Ranking the Ottoman Sultans (Updated Tier List 2022)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 май 2022
- Ranking the Ottoman Sultans (Updated Tier List 2022)
Subscribe to my RUclips and follow me on Twitter!
- Twitter: / theegefem123
- RUclips Channel: / @ottomanhistoryhub
Sources for this video:
- The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453 by Donald M. Nicol
- The Sultans: The Rise and Fall of the Ottoman Rulers and Their World: A 600-Year History by Jem Duducu
- Men At Arms Series: Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 by David Nicolle and Angus McBride
- Discovering the Ottomans by Ilber Ortayli
- The Ottoman Empire and Europe by Halil Inalcik
- History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey by Stanford J. Shaw
- Osman's Dream by Caroline Finkel
- The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699 by Stephen Turnbull
LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE if you enjoyed the video and wish for more content in the future.
I think this channel need Indonesian or Malay language subtitle
I want to share it to my Indonesian and Malaysian friend
In my opinion Beyezid The Thunderbolt deserves the "god tier" rank just for how badass his career was. They say the higher they are the hardest they fall. Well, that was a heroic fall.
Likewise for Ismail the Safavid Shah.
@@aaronTGP_3756 Bayezid was captured fighting to his last to buy time,letting his son suleiman escape.Ismail bascially became a depressed edge lord,refusing to attend to the matters of the state and drank himself to death.
There's not enough content for us Ottoman history buffs, I'm hyped for the next 40min of my life!
I would've placed Murad I among the top tier sultans he literally turned the sultanate into an empire, Abdulaziz and Murad IV also deserve higher positions imo, nonetheless a decent list
great video. Really makes me want to look more into it
I'm happy that your channel is back, easily the best Ottoman history channel here! Are you planning to have a Patreon system soon? Your love and dedication deserve very much to be banked!
Another banger video 💪🏻I don’t agree with something’s but I still respect and understand where coming from.
No clue why the old video was suggested to me a couple of hours ago, I guess the algorithm can predict the future now :D. Regardless this was an awesome commentary and a nice format to pack in a lot of information, from someone who clearly knows what he is talking about. Keep it up mate!
First of all I would like to say that I agree with many of your rankings (especially with the Top 3).
I am going to mostly comment on the interesting ones in your list that I may agree or disagree on. This may become a long read (I don’t know yet).
Out of the first 10 Sultans the worst one is widely considered to be Bayezid II. (even Machiavelli said that the Ottoman Empire would be ruined if another Sultan that was like him, succeeded him). I agree with you putting him into B-Tier though since he was still a fairly successful ruler overall, that was also renowned for his kindness and his peaceful nature. I also personally think Bayezid the Thunderbolt is in the Top 5 (for his outstanding participation at Kosovo 1389, also his conquests in Anatolia were the most impressive Ottoman conquests until the reign of Mehmed II.).
I personally think that Selim II. Is always a victim of harsh judgment due to him being supposedly worse than his elder brother Sehzade Mustafa. The battle of Lepanto didn’t change anything about Ottoman supremacy in the Mediterranean as the fleet was rebuilt in the course of a couple of months. Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall later wrote that it was as if the Ottomans won the Battle of Lepanto since it was also during Selims reign that Cyprus (1573) and Tunis (1574) were conquered. I would personally put him in C-Tier.
I agree on Mehmed III. being better than Murad III. since I think Murad put the Ottomans into a crisis which Mehmed did a lot to get the Empire out of. The battle of Keresztes 1596 is, matter of fact, one of the greatest victories in Ottoman history. But I also find it very hard to put Mehmed III. above the C-Tier.
During the time of his reign, Ahmed I. was considered to be an excellent ruler who overshadowed both of predecessors (Murad III. and Mehmed III.) in virtues. He made immense efforts to restore the prestige of the Sultanate by getting rid of the fratricide (which made his father unpopular) and the construction of the Blue Mosque. He was finally able to suppress the Celali Revolts with the help of his Grand Vizier Kuyucu Murad Pasha and restore some sense of order in Eastern Anatolia. It’s also a misconception, that he saw the Austrian Emperor as his equal as he just said that he would treat the king with the same compassion as he would treat his son. I personally wouldn’t rank Sultan Ahmed I. as anything below B-Tier, especially since he always stood a charming and mentally balanced ruler during a catastrophic era.
