vezirs. His reign is the start of Ottoman stagnation and eventual downfall with embracing Islamic code, rise of bribery….
sorry but you've got the #1 wrong. Mehmed the 2nd is by far the "best" Ottoman sultan. Suleyman II signed the death warrant of the empire's next 200 years when he chose to kill his firstborn Mustafa, who was said to be very similar to Mehmed the 2nd.
Can you try to do Chinese Three Kingdoms Warlords, American Presidents, and Sengoku Judaism Warlords? Could be interesting twist of the typical list. It's not getting old any time soon, just it'd be a cool twist, ranking competing rulers. Or Ethiopian or Mesopotamian Kings.
A few things i would like to point out. First, not all of janniserries were slaves taken by force. Might be at begining but after time when people see benefits, many had sent their children willingly. Being a soldier was not the only way they could go. Children were selected carefully. If they re the only son in family they don t get picked. And also they had to be smart and sharp. Even though all of them get military training and basic sciences of the time, the brightest were choosen to be trained as scientist, engineer,artist,architect, and beurocrats which may lead to becoming grand vezir. which is the second most powerful position in entire empire. So even tough they had to fight wars it was a rich and rewarding life compared to rest of commen folk of the world. And after a while turks were allowed to become jans. Secondly i think second and first places should swap. Even the suleyman was a magnifecent ruler, he had everything to become magnificent. His father was grim and stone heart but insanely capable ruler. The staff he put in charge were anazing as you said. And the stability and treasure he inherated was insane. East and egypt brought crazy amount of money and cash flow by trade. He has access to more money than combination of entire europe. And he was the only son so he didn t had to deal with civil war. He also got badly influenced by harem. Killed his best heir eldest son with false accusations of his second wife( so her children would become sultan, who were uncapable and puppet of their mother). On the other hand mehmet the conqueror was a diffrent kind of beast. He used his very high intelligance brilliantly. He was a scholer, poet, and engineer who designed and produced new mortars. Also was a skillful diplomat who spoke 6 languages( turkish,arabic, persian, serbian, ancient greek and latin.he also made legal reforms. had to deal with the staff whom undermined him. Alexander the great was his idol, so he aimed the entire world. He called himself kayser i rum ( ceaser of the rome) for a reason. After the conquest of constantinopolis next target was rome and he got a foothold in italy(otranto) for that goal. Even tough he announced that his campaign were to east, many historians says that he was going to go italy. At the begining of his campaign at age 49 he died suspiciously( also historians thinks he was poisoned). Venetian embessador nicolo coco reported his death immediatly. When the captain arrived venice in May 29th, rushed to ducale palace to give news but informed that duke was not available cos of a meeting. Captain didn t care, entered to meeting room and screamed the words "La grande aqauila é morta" "the great eagle had died, we are saved". And there were celebrations in venice for days. With being a true renaissance intellectual he was also one of the best military genius ever. Wasn t popular with the people btw, even tough he always had victories, endless wars made people dislike him. If he weren t poisoned we might have been livin in a diffrent world today.
Mehmmed the Second was a god-like man If given the right circumstances he could have changed the history even more than he did by conquering the constantinople and starting the renaissance truly a world leader itself for me suleiman the magnificent can't even be compared to him.
Sultan Suleiman did execute two of his sons, Mustafa and Şehzade Bayezid, fearing they might challenge his rule.he was afraid that they gonna execute him like he s father did.However, his third son, Selim II, did become Sultan after Suleiman's death. It's uncertain if he didn't want to be Sultan or if there were other factors involved. Some sultans faced challenges, but it's not accurate to generalize that they weren't all good rulers.
Corrections..Mehmed the 2nd..led an unsuccesfull expedition into Valachia to subdue Vlad..also known as Dracula.. Throught a scorch earth strategy ,doubled with daring strikes ( the famous night attack against the sultan's encampement ) and psychological warfare >the famous "forest of the impalled"..around 20.000 impalled turks spread across the lenght of a couple of football fields..this event in particular shocking Mehmed...Dracula might not have scored a decisive battlefield win, but he forced the sultan to retreat and end his campaign in an unconclusive manner. As for Moldavia..again, innacurate facts presented. Stefan the Great had previouslly won a string of battle-field victories against the ottomans (most famous beeing the battle of Vaslui regarded by ottoman chronicles as one of the worst defeats that the empire had suffered until them) Mehmed led himself a punishing expedition with the aim to overthrow Stefan from the throne..he indeed won the battle of White Valley against Stefan but going deeper into Moldavia, the ottoman army was plagued by a shortage of resources including drinking water, food , a locust invasion all doubled by guerilla style attacks by moldavian forces.also Mehmed failed to conquer Moldavian main fortified fortresses ...all of those factors combined leading to his decision to abandone the campaign (again) and leave Moldova without accomplishing the main goal of his campaign to replace Stefan. Get your facts straight friend before making videos!
Relationship between the Crimean khanate and Ottomans can be described in many ways. Tributary state definitely isn't one "They did not pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire; instead the Ottomans paid them in return for their services of providing skilled outriders and frontline cavalry in their campaigns."
Bruh , what the hell ? I see your lack of knowledge bcz of Ranking the Abdulhamid ii so low , Abdulhamid ii was one of the most capable rulers , the Empire ever had , he revived the Collapsing empire after Russo Turkish war and Paid 90 percent of the Empires Debt , Bought a educational revolution , Building colleges , Universities , defeated Greece at greeco turkish war, And immense modernization reforms, Ottomans were doing Not " that" but pretty well during the 1900s and were I would say A respectable power. DONT just see one side of the coin and become biased bro , You ranked one of the Most capable rulers at the lowest Rank as for Absolute rule , I don't understand what is soo bad about it? It is not western? , keep in mind , German ambassador acknowledged , that only way ti keep the tottering Empire Alive was Absolute Rule , Bruh do some research. Constitutional Monarchy leading the Empire to collapse after Abdulhamid II deposition shows just how right Abdulhamid was.
