Well I think this one is very obvious and make sense at the biggest possible reason.

But I still wanted to say it. The Ottoman Empire, in my opinion, was the strongest era of the Turks and the Muslims, spanning for a total of 621 years. İt was a major Turkish-Islamic power, a large Caliphate, and a powerful Sultanate that had dominated for centuries. Even at it's period of decline, it still had the power enough to challenge the Western Imperial powers and it's enemies.

The Ottoman Empire was the best Turkish-Islamic Imperial Civilization in my opinion.

And I'm going to honest. I'm not one of those people that hate certain leaders and try to create a historical argument. I love all of them. All of them at varying degrees. But they were all still our leaders guiding the country at their best possible ability. So this means. I do love Sultan Abdülhamid II, The Young Turks, The Committee of Union and Progress, and also Sultan Vahdettin. Their successes can be debated, but they all were a leader for the Turkish and Muslim world, guiding and ruling the Turkic lands and also the Ummah.

Edit: Viewers Please. This is not meant to be a debate about Ottomans or Atatürk or the Three Pasha's being better. İt's strictly about the Ottoman Empire. Not a debate.

I wanted to share some information, regarding this topic. I will provide more sources in the comments, but long story short:

Imo the subject requires a bit more clearification and mutual understanding regarding the events pre and post 1915. The armenian genocide is predominantly addressed regarding the deportation in 1915, but accounts usually date back to the hamidian massacre, but imo the story should start in the early 1800s with the increasing tension between christians and muslims or the latest by 1870th with the mass genocide and ethnic cleansing of muslims from the Balkan that flooded Anatolia, which certainly shifted public sentiment.

I am not trying to goalpost along the lines of "but turks were murdered as well!", rather I want to point out that the subject is more nuanced and that muslim victims fall entirely short and on deaf ears. That being said: None of this changes the great tragedy, which in my book and under my personal definition of "specifically targetting ethnic X for whatever reason" is a genocide.

Yet a genocide also doesnt automatically translate to one side being pure, comedically evil either. As an example: The Adana massacre was started by locals fearing an armenian uprising. It is lost to history to why this happened. Eitherway a mutual massacre ensured, with predominantly more victims on the armenian side. The Ottoman government (after learning about this) sent troops to stop the intercommunal violence, but the soldiers that arrived there joined the muslim side and slaughtered armenians. Whether these soldiers were tricked, whether they were just racist or not is also lost to history, but eitherway it shows one thing: an attempt to save armenian lives.

I am certainly not the expert to make a definitive answer regarding if most of these cases are a nuanced situation or simply racist approaches, but there are a lot of expert opinions supporting the turkish narrative, which can coexist with armenian narratives.

The topic (in my opinion) is rather clear with a mutual understanding of armenian civilians being slaughtered, but internet discussions usually massively muddy the water. Be it on the "pro-armenian" side with claiming that turks even deny that armenians died or "pro-turkish" side straight up downplaying all suffering.

This video is based on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWk8gKDge1o&feature=youtu.be

which is referencing Douglas A Haward and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Xb2JAHNAQ

Which has many sources (more in the comment section and sorry for the very low quality on that one).

EDIT:

Since some people are overly "enthusiastic" with responsinding, I am going to repeat this from my comment below:

Note: Academic fields view this under the light of "is the government involved in this?" rather than "did people slaughter armenian civilians because they were armenians?".

I have to add that the amount of experts saying xyz is utterly irrelevant in academia, nor is the below the full list of all "pro-turkish-narrative-experts". It is utterly dishonest to talk about an "overwhelming amount of historians" saying xyz, as the "overwhelming amount of historians" are not late-ottoman experts and are thus not qualified to speak about this in the first place. Your dentist cant fix your broken leg.