I personally think Osman II. could in no world have been a greater ruler than his brother Murad IV. ended up being. I would never put him above C-Tier since I also think that his goals were completely out of touch of the general Ottoman population (who was complaining about finances) and the upper class (who were wondering what the hell is going on in this guy’s head). He was dreaming of becoming someone like Suleiman the Magnificent and also saw the issues in the foundations of the Empire but he didn’t have the support from anyone (that he was in need of) to accomplish his goals, since he deterred the general population, the Ulema and the Janissaries with his behavior and his decisions. But I agree on the ranking of Murad IV. who I would also put (upper) B- Tier as you did. I would personally put Ibrahim in D-Tier but I also think that it doesn’t make a lot of difference that you put him in F.
Mehmed IV. in my opinion belongs in the C-Tier. Even though the Köprülü-Era was one of the best times to live in the Ottoman Empire, he didn’t contribute a lot to it himself, since it was his mother, who appointed the Köprülüs. The Battle of Vienna ended badly, but the defeat that hurt the Ottomans even more was the one at the Second Battle of Mohacs 1687, which also led to Mehmeds deposition. But I think that his 3 successors also belong in the C-Tier. Suleiman II. lost Belgrade in 1688 but was able to push back and reconquer it in 1690. Ahmed II. was actually a popular ruler during his reign, since he was able to portrait himself as a ruler who cared for his people by combatting unfair tax collection. Mustafa II. went on campaigns himself but was absolutely heartbroken after being defeated at Zenta in 1697. He managed to retake Basra from the Safavids but he still - after Zenta he wasn’t the ambitious Sultan that he was at the beginning of his reign - which is why he was deposed and is in the C-Tier imo.
Ahmed III. was able to restore some order after the Battle of Zenta. The first half of his reign wasn’t really noteworthy and marked by territorial gains/losses. It’s actually the second half of his reign that makes him a good Sultan imo. During the 12-Year-Vizierate of Nevsehirli Ibrahim Pasha (known as the Tulip Era) the Ottoman State became rich and the arts (literature and architecture) prospered, while the Empire also expanded to the Caspian Sea. His late reign was an peaceful era that was successful in many ways (besides his deposition). The Ottoman Empire profited highly from Nevsehirlis Vizierate, that was embraced by Ahmed III.
Same goes for Mahmud I. ,whose reign was similar to that of his uncle/predecessor. Mahmud was able to keep the inner stability overall. He lost territories in the Middle East but gained territories in Europe. He learned from the mistakes of Ahmed’s reign and generally tried to continue it but acted slightly different in some affairs (none of his Grand Viziers stood for even 4 years). I would generally put both, Ahmed III. and Mahmud I. in the bottom of B-Tier. Especially Mahmud was found to be widely competent while Ahmed relied more on his excellent Grand Vizier.
I would put Abdülhamid I. in the C-Tier, since he was popular during his lifetime. Contrary to Mustafa III. who ignited protests after taking the title of “Ghazi” even though his army was suffering big losses against the Russians (1768-1774).
But the big elephant in the room is your ranking of Abdülhamid II., who I would definitely put in the A-Tier. Im pretty sure everyone knows what he did etc. but I personally can’t really understand putting Abdülhamid below Abdülaziz (who spent tons of money for women) or Abdülmecid (who built a whole new lavish palace he took debts for) from which he basically inherited all of the problems that he found (sometimes controversial) solutions for. Many of the pros and the cons of his reign were also similar/comparable to these of Mahmud II., which you put in A-Tier, which is very befitting since he himself declared in 1878 that he had to take after Mahmud II. I think it’s not controversial at all to say that given his rough position, Abdülhamid II. achieved a lot.
Thank you so much if you made it this far into the comment. Let me know if you agree or not.
Wow....what a comment. You made some great points that I missed in my video, but you have to remember that I also ranked the sultans by the events during their reigns which is why I could never put Abdulhamid II anything above a C-Tier at most. There are just too many negative historical developments that occur during his time in power.