Unfortuanley, this is a trend in many so called "historical youtubers". They assess history with a eurocentric view of history (especially Islamic history). No one other than muslims can understand how great of a sultan Abdul-Hamid II was. May Allah grant him Paradise. Amin
I think and you did touch upon it, you cannot rank the sultans without weighing this with the circumstances of their reign. The sultans ruled during a period of expansion and arguably, a period when the empire had yet to become unwieldy. Also later on when heirs were imprisoned in the palace, the sultans lacked the statecraft necessary to rule a large and complex empire.
It's a good video overall. I just don't think I'd put Abdulaziz I and Abdülhamid II at the beginning of the list. Abdülaziz built a pretty good navy and Abdülhamid made some good reforms. For me, they are in the gray area,so I'd put then in the middle of the list.
@@barca8341 "lost Cyprus" well he rented it firstly to Britain it wasn't an annexation. And you fail to realise that it was done to reduce the losses of the Russian war and improve the political position of the empire, which ultimately worked because the treaty of San Stefano was cancelled. It was lose Cyprus or lose the Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus, and more losses in the caucuses border. Egypt was "already lost" since the 1830s because it hadn't been ruled by the ottomans since then. Funny you never mentioned that Egypt was actually lost in 1914 when it was permanently annexed into the British empire.
@@MH-jg6vk How does it matter though? He lost Cyprus,Bosnia,Tunusia, Serbia, Bulgaria and ultimately macedonia was lost too. And losing Macedonia was better than losing Cyprus because just look at a map? Ottomans/Turks would have a magestic area in Mediterrenia. His reasons does not matter. A mistake by him is not tolerable since millions of people looks at his hands. It's that simple. He lost a lot of important lands.
@@barca8341 it does matter because it wasn’t his fault. You’ve literally said all the lands that were lost with the Russian war 1878 which if you knew anything about your recent history then you would have known that it was during the constitutional period where there was a parliament, meaning he lacked full power to govern. Again, Tunisia and Serbia was already autonomous meaning they had no ottoman control. Bulgaria remained part of the empire till 1908, and was only lost when the young Turks ousted Abdulhamid. Yes losing Cyprus is better than losing Macedonia because Macedonia is the key to governing the lands in the Balkans. Losing Macedonia (San stefano) meant cutting the Balkan territories in two, resulting in the practical loss of Albania Kosovo sanjak and Bosnia. So you could summarise Abdulhamid as “cutting the limb to save the body”. You are right millions did look at him , and so when he actually ruled directly and solely he lost minimal from 1878-1908. Stop always bringing the same old comment about losses that occurred 1876-1878 and 1908-1909. How can one be blamed whilst a constitutional monarch? Did anyone blame the Queen of England for the loss of empire or was it the politicians beginning decolonisation?
Abdulhamid the 2nd should be ranked higher, he prolongued the collapse by 33 years delay, even the new world order (the world which we still live in litterally the matrix) had to delay its plans and did it by his personal achievements, unless the other Sultans who reigned better reliable internal personel, if he was born in place of Suleyman the Magnificent/Excellent he would crush his opponents by far exceeding only next to Mehmet the Conquerer, oh and btw Mehmed the Conquerer executed the plans against their Grand Vezirs who wanted to implement his fathers Murads plans, so Mehmed made these acquirements more by hisself other then his personnel, in fact he hanged many of them and that shows how great ideolog he was.
- at 20 broke off his mother's puppet rule and became sole ruler - public banned tobacco and alcohol consumption but died of cirrhosis - regularly drank poison and gained immunity to avoid an assassination attempt - he was so powerful that he single-handedly wielded 60 kg of mace and fought in the war against iran - first allowed hezarfen ahmed to cross the bosphorus with his giant wings and then exiled him to africa -Sultan Murad IV "the GigaChad"
Oh man, it was going so well, but the greatest ottoman sultan is Medmed II, there is actually little to argue here. Suleiman as you said took over a country which was already doing alright, Medmed II conquered Istanbul and was a renaissance genius, he invented the idea that Ottoman Empire was a European empire and declared himself as the Caesar of Rome. He is in fact maybe the second greatest leader the Turkish People has ever seen, after of course Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
I really can't understand why you put Sultan Abdulmecid higher than Sultan Abdulaziz and Abdulhamid.II they were one of the best sultans in the late era. Sultan Abdulmecid caused the high depts by making many palaces, meanwhile, Sultan Abdulaziz improved the army and fleet and Sultan Abdulhamid II was a political mastermind and also reduced the national debt significantly.
suleiman did not understand geographys importance in the 1500's. if he had vision as the same as mehmed II, he would have also try to colonise america. he just killed piri reis because of one battle. we are talking about the guy who drew one of the most important maps in ottoman history. suleiman just sat on the treasure and vision left from mehmed II.
Ottoman's have at least 6-7 sultan better than suleiman accually but he was longest reign and him father Selim II. fills the Ottoman treasury, Suleiman had very rich treasure it was not so difficult for him to rule the empire and be successful.
Great video but almost all the Turkish historian's opinions have in common the fact that Mehmed the conquerer is the greatest of all in Turkish history.
