Worst Ottoman Sultan

Who was the worst Ottoman Sultan?

  • Selim II (1566-1574)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Murad III (1574-1595)

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Ahmed I (1603-1617)

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Mustafa I (1617-1618/1622-1623)

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Ibrahim I (1640-1648)

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • Mehmed IV (1648-1687)

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Mustafa II (1695-1703)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ahmed III (1703-1730)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Osman III (1754-1757)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mustafa IV (1807-1808)

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Murad V (1876)

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Others

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
Some of the sultans aren't the worst in my eyes yet they were still disliked by most people I know.

Selim II for instance, had in his 8 years rule no wars he could lead the army. Not really guilty of misrule but his brothers would do better. His son Murad III however was a complete waste of 21 years. Not once left the capital nor did he something useful for longer terms.

Ahmed I wasn't in my eyes to blame. He got on the throne during the worst time as a 13 year old. Wars, rebellions, danger from the mother of his brother Mustafa. He had a great idea with no fratricide. But the way he did wasn't ideal. That's why his younger brother Mustafa I insane. He never wanted the throne but was kinda forced into it.

Ibrahim I, like his uncle Mustafa had a harsh time. He witnessed the death of his brothers Bayezid, Suleiman and Kasim. His fear of execution by his brother in combination of anger issues was the worst period in the 17th century. The only reason he became sultan was because there was no male Ottoman dynasty member left.

Mehmed IV, had a period were the Ottomans relived their old glory in the Köprülü Era. Most of the good things were done by the grandvizier while Mehmed was on hunting trips. Without the skilled grandviziers like Köprülü Mehmed and his son Ahmed it showed what kind of Sultan he was in worse times. His brothers would do better in my eyes. Mehmed had no clue what was happening in the real world.

Mustafa II & Ahmed III, were not bad. But their way of dealing with rebellions and ending reforms due to rebellions was kinda bad. Mustafa had since 1699 not really faced the population and army. Even though he tried to turn the tide of the mess his father Mehmed started it. When the war was over he remained in Edirne leaving the Empire to his Seyhulislam Feyzullah Efendi. His brother Ahmed did his best but had no clue how to stop the Patrona rebellion.

Osman III, mentally ill, short temper, killed his nephew Mehmed for no reason. A waste of 2,5 years.

Mustafa IV, this guy is Satan himself. He betrayed his nephew, brought the empire in danger and stopped the much needed reforms. Even when he was spared by his brother Mahmud for what he did he still planned a rebellion with Janissary help.

Murad V, mentally unstable, should never have got on the throne. His brother Abdul Hamid, while considered also worst did better. Much better.
 
Ibrahim I was probably the most wasteful and arguably the most personally incompetent, but he never presided over anything that truly imperiled the Empire. So if we are going by personal standards, he is probably the worst, but if not, then maybe someone else.
 
Ibrahim I was probably the most wasteful and arguably the most personally incompetent, but he never presided over anything that truly imperiled the Empire. So if we are going by personal standards, he is probably the worst, but if not, then maybe someone else.

The only reason Ibrahims reign did not end in a catastrophe is due to Kosem Sultans power. All this could have been avoided if Murad IV spared his brothers or had a son of his own live long enough.
 
Top