Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gazi
Earl
Joined: 16-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 282
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Best Ottoman Sultan? Posted: 21-Mar-2005 at 05:48 |
So whos your favourite?
|
Freedom is the recognition of necessity.-Friedrich Engels
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Mar-2005 at 05:53 |
like bayezt because of his tactics.
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
Jagatai Khan
Chieftain
Jeune Turc
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2005 at 10:05 |
My favourite is always Sultan Mahmud II.
|
|
Winterhaze13
Colonel
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2005 at 11:05 |
Suleiman the Magnificent who was as his name suggests. No other Ottoman ruler expanded the empire so much. He deserves to be considered among the best military leaders. Ottoman power reached its zenith under him. Great idea for a thread by the way.
Edited by Winterhaze13
|
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.
-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
|
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2005 at 11:43 |
I think also Suleiman the lawgiver!
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Mar-2005 at 12:40 |
How do you define best? I mean, the best political leader, or the best military/tactic man, or the one who conquered most lands? If it means best for nomadic Turkmen people of Anatolia, I would vote "none of them" since they all ignored them...
Edited by Oguzoglu
|
|
Gazi
Earl
Joined: 16-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 282
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2005 at 05:37 |
I meant the one you favour.Not the best.
|
Freedom is the recognition of necessity.-Friedrich Engels
|
|
Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Colonel
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 557
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2005 at 10:26 |
Sulleyman--because he kicked serious amounts of backside...
|
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,
I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."
--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2005 at 17:11 |
I've voted for Mehmed II, my favorite, not just because of his military campaigns but because of his political and cultural achievements too. I agree with Halil nalck's theory that the Ottoman Empire was founded by Mehmed II, meaning that the state was transformed to an empire during his reign.
I dislike Sleymn I because his policies resulted with the large spending of the state treasury (especially during the long-lasting wars fought against the Habsburgs and Safavids). He also executed his very-abled son which resulted with Selm II becoming his heir.
Btw Gazi; Osmn I, Orhn and Murd I were not sultns, they were Bes (Murd I also had the title Hdvendigr). The first Ottoman sultn was Byezd I.
|
|
|
Gazi
Earl
Joined: 16-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 282
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2005 at 05:31 |
So they didnt use the title Sultan?(not even Murad I?)
|
Freedom is the recognition of necessity.-Friedrich Engels
|
|
ihsan
General
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Mar-2005 at 05:28 |
No they didn't (Murd I might have but I'm not sure - the first Ottoman ruler to use the title Sultn was Byezd I who used it in the form Sultn- klm-i Rm).
|
|
|
Gazi
Earl
Joined: 16-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 282
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Mar-2005 at 05:42 |
OK thanks
|
Freedom is the recognition of necessity.-Friedrich Engels
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 07:13 |
Yavuz Sultan Selim is my favorite. He more or less double the empire in his short reign.
But i am only thinking militaristic way soo..
Suleymans execution of the able Sehzade Mustafa was unforgivible, the begining of the end of the empire.
Mehmed II on the other hand had some setbacks during his reign, he failed to take Rhodos and Belgrad. The Ottoman treasure was also pretty empty becouse of his wars. Thats one of the reasons why Beyazid II was so "passive".
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 13:23 |
Originally posted by Yasko
Yavuz Sultan Selim is my favorite. He more or less double the empire in his short reign.
But i am only thinking militaristic way soo..
Suleymans execution of the able Sehzade Mustafa was unforgivible, the begining of the end of the empire.
Mehmed II on the other hand had some setbacks during his reign, he failed to take Rhodos and Belgrad. The Ottoman treasure was also pretty empty becouse of his wars. Thats one of the reasons why Beyazid II was so "passive".
|
Yavuz Sultan Selim was a great commander and conquerer. He was always in front of his army as their khan, and he ended Mamelukes forever. He conquered most of the Arabic peninsula and parts of Egypt. He became the caliph, so Ottoman Empire became the ruler of all Muslims.
But he was very cruel and warior spirited. He killed a couple of his "vezir"s (as I know more than 10) and he acted harsh and cruel to the people who rebelled his decisions and who acted against him.
I like Mehmet II Khan the Conquerer because he conquered Istanbul and caused a new world age to begin. He ended the middle ages and started the new age. And he erased the Eastern Roman Empire forever, with his great success for Turkish history and Islam. He was also a thinker, poet, a great tactics and political man.
|
|
Jazz
Baron
Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 02:54 |
I'd have to lean towards Mehmet the Conqueror as well.
Not only for finally capturing Constantinople (Kostantiniyye) which
itself was a major triumph for Islam, but for how he realized that
minorities were to play a purposeful role in the Ottoman Empire.
He instituted the millet (religious nation) system of zimmi
administration.
I respect him for allowing all the different millets a place of
worship, and that he tried to safeguard these places. One story
has him purposefully not ever entering the church of the Orthodox
Patriarch, the Pammakaristos (Turkish: Fethiye Camii) due to knowing
that future religious rulers would use this as pretext to convert the
church to a mosque. Not that his stopped Murad III from
converting it in 1586, but it shows Mehmet's foresight. Another
story is of Mehmet attending a Catholic mass in Galata.
My 2nd choice would go to Suleyman the Magnificant.
|
|
|
OSMANLI
Colonel
Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: North Cyprus
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 09:40 |
I would have to say Sultan Mehmed 2.
Although, Suleyman was a great leader his weakness for women allowed him to kill the rightfull heir.
Any way back to Mehmed. Not only was he great with the military aspect of leadership but he also was great with law keeping and helping to make Istanbul, then in ruins into the capital of the Ottomans as well as making it the head for education.
I belive that Italy also would have been conquered if it were not for his death
Fatih Mehmed's conquest of Istanbul is also mentioned in the Kur'an. It mentions him as the greatest leader of the time, and his army as the greatest army of the time.
|
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 10:09 |
OSMANLI: "Fatih Mehmed's conquest of Istanbul is also mentioned in the Kur'an."
Where?
|
|
Gazi
Earl
Joined: 16-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 282
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 13:09 |
But the the Kur'an was written 800 years before Mehmed II.
|
Freedom is the recognition of necessity.-Friedrich Engels
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 13:56 |
so someone put their opinion in it
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 14:04 |
Originally posted by OSMANLI
I would have to say Sultan Mehmed 2.
Although, Suleyman was a great leader his weakness for women allowed him to kill the rightfull heir.
Any way back to Mehmed. Not only was he great with the military aspect of leadership but he also was great with law keeping and helping to make Istanbul, then in ruins into the capital of the Ottomans as well as making it the head for education.
I belive that Italy also would have been conquered if it were not for his death
Fatih Mehmed's conquest of Istanbul is also mentioned in the Kur'an. It mentions him as the greatest leader of the time, and his army as the greatest army of the time.
|
I also heard that one of the gokturk leaders was chased off to be a muslim by an angel and forty knights
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|