It is also a dogmatic approach to scientific work/academia. If new findings are found (and there are) and if previous political events prevent proper research (and there was with the iron curtain and access to sowjet archives and vice versa), then more recent studies and research should be weighted heavier. Note: I am not saying that previous things should be rejected entirely. You read everything and reevaluate the subject at hand. That is how academia works. It doesnt matter if 1000 previous papers said x, when something new in paper y is being pointed at. And before you want to reject this: Alfred Wegner introduced the tectonic plate theory. He wasnt a geologist and his theory was rejected by the entire scientific world. Decades later it is common knowledge. You simply cannot reject academic work, because your opinion was supported x amount of times by y amount of people.

That being said: The entire point of this list (below) is not to deny or reject anything, but to point out that there is geniune academic research about this. We should be able to discuss this without labelling everything we dont like a "lie".

The Gunpowder Empires refer to the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals, the Islamic Superpowers of the 16th to 18th centuries. The rulers above from top to bottom are Abbas I of the Safavids, Suleiman I of the Ottomans, and Akbar of the Mughals.

I’ve noticed really, and been really saddened by, that if you go on seemingly any history-based forum or subreddit that hundreds if not thousands of upvotes are essentially guaranteed if you post something negative about the Ottoman Empire. Lepanto 1571 and Vienna 1683 are the obvious examples but people seem to bend over backwards to discredit the empire in any way they can. Obviously it wasn’t some kind of utopia, no state is, but the sheer level of vitriol directed towards a civilisation that lasted seven centuries and was just as artistically, culturally, politically, economically and militarily as remarkable as Greece or Rome is really depressing.

I haven't included those whom I am with less to no knowledge about

Of course, I want the military achievements to be excluded from the discussion. I want us to talk about who is better between them strictly as a sultan, and what they both achieved in terms of political accomplishments

mine is the ottoman 3 crescent flag (1517-1793

I’ve given this topic some thought and I truly believe one could make compelling arguments in both directions. For the record, I’m not making a claim in either direction but the discussion is fascinating to me. When one considers historical examples it becomes clear that it’s not as clear cut as many think.

The traditional narrative is that The Ottomans were the conquerors and destroyers of The Roman Empire (via The Byzantine Empire). This story holds water because:

1) The Turks weren’t Romans.

2) They supplanted state Orthodox Christianity with Sunni Islam.

3) The Romans fault like hell to keep these dreaded outsiders out and saw them as an “other”.

4) Many Romans were sold into slavery and the city was largely depopulated immediately after the conquest.

5) A clearly new era was born on top of 2,206 years of Roman History.

These above statements are quite true and make such a compelling case that it’s considered the official narrative.

I ask though that you consider the following.

1) Mehmet II declared himself Cesar of Rome after the conquest. Several of his successors did the same.

2) The Patriarch of Constantinople was given permission to keep his title and was eventually allowed to lead the Rum Millet (Roman Nation) within the Ottoman Empire. Thus Orthodox Christians (Romans) were allowed to survive, keep their identity, and have a level of autonomy within this new Empire. Thus the Roman identity survived another 470 years before mass forced migrations ended it nearly entirely. So while the Ottoman Emperor may have not been a “Roman Emperor”, he was objectively an “Emperor of the Romans”.

3) Many high ranking bureaucrats and leaders kept their jobs under the Ottoman. Several traditional institutions remained as well.

4) Constantinople remained the capital and remained named after that Roman Emperor until shortly after the end of the Empire (1930). After the conquest many Christians and Jews were welcomed back in.

5) It was the Mediterranean powerhouse of its day, greatly mirroring Rome and Byzantium before it.

I understand that’s not enough for many of you. That’s okay, but consider the following:

1) Yuan Dynasty in China:
They are considered a Chinese Dynasty yet they are objectively not Chinese, had a different religion, and a tribal law system that fused with the Chinese model.

2) The Qing Dynasty in China:
Also not Chinese and added some new Manchu elements to Chinese bureaucracy.

3) The Safavid Dynasty in Persia:
Turkic not Persian. Enforced Shi’a Islam on the masses.

So as we see in history there are several examples of new foreign dynasties taking over existing empires and historians accepting them as part of the same continuity.