(stated in the video):
- Concluded the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 with major territorial losses
- His reign saw the most territorial losses in Ottoman History
- Disregarded the Ottoman constitution and disbanded the Ottoman parliament
- Oversaw a massive state campaign of censorship in which his critics were targeted by secret state police
- His imperial ideology of Pan-Islamism effectively ended the Tanizmat Era and alienated many liberal Ottomans
- Ottoman Economy was effectively owned and ruled by foreign credit collectors
- Left the Ottoman Army and Navy in a state of disarray after years of mothballing the military due to personal paranoia
- Spent the vast majority of his reign secluded in his imperial palace due to personal paranoia
I get where you are coming from though, but I truly believe that Mahmud II achieved way more during his reign and had a larger positive impact on Ottoman history as a whole than Abdulhamid II.
@@OttomanHistoryHub I personally also prefer Mahmud II. over Abdulhamid II., since I think he was way cooler as weird as it sounds.
But we also have to keep in mind that most of the downsides of Abdülhamids reign weren’t his responsibility but mostly him bearing the brunt for the shaky foreign politics of his predecessors (especially Abdülaziz) and finding solutions for them. Foreign policy in general was a very rough business in those days since relations and power shifted all the time. In the same fashion, Ottoman foreign politics were very inconsistent and differed greatly from Sultan to Sultan in the 19th century. During Mahmuds reign the relations to the British (at least till 1838/1839) and the French were bad, while he kept good relations to Austria, Prussia and Russia. These relations were basically turned upside down during the reign of Abdulmecid (who improved relations to the British and the French and worsened the relations to Austria and Russia). During Abdülaziz’ reign foreign politics were continued to be observed in such an inconsistent way - he built good relations to France, Britain and Russia (in 1867) , only to lose them after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
This whole switcheroo and also the obvious debt issue (due to the reigns of Abdülmecid and Abdülaziz and their expenses of which not all were justified) led to an inherent distrust/ hostility towards the Ottoman government. His elder brother and his own established Parliament failed to find solutions for the resulting Balkan Crisis and the following war and so Abdülhamid himself had to spend a lot of his reign to rectify the mistakes of his predecessors. There was no ground to establish a golden era (like for Suleiman the Magnificent), but at the same Abdülhamids reign wasn’t catastrophic at all (especially the middle part). The general situation in 1909 probably wasn’t as good as in 1861 (even though literacy rates and life standards were significantly higher) but it was for sure better than in 1839 (when a 16-year-old ascended the throne after a heavy defeat, that nobody knew of at the time) or 1876 (when a Sultan was murdered and his successor unfortunately became mad). In summary the Ottomans probably couldn’t have had it any better, but they could have had it way worse, even though I would have loved to see what Murad V. could have done if he had kept his mental up.
@@OttomanHistoryHub excellent job, but I'm shocked about the ranking of Abdülhamid II tbh, didn't expect that at all as he deserve to be on the top tier list.
No matter how bad it looks on some decisions he took, he saved the ottoman empire from total extinction.
For about 100+ years the empire was going downhill and Abdülhamid II may be considered as the last and one of the greatest sultans of the ottomans history.
We shouldn't forget, in that period of time, Ottomans were inferior to the west and his job was absolutely marvellous.
Some of British politician of the time stated that Abdülhamid II is the best diplomatic person the world has ever seen.
So, personally rate him a lot, and Türkiye now exist even thanks to his strategies facing big big problems on the time.
@@OttomanHistoryHub I’m sure you would’ve seen thousands of comments but I just wanted to reply to your comment.
-The conclusion on the Russo-Turkish war wasn’t entirely his fault since the parliament dragged the empire into the war and he was left no choice but to legitimise his sole power to prevent the empire form any further crisis.
-Again most of the territorial losses were in the balkans and related to my previous comment excluding the constitution he didn’t really loose much territory and also win the war against Greece, although he was unsuccessful navally due to his paranoia but your talking abt a guy that witnessed the murder of his uncle and the constitution, but at the end of the day his naval losses are a con.
-On the secret police and the censorship of the critics, well I see the censorship as a not justifiable thing even though he was massively and unjustly unpopular due to the western propaganda
-On his ideology, that was an effective tool he had against his European enemies since he couldn’t trust anyone, the ideology was a threat to the colonial powers that obviously wanted to divide the Ottoman Empire so he needed a backup plan, and also it was an effective way on uniting a lot of the muslims under his disunited empire and caliphate.