Great effort by a foreigner. Great details. But it still sounds superficial for evaluating the sultans without their timeline’s matters of fact and the positive/negative effects of the previous sultans. Nobody, literally nobody amongs Turks put Suleiman I over Mehmed II, not even Selim I. Mehmed the conquerer is often considered as the best Turkic ruler ever in history. Moreover, you can’t put Murad IV out of ten. He is generally considered on the top 5. And also wtf is about Mehmed VI? He is the worst one. I can clearly appreciate the rank of Mahmud II. He is history changer. I’d be upset if you put him below on the list. And also Mahmud I is may be the most underrated sultan amongst all of them. He also deserves being on the top 10. And Bayezid the thunderbolt is considered being on the top 10 by all of the Turks even though he lost to Timur. As long as I don’t like Abdulhamid II, he deserves to be higher on the list, maybe 10-15. Mehmet VI, Mehmet V, Murad V, Mehmed IV, Murad III, deserves to be way back from you rank them.
As a Turkish i can easily rank 2.Mehmed the Qonqueror #1. He was so beyond his time. Sadly i can rank 1.Suleiman between 5-10 because his father Selim left him a huge empire with marvellous economy and human resources etc. But Suleiman could not catch his time, he did not care geographical discoveries. He made +10 unnecessary war with Hungary, he qonquered in every war but nothing gained. He wasted resources of empire for nothing.
Your ranking about the ottoman sultans is absolutly bullshit most of the things u say is incorrect! Yildirim Bayezid is one of the best sultans ever he beat the christian crusader in Nibolugu and the first 10th ottoman sultans are the best without Bayezid II also Abdulhamid II was also a good kind of modern sultan in the ottoman.
Murad IV was definitely top 5 -- He had to deal with his mothers corruption, and the fact that she attempted to kill him. The empire was crumbling when he finally pushed his mother aside, yes he was brutal in his methods, but that was only cause he had to be. The Spahis killed many of his men, the reason they were so brave was cause of the power his mother gave them. So yes he had to kill many hypocrites, but once he was able to take full control he brought the empire out of debt, he recaptured Baghdad, and nobody would dare try to do to him what they did to his brother Osman II. Murad IV gets a bad rap for his brutality, and how they say he loved to drink wine ( I wasn't there so I can't speak on that ), but regardless he did what he needed to do to rid the empire of corruption & bring it back to its glory. Its unfortunate that his mother cared more about power than about love for her children. May Allah bless Sultan Murad IV, and oh ya he was definitely the strongest Sultan hands down.
great vid, needs a little fix though: 1. Mehmet the conqueror (Kaiser-i rum) 2. Selim I 3. Suleiman Historically accurate version, though, no opinion is wrong so take it as a grain of salt
RIP Pronounciation of Turkish names. Sorry if the audio seems a bit off for this video, the original recording had constant peaking, which led to me re-recording the whole thing again, and in the end I ended up combining both audio files. Also, I did consider saying the time periods of each reign, but chose not to, as I felt it would break the "pace" of the video.
Hope you enjoy it!
turkish names more like bore ragornok
What if Suleiman the Magnificient had the technology from Mustafa IV's reign when he was a child?
1500s Ottomans with early-1800s tech would be incredible!
Your pronounciations were fine actually
Do byzantine emperors next
Sure did. Well-made video.
The ottoman and Roman empires are very similar.
in one point you got the first 10 rulers being absolute chads while the rest caused the collapse of the empire, both empires fought the persians 24/7 in the east and Germans in the north, and you have the personal guards being the catalyst for most rulers being ki11ed/disposed
Why don't you make a Turkish historical figure video?🙁
@@baran1916 like Atatürk
@@solveiii yep
oo the chad Scorpo. looking forward to your uploads on the balkans
Bruh Safavids arent persian. Safavids are also Turkish too. So Ottoman didnt foght with persians.
Whether you think the Ottoman Empire should or shouldn't be compared to Rome we can all agree creating a private military force meant to protect the absolute ruler of the state has never worked even once in history.
What about the Varagians?
@@braziliankaiser8304 They worked until the Crusaders killed them all. Plus they had no motivation to shadow rule as they were recruited solely from abroad.
@@braziliankaiser8304 they worked as long as you paid them, much like the Praetorians. Definitely a lot more loyal and easy to control though, so they've got that going for them.
The fact that they were essentially mercenaries helped, as they could just leave if they weren't paid enough, unlike the Praetorians
@@braziliankaiser8304 The problem with the Varangians, is that they were super expensive, so they really only worked when the Byzantine Empire was rich, and they came from very specific warrior cultures so when they were gone they were gone. Also they aren't a great example as they really only existed as we would think of them for about 100 to 200 years. Which is very short compared to the Praetorian Guard or the Janissaries.
Ottomans: these private guards and elite solider that the Rome have, We should have something like that.
Osman the Second could have been a great leader though, he had big ambitions, most of them actually useful, but his plan on getting rid of the Janissaries was discovered and he was brutally tortured and killed by the Janissaries because of that.
Genç Osman dediğin bir küçük aslan, Bağdat'ın içine girilmez yastan, oy oy.
@@KayserathePoetKiller o Osman farklı Osman, Genç Osman Türküsü, genç yaşlarında Osmanlı padişahı IV. Murad'ın Bağdat Seferi'ne katılan ve hayatını kaybeden Osman ismindeki bir yeniçeri için yazılmış bir türkü (wikiden aldım sen de bakabilirsin istersen).
Kesinlikle
The Janissaries only obeyed the words of the Traitor Davut Pasha. At that time, they were not strong enough to oppose the sultan and other statesmen.
Oh! Finally! I've been waiting for this ranking!
Despite being Portuguese the Ottoman Empire is my favorite Empire.
Great one!
@@Deepak_Dhakad yeah Mughal empire is a good one as well. As it is expected from a Turkish empire.
