The Best Ottoman Sultan?

Well he said that "the one that shall put more gold in the treasury should use their own signatures in economics.Throw mine away"

they used his symbol until the fall of the Ottomans

He was the caliph

he did this in like 8 years or so

I dont understand we made war with mongols, and I dont see any problem for peacing with Chinese. And Turks are fight each other too. Should I remember you nationalist idea accepted by Turks just 100 year before?

Before it we dont care If He is Turk, Bosnian, Japan or china.

Even now I prefer a muslim china to a non-muslim Turk.

if I have to chose one, of course I will prefer my brothers too

Even before the islam, Turks fights with each other.

"This religious seperatism of fanatic islam fundamentalists claim Mongols and some other Central Asians are pig eating yellow skinned low lifes."

And as you know this is completly againstthe idea of islam.

The magnificy in his period was the magnificy of the Ottoman Empire,he wasn't so magnificent.

 Im obviously utterly biased against Mehmed II being a lover of Byzantine history I could never say its destroyer was great .

 About his taking of Constantinoiple though, I dont see whats so great about that achievement as in the physical capturing of the city, Mehmed 10's of thousands of men (the numbers vary in some articles ive read so i wont say a precise number) with cannon and a strong fleet, against a force of 7-8 thousand greeks, genoese, catalans etc in a city that offered little protection from the bombardment the cannon would unload upon it.

 Obviously the impact was massive in other ways but in the actual taking of the fortress city, there were alot more difficult places in the world to attack.

 Impovorished and demoralised its little wonder Constantinople fell.

 In brighter days im sure the imperial army would have marched out and sent the turkish barbarians running .

 However Id have to say the best sultan was Suleiman I the magnificent.

Im obviously utterly biased against Mehmed II being a lover of Byzantine history I could never say its destroyer was great .

Mehmed II made the city great again. He could have destroyed the city if he wanted to, like the Latins did, but he had other designs.  He resurrected the Empire. And he did this on purpose. He respected the Romans more than any other Emperor. He didn't want to destroy the Empire, he wanted to claim the Roman throne for himself. So if you like what Byzantium stands for (except Orthodox christianity), I think you can reconsider your choice, it is unfair for Mehmed II.

As to his cannon, it was a prototype. It wasn't very effective. Constantinople was the best defended city on the whole goddam planet. He had a fleet, but they couldn't enter the Golden Horn (he had them carried over hills to get there). It wasn't that easy, if it was, other would have done it long before.   

He, by the way, was the best Sultan. [/QUOTE]

 Im not saying Mehmed didnt rebuild the city, im saying being a student of Byzantine History its naturally painful for me at the point were that history ended.

 The city was vastly more formidable long before 1453, the fleet was in mass disrepair and was a shadow of its former self, the army if you can call it that was mercenaries and generally wasnt of the quality that would befit an empire, it wasnt a walk in the park, sieges very rarely are, but it was hardly a long siege and really by the standards of some sieges a quick one.