You can thank Mehmed III for decrease in sultan quality and as for Selim II he wasn't even supposed to become king. It was supposed to be the more competent and able Bayezeid who perhaps would have taken power as Bayezeid III and would have been a good king in the very least.
Saliem only became of that red head witch hurrem and her lover killed shazada mustafa..senerio would have been diff if mustafa ascended the throne he would have been a great king cause ppl,jannissaries,goveners all love him sulaiman made biggest mistake by exuting mustafa Sulaiman and that russian witch both were greedy for power and sulaiman ws jealous and insecure by the presence of mustafa all this shows sualiman never loved the empire or ppl of his kingdom he only loved his throne otherwise he would have not let that vicious hurrem's drunked and incapable son take the throne
@@romanaiqbal10 You need to read history more with attention and understand the intentions from real sorces. Do not conclude things based on mere assumption.
@@CavaxusMon2077 i have a question. ottoman once won against 100k with 0 soldiers. the man who did it was he a sultan? was he good leader? how many war he won?
Selim the Blonde not bad at all. The heir to the throne was Mehmed and everyone's favorite was Mustafa. Selim never expected that he would ascend to the throne. Mehmet died and Mustafa was executed. Also, the viziers were perfect during his time, he left the administration to them, so he did the right thing
Strong men create good times Good times create weak men Weak men create bad times Bad times made Ottoman Empire fall. No other empire have this many amazing geniuses follow each other at the beginning of the Empire and nothing but pathetic idiots at the end, who destroyed all that their glorious ancestors had built. Mahmud II being an exception, obviously.
@@yaqubleis6311Muslim's defeated Roman, Persian, Spanish, mongol, sassanid, British, Francis, cruseder, maratha, etc super power in their prime time 🌚
I think Mehmed IV's reign was only effective because of the Koprulus. When the Koprulu Vizier lost the Battle of Vienna, he was immediately executed by the Sultan. Which sent the Ottomans into a free fall, until the last straw at the Battle of Mohacs, where Mehmed IV was deposed.
I would rate the Abdulhamid II good he litteraly prolonged the empire for 30 years after his deposition, empire teared apart. My ratings compared to yours +education +railway and infastructure +budget control +was a good diplomat + prolonged the empire + good spy networks for control over fracturing state + modernized the army -lost bosnia serbia tunisia serbia egypt and east africa coasts - revolution target - seen as evil by european public, therefore low support from european society during crises - he was paranoid
damnit, Mustafa II reconquered many cities in hungary and bosnia until he was defeated in Zenta by austrians, he did his best during his reign . I’d rank him as Good/Medium
On the defense side of Mehmed V, he was reigning the empire during the terrible time he had no control over and considering most of Turkey was in control of his ministers, who controled the army, this wasnt a good position to start with
The fact that you had to put a good point on Abdulmejid I just because he didn't lose any territories is just show how bad the previous rulers were at keeping Ottoman territory intact
@@dodoiserg3371Same. Suleiman conquered a lot but a huge amount of his conquests were unnecessary. +Suleiman ordered his son Mustafa to be drowned, considering Mustafa was much better suited to take the throne than Selim the Drunk, this was a huge mistake.
Être fort comme un Turc (‘to be strong like a turk’): This expression originates in the 15th century when the Turks had a reputation for being strong, almost unbeatable warriors due to their numerous victories. At the time, the Ottoman Empire ruled large parts of south-east Europe, north Africa and western Asia. It is said that François I, King of France, was gifted Turkish armour by Suleiman the Magnificent (the tenth and most famous sultan of the Ottoman Empire) during their alliance. When he wore it, he is said to have exclaimed: “Here I am now, strong as a Turk!”.
Even though I am a huge Fan of the Eastern Roman Empire. I wonder how the Ottoman Sultans decrease in quality. Like they where almost unstoppable at first.
Okey to be honest the part of abdul hamid II needed to be researched if he would have introduced absolutism there would have been no ottomans due to him the ottomans collapse delayed and he gave the control of empire finances to european power so that they won’t interfere in their countries Internal affairs and moreover he wasn’t overthrown by army he was slandered And overthrown by fatwa he was a good ruler if he would have got empire in good state he would had take empire to its peak for sure due to his intelligence
@@TsarAmbatukamXIVNo, he did not lose. It was the Ottoman parliament that decided to go to war with Russia. Sultan Abdulhamid did not want this and the Ottoman Empire had constitutionalism at that time.