@@Deepak_Dhakad mughal always türkic there is no such thing indo-europen
@@Deepak_Dhakad mughal was founded by the turks brainless every empire have situations like that🤣🤣🤣 kid
@@Deepak_Dhakad mughal rulers were turkic
Christiano Ronaldo
Nice video but as a Turkish person I'd rank Mehmed II the best Ottoman sultan of all. Suleyman's reign was the height of Ottoman power that's true but, he only reaped the fruits of his father Selim I's and his great-grandfather Mehmet II's reigns, imo. Mehmet was the best of the trio because of his vision, his intellectual nature and his statesmanship. Suleyman's 46 six year reign also marks the beginning of corruption in Ottoman State. His execution of his closest companion, grand vizier Ibrahim Pasha and his son Sehzade Mustafa is pivotal, those two were incredibly talented individuals. Especially Mustafa had a deeper understanding of geo-politics than his father and his brothers as he wanted wanted to expand the navy, colonize Americas and beyond, dominate the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean and adapt to the changing of the global trade routes. Suleyman's successor instead of Mustafa, Selim II the Drunk was the one lost at Lepanto and that made Ottomans an increasingly land force over the centuries. They rebuilt their navy that they lost in Lepanto but the experienced marines and seaman and their tradition to some extent that were lost did not come back.
Suleyman does seem nice from afar but he is not that good in my honest opinion. His clinging to power and breaking Ottoman tradition of not having multiple sons from a single mother as to not produce political instability, may have cost the Ottomans their future. I'm not saying he was disastrous or not good but I would never put him #1.
but he had the best turban :c
Yes
Maybe i agree with you, i'm not really sure on who was the best Sultan politically. But i'm sure that in the military the best Sultans were Selim Yavuz and Murad II
I was gonna say it, thanks.
@@osman_gultekin Had to be said
Bayezid I the Thunderbolt should be way higher. The way he conquered and defeated the crusader armies is incredible. The nickname alone is fantastic.
But to be fair, ankara almost collapsed the empire
@@cantthinkofacreativename1769 I see your point but to be honest, to lose to Tamerlane when invasion wasn't caused by your undoings isn't that much of a failure. Guy was like the force of nature. And Nikopolis was a brilliant and odd victory.
The fact that Ibraham, who was literally not mentally capable of ruling, did a better job than some of these people is... impressive.
I also can't believe you didn't mention that Ibraham was assassinated on the orders _of his mother, Kosem Sultan_ . She did, however, kill at least two Sultans and depose a third (twice), so she was basically the Sultan in her own right for 5 different reigns.
*ibrahim
Sultan Kosem gets a nod from Catherine de Medici.
One absolutely powerful mama to another.
@@sars910 And from Maria Theresa
dude just wanted the thiccest of women it is a simple goal which can be respected
@@sars910 Kosem Sultan creeps me out.
About Bayezid the Thunderbolt, his cool nickname actually foreshadowed his downfall. He got it on account of how quickly he went from one front to the other, which, while cool, wasn't a sustainable state of affairs as most of his reign was spent fighting a war on multiple fronts, much of it being against the other Anatolian beyliks, whom he continually failed to make lasting peace with and who eventually sided with Timur over him.
He also insulted Timur which led to Timur invasion which destroyed him. An Ottoman writer from that era wrote that the ego of Beyazid is what killed him.
@@tanura5830 Yeah, his prior military successes and belligerent attitude probably had something to do with how he couldn't make peace with the rest of Anatolia as well.
Dude ı was looking at comments and you made a comment very similar to someone I met on discord and it made me very curious Kağan?
@@kenanmemedov5002 No, I don't really use discord for anything besides gaming. But it's nice to hear I'm not the only guy with this kind of thought process.
As a Turk all i can say is putting Suleiman in front of Mehmed II the Conqueror or Selim I or maybe even Murad II (my personal favorite thx to Battle of Varna) is insane to me.
Man I have to give it to you. This ranking must have at least took you a month of pure research
This is actually a really good list. I thought for sure you were gonna miss a lot of things because generally westerns don't care that much about Ottomans but that was quite surprising. Your list was pretty objective and informative.
Have you ever considered ranking every Brazilian Emperor?
Obvious.
1. Peter II
2. Peter I
There's only two
@@royal3380 isn't it pedro not peter?
@@No-mn9do Peter is the english version of Pedro
@@mrtrollnator123 oh my bad
Wow, this was a great video! Thank you!
This video was uploaded 11 minutes ago, How did you comment a day ago??
Because I uploaded and unlisted it all the while putting it on the Historical Monarchs playlist, which enabled people to find it. Also, it was available on Patreon before being public on UA-cam.
@@Operator441 He first uploaded it privately through a playlist
@@spectrum1140 Ah alright
I bet you get these comments all the time, but I really enjoy your videos because you made learning history not boring
Ranking every Swedish rulers next for hardest of challenges
because nobody gives af about sweden lol
1. Gustavus Adolphus
2. Charles xi??
3....
Karl XII
As a Turk, I was waiting for this after seeing your other rank videos
Turks indeed had a decisive role in triggering historical major events like the Migration Period, Crusades, Age of Discovery as well as ending the Middle Ages with the conquest of Constantinople, fall of the Roman Empire.
who are you and why are you under every video
mehmed II did try to deal with Skanderbeg, but failed each time.Only after Skandebeg died, was mehmed able to conquer Albania.
I agree with you for the most part. But Vahidettin Mehmed VI should be WAAY lower. Osman II had his reforms etc. Selim II at least kept the most skilled grand vizier the Ottomans ever saw. But Mehmed VI, he was so easy to manipulate. During his trip with Mustafa Kemal Pasha to Germany, Kemal Pasha almost managed to get him to his side, then somehow despite hating him Mehmed VI done what Enver Pasha told him to do once he got the throne. And then his groom and the British. He was a pushover.