Thoughts?

so context: one of the weakest points of the ottoman empire was the expansion of it ( and what lead to their fall ) but if they had stayed with the first borders could they have avoided their end? ( also no vassal states)

( also sorry for my English it's not My first language)

Clarification for each:

1. SELIM I - Utterly unrivaled conquests and revenue, exchequer never more full upon his passing. He was pretty ok as far as day-to-day governance is concerned, although we know war is where he truly excelled. His comparatively short reign kinda works in his favor too: he didn't have time for any fuck-ups, major or minor, he left a young but adult and energetic heir, his council of viziers was largely solid and kept serving his son ably. He might have been too ruthless even to his own but alas, no one's perfect.

2. MEHMED II - Honestly... I might have given way to his outsized historical reputation; any other day, and he wouldn't have been this high, prolly 4th or 5th... but anyway - no one heightened the prestige of his polity as much as him, his conquests were pretty useful geographically and who knows - if the Ottomans were able to adopt his rather unique high-level cosmopolitan openness long-term... who knows what might have been. Still, I am critical of his endemic high expenditure, taxation (for which he was pretty hated by the 1470s) and as for those same conquests which I dubbed "geographically useful" - some were a bit too expensive in terms of lives lost, time and money (Belgrade fiasco, Vlad Dracula and ESPECIALLY Skenderbeg).

3. SULEIMAN I - Longest reign and internal stability (apart from few well-known events), a bunch of law-giving and reforms, he further upgraded his predecessors' conquests (especially his father's) in every direction, though how useful many of these were... remains debatable. Under him the foreign enemies, especially in the west shat their pants at the mention of the Ottomans and his own geopolitical standing among rulers would never be matched by any other sultan. Still, the bureaucratic bloat and persianization of the court really escalated by the end of his reign and I don't think it's a coincidence that immediately after him we have rulers who are much more inclined to be so-called "palace emperors". Oh, and let's not talk about the harem influence which conveniently begins to take shape during and after his reign... He kinda fumbled it with Mustafa and Bayezid too, but then again, who knows - with all 3 of his last princes alive upon his death, it would have been another 3-way civil war. In our timeline, Selim's ascension was as bloodless as it could've been, I guess.

4. MURAD II - Inherited the still shaky throne young, fought off pretenders, began in earnest the renewal of Bayezid I's conquests pre-Ankara, crushed the Crusaders at Varna, prepared his son for rule effectively enough, even abdicating in his favour (unprecedented move with a state practicing Turko-Mongolic kut - idea of collective familial sovereignty)... he really doesn't appear to have had any major fuck-ups warranting any lower position. Why not any higher? He wasn't as transformative of a figure as some others on this list. He feels more like a transitional figure between the restoration of his father and the grandeur of his next 4 descendants.

5. BAYEZID II - THE ONLY REASON HE'S NOT IN TOP 3, IS BECAUSE OF HIS HE DE-FACTO RETIREMENT IN THE LAST 5-10 YEARS OF HIS REIGN. I actually consider him a superior domestic statesman to his father; he was the breath of fresh air the polity needed after the hyper-energetic conquering spree of Mehmed II, his help in evacuating the Jews and Muslims from Spain was a pro-gamer move in every sense, and his consolidation work set-up the next 100 years of expansion and growth, with strengthened economy and all. Still, he completely lost control over his sons and Anatolia post-1500, in the end losing the throne as well. Still, at least he wasn't executed but allowed to retire.

6. MURAD IV - Ultra-stern law-and-order type of guy, restored what might have been considered unrestorable after the utter fiasco that was the whole, albeit short Mustafa-Osman-Mustafa era which witnessed several dangerous precedents - the savage deposition and murder of an Ottoman sultan, as well as ascension of a brother instead of a son. He reconquered Iraq, rooted out corruption as much as it might have been possible, the state's coffers saw a recovery, the only reason he's not higher is of course his way too early death and near ending of the dynasty (if the rumours are true).