You have to khow the real history of Sultan Abdulaziz & Sultan Abdülhamid II. Don’t make wrong information about them.Do you know who was Sultan Abdülhamid ll.He faced many problems and faced many kinds of assassination attempts. After all he was a very good sultan of the Ottoman empire.
Selim II was not as bad as people think he was actually a good ruler, not on his father's lever but at least good, sultan Ahmed I was also good not bad, and sultan Abdulhamid II is not bad at all, he lost a lot of territories but he saved the empire from collapsing and gave him 30 more years
THE TURKS AND THE WEST. Europe stood in awe of the Ottomans who crushed many states and conquered vast territories, going, as all patriotic Turks will proudly point out, "all the way to the gates of Vienna." European literature is replete with the depictions of the Turk as the hated enemy. The English often thought of the Turk as awe-inspiring and destructive. Thomas Fuller wrote in The Holy Warre (1639): "The Turkish Empire is the greatest... the sun ever saw. ...Grass springeth not where the grand signior's horse setteth his foot."
After Suleiman I, the Ottoman Sultans became increasingly irrelevant. Nevertheless, the Ottomans were still a superpower until 1683, and the eventual collapse of the European territories. But the Ottomans continued to be a great power until the mid 18th century, when there started to be a significant difference in military technology, inferior to the West. The true decline began in the Egyptian War, where only with the allied powers they were able to kick out Napoleon. The reforms began, but it was too late to stop the tide of nationalism and foreign aggression.
I'm Turkish, here is my opinions: Bayezid II wasn't a good Sultan. He did not conquer important countries in his long reign, he did not take advantage of the many chances that came to him. He rejected Christopher Columbus' request to give him a ship and in return connect the places that Christopher would explore (America) to the Ottoman Empire. Murad III greatly disrupted the education system of the Janissaries during his reign. Education time decreased, strict rules for education were abolished. So, the discipline of the army fell further. Also, corruption started during his reign. Osman II is a underrated leader, wanted to abolish the Janissaries and gather an army including only of Turks, as the Janissary Corps was constantly deteriorating, becoming corrupt and constantly causing trouble for the state. He tried to reforming the empire, but were dethroned by Janissaries. Mehmed IV was a terrible leader. He literally did nothing in his 39-year reign. All of conquests in his reign were carried by viziers. In his reign, Ottomans lost the Battle of Vienna because of betrayal of Crimean Khan, and Mehmed IV did nothing but ex*cuting the Grand Vizier who laid the siege. After the battle, Ottomans start to fall. Mustafa II was a good leader. When he became sultan, Ottomans were in a great war with Austria, Poland, Venice and Russia; and lost Hungary, Transilvania, Azov and Morea. The empire was literally in its death throes. He became the head of army and started campaigns to Austria. He won the battles of Lugos and Olasch. He tried to reviving the empire but gained a crushing defeat in the Battle of Zenta. Mahmud I became Sultan in a retreat of empire, he ensured peace in the country and slowed down the decline of the Ottoman Empire. He won the war with Austria, reconquered Belgrade, northern Bosnia and western Wallachia. He was a good sultan.
Abdul Hamid ii was a very good ruler actually because he was actually able to fight zionism alone and he fended off all the challenges that wanted to end the ottomans.
In My Opinion Osman I Great Orhan I Great Murad I Great Bayzeid I Very Good Mehmed I Good Murad II Very Good Mehmed II Great Bayzeid II Good Selim I Great Suleiman I Great Selim II Medium Murad III Medium Mehmed III Very Good Ahmed I Bad Mustafa I Bad Osman II Bad Murad IV Very Good Ibrahim I Bad Mehmed IV Bad Suleiman II Good Ahmed II Bad Mustafa II Medium Ahmed III Medium Mahmud I Medium Osman III Bad Mustafa III Bad Abdulhamid I Medium Selim III Good Mustafa IV Bad Mahmud II Very Good Abdulmecid I Good Abdulaziz I Good Murad V Bad Abdulhamid II Great Mehmed V Bad Mehmed VI Bad
@@TsarAmbatukamXIV true but like i said, the military was bad during his reign and the ottomans were severely weakened. I would call abdulhamid a good ruler, he had potential to be the best, but because of the state of the empire he didn’t fare very well. A sultan like abdulhamid 2 would be among the best sultans during times of peace. Something that we didn’t have during his reign unfortunately because the world was trying to destroy us and parititiom us.