Also according to many Murad I was the one who formed the Jannisaries
Selim the Resolute better known by others as Selim the Grim XD
Also yea dont feel sorry about the names haha, you pronounced them beautifully, no "k" at c or "j" at "ch" clearly you did research how to pronounce these names. And nice tier list. Although I would perhaps put Mehmed II ahead of Suleiman; purely because while the west knows Mehmed through his conquest, he was what you could call a Renaissance ruler through and through, knew over 6 languages, read Persian, Greek, Roman, Arabic and Indian Classics, held court with Byzantine philosophers and had them on Imperial pay, something later Emperors did not do, as well as many other aspects. I would say it was during Mehmed II's time that Ottomans went from being a beylik to being an Empire.
16 dil biliyomuş ufak at da civcivler yesin
@@mda990 6dir 16 diye yazmisim duzelttim
Well-made and mostly accurate video!
Though i think Murad I and Murad II deserves some attention
These videos put me to sleep instantly without fail. They’re not boring or anything I love watching them. I just always fall asleep in seconds if I put these videos on as background noise, especially the English kings one.
Same. I have to watch them several times to really watch them as a whole bc I always fall asleep but I love it :D
It’s too weird to see Mehmed IV that high and Bayezid I that low on the tier list
Also Abdulaziz and Abdulhamid II were compenent leaders but at the worst time of the empire
I’d just change places of Mehmed II and Suleiman I and besides these the tier list is correct
Yeah Bayezid should be a little higher, he had a great political and military career before his clash against Timur
@@Emil.Fontanot he was a good ruler and a good general but had to face a good ruler like himself but one of the greatest generals of all time, same situation kind of happened in the reign of selim the grim facing safavid ismail shah but reverse this time
Abdulaziz was basically a puppet meanwhile Abdulhamit did everything he can do keep his absolute tyrannical power even if it meant sabotaging the empire in the process. Neither are good rulers.
Abdulhamid II is somewhat underrated, the fact he ranked lower than his mentally ill half-brother is a little weird, in my opinion he would be a bit higher.
@@gathrawn6822 mishandled european relations and caused loss of cyprus, total loss and alienation of egypt lost the balkan wars, destroyed reformist movements and ruled with tyranny and secret police, demolished free press and movement of knowledge. He is the reason in the modern Turkey why Ottoman state is mostly remembered as something that had to go. Oh also for Islamists that love him and he bent the knee to americans and told Sulu Sultanate and Moro people as Caliph to not protest american occupation and americans broke their promises of freedom to practice islam and proceeded to kill them here goes your Caliph bro. Mad Ibrahim was a puppet that ruler for a short amount of time Abdulhamid ruled for long, long enough that the ships Abdulaziz bought (Ottomans reformed the navy together with the Army and had a modern navy that was the third biggest in the world) rotted away in Haliç because he bent the knee against British fear of Ottomans establishing as a naval power in the mediterrenean again... He has some redeeming facts such as paying a substantial amount of debt and not letting zionists in Palestine but thats pretty much it. He destroyed Ottomanist ideology, Parlamentiarism and got rightfully deposed.
An amazing video, the only one I didn't agree with was Ahmed I, I really think he could have been a great sultan if he had lived longer... ( given that he died before the age of 30 ) not to mention he was the first Ottoman sultan to break the tradition of Fratricide and refused to kill his brothers, something his sons would end up continuing...
I think the next ranking video should be one of the three...
1 - Poland
2 - Hungary
3 - Holy Roman Empire
Decline started with Selim II. It didn’t show until another 70 years but Suleiman’s reign although from outside look most magnificent for the empire but internally his mistakes within the family led to the eventual decline of the empire. His Decision to murder his own son Mustafa was the worst of them but women gaining control in managerial roles started during his reign which also played a pivotal role long term in decline of the empire.
New spectrum drop hell ya 🔥🔥
You can also group Brazilian and Mexican monarchs into American monarchs list.
It makes my day when I see a spectrum post
Your criticisms of Abdulaziz regarding the losses of territory happened on Adbulhamid II's watch, here's your mistake.
16:58 That Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah) was unexpected
Orhan is underrated, because he came after Osman I
I would've put Mehmed II "Fatih" as First, and Selim I "the grim" as the second best sultan
Much love from Turkey. Thanks for this video!!
the ottoman kept that preatorian tradition going lol
Mehmed II was far better than Suleiman. He was the one who created the roots of a long living empire.
16:20 as a Greek I have to say what the fuck
As a turk i have to say yes the fuck
spectrum idk if u can see this but ur videos actually helped me get mad game....thanks 4 this king
Janissaries, the praetorian guard of the Ottomans
You forgot the funniest thing about Ibrahim I "The Mad". You mentioned that he preferred spending time in the harem to actually ruling, but it should be noted that his harem was populated by obese women, which was his preference. One of the "unsuitable people he came under the influence of" was his favourite courtesan. He had ordered his men to find the fattest woman in Istanbul, which turned out to be the daughter of an Armenian merchant. He quickly fell in love with her and she ended up wielding a huge amount of influence, which did not work out so good for the Empire.
Putting Suleiman to firstplace is a normie mistake.Yeah he was a good Sultan but the best? I dont think so. But besides that the list is good.
Im not sure if youre planning on ranking any more sets of Monarchs, although if you are it would be awesome if you ranked the Scottish Monarchs (Kennith I up to Queen Anne when the Act of Union was passed) one day
As a turk I Thınk Fatih Sultan Mehmet (conqueror) Is the greatest Sultan ın ottoman history. He is a military genious but also he is genious about other things. He knows multiple languages. He knows math he knows history geography etc. And he is founder of many Important education centers.(Sahn-ı seman medresesi) . Ali Kuşçu is the one of the best scientist of his era and he talked with him personally and Gave him a most important job in Sahn ı saman. Add all of this things his conquests and Istanbul. Suleyman was the ruler of best era in the ottomans but this is because Selim Firsts and Mehmet seconds eras victories. Mehmet the conqueror is a absolute genious.