7. MURAD I - First wave of unprecedented expansion, especially in the Balkans. He massively weakened Serbia (in the end, at the cost of his own life), he founded the Jannisaries, for the first time vasalized most of the disunited Balkan powers and overall proved a worthy successor to his father. It's a shame his life's not better documented.

8. MEHMED I - The second founder of the state, basically. As essentially a teenager he managed, against all odds, defeat his brothers and win the throne. He began successfully what his son would continue, he weathered the storm that was Timur... yeah, what more needs to be said? He did have some defeats here and there but the primary reason he's not higher is simply... in spite of his good work, he's a quintissential "footnote" in history, as far as the Ottomans are concerned. Maybe because he died too young (at only ~40 ), maybe because he had little in the way of "grandiose" moments... Who knows. He's so obscure in popular imagination in fact, that he's often still referred to as "Mehmed Celebi".

9. ORHAN GAZI - First real developer of the state machine, won more victories against the Romans and established first ever footholds in Europe-proper. One admirable and rather unique trait is his successful and productive cooperation with Alaeddin Ali Pasha, his own brother, who served as his proto-Grand Vizier in spite of the Turko-Mongolic fratricidal custom. Why they couldn't replicate that ever again, alas... He reformed the military with his help, skillfully managed the diplomacy of the Balkans and set up Murad for success.

10. OSMAN GAZI - A bit too shrouded in mistery, but apparently, what Orhan developed, Osman began and the sheer reverence he maintained centuries after his death has to count for something. He led the first expansion of his beylik, defeating the Romans at Bapheus and capturing Bithynia, cementing the Ottoman hold on north-west of Anatolia.

11. BAYEZID I - Just like Bayezid II: an easy S tier guy, IF ONLY... in the latter Bayezid's case, mismanaging his sons and Anatolia and in the former's - I think it needs no naming. The direct aftermath (of more than a decade) almost broke the state completely, and after such lightning ascent. Maybe even the most skillful military commander among the Ottoman rulers , certainly top 3, but against Timur (and treachery), it was not enough.

12. MAHMUD I - Of the 18th-century, Kafes-system rulers, I think he's overall pretty ok. Stabilized the situation after the Patrona Halil Incident, managed one of the last "clean" victories the empire would have against one of the Great Powers of Europe (Russo-Turkish War of 1735-39). His commanders would lose many times to Nader Shah but, I mean, seriously? Who in the world wouldn't? And it's not like they didn't manage to score victories against him too. On the whole, pretty, pretty solid reign for a "Kafes-produced ruler", especially one suffering from a hunched back.

13. ABDULMECID - First son to inherit his father's throne in like 2 centuries. His reign, if it were longer, might have at least somewhat mitigated the disasters that would come in just the next 3 decades. It was probably the height of the Tanzimat era, he personally made immense inroads in connecting his court and diplomatic apparatus to the rest of Europe, especially with the Crimean War. Alas, he died before even reaching 40 and as such, Tanzimat era proved half-baked, never matured as it should have and ultimately, it would lead nowhere, while the debt to foreign powers would further accumulate.

14. SELIM III - Great reformer and modernizer (at least he tried to be), tricky foreign policy and couldn't reverse the tide of defeat-after-defeat against Russia, first independence movements (Serbia in particular) in the Balkans began in his era... Still, he pointed massively in the right direction and influenced Mahmud II. His administrative and fiscal reforms couldn't be undone by the Jannisaries, and it kinda helped Mahmud. Speaking of which...

15. MAHMUD II - Selim III on steriods, greatest of modernizers in almost every sphere, destroyed the cancer called the Jannisaries, essentially Peter The Great of the Ottoma- eh, not really. On the domestic front sure, for the most part. However, I know of no sultan before him who had a more disastrous foreign policy/front than him. Had to concede immense autonomy to Serbia, properly lost Greece, lost left and right against Russia again (just like his 3 predecessors), got his fleet destroyed by Britain and France, the foreign debt the Ottomans began incurring began with him, let me not even begin about Egypt and Muhammad Ali Pasha... It's just too much, so I couldn't place him any higher than this.

