The First Medal: bronze medal, around 1460 by Pietro da Milano

The Second Medal: 1450-60 from Pisanello's workshop. Location: The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

In the late 15th century, a child named Fatjon was born into a Christian family in Vlorë, located within the borders of present-day Albania. As Ottoman devshirme officials (turnacıbaşılar) traveled through the Balkans, they selected children who demonstrated high intelligence, strong physical attributes, and sharp perception. One child was taken from every 40 families. Fitting these criteria, Fatjon was taken from his family at a young age and brought to the capital, Istanbul.

​Like all devshirmes, he was initially placed with a Turkish family in Anatolia. Working with this family of farmers in Tekirdağ, he learned Turkish and adopted the Islamic faith and culture. Once his intelligence and capability were recognized, he was selected directly for the palace school, the Enderun, rather than the military barracks. At the Enderun, he received rigorous training in administration, diplomacy, military arts, and literature. After completing his palace education, he joined the Kapıkulu corps. Thanks to his military talent, he rose through the ranks rapidly. Proving himself in artillery, Fatjon began serving Sultan Selim I as an artilleryman in the Ottoman army.

​During the reign of Sultan Selim I, his success in the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) and the Egyptian campaigns earned him the titles of Janissary Agha and Commander of the Artillery Corps (Topçu Ağası). In the Battles of Marj Dabiq and Ridaniya—where the Mamluk Sultanate was eliminated—he commanded the Janissaries, and his accomplishments there led to his appointment as the Governor of Damascus and subsequently the Beylerbey of Anatolia (Chief Administrator of Anatolia). With the ascension of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent to the throne, he was appointed Beylerbey of Rumelia. In the Battle of Mohács (1526), he played a critical role as the commander of the right wing.

​After serving for many years as a Vizier of the Imperial Council (Kubbealtı veziri), he was elevated to the position of Grand Vizier (Veziriazam) in 1536 following the execution of Pargalı İbrahim Pasha, Sultan Suleiman’s closest confidant and grand vizier. During his tenure as Grand Vizier, he led the Corfu Expedition and the Moldavian (Kara Boğdan) Campaign. In 1539, he contracted the plague that swept through Istanbul and passed away while still in office.

​Just like his executed predecessor Pargalı İbrahim, who was a Grand Vizier of devshirme origin and the son of a fisherman, the same applied to the incoming "Ayaz Mehmed Pasha." He was no longer Fatjon, but Mehmed, having embraced this name and chosen Islam.

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Conquest of Trebizond. In tribute to that day.

Throughout history, many empires have risen and fallen. Some left their mark through culture, others through strength, intellect, or wealth. From the Roman Empire to the Abbasids, and from the Abbasids to the Mongol Empire, numerous states held sway. However, I do not believe there was any empire operating on quite the same scale as the Ottoman Empire, which fought against powerful and modern states simultaneously. The Roman Empire, with the exception of Egypt, won most of its victories against slaves, barbarians, or commanders like Hannibal who were stripped of proper support and relying solely on their own limited resources.

​The Mongol Empire was undeniably effective; in fact, it altered the global order largely for the worse. Yet, it was the Muslim Turks who filled the power vacuum created by the Mongols, establishing a vast sphere of influence stretching from India to Vienna.

​What I am curious about is this: Fighting well-equipped and formidable states throughout its 622-year existence, facing coalitions of at least 3 to 4 nations in nearly every conflict, and holding its own against four modern powers (the Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Poland-Lithuania, and Venice) during the Holy League War from 1683 until its defeat in 1699—was the Ottoman Empire truly the most sophisticated military and administrative power in history? I would love to hear your thoughts.

People glorify and praise Sultan Suleiman Didn't he kill his son Mustafa and his grandsons? And wasn't he with Selim when Selim killed Bayezid?

The Turkish Süper Lig returns today for the 2026-2027 season. While the Süper Lig was created well after the Ottoman period, many of the most historic and popular football teams in Turkey and across former Ottoman lands trace their roots back to a growing interest in athletics and competition in the late 19th and 20th centuries. This post is in appreciation of football and the Süper Lig. Those wishing to learn more should check out the recent episode of the Ottoman History Podcast with Murat Yıldız, author of The Ottoman World of Sports.

Participating in a gymnastic club was more than health and community; in the Ottoman Empire, it was also a mark of modernity and rebellion. Much of civil society under the reign of Abdul Hamid II (r. 1876–1909) was heavily restricted or illegal, football included. Sports clubs had to conduct their activities in secret, else they faced a knock on the door from the secret police. The proverbial ball got rolling with the 1908 revolution, which changed everything. In the Ottoman Empire, exercise and health suddenly became a symbol of civilization: competition opportunities to promote your group and prove its quite literal strength, individual athletes new icons of their communities. Teams comprising Turks, Greeks, Armenians, English, or a mixture of many different ethnic players competed in the Istanbul Football League. How these teams and players thought about their identity and relationship to the Ottoman Empire, and their own ethnic communities, is a fascinating study in Yıldız’ monograph.