I think Abdülahmid the second was top of the abdülmejid. Because Abdülahmid teh second the fall of the empire delayed
One of the stories I enjoy the most about Mahmud the Second is HOW he dissolved the Janissaries.
Dude told them to piss off, but they refused and began gathering at their conclave to plan the Sultan's removal.
Mahmud called the fucking artillery regiments within the city, declared Janissaries enemies of the state, and bombarded their enclave with cannons.
I absolutely love how unhinged that response is.
When I heard Abdulaziz's name on the 35th place out of 36, I laughed and closed the video's tab, then after I closed it, I made ctrl+shift+tab, then made this comment. "Understandable, have a great day" video :)
Like judging the best cockroach in a vermin contest
Süleyman married a concubine, he undermined so many traditions that worked for the Ottoman Empire so well… He had taken a full treasury and left none to his son Selim. How is he the best emperor. Let’s not begin with the power vacuum he created with the rise of his Vezirs. His reign is the start of Ottoman stagnation and eventual downfall with embracing Islamic code, rise of bribery….
sorry but you've got the #1 wrong. Mehmed the 2nd is by far the "best" Ottoman sultan. Suleyman II signed the death warrant of the empire's next 200 years when he chose to kill his firstborn Mustafa, who was said to be very similar to Mehmed the 2nd.
13:05 What a shock, my jaw can't come off the floor after hearing that one, what's next is the sky going to be blue.
u forgot to Mahmud II but its a good list anyways
Fantastic video, as always.
Can you try to do Chinese Three Kingdoms Warlords, American Presidents, and Sengoku Judaism Warlords? Could be interesting twist of the typical list. It's not getting old any time soon, just it'd be a cool twist, ranking competing rulers. Or Ethiopian or Mesopotamian Kings.
A few things i would like to point out. First, not all of janniserries were slaves taken by force. Might be at begining but after time when people see benefits, many had sent their children willingly. Being a soldier was not the only way they could go. Children were selected carefully. If they re the only son in family they don t get picked. And also they had to be smart and sharp. Even though all of them get military training and basic sciences of the time, the brightest were choosen to be trained as scientist, engineer,artist,architect, and beurocrats which may lead to becoming grand vezir. which is the second most powerful position in entire empire. So even tough they had to fight wars it was a rich and rewarding life compared to rest of commen folk of the world. And after a while turks were allowed to become jans.
Secondly i think second and first places should swap. Even the suleyman was a magnifecent ruler, he had everything to become magnificent. His father was grim and stone heart but insanely capable ruler. The staff he put in charge were anazing as you said. And the stability and treasure he inherated was insane. East and egypt brought crazy amount of money and cash flow by trade. He has access to more money than combination of entire europe. And he was the only son so he didn t had to deal with civil war. He also got badly influenced by harem. Killed his best heir eldest son with false accusations of his second wife( so her children would become sultan, who were uncapable and puppet of their mother).
On the other hand mehmet the conqueror was a diffrent kind of beast. He used his very high intelligance brilliantly. He was a scholer, poet, and engineer who designed and produced new mortars. Also was a skillful diplomat who spoke 6 languages( turkish,arabic, persian, serbian, ancient greek and latin.he also made legal reforms. had to deal with the staff whom undermined him. Alexander the great was his idol, so he aimed the entire world. He called himself kayser i rum ( ceaser of the rome) for a reason. After the conquest of constantinopolis next target was rome and he got a foothold in italy(otranto) for that goal. Even tough he announced that his campaign were to east, many historians says that he was going to go italy. At the begining of his campaign at age 49 he died suspiciously( also historians thinks he was poisoned). Venetian embessador nicolo coco reported his death immediatly. When the captain arrived venice in May 29th, rushed to ducale palace to give news but informed that duke was not available cos of a meeting. Captain didn t care, entered to meeting room and screamed the words "La grande aqauila é morta" "the great eagle had died, we are saved". And there were celebrations in venice for days. With being a true renaissance intellectual he was also one of the best military genius ever. Wasn t popular with the people btw, even tough he always had victories, endless wars made people dislike him. If he weren t poisoned we might have been livin in a diffrent world today.
as a Turk i can tell you that we put mehmed the second over any sultan we ever had. him and selim the first arguably were the best for sure.
Mehmmed the Second was a god-like man
If given the right circumstances he could have changed the history even more than he did by conquering the constantinople and starting the renaissance truly a world leader itself for me suleiman the magnificent can't even be compared to him.
Sultan Suleiman did execute two of his sons, Mustafa and Şehzade Bayezid, fearing they might challenge his rule.he was afraid that they gonna execute him like he s father did.However, his third son, Selim II, did become Sultan after Suleiman's death. It's uncertain if he didn't want to be Sultan or if there were other factors involved. Some sultans faced challenges, but it's not accurate to generalize that they weren't all good rulers.
will you make ranking of holy roman emperors? to end the roman ranking
I've always had a soft spot for Selim the Sot.
ottolames vs byzantchad
Thats why byzantines were destroyed
@@talzzz1546 Cope.
Corrections..Mehmed the 2nd..led an unsuccesfull expedition into Valachia to subdue Vlad..also known as Dracula..
Throught a scorch earth strategy ,doubled with daring strikes ( the famous night attack against the sultan's encampement ) and psychological warfare >the famous "forest of the impalled"..around 20.000 impalled turks spread across the lenght of a couple of football fields..this event in particular shocking Mehmed...Dracula might not have scored a decisive battlefield win, but he forced the sultan to retreat and end his campaign in an unconclusive manner.
As for Moldavia..again, innacurate facts presented.