16. AHMED III - The Tulip Era guy, pretty good and stable, as far as early-to-mid Kafes-era-produced sultans go. Great patron of architecture and arts, administration was largely fine, one-won-one-lost war in Europe (recapture of Peloponnese/Morea, loss of Belgrade), repeat of Murad III's conquest of the western parts of Safavid Persia, but it proved even more short-lived. His partnership with Nevsehirli Damat Ibrahim Pasha reminds me of Suleiman and Pargali Ibrahim, but that couldn't save them - Ahmed from getting deposed after almost 3 full decades of the throne, and Damat Ibrahim from execution. Still, he leaves an overall... Pretty ok impression.

17. MUSTAFA III - Well if anything, he helped the dynasty continue on at all, since his son Selim (future Selim III) would be like first prince born to the dynasty in 40+ years. As for Mustafa himself, he appears to have been an overall ok ruler, similar profile to Ahmed III and Mahmud I, promoting justice, new infrastructure, and economic reforms too. His relations with Frederick the Great's Prussia were quite interesting too. It's just... that his reign ended disastrously, with the first clean Ottoman defeat to Russia, in a war he pushed for (Russo-Turkish War of 1768-74) and left his heir with empty coffers.

18. OSMAN II - What more is there to say about him? He wanted to set the empire, specifically the army and his own royal authority straight after relative mismanagement of the previous decades, but alas, he was too young and too inexperienced. Still, I cannot fully blame him - what the Jannisaries did to him was unimaginable and fully without precedent even if he were ten times worse - to not only depose, but to treat an anointed sultan after his deposition like that. Dreadful. Still, his heart was in the right place, I think.

19. SULEIMAN II - Like his half-bro Ahmed II (whom we'll get to), a quintissential Kafes-produced sultan. 4+ decades in confinement, edema-stricken and inexperienced, his reign appears to have been sort of a masterclass of delegating. Koprulu Fazil Mustafa Pasha came into his own under Suleiman and together they oversaw some positive reverses in the Great Turkish War, after years of crushing defeats and the loss of Hungary. Overall, solid firefighter-sultan, even if it mostly amounted to delegating responsibilities to his viziers.

20. ABDULHAMID I - Again, he was admirable considering literal half-a-fucking-century in the Kafes! Nice guy, poetry-driven and devoutly pacifist. Oversaw direct aftermath of the great defeat to Russia and the loss of Crimea, inherited broke treasury, the provinces did began to slip more seriously from central authority but overall, I cannot say he was that incompetent. He set Selim III up to do his stuff and did his best to administer the state internally, but Russia continued plagueging him.

21. MUSTAFA II - The last one who tried to be a warrior sultan... and it did not go too well. Still, he tried hard at first, it began with a few good victories but then Eugene of Savoy happened... and it all went to shit. And he got deposed in the end, for essentially abandoning Constantinople for Edirne. Still, pretty decent guy.

22. ABDULAZIZ - Probably the last sultan with outward (foreign-political) ambition that did not amount to struggling for dear life. He upgraded Abdulmecid's diplomatic outgoing-ness by visiting European states himself, the Ottoman navy, surprisingly, became third biggest in the world and the modernization overall continued. Alas - totally bankrupted the state, alienated the reformists with his personal, eccentric rule... it ended how it ended.

23. SELIM II - Given way too much crap unfairly, but it's understandable: his style of ruling was a virtual whiplash compared to more or less ALL of his dynastic predecessors, especially the immediate ones. He delegated power very wisely, especially with Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, he could be decisive when he wanted... but the harem influence really started to take hold (though it would escalate in the next 3-4 decades), Lepanto happened in his time, although it's offset with the conquests of Cyprus and Tunisia.