-His economy was inherited by his predecessors and he wasn’t the reason for the foreign credit collectors, and he also ended up reducing the Ottoman debt by 90 percent thanks to many of his policies.
-Well the navy was weakened due to his paranoia and the only example of the army is the Greco-Turkish war which was successful but I feel like that’s not enough to prove that his army was functional. But he was the first to fire the torpedo underwater.
-He did spend most of his reign in his palace but I feel like he still did enough of statesmen work to progress the empire and his empire was functioning. He had enough officials to get the job done but I don’t blame his paranoia since even after 30 yrs of his reign he got to see many more betrayals and had to bring back the constitution. Which obviously was gonna remove him from power.
@@OttomanHistoryHub but if that's the case, many negative events also occurred during Mahmud II's reign. He lost the Russo-Turkish war and with it more territory to Russia, gave way too much power to Mehmet Ali Pasha which weakened his grasp over Egypt, severely mismanaged the Greek War of Independence which lead to more territorial loses and the destruction of Ottoman, Egyptian and Algerian navies in Navarino, which encouraged France to invade and conquer Algeria... Lost another war with Russia and handed even more territories, and started seriously losing influence in the Balkans as Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia became autonomous, and the independence of Greece... Finally, the Mehmet Ali Pasha crisis and the Ottoman disastrous defeat in Nezib which lead to the destruction of the newly reformed Ottoman Army, and if it wasn't for European intervention it could have been the end for the empire. You are severely overlooking the negatives that happened during Mehmud II's rule inspite of his revolutionary reforms. If you think Mehmud II was great then Abdulhamid II should also be considered great or at least good, not least because most of the territorial losses he suffered were a direct cause of the almost complete state of bankruptcy left for him by his predecessors. Another important detail you might have missed about Abdulhamid II is that he reduced Ottoman debt by 96% from 2.5 billion Ottoman Lira to 100 million Ottoman Lira. That's very impressive. He also won the 1897 war with Greece which was the empire's first victory in half a century, Mehmud II on the other hand hasn't won a single war.
@Ottoman History Hub I do not agree with you on the disproportional ranking of Mehmud II and Abdulhamid II if you compare them to one another. Many negative events occurred during Mahmud II's reign that were devastating, and yet you rank him as great. He lost the Russo-Turkish war and with it more territory to Russia, gave way too much power to Mehmet Ali Pasha which weakened his grasp over Egypt and other parts of the empire outside Europe and Anatolia, severely mismanaged the Greek War of Independence which lead to more territorial loses and the destruction of Ottoman, Egyptian and Algerian navies in Navarino, which encouraged France to invade and conquer Algeria... Lost another war with Russia and handed even more territories, and started seriously losing influence in the Balkans as Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia became autonomous, and the independence of Greece... Finally, the Mehmet Ali Pasha crisis and the Ottoman disastrous defeat in Nezib which lead to the destruction of the newly reformed Ottoman Army, and if it wasn't for European intervention it could have been the end for the empire. The Ottoman Empire was left with no army and no navy after Mehmud II's death, and much more rebuilding needed to be done to accommodate for the Russian war and Ali Pasha crisis. You are severely overlooking the negatives that happened during Mehmud II's rule inspite of his revolutionary reforms. If you think Mehmud II was great then Abdulhamid II should also be considered great or at least good, not least because most of the territorial losses he suffered were a direct cause of the almost complete state of bankruptcy left for him by his predecessors. Another important detail you might have missed about Abdulhamid II is that he reduced Ottoman debt by 96% from 2.5 billion Ottoman Lira to 100 million Ottoman Lira. That's very impressive. He also won the 1897 war with Greece which was the empire's first victory in half a century, Mehmud II on the other hand hasn't won a single war. The biggest territorial losses that occurred during Abdulhamid II's rule were either a result of or a indirect consequence of the Russo-Turkish war of 1878 and the Treaty of Berlin, during which Abdulhamid II wasn't even a ruler of an Absolute Monarchy, as the empire bacame a constitutional monarchy, so he didn't have much power over that war. The territorial losses that resulted from that war were all his Balkan losses, territories in northeastern Anatolia, Cyprus, Egypt and Tunisia. All of these were a direct consequence of the treaty of Berlin and the allies taking advantage of the Ottoman Empire's sick man of Europe state. It makes sense after this that Abdulhamid II would disregard parliment and the constitution, for they were corrupt and responsible for the disaster that was the 1878 Great Eastern Crisis. Mehmud II meanwhile, was an actual supreme monarch when all those defeats were handed to him, so theoretically he should have done better.