Stefan the Great had previouslly won a string of battle-field victories against the ottomans (most famous beeing the battle of Vaslui regarded by ottoman chronicles as one of the worst defeats that the empire had suffered until them)
Mehmed led himself a punishing expedition with the aim to overthrow Stefan from the throne..he indeed won the battle of White Valley against Stefan but going deeper into Moldavia, the ottoman army was plagued by a shortage of resources including drinking water, food , a locust invasion all doubled by guerilla style attacks by moldavian forces.also Mehmed failed to conquer Moldavian main fortified fortresses ...all of those factors combined leading to his decision to abandone the campaign (again) and leave Moldova without accomplishing the main goal of his campaign to replace Stefan.
Get your facts straight friend before making videos!
the worst : Vahidettin , thesecond worst : Abdulhamit
I one day hope for japanese emperor tier list!
Mehmed 2 the fetih is number one who conquested Constantine and made the prophecy come true
Relationship between the Crimean khanate and Ottomans can be described in many ways. Tributary state definitely isn't one
"They did not pay tribute to the Ottoman Empire; instead the Ottomans paid them in return for their services of providing skilled outriders and frontline cavalry in their campaigns."
Even as a Byzantophile, I can respect the Ottomans
To be fair, the Janissaries lived much better lives than they would have as serfs. They had hooch, blow and women.
Bruh , what the hell ? I see your lack of knowledge bcz of Ranking the Abdulhamid ii so low , Abdulhamid ii was one of the most capable rulers , the Empire ever had , he revived the Collapsing empire after Russo Turkish war and Paid 90 percent of the Empires Debt , Bought a educational revolution , Building colleges , Universities , defeated Greece at greeco turkish war, And immense modernization reforms, Ottomans were doing Not " that" but pretty well during the 1900s and were I would say A respectable power. DONT just see one side of the coin and become biased bro , You ranked one of the Most capable rulers at the lowest Rank as for Absolute rule , I don't understand what is soo bad about it? It is not western? , keep in mind , German ambassador acknowledged , that only way ti keep the tottering Empire Alive was Absolute Rule , Bruh do some research. Constitutional Monarchy leading the Empire to collapse after Abdulhamid II deposition shows just how right Abdulhamid was.
Unfortuanley, this is a trend in many so called "historical youtubers". They assess history with a eurocentric view of history (especially Islamic history). No one other than muslims can understand how great of a sultan Abdul-Hamid II was. May Allah grant him Paradise. Amin
"The Importance of Lepanto has been Exaggerated," is the understatement of the year.
I think and you did touch upon it, you cannot rank the sultans without weighing this with the circumstances of their reign. The sultans ruled during a period of expansion and arguably, a period when the empire had yet to become unwieldy.
Also later on when heirs were imprisoned in the palace, the sultans lacked the statecraft necessary to rule a large and complex empire.
All that’s left is ranking the popes
But do we rank them on being good at Politics or being correct about Theology and morality?
@@bumblingbureaucrat6110 Yes
Holy Roman Empire, Chinese Emperors, Imperial Japan? Theres lots he can do lol
@@Knali2001 Fair. But I’ve never seen anyone do anything related to ranking the Popes or Caliphs, and I’d like to hear his perspective
Why isn't Borat on this list?
Can you do one on the Dutch monarchs? There’s not too many depending on what you consider to be Dutch.
It's a good video overall. I just don't think I'd put Abdulaziz I and Abdülhamid II at the beginning of the list. Abdülaziz built a pretty good navy and Abdülhamid made some good reforms. For me, they are in the gray area,so I'd put then in the middle of the list.
abdulhamid lost cyprus.
@@barca8341 true and also Egypt
@@barca8341 "lost Cyprus" well he rented it firstly to Britain it wasn't an annexation. And you fail to realise that it was done to reduce the losses of the Russian war and improve the political position of the empire, which ultimately worked because the treaty of San Stefano was cancelled. It was lose Cyprus or lose the Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus, and more losses in the caucuses border. Egypt was "already lost" since the 1830s because it hadn't been ruled by the ottomans since then. Funny you never mentioned that Egypt was actually lost in 1914 when it was permanently annexed into the British empire.
@@MH-jg6vk How does it matter though? He lost Cyprus,Bosnia,Tunusia, Serbia, Bulgaria and ultimately macedonia was lost too. And losing Macedonia was better than losing Cyprus because just look at a map? Ottomans/Turks would have a magestic area in Mediterrenia. His reasons does not matter. A mistake by him is not tolerable since millions of people looks at his hands. It's that simple. He lost a lot of important lands.
@@barca8341 it does matter because it wasn’t his fault. You’ve literally said all the lands that were lost with the Russian war 1878 which if you knew anything about your recent history then you would have known that it was during the constitutional period where there was a parliament, meaning he lacked full power to govern. Again, Tunisia and Serbia was already autonomous meaning they had no ottoman control. Bulgaria remained part of the empire till 1908, and was only lost when the young Turks ousted Abdulhamid. Yes losing Cyprus is better than losing Macedonia because Macedonia is the key to governing the lands in the Balkans. Losing Macedonia (San stefano) meant cutting the Balkan territories in two, resulting in the practical loss of Albania Kosovo sanjak and Bosnia. So you could summarise Abdulhamid as “cutting the limb to save the body”. You are right millions did look at him , and so when he actually ruled directly and solely he lost minimal from 1878-1908. Stop always bringing the same old comment about losses that occurred 1876-1878 and 1908-1909. How can one be blamed whilst a constitutional monarch? Did anyone blame the Queen of England for the loss of empire or was it the politicians beginning decolonisation?
Türklerin gözünde Fatih Mehmet 1. sırada gelir. 2. olması mümkün değillll
Beyazid the bolt wasn't bad either you can do so much against timur. and it wasnt 11 years when you really look it up.