Personally id say mehmed IV gets too much of a bad rap. He was in my opinion very good if not great ottoman sultan. He won wars after wars. The only reason he lost in vienna was because of incompetent generals and viziers. If that werent the case he wouldve been up there with the like of mehmed II and suleiman I
He litteraly executed the grand vizier who won many wars after his failure without giving a chance. He litteraly sealed the fate of great turkish war. Kara Mustafa Pasha was a very intelligent guy he was the only one who could reverse the defeat at vienna
@@overpredor3412 yeas thats probably the biggest blunder, now that ive read more and studied more id say he was very good at best. And yes kara mustafa was very intelligent he probably couldve turned the situation around for the ottomans. If he wasnt killed then most likely battle of zenta would be a victory for the ottomans personally is see him definitely beating eugene of savoy. He was very carefull cautious and competent general. The ottomans would almost have had vienna if it werent for the coalition and the crimean uprising. But yes i agree with you
Abdul Hamid is not bad bad the territories lost in his reign was due to parliament’s mistakes and he was overthrown by young Turks supported by European powers
@@ahnafhasanrajjoto be fair. His reign was not the best but he out of any sultan had the most potential. If only the young turk revolution didn’t happen then the ottoman empire might have gotten their strength back up to a reasonable amount for the europeans to leave them alone for the time being.
Bayezid wasnt overthrown rather his own givernment generals lost confidence in him after his son ahmed betrayal Selim greatest feet was turning ottoman into a calipha and left the treasury like no other sultan did. Suleiman down point would ge although he ruled at peak he also made all the mistakes to start the ottoman downfall
Don't trust what u see in magnificent century, except Osman 1,Orhan, Murad 1, Bayezid 1,Murad 2, Mehmed 2, Selim 1, Suleiman 1,Murad 4 Abdul Majid 1, no sultan was good every sultan was good for nothing
What should I do next?
Seljuks
Kings of Denmark From Vikings to the present
Swedish kings
Parthians kings
Scottish Monarchs or Serbian Monarchs, maybe even Bulgarian if you feel like it
It is so stunning that there was so many competent ottomam leaders until selim the drunk, no wonder why they became this powerful
You can thank Mehmed III for decrease in sultan quality and as for Selim II he wasn't even supposed to become king. It was supposed to be the more competent and able Bayezeid who perhaps would have taken power as Bayezeid III and would have been a good king in the very least.
Saliem only became of that red head witch hurrem and her lover killed shazada mustafa..senerio would have been diff if mustafa ascended the throne he would have been a great king cause ppl,jannissaries,goveners all love him sulaiman made biggest mistake by exuting mustafa Sulaiman and that russian witch both were greedy for power and sulaiman ws jealous and insecure by the presence of mustafa all this shows sualiman never loved the empire or ppl of his kingdom he only loved his throne otherwise he would have not let that vicious hurrem's drunked and incapable son take the throne
@@romanaiqbal10 You need to read history more with attention and understand the intentions from real sorces. Do not conclude things based on mere assumption.
@@CavaxusMon2077 i have a question. ottoman once won against 100k with 0 soldiers. the man who did it was he a sultan? was he good leader? how many war he won?
Selim the Blonde not bad at all. The heir to the throne was Mehmed and everyone's favorite was Mustafa. Selim never expected that he would ascend to the throne. Mehmet died and Mustafa was executed.
Also, the viziers were perfect during his time, he left the administration to them, so he did the right thing
Strong men create good times
Good times create weak men
Weak men create bad times
Bad times made Ottoman Empire fall.
No other empire have this many amazing geniuses follow each other at the beginning of the Empire and nothing but pathetic idiots at the end, who destroyed all that their glorious ancestors had built. Mahmud II being an exception, obviously.
Sassanian kings >>> Ottoman rulers let’s compare them if you want
I think, this is happening in the USA now. America is producing too many bad weak people now.
So we seriously gonna ignore mahmud 1 mehmed iv although one very big mistake still had a great reign suleyman 2 murad iv ???
@@yaqubleis6311Muslim's defeated Roman, Persian, Spanish, mongol, sassanid, British, Francis, cruseder, maratha, etc super power in their prime time 🌚
@@habibur_sardarlater Europeans Colonised 99% Islamic countries lmao.