MY G 💪may Allah bless you!
💯
In the beginning, I appreciate your work, but I do not agree with you on the point of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, the last fortified citadel of Islam. For me, he is the smartest Ottoman Sultan who fought the European countries politically without resorting to military forces, as he knew the weakness of his army compared to the European armies, and he also sought to To balance the world powers through an alliance with the Germans and improve Ottoman-Japanese relations, he also reduced the value of the Ottoman debts and defeated Greece in the war in which the British involved the Ottomans. In addition to this, he threatened the French and the Italians to launch a military campaign if they did not cancel the play assigned to our noble Prophet. He also canceled it. Constitutional monarchy and support for Islamic revolutionary movements in Turkestan (western China), India and Indonesia, and finally delaying the fall of the Ottoman Empire for 33 years. This is truly a great achievement.
Absolutely loved reading your analysis buddy fantastic when I went in Istanbul I had to go pay respect to his tomb it was a special feeling special moment I knew I was standing in front of a great men a good men for his people for his religion RIP Abdul Hamid ll
@@krakatoa_8180 Thank you. I even hope to visit Istanbul and the tomb of Sultan Abdul Hamid, may God have mercy on him
I really miss your Sultan biographies - stopped right before Sulieman no less!
Could you please make a video about the life of ibrahim pasha (pargali)?
Great vid ! Btw was wondering, what others channel would you recommend to someone that want to learn about Turkish and Ottoman history and culture ?
Go check out Hikma History's channel! We just started collabing with each other and he also does videos on Ottoman/Turkish history.
Thanks a lot ! Keep up the good work 👍🏻
Hey I remember requesting the original tier list 3 or 4 years ago
Great video
Can you tell me the music name please?
The Ottomans did win the greko-turkish war during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II
Conclusion of this war had not got pros for Ottomans on the contrary it had negative effects. Which is more exposure of Ottoman weaknesses, minimal territorial losses and Crete won its autonomy.
I would put Abulhamid II either in B or C. Because He was interested in what was happening on the world, e. g. Russo-Japanese War, since he had lots of spies and informants everywhere.
He had also been using foe to foe intelligently, e.g. opened a bulgarian church in Istanbul, so that Greeks and Bulgars have different churches. In that way they could not unite under same church.
No way bro put 2nd Abdulhamid to bad tier,he is a top tier man,he paid off debts,he created schools and was a genious diplomacy man,Make Jannah Your Home Abdulhamid Khan!
Seems funny but I like Murad IV very much. But I obviously agree with you about the rank of Murad IV you did. As a learner, I have a question : who is the most powerful sultan in the stagnation period (means after the period of Kanuni Suleiman)?
Probably Murad IV
After Suleimans era its pretty obvious Murad IV was the most powerful
Nice list, imo Selim goes above Fateh and I would put Abdulhamid II higher. Out of curiosity, where would you rank Enver Talat and Cemal Pashas?
bruh , enver , cemal and talat caused the end of the empire
Fateh was something different you cant compare him with any other ottoman sultans except ataturk
@@inamali9217it was already end. They saved the Turks
@Sn.rv14 They saved the turks by declaring war on russia and joining WW1?. 3 pashas Drowned the Ottoman Empire in debt , which turkey was paying off until very recently. Cemal Pasha sent sheriff hussein to mecca even though he was very rebellious. 3 pashas were a bubch of clowns
Whats your take on M.K Ataturk?
When one of Murad IV's con is that he is too autocratic and Abdulhamid II's con is that he disbanded the Parliament, you can tell the ideological views of OHH. Abdulhamid had reasons to disband the Parliament, and he was a Constitutional Monarch during his defeat in the Russo-Turkish War so you could hardly blame him alone.