Abdulhamid the 2nd should be ranked higher, he prolongued the collapse by 33 years delay, even the new world order (the world which we still live in litterally the matrix) had to delay its plans and did it by his personal achievements, unless the other Sultans who reigned better reliable internal personel, if he was born in place of Suleyman the Magnificent/Excellent he would crush his opponents by far exceeding only next to Mehmet the Conquerer, oh and btw Mehmed the Conquerer executed the plans against their Grand Vezirs who wanted to implement his fathers Murads plans, so Mehmed made these acquirements more by hisself other then his personnel, in fact he hanged many of them and that shows how great ideolog he was.
Holy Roman Emperors ranked some time?
- at 20 broke off his mother's puppet rule and became sole ruler
- public banned tobacco and alcohol consumption but died of cirrhosis
- regularly drank poison and gained immunity to avoid an assassination attempt
- he was so powerful that he single-handedly wielded 60 kg of mace and fought in the war against iran
- first allowed hezarfen ahmed to cross the bosphorus with his giant wings and then exiled him to africa
-Sultan Murad IV "the GigaChad"
Oh man, it was going so well, but the greatest ottoman sultan is Medmed II, there is actually little to argue here. Suleiman as you said took over a country which was already doing alright, Medmed II conquered Istanbul and was a renaissance genius, he invented the idea that Ottoman Empire was a European empire and declared himself as the Caesar of Rome. He is in fact maybe the second greatest leader the Turkish People has ever seen, after of course Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
You only mention the historic events that had to do with Europe, which reeks of just pure ignorance.
Where is the second part covering the punic wars?? We need to know where the story goes
I'm not the biggest ottoman fan for obvious reasons but I always respected Mehmed the second the guy earned the city
Not really. He won the city by treachery of one of the defenders, opening the gate for him.
@@mappingshaman5280 nah ur coping
@@mappingshaman5280
This aint your mothers house door
I really can't understand why you put Sultan Abdulmecid higher than Sultan Abdulaziz and Abdulhamid.II they were one of the best sultans in the late era. Sultan Abdulmecid caused the high depts by making many palaces, meanwhile, Sultan Abdulaziz improved the army and fleet and Sultan Abdulhamid II was a political mastermind and also reduced the national debt significantly.
Abdulhamid II was good either bc the empire were about to fall and he tried his best to save the empire
suleiman did not understand geographys importance in the 1500's. if he had vision as the same as mehmed II, he would have also try to colonise america. he just killed piri reis because of one battle. we are talking about the guy who drew one of the most important maps in ottoman history. suleiman just sat on the treasure and vision left from mehmed II.
Can you do a video on all viking kings? - Of all 3 nordic countries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden :)
Where are Sultan AbdulHamid ii and Sultan Orhan?
goat is the kaiser ,not suleiman
You should do the popes next.
Ottoman's have at least 6-7 sultan better than suleiman accually but he was longest reign and him father Selim II. fills the Ottoman treasury, Suleiman had very rich treasure it was not so difficult for him to rule the empire and be successful.
Waiting till he does a list on Poland and Lithuania
Great video but almost all the Turkish historian's opinions have in common the fact that Mehmed the conquerer is the greatest of all in Turkish history.
Great effort by a foreigner. Great details. But it still sounds superficial for evaluating the sultans without their timeline’s matters of fact and the positive/negative effects of the previous sultans. Nobody, literally nobody amongs Turks put Suleiman I over Mehmed II, not even Selim I. Mehmed the conquerer is often considered as the best Turkic ruler ever in history. Moreover, you can’t put Murad IV out of ten. He is generally considered on the top 5. And also wtf is about Mehmed VI? He is the worst one.
I can clearly appreciate the rank of Mahmud II. He is history changer. I’d be upset if you put him below on the list. And also Mahmud I is may be the most underrated sultan amongst all of them. He also deserves being on the top 10.
And Bayezid the thunderbolt is considered being on the top 10 by all of the Turks even though he lost to Timur.
As long as I don’t like Abdulhamid II, he deserves to be higher on the list, maybe 10-15. Mehmet VI, Mehmet V, Murad V, Mehmed IV, Murad III, deserves to be way back from you rank them.
As a Turkish i can easily rank 2.Mehmed the Qonqueror #1. He was so beyond his time. Sadly i can rank 1.Suleiman between 5-10 because his father Selim left him a huge empire with marvellous economy and human resources etc. But Suleiman could not catch his time, he did not care geographical discoveries. He made +10 unnecessary war with Hungary, he qonquered in every war but nothing gained. He wasted resources of empire for nothing.
Would you say the decline of the Ottoman Empire was similar to its Austrian counterparts?
Your ranking about the ottoman sultans is absolutly bullshit most of the things u say is incorrect! Yildirim Bayezid is one of the best sultans ever he beat the christian crusader in Nibolugu and the first 10th ottoman sultans are the best without Bayezid II also Abdulhamid II was also a good kind of modern sultan in the ottoman.
Gotta fix the time stamps
Murad IV was definitely top 5 -- He had to deal with his mothers corruption, and the fact that she attempted to kill him. The empire was crumbling when he finally pushed his mother aside, yes he was brutal in his methods, but that was only cause he had to be. The Spahis killed many of his men, the reason they were so brave was cause of the power his mother gave them. So yes he had to kill many hypocrites, but once he was able to take full control he brought the empire out of debt, he recaptured Baghdad, and nobody would dare try to do to him what they did to his brother Osman II. Murad IV gets a bad rap for his brutality, and how they say he loved to drink wine ( I wasn't there so I can't speak on that ), but regardless he did what he needed to do to rid the empire of corruption & bring it back to its glory. Its unfortunate that his mother cared more about power than about love for her children. May Allah bless Sultan Murad IV, and oh ya he was definitely the strongest Sultan hands down.
great vid, needs a little fix though:
1. Mehmet the conqueror (Kaiser-i rum)
2. Selim I
3. Suleiman
Historically accurate version, though, no opinion is wrong so take it as a grain of salt