I think Mehmed IV's reign was only effective because of the Koprulus. When the Koprulu Vizier lost the Battle of Vienna, he was immediately executed by the Sultan. Which sent the Ottomans into a free fall, until the last straw at the Battle of Mohacs, where Mehmed IV was deposed.
well that was a huge mistake made by the ottomans instead they should have invaded Italy which was unstable and unprepared
I would rate the Abdulhamid II good he litteraly prolonged the empire for 30 years after his deposition, empire teared apart.
My ratings compared to yours
+education
+railway and infastructure
+budget control
+was a good diplomat
+ prolonged the empire
+ good spy networks for control over fracturing state
+ modernized the army
-lost bosnia serbia tunisia serbia egypt and east africa coasts
- revolution target
- seen as evil by european public, therefore low support from european society during crises
- he was paranoid
he did not modernize the army
@@Iamnotracistlmao tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmanlı_İmparatorluğu%27nda_askerî_reformlar
Lol there is litteraly a page exclusive to Abdulhamid, go cry
damnit, Mustafa II reconquered many cities in hungary and bosnia until he was defeated in Zenta by austrians, he did his best during his reign . I’d rank him as Good/Medium
exacly.He did the best with what he had.
He was highly influenced by his mother and by Shaykh al-Islām 🤷
@@aha3652 that’s right but apart from this his reign wasn’t bad. i think ha prevetend even more territorial losses
On the defense side of Mehmed V, he was reigning the empire during the terrible time he had no control over and considering most of Turkey was in control of his ministers, who controled the army, this wasnt a good position to start with
Suleiman the Magnificient killed his eldest son, who was incredibly competent, and essentially made it so that Selim the Drunk would take the throne.
I think Abdulkhamid II period wasn't bad
The onion heads were OP
The fact that you had to put a good point on Abdulmejid I just because he didn't lose any territories is just show how bad the previous rulers were at keeping Ottoman territory intact
Could have a special rank for Suleiman. Magnificent :)
i find Mehmed the conqueror way better
@@dodoiserg3371Same. Suleiman conquered a lot but a huge amount of his conquests were unnecessary. +Suleiman ordered his son Mustafa to be drowned, considering Mustafa was much better suited to take the throne than Selim the Drunk, this was a huge mistake.
Être fort comme un Turc (‘to be strong like a turk’):
This expression originates in the 15th century when the Turks had a reputation for being strong, almost unbeatable warriors due to their numerous victories. At the time, the Ottoman Empire ruled large parts of south-east Europe, north Africa and western Asia. It is said that François I, King of France, was gifted Turkish armour by Suleiman the Magnificent (the tenth and most famous sultan of the Ottoman Empire) during their alliance. When he wore it, he is said to have exclaimed: “Here I am now, strong as a Turk!”.
Good ranking
Even though I am a huge Fan of the Eastern Roman Empire. I wonder how the Ottoman Sultans decrease in quality. Like they where almost unstoppable at first.
you can thank Mehmed III for that
Okey to be honest the part of abdul hamid II needed to be researched if he would have introduced absolutism there would have been no ottomans due to him the ottomans collapse delayed and he gave the control of empire finances to european power so that they won’t interfere in their countries Internal affairs and moreover he wasn’t overthrown by army he was slandered And overthrown by fatwa he was a good ruler if he would have got empire in good state he would had take empire to its peak for sure due to his intelligence
Hi! I am your big fan but can you make videos on Ranking Umayyad Caliphate leaders and also Ranking Safavid rulers please!
Is it true the eastern church gave the title of caesar to mehmed ll?
It was a self proclaimed title, the Church wouldn't wish for a Muslim emperor in this time even if he conquered the capital of the Roman empire
@@Optimusturk the patriarch of Constantinople, the highest authority in the orthodox church awarded him the title of "Caesar e Rum" or Caesar of Rome.
@@m.aryaanamiri2755 Yeah it's true my bad since by right of Conquests
I hope you remake the bizantine or the roman one
Or it could be the whole, West, and Eastern Emperors.
=Sultan abdul hamid II was great. He didnot lose any of his lands.
Russo Turkish 1877 war says otherwise
😆
@@TsarAmbatukamXIVNo, he did not lose. It was the Ottoman parliament that decided to go to war with Russia. Sultan Abdulhamid did not want this and the Ottoman Empire had constitutionalism at that time.