Based tier list
I also want to clarify other points about the superiority of Sultan Mahmoud II, Abdul Majeed I, and Abdul Aziz. First, Sultan Mahmoud II. It is true that he succeeded in eliminating the Janissaries, and this is considered the greatest achievement that occurred during his reign, but let us not forget that he almost ended the Ottoman Caliphate while confronting the army. The Egyptian who achieved a great victory against the Ottomans and seized control of the Levant, Palestine, and parts of Anatolia and the Hijaz. Had it not been for the intervention of the European powers to help Mahmoud II, the rule of the Ottomans would have been ended at the hands of Muhammad Ali Pasha and his sons, and because of the European intervention to put an end to the new Kingdom of Egypt, it became The Sultan is tied in the hands of the European countries, and this is what distinguished Abdul Hamid II, as he sought to balance the world powers and defeated the English in all political clashes, unlike Mahmoud II. As for Abdul Majid, he caused the beginning of the deterioration of the Ottoman economy due to debts, and he neglected the administration of the state, as he left it to his pashas, unlike Abdul Hamid II, who was keen to run the state day and night and not leave it to his pashas. As for Sultan Abdul Aziz, he mismanaged the state’s financial management, which put the Ottoman economy in a state of severe stagnation. As for the state’s policy, it was greatly restricted by the hands of European countries, and finally, you, as I think. You did not like Abdul Hamid II’s abolition of the constitutional monarchy, but do not forget that she had plunged the Ottoman Caliphate into a war with the Russians without the knowledge of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, so he had no choice but to quell the war in any way and he resorted to offering Cyprus to Britain in exchange for his support against the Russians. To avoid British pressure in the future, he resorted to an alliance with the Germans.
U did well bro but u didn't do well with Murad iv and Abdulhamid ii
I agree with most of what you did, except with Abdulhamid II, but that is coming from a religious Muslim background as well. i.e. You see his pan-Islamism as a con, I see it as a pro.
Also of course the video was long, this empire went from shooting arrows on horseback to dismantling British tanks
not even rome had 7 consecutives great ruler during its foundation
i mean there is not even a single empire that i can recall have seven leaders whom were undisputedly great
correct me if im wrong
Keep in mind that this is seven great rulers according to this channel. Not saying that assessment is wrong, I agree with what he said, but different people might consider different criteria to be more important. The merit of some those seven Sultans is debatable.
great and excellent Roman emperors
Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius (btw from Vespasian to sole reign of Commodus there was no bad emperor, which is 9 emperors)
Aurelian, Probus, Diocletian, Constantine I, Valentinian I, Majorian, Anastasius, Justinian I, Heraclius, Leo III, Constantine V, Leo IV, Basil I, Romanos I, Nicephoros II, Constantine VII, John I, Basil II, Alexios Komnenos, John II, Manuel I, Theodore Laskaris, John III, Theodore II, Micheal VIII, Andronikos III
@@TrajGreekFire the example you give is not continuous, augustus is great but not tiberius or claudius, trajan hadrian are both great but not antoninus,
The criteria you pick on what is great is very low, on contrary to ottoman, even bayezid ii is better than most of the ruler in your list, thus making 10 consecutives competent ruler, 9 of them deserve the 'great' epithet
@@asmrnaturecat984 dude you say that you can't recall an empire with 7 great rulers so I give you this
Even if I narrow it to only excellent - Augustus, Trajan, Hadrian, Aurelian, Constantine, Justinian and Basil II it's 7
@@asmrnaturecat984 also the example I give is from Vespasian to Marcus Aurelius which gives good or even better 9 rulers total also known as Pax Romana the golden age of Roman history
Great list, however, I would still put Osman Gazi on the top of the list because without him there would not have been an Ottoman Empire.
it was a fun watch, and I fully agree on Murad IV, he was an utter maniac.. A giant near superhuman whose reign of disciplinarian terror was cut short by his ungodly alcoholism.