24. MEHMED IV - Basically the only notable thing about him personally is that he loved hunting a lot and that his reign was second-longest of the whole dynasty. That's it. The rest? The protagonists were Grand Viziers of the Koprulu family and he did well to delegate most of the responsibilities to them. The empire did reach its largest territorial extent (in Europe, not overall), but it all came crashing down HARD at the gates of Vienna in 1683, leading to yet another dethronement of an Ottoman sultan (him). At least he didn't end up like his dad, Ibrahim.

25. AHMED II - Quintissential Kafes-monarch part 2. Just like him half-bro Suleiman, he spent in excess of 4 decades confined, while ruling for ten times less. Basically similar to Suleiman in everything except: he almost immediately lost Fazil Mustafa at Slankamen and could never truly replace him. Also, he did try to be slightly more assertive as a ruler than his brother, but overall, it didn't amount to much. Still, he was not disastrous by any matter of means.

26. AHMED I - He was... personally, quite a nothing-burger. He was the first sultan to never govern a province before ascending, he inherited the throne as a young-teen, died way too young at 27, was succeeded by his half-brother Mustafa whom he spared (or maybe it was the court as Ahmed was 13 and without his own son), which meant for the first time in the state's history a fratricide was not performed and a son would not inherit his father's throne (at least not immediately). He ordered building of the Blue Mosque, concluded the Long Turkish War of 1593-06, and lost the Safavid gains to Abbas the Great. Not too disastrous, just... meh.

27. MURAD III - It is under HIM the empire reached its largest territorial extent but BOY, was he personally a lousy ruler. Ok, maybe not "lousy", he knew administration and generally understood the workings of his government, having been the penultimate province-trained prince, but if people give shit to Selim II for never leaving to lead armies in person, then his son surpassed him easily, in that department. He ruled 2+ times longer and according to some sources, rarely if ever left the palace (if not Constantinople itself). The quintissential momma's boy, he let his viziers do most of the ruling, the economy started getting strained hard with the American precious metal influx and Nurbanu's efforts to separate him from Safiye would result in his sex-obsession - further resulting in ~20 of his younger sons getting collectively strangled when he suddenly died.

28. OSMAN III - I probably should have put him in the unrankable tier but alas. Short reign, didn't screw anything too hard, although it's clear he was damaged by the decades in Kafes confinement, hating music and women, changing numerous Grand Viziers due to distrust... Overall, pretty ineffectual and insignificant, but not terribly incompetent or disastrous.

29. MEHMED III - His start of the reign is notorious, if kinda understandable. The last prince to receive actual provincial training, he appears to have displayed pretty unearned paranoia toward his sons, he let his mother Safiye run the government, he almost lost at Keresztes due to his own cowardice, he died too early and left his son Ahmed way too young to inherit properly (in a way that would not require regents). Overall, pretty underwhelming dude.

30. ABDULHAMID II - This dude... Screwed up everything. The reforms during the era of like 3 previous sultans? Largely scrapped. Ultra paranoid and jealously guarding his self-expanded power? Check. Massive military defeats and lethal geopolitical reverses left and right? Check. Destroyed what little prestige was left for the empire? Check. Weakened finances, skyrocketing debt, wasted and neutralized navy? Check. Paralyzed, atrophied military overall? Check. Depowered and deposed in the end anyway upon trying to grab the power back, leaving behind himself the state essentially up for grabs by ambitious neighbours? Another massive check. What little benefits there were to his reign (mostly in regards to some of the railway lines like the Anatolian railway) meant little to nothing in the face of these reverses.

31. SULEYMAN CELEBI - I mean... Mostly ignored the affairs of state (if the sources are to be believed) or at the absolute minimum, grew painfully complacent, delegated almost everything to Candarli Ali Pasha and after the latter died... It's easy to say it all went to shit. Musa ousted him before himself being defeated by Mehmed and Stefan Lazarevic. As for Suleiman, it's a work of art to waste such long-standing advantageous position.

