Poll: Best Ottoman Sultan that existed

Best Ottoman Sultan

  • Osman I (1280-1323)

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Orhan I (1323-1359)

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Murad I (1359-1389)

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Bayezid I (1389-1402)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Mehmed I (1413-1421)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Murad II (1421-1451)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mehmed II the Conqueror (1451-1481)

    Votes: 32 30.2%
  • Selim I (1512-1520)

    Votes: 10 9.4%
  • Suleiman I the Magnificent (1520-1566)

    Votes: 42 39.6%
  • Ahmed I (1603-1617)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Osman II (1618-1622)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Murad IV (1623-1640)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mustafa II (1695-1703)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mahmud I (1730-1754)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Selim III (1789-1807)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Mahmud II (1808-1839)

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • Abdulmecid I (1839-1861)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abdulaziz I (1861-1876)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Abdulhamid II (1876-1909)

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • Others

    Votes: 3 2.8%

  • Total voters
    106
It's important that we don't overvalue Mehmed II and Suleiman I, at the expense of Selim I. He was equal to, if not better than, them as a military commander; along with the fact that he was responsible for bringing the most important regions under Ottoman control. He defeated the fanatical Ismail I at the Battle of Chaldiran, one of the few times in this era in which the Ottomans faced a serious threat, setting the geopolitical scene of the Middle East for the next 400 years.
 
@alexmilman

If you mean conquering Constantinople, most ancient states participated in conquest at one point even the Byzantines. States fall and rise and fall and rise in a continuous cycle.

If you mean negative press towards them, there is absolutely no way a statesmen can avoid that. If you take any historical political figure you'll find at least someone who dislikes them.
 
I'd rate any ruler by how good it is to be alive as a citizen during their time. With that said, I'd say the Ottoman Empire experienced its greatest prosperity and prestige under Suleiman. I seem to remember reading of Ottoman writers at the time who were quite pessimistic about ever having a ruler as good as Suleiman again even while he was still alive.
 
@alexmilman

If you mean conquering Constantinople, most ancient states participated in conquest at one point even the Byzantines. States fall and rise and fall and rise in a continuous cycle.

If you mean negative press towards them, there is absolutely no way a statesmen can avoid that. If you take any historical political figure you'll find at least someone who dislikes them.

I meant exactly what I said: surviving people of Constantinople hardly would consider him the "best". Which means that when you start
"best"/"worst" type of things the clear criteria for "best in what" is necessary.
 
I meant exactly what I said: surviving people of Constantinople hardly would consider him the "best". Which means that when you start
"best"/"worst" type of things the clear criteria for "best in what" is necessary.
I think it’s automatically assumed that “best” in these kinds of topics is generally talking about “best at improving/expanding their country and its people’s well-being,” though I get what you’re saying.
 
I think it’s automatically assumed that “best” in these kinds of topics is generally talking about “best at improving/expanding their country and its people’s well-being,” though I get what you’re saying.

In many cases the rulers who were the best in expanding their country were not necessarily the best in the area of improving subjects' well-being: the wars tend to be expensive affairs.

In France the whole ideology of "greatness", as implemented by Richelieu, Louis XIV and (to a lesser degree) Napoleon, assumed that the subjects must sacrifice to the glory of their country. Well before the end of the reign of Louis XIV most of his subjects lived in poverty and the state was pretty much ruined financially. Nappy was doing reasonably OK economically but this was to a great degree due to a well-organized looting of the defeated enemies. However, for years after his fall France had been suffering from a "shortness" of the males.

Genghis was probably the best in the terms of expansion (even if we ignore expansion which happened after his death) but this does not mean that his Mongolian subjects lived better economically. IIRC, there was a near crisis situation close to his death (the warriors fighting far away can't tend to the herds so you have a problem) which was remedied only by the looting of Tangut Kingdom.
 
In many cases the rulers who were the best in expanding their country were not necessarily the best in the area of improving subjects' well-being: the wars tend to be expensive affairs.

In France the whole ideology of "greatness", as implemented by Richelieu, Louis XIV and (to a lesser degree) Napoleon, assumed that the subjects must sacrifice to the glory of their country. Well before the end of the reign of Louis XIV most of his subjects lived in poverty and the state was pretty much ruined financially. Nappy was doing reasonably OK economically but this was to a great degree due to a well-organized looting of the defeated enemies. However, for years after his fall France had been suffering from a "shortness" of the males.

Genghis was probably the best in the terms of expansion (even if we ignore expansion which happened after his death) but this does not mean that his Mongolian subjects lived better economically. IIRC, there was a near crisis situation close to his death (the warriors fighting far away can't tend to the herds so you have a problem) which was remedied only by the looting of Tangut Kingdom.
Right and the balance of the two is where the question of what makes a great leader comes into play. I tend to think whoever provides for their people the best is the greatest leader, but one must take into account if the question is asking for the leader who most benefitted their country as a people or their country as an institution.
 
In spite of my relative fondness of Big Sulie, I just couldn’t vote for a Sultan who lost a war against a tiny island in the Mediterranean.

So I voted for Mehmed.

Please kill me.:pensive:
 

Md139115

Banned
In my headcanon, Mehmed II is currently wandering through Hell bereft of his eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and hands, as punishment for his snuffing out of such a beautiful culture, and ridding Europe and Asia of its last link to the Ancient World.

EDIT: Only just occurred to me that this may be interpreted as anti-Turkish or Anti-Muslim. I wish to stress that this is not at all what I was thinking, and indeed, I do genuinely like the Ottomans generally (except on EU4 where they are so overpowered as to be insane), but the Classicist within me quails at the loss of the last empire to legitimately bear the mantle of Greece and Rome.

DOUBLE EDIT: I’m sorry, Russia does not count as an inheritor. It was far removed from any of the Ancient civilizations geographically and is more a product of indigenous Slavic heritage than its admittedly heavy Greek borrowings. Neither do the Ottomans since they were really just another Steppe people that had been plaguing Rome and Byzantium for a millennia.
 
Last edited:
In my headcanon, Mehmed II is currently wandering through Hell bereft of his eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and hands, as punishment for his snuffing out of such a beautiful culture, and ridding Europe and Asia of its last link to the Ancient World.

In my headcanon that title goes to Enrico Dandolo—Mr. Mehmed just put the damn thing out of its misery.
 
Who’s to say that they both aren’t?

Iunno, Mehmed actually built Kostantiniyye back up a bit and stuff and actually took the Kayser-i-Rûm thing more seriously than his successors at least.

Dandolo was a greedy bastard who went against the desires of the Pope to pervert an (admittedly already monstrous) mission towards fellow Christians.
 
Top