bruh , Your opinion about Sultan Abdulhamid is really wrong . First of all , Russo turkish war was not his fault!!! . Mithat pasha and his comrades , had declared the war on Russia . IT was due to Abdulhamids intelligence , the Russians , could not decimate the Empire , he brought the british and french to the table and signed the berlin agreement , which was much better than treaty of san stefano , and the territorial loses you talk about , occured because of Mithat pasha as he declared the war on russians . THe young turk revolts , was also what throwed a fairly stable Ottoman empire into utter chaos , Bulgarian principality , declared independence from the Empire . austro hungry , annexed bosnia , herzevogina , italians took libya . Not a single inch of land was lost after Mithat pashas death , when Abdulhamid held the helm of empire in his hands till his overthrow by the young turks . His overthrow caused the end of Empire . Being a youtube historians i thought you would have such knowledge but man , iam very dissapointed , was enjoying the video , till i heard your verdict about Abdulhamid . You are blaming the wrong person for the losses . I lover your videos , but i urge you to correct your views about Sultan Abdulhamid please :)
Where's the Suleiman episode in your Sultan series?
I'm currently writing many scripts for new videos. Hopefully, I can squeeze the Suleiman episode out soon.
@@OttomanHistoryHub not to rush you but I’m anxiously waiting 😭
i think murad should be in great and abdulhamid and ahmed 1 should be in good rest is ok
you really underestimate Abdulhamid 2, he has done a lot for the country, so he should be in category" A"
What do you think about Ataturk?
İMO:
Abdülhamid İİ-Alright Tier
Osman İİ- Bad Tür
Selim İİ- TERRİBLE, Sokollu reign no Selim:)
Murad V was for 93 days
Not insulting but i think Ahmed decision to make luxury masjid for pride than make infrastruktur and other state need is not good but today muslim doing that, they don't feed poor much than building big masjid
Mehmed IV should be in the horrible tier
😮💨
The video was nice overall but you clealry have no knowledge about abdulhamid
Abdulhamid worst Sultan to exist even his daughter Ayse hates him for genocides he did
Yeah
Murad IV is solid S
I would have placed Murad II at the bottom of top tier. Mahmud II next to Abdul Mejid just because I don’t see him as better than earlier sultans who displayed military prowess and were active in state affairs. I would move Mahmud I slightly forward and Ibrahim to the bottom of bad tier. Abdul Hamid would be moved near the bottom of alright tier. Although Abdul Hamid II is overrated, I think that your placement is a bit harsh. He lost the Russo-Turkish war because of the constitutional monarchy and this was the reason that he abolished the parliament and the constitutional monarchy. Although from a secular viewpoint, his pan Islamism may be seen as a liability, I support it. I would certainly keep him away from good tier as his reign saw major territorial concessions but I would place him near the middle of alright tier.
Bro Abdul humid ii was great
The best Ottoman Sultan is Erdogan I
Built a mega palace like the Ottoman Sultans too. 😖😖😖
Ataturk was the best leader of Turkey!
PUT OSMAN THE FIRST AT THE TOP BECAUSE WITHOUT HIM THE STATE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED
Again you did wrong🙁
Its my tier list at the end of the day. I formulated the list based on my own opinions and research. Feel free to share what you think I got wrong.
@@OttomanHistoryHub imo, i will bring down osman ii and abdulmecid to alright tier, while mahmud ii to good tier after murad iv
@@OttomanHistoryHub Abdulhamid deserves higher tier Ottoman economy was already bas and he paid to much debt and he wasnt in power when Russo Turkish war started so its not his fault
I think Abdulhamid II was a very successful sultan who saved the ottoman empire from the brink of collapse had it not been for her, the ottoman would have collapsed 40 years ago.
Ertugrul Gazi Top No Ottomans without him I'm Joking 😜😂😏
Thank you for your good work. My favorite always Mehmed II. cause he destroyed Vlad Dracula. Second favorite Selim the Grim cause selim was love his Turks so much, so much fight for his nation. and he said this:
"If my life was spent on horseback, on the battlefield...
If Gürzum became blind to the oppressed and blind to the oppressor…
If my sword was sharpened and cut for the sake of justice...
This is so that my nation and my future children can live without blood, worry, or enemies for centuries.
I am the nation and the ummah who have preserved hundreds of years of prosperity and order in Anatolia, Rumelia, Diyarbekir, Maraş, Antep, Egypt, Damascus, Aleppo, even the Hejaz and even Jerusalem. I bought it in advance on your behalf.
How many prices I have paid for this cause, how many prices I have made pay!
Nevertheless, I do not endeavour to justify myself.
Because whoever comes after me will live and see.
And history will explain me." Rest in peace Great Turco