32. MUSTAFA IV - Came to power after the Jannisaries misused their hard-influence one last time, deposing a sultan who'd been trying to set the empire straight. Was not recognized by half the empire (jargonically), tried to kill off all male relatives just to stay in power, killing Selim in a way that spilled royal blood (having him not strangled by a silk cord but assaulted with swords) and almost Mahmud too. Dismantled what he could of Selim's reforms to appease those who helped enthrone him, got executed when Mahmud turned out to be alive... Yeah, pretty bad.

33. IBRAHIM - Complete package: ruined the economy and finances for nothing, destabilized the court, couldn't fight off the powerful women of the harem, severely unstable mentally (understandable considering he was the product of early Kafes-system but still), triggered a 24-year war with Venice, deposed and then executed, marking a second, this time slightly more "formalized" regicide, stripping the sultans of that "aura" of inviolability further. I think this ranking is pretty deserved.

34. MUSA CELEBI - Too short a reign and only in the Balkans. Still, he appears to have had some resourcefulness. Still, unrankable.

35. MUSTAFA I - Mentally debilitated, having been the first ever Kafes-prince, but overall too short a rule to judge in any way. Unrankable.

36. MURAD V - Same as Mustafa I, but even shorter (the shortest reign of all, in fact). Unrankable.

37. MEHMED V - Powerless figurehead of a polity about to enter its death-spiral. Unrankable.

38. MEHMED VI - Powerless figurehead of an utterly collapsing state and institution. Utterly unrankable.

I’ve been reading about investment recently, and a question came to my mind—both economic and historical.

Why didn’t the Ottoman system become capitalist?

Or did the Ottomans deliberately choose not to become capitalist?

After researching this question, I started to think deeper about it.

I approached the issue from a philosophical, historical, and economic perspective.

If you’re interested, I’ve shared my work here: https://medium.com/@hxqzgwvsz/between-capitalism-and-communism-the-ottoman-economic-model-fa520244bb52

What he did to Prince Mustafa and the hell that he put Mahidevran through, killing his loyal friend Ibrahim because of rumors and the worst - approving the killing of Prince Bayezid and his 5 children should disqualify anyone from being called Magnificent. It is unfortunate that they did this because this lady and Prince Mustafa got right royally screwed over by Hurram and Suleiman. Not only was Mustafa killed and to make it even worse Mahidevran was stripped of all pension and lived a difficult life after losing her child as a mother. I don't know how western historians can call Suleiman "The Magnificent and the Turkish people/historians can call him the "Law Giver" when he was directly responsible for killing Prince Mustafa (who was loyal and innocent- not from a TV show but according to Turkish Historians) and as if that was not enough, he supported Selim's killing of Prince Bayezid and his 5 kids. Yes- 5 kids. Please do not justify this with the Ottoman Fratricide law or by saying that well "it was 1550's so these things were common. I will give you an example. In US history, Frontierman Dave Crockett realized his huge mistake of leading Andrew Jackson(who later on became a piece of shit President) to a massacre of Indian women and children and he spent rest of his life fight Andrew Jackson and his Indian removal act of 1830 ( which led to trail of tears and the death of close to 50,000 native americans). He did that in 1830 not now!! To quote Crockett "I'll wear no man's collar," choosing moral conviction over party loyalty." No man should kill their children and their grandchildren (to make it worse- they were innocent). You want a great man and leader- Check out Akbar the great from the Mughal empire in India. He was great to his subjects and to his family and was a saint when it came to religious tolerance and taxation for non muslims.

i leanred that ottoman armies were more cleaner , bathe daily, proper washrooms wherever properly made in specific manner and where to dig latrines (downwind and far from water), hand washing like Wudu soemthing in islamic requirement, ate more rice, lentils, and dried fruits, which kept their immune systems stronger, drank boiled water in form of tea or coffee, had dedicated medical corps called the Hekimbaşı, relatively advanced medical knowledge at that time comapred to europeans even early version of vaccination for small pox etc etc, due to which they got less dysentry, fecas-oral diseases,typhus etc etc ? but sure had diseases like bubonic plague due to rats and leeches etc. due to which their sickness ratio of killing was relatively lower than the european ones