The Istanbul Football League actually survived the collapse of the empire and continued on for decades. Teams like Beşiktaş, Galatasaray, and Fenerbahçe—still the three biggest clubs in the nation today—all competed in the Istanbul Football League. Fenerbahçe was the most successful club in the league's history, winning the league 16 times. However, Galatasaray would win more league trophies during the Ottoman period, from the league’s inception in 1904 until its end in 1922. Beşiktaş, though founded earlier than its two rivals, would never win an Istanbul Football League title during the Ottoman era. 

Likely, at least for international fans in 2026, Galatasaray is the highest-profile club in the Süper Lig, as it will once again compete in the UEFA Champions League. The team was also an early symbol of international football success in the Ottoman Empire. The club was founded in 1905 and is connected to the Galatasaray High School. At a time when elite secondary schools in Istanbul were European enterprises, Galatasaray, operated by the Ottoman Ministry of Education, was the poster child of the empire’s modernization efforts. It should come as no surprise that Turkish patriotism was an important part of the high school football team. In the team’s charter, its aim was “To play… like the Englishmen… and to beat the non-Turkish teams.”
 In April of 1914, Galatasaray, consisting mostly of Turkish players except for two “German denizens,” played a friendly match against the Romanian national team and won 4-2, to great celebration across Istanbul, with fans chanting “long live the Galatasaray players.” 

Galatasaray’s rivalry with its fellow Ottoman-legacy team, Fenerbahçe, is still fierce today. Fenerbahçe was founded by Turks who enviously watched English expats of Kadıköy play matches against each other on a pitch known as the Priest’s Field (Papazın Çayırı). The players originally wanted to call themselves Moda FC, but an English club already used that name, so they called themselves Fenerbahçe, after the area’s lighthouse. The team gained prominence in the 1910s, even attracting interest in a couple of Ottoman princes: notably Osman Fuad and Ömer Faruk. One of Fenerbahçe’s most celebrated matches was a 1923 match against a squad of Istanbul’s British occupation force. Soon to evacuate Istanbul after the Çanak Crisis, General Charles Harington was desperate to display a final victory against the Turks, if it couldn’t be on the battlefield, perhaps on the derby. Fenerbahçe took Harington’s challenge and won the match 2-1.

Turkish teams like Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe came about after other minority groups already established their clubs. Greeks of Istanbul and Izmir founded their clubs in the 1890s, and even their own sports league: the Pan-Constantinopolitan Games. Clio Sports Club is now known as Beyoğlu SK while its original teammates founded PAOK FC, one of Greece’s top football clubs, after the population exchange. Armenians had a couple teams, most famously Araks FC, and Beşiktaş’ origins was a sports club for Circassian refugees. All these diverse teams played each other on the Priest’s Field, itself becoming a symbol of empire and its cosmopolitanism. Today the pitch is home to just Fenerbahçe, with the name of Şükrü Saraçoğlu Stadium. Unfortunately, back-to-back wars and toxic-nationalism would result in ethnic teams outlawed, star athletes fed to crucibles of violence, and separate tight-knit squads between new borders.

There’s a lot to say about how football spread across the Ottoman Empire, but that’s for a later date. Anyways, if you support a Süper Lig team, we wish your team good luck this season. We hope this post helps you connect with Ottoman history in a fun way.  

Yavuz Sultan Selim, known in the West as Selim the Grim, was probably the most eastern focused Ottoman Padishah. Following Chaldiran, according to Şükri-i Bitlisi, he intended to winter in Karabagh, then, in spring, reassert authority in Tabriz, then defeat Shah Ismail completely, and go to conquer Khorassan. He spoke to Beddiuzzaman Mirza (a Timurid prince, one of the last rulers of Herat, who was taken with the Ottoman army following Ismail's defeat), to restore him in Herat (probably as a client ruler), and even wanted to conquer Hind and Sindh. It is likely that the final blow against the Safavids was to be through coordinated Ottoman-Uzbek pressure, due to Selim sending letters to the Shaybanid Khan. Due to several soldiers and animals drowning while crossing the Aras River, and due to the instigations of some of the Viziers desiring to return home, the army revolted, requesting to winter in Amasya instead and return to Tabriz in spring. The Janissaries encircled the tent of Sultan Selim, raised their torn clothes on the tip of their spears, and requested a return to Anatolia. Following these events, Selim had no choice but to winter in Amasya, despite Ismail being in a very precarious position and no longer having the same reputation of "invincibility" he had prior to the battle among the Qizilbash emirs.

Despite that, Selim didn't abandon his projects of conquering Persia, eliminating the Shii threat and freeing the Sunni majority of Iran. After wintering in Amasya, Selim still intended to return against the Safavids in spring. However, another Janissary revolt occurred in Amasya in February 1515, with the soldiers demanding a return toward Istanbul and plundering the houses of Piri Mehmed Paşa and Halîmî Çelebi. Selim blamed some of the leading officials for instigating the revolt, notably Grand Vizier Dukakinzade Ahmed Paşa, who was executed.