You have to khow the real history of Sultan Abdulaziz & Sultan Abdülhamid II. Don’t make wrong information about them.Do you know who was Sultan Abdülhamid ll.He faced many problems and faced many kinds of assassination attempts. After all he was a very good sultan of the Ottoman empire.
Absolutely right he was great Sultan of his time but blind people didnt accept.
Selim II was not as bad as people think he was actually a good ruler, not on his father's lever but at least good, sultan Ahmed I was also good not bad, and sultan Abdulhamid II is not bad at all, he lost a lot of territories but he saved the empire from collapsing and gave him 30 more years
THE TURKS AND THE WEST.
Europe stood in awe of the Ottomans who crushed many states and conquered vast territories, going, as all patriotic Turks will proudly point out, "all the way to the gates of Vienna." European literature is replete with the depictions of the Turk as the hated enemy. The English often thought of the Turk as awe-inspiring and destructive. Thomas Fuller wrote in The Holy Warre (1639): "The Turkish Empire is the greatest... the sun ever saw. ...Grass springeth not where the grand signior's horse setteth his foot."
Murad the 4th shouldn't have that negative because he was only 7 when he took the ottoman throne, so he needed a regent until he got a little older.
plsss do parthian kings next and finish irans ancient history on kings
After Suleiman I, the Ottoman Sultans became increasingly irrelevant. Nevertheless, the Ottomans were still a superpower until 1683, and the eventual collapse of the European territories. But the Ottomans continued to be a great power until the mid 18th century, when there started to be a significant difference in military technology, inferior to the West.
The true decline began in the Egyptian War, where only with the allied powers they were able to kick out Napoleon. The reforms began, but it was too late to stop the tide of nationalism and foreign aggression.
I'm Turkish, here is my opinions:
Bayezid II wasn't a good Sultan. He did not conquer important countries in his long reign, he did not take advantage of the many chances that came to him. He rejected Christopher Columbus' request to give him a ship and in return connect the places that Christopher would explore (America) to the Ottoman Empire.
Murad III greatly disrupted the education system of the Janissaries during his reign. Education time decreased, strict rules for education were abolished. So, the discipline of the army fell further. Also, corruption started during his reign.
Osman II is a underrated leader, wanted to abolish the Janissaries and gather an army including only of Turks, as the Janissary Corps was constantly deteriorating, becoming corrupt and constantly causing trouble for the state. He tried to reforming the empire, but were dethroned by Janissaries.
Mehmed IV was a terrible leader. He literally did nothing in his 39-year reign. All of conquests in his reign were carried by viziers. In his reign, Ottomans lost the Battle of Vienna because of betrayal of Crimean Khan, and Mehmed IV did nothing but ex*cuting the Grand Vizier who laid the siege. After the battle, Ottomans start to fall.
Mustafa II was a good leader. When he became sultan, Ottomans were in a great war with Austria, Poland, Venice and Russia; and lost Hungary, Transilvania, Azov and Morea. The empire was literally in its death throes. He became the head of army and started campaigns to Austria. He won the battles of Lugos and Olasch. He tried to reviving the empire but gained a crushing defeat in the Battle of Zenta.
Mahmud I became Sultan in a retreat of empire, he ensured peace in the country and slowed down the decline of the Ottoman Empire. He won the war with Austria, reconquered Belgrade, northern Bosnia and western Wallachia. He was a good sultan.
4:02 Abdulhamid II is very respected in the east for his stance on Palestine.
he sold cyprus .d
The war against the poles was looking good for osman ii at the start despite him being a teenage sultan, a solid good would be fitting for him
I do think that you are a little bit harsh on Selim II
the poorest ottoman sultan is a coward
You have underrated abdulhamid 2. I think you are European
yeah abdul hamid was good leader
he sold cyprus .d
One of my favorite states of the Turks is the Ottomans :> Great vidoe!
Abdul Hamid ii was a very good ruler actually because he was actually able to fight zionism alone and he fended off all the challenges that wanted to end the ottomans.
In My Opinion
Osman I Great
Orhan I Great
Murad I Great
Bayzeid I Very Good
Mehmed I Good
Murad II Very Good
Mehmed II Great
Bayzeid II Good
Selim I Great
Suleiman I Great
Selim II Medium
Murad III Medium
Mehmed III Very Good
Ahmed I Bad
Mustafa I Bad
Osman II Bad
Murad IV Very Good
Ibrahim I Bad
Mehmed IV Bad
Suleiman II Good
Ahmed II Bad
Mustafa II Medium
Ahmed III Medium
Mahmud I Medium
Osman III Bad
Mustafa III Bad
Abdulhamid I Medium
Selim III Good
Mustafa IV Bad
Mahmud II Very Good
Abdulmecid I Good
Abdulaziz I Good
Murad V Bad
Abdulhamid II Great
Mehmed V Bad
Mehmed VI Bad
AbdulHamid ii is overrated imo
@@TsarAmbatukamXIVgood muslim and he had big plans to modernise the ottoman empire but the young turk revolution stopped him from doing that.
@@mythicalumut6174 He lost almost all of Balkan possesion and Constantinople almost get conquered by Russia under his reign
Abdulhamid II very overrated and Mustafa I should be very bad
@@TsarAmbatukamXIV true but like i said, the military was bad during his reign and the ottomans were severely weakened. I would call abdulhamid a good ruler, he had potential to be the best, but because of the state of the empire he didn’t fare very well. A sultan like abdulhamid 2 would be among the best sultans during times of peace. Something that we didn’t have during his reign unfortunately because the world was trying to destroy us and parititiom us.
Can you do Moroccan rulers, from idrisid to Mohamed vi
Or at least the golden era Almoravid Almohad and merinid
It was actually mehmed ii who conquered karamanids
Bayezid demi god
The only Ottoman sultan I know here is Murad V
Personally id say mehmed IV gets too much of a bad rap. He was in my opinion very good if not great ottoman sultan. He won wars after wars. The only reason he lost in vienna was because of incompetent generals and viziers. If that werent the case he wouldve been up there with the like of mehmed II and suleiman I
He litteraly executed the grand vizier who won many wars after his failure without giving a chance. He litteraly sealed the fate of great turkish war. Kara Mustafa Pasha was a very intelligent guy he was the only one who could reverse the defeat at vienna
@@overpredor3412 yeas thats probably the biggest blunder, now that ive read more and studied more id say he was very good at best. And yes kara mustafa was very intelligent he probably couldve turned the situation around for the ottomans. If he wasnt killed then most likely battle of zenta would be a victory for the ottomans personally is see him definitely beating eugene of savoy. He was very carefull cautious and competent general. The ottomans would almost have had vienna if it werent for the coalition and the crimean uprising. But yes i agree with you
Que bien
Sultan Abdul Hamid bad.. Bute whay. He is one of the best sultan muslim saltant
yeah
Murad 1 has founded the unit of Janissary
👍
fact: Osman II r**ed by Janissaries
when?
The list has some awful takes
Not Great, Magnicifent!..
if you had put ataturk on here, he would definetly be great
no he destroyes ottoman empire
Sultan Abdul Hamid 2nd not a bad sultan
He is a great on that time
Nah. People only think that because of the Turkish tv shows which portray him as one of the greatest sultans.
no,he lost many teritories during his reign and plus he lost many wars you just say he was good because of the serial called Payitaht AbdulHamid
Abdul Hamid is not bad bad the territories lost in his reign was due to parliament’s mistakes and he was overthrown by young Turks supported by European powers
@@ahnafhasanrajjoto be fair. His reign was not the best but he out of any sultan had the most potential. If only the young turk revolution didn’t happen then the ottoman empire might have gotten their strength back up to a reasonable amount for the europeans to leave them alone for the time being.
Russia almost lay siege to the city of Constantinople under his reign if British didn't tell them to stop
abdulhamid and abdulaziz was great
Funny 😂
its not funny anani skm@@Nordsjaelland180
@@Nordsjaelland180 Why u always try to prove sultan abdulhamid not good?
Bayezid wasnt overthrown rather his own givernment generals lost confidence in him after his son ahmed betrayal
Selim greatest feet was turning ottoman into a calipha and left the treasury like no other sultan did.
Suleiman down point would ge although he ruled at peak he also made all the mistakes to start the ottoman downfall
sultan mehmed 3 was bad his son ahmed the first was a very great sultan !!!
Don't trust what u see in magnificent century, except Osman 1,Orhan, Murad 1, Bayezid 1,Murad 2, Mehmed 2, Selim 1, Suleiman 1,Murad 4 Abdul Majid 1, no sultan was good every sultan was good for nothing
ne diyor bu mülteci ? @@MohammedShams-rd7uh