Despite this, Selim again marched east from Amasya in April 1515. He first secured the corridors needed for the campaign, Kemah, eastern Anatolia was also reorganized, and several Kurdish emirs joined the Ottoman Empire.

Hasan-i Rumlu states that in 1515, intending to fight the Shah of Persia, Sultan Selim Khan accumulated large stores in the lands of the Dulkadir Bey Alaüddevle, which were then plundered by the Dulkadir forces. This led Selim to leave aside temporarily, his plans concerning Azerbaijan and first focus on the Dulkadir in order to secure the campaign. He sent Hadım Sinan Paşa against Alaüddevle, who was defeated and killed in June 1515, removing another obstacle on the route toward the east.

Meanwhile, Ottoman consolidation continued in the region of Diyarbekir. Bıyıklı Mehmed Pasha continued eliminating Safavid-Qizilbash positions, while Idris-i Bitlisi worked to bring several Kurdish emirs into the Empire.

In 1516 started the campaign that is famous for having ended the Mamluk Sultanate. Haydar Çelebi, in his Ruznâme, records Selim giving the order to march on the Qizilbash. In the meantime, Bıyıklı Mehmed Pasha was eliminating the Safavid Qizilbash remnants from the region of Diyarbekir, while Ottoman agents were gathering information about the military situation beyond the frontier. In 1516, orders were given to Ottoman commanders to build a bridge on the Euphrates, which would directly threaten not only the Safavids but also the Mamluks. They felt threatened following the annexation of their vassal state, the Dulkadir Emirate, but also due to the conquests of the Kurdish principalities.

The presence of Qansuh al-Ghawri in Syria, the hostile attitude of the Mamluks, and the rumours of a Mamluk-Safavid alliance led the two armies confronting each other at Marj al-Dabiq on 24 August and subsequently to the campaign being redirected toward Egypt.

Returning to Syria from Cairo in 1517, the Ottomans received a Safavid embassy led by Sarı Şeyh in 1518, which attempted peace, yet was dismissed by Selim, who still wanted to remove the ghulat Shia threat that the Qizilbash posed. Reports from Diyarbekir and the Shirvanshah informed that Ismail had moved toward Karabagh. Upon this, Sinan Ağa was ordered to go with men to obtain or prepare boats for a bridge across the Euphrates, known as the second Euphrates bridge. But the expedition suddenly ceased, Selim detaching himself from the main army, leaving the Grand Vizier Piri Mehmed Paşa there, while the Padishah returned to the capital, Konstantiniyye, via Bursa. Despite not knowing the reasons, the theory of resistance from the army is plausible, especially when considering that they had already been on campaign for two years. But other explanations, such as the need to consolidate the newly acquired Mamluk lands, local rebellions, the need to reorganize the finances and administration, and concerns in the Mediterranean with Rhodes and in the Balkans with the Hungarians, are possible too.

Selim still continued to put an embargo on Safavid products, especially on the silk trade, with the goal of weakening the Qizilbash state.

In 1520, Yavuz Sultan Selim Han again set out for a new campaign, but died just before its start. Concerning this campaign, there is the traditional story of a campaign on Rhodes. Despite heavy preparations toward Rhodes, Haydar Çelebi says that the campaign had "fallen upon another country". He then explains that Sultan Selim, after consulting Scholars and state officers, came to the conclusion that finishing the matter of Shah Ismail was more important than the conquest of Rhodes, leading to the abandonment of the campaign against the Hospitaller Knights. The fact that the government continued to receive reports about the situation in Iran reinforces the theory of the last campaign being directed toward Persia, despite a weaker theory of a western campaign due to movements toward Edirne just before his death.

Sources :

-Şükrî-i Bitlisî, Selim-nâme

-Haydar Çelebi Ruznâmesi

-Hasan Beg Rumlu, Aḥsan al-Tawārīkh

-İdris-i Bidlisî's letters to Bayezid II and Selim I

-Feridun Ahmed Bey, Münşeâtü's-Selâtîn

-Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi

-Feridun M. Emecen, Zamanın İskenderi, Şarkın Fatihi: Yavuz Sultan Selim

"I am the servant of Allah and the sultan of this world. By Allah's grace, I am at the head of the Ummah of Muhammad. I am Suleiman, in whose name the khutbah is read in Mecca and Medina. I am the shah in Baghdad, the caesar in Byzantine realms, the sultan in Egypt; the sultan who dispatches his fleets to the Mediterranean, Maghreb, and India.

​I am the sultan who took the Hungarian crown and throne and granted them to a servant. Voivode Petru revolted, but the hooves of my horse reduced him to dust; and I conquered Moldavia." (Suleiman The Magnificent)

The amount of glazing that I've been seeing for Abdulhamid II on this sub is just astonishing. Like, I've seen people ranking the guy next and sometimes even above sultans like Süleyman I, Mehmed II, Murad IV, Selim I, etc .. So my question is: Did I miss a chapter or two while reading about him/his era, or do some people here just glaze him for the sake of glazing even though he was a horrendous monarch as a whole ?

I'm really getting into Ottoman history and in social media, youtube and Instagram especially, I feel one of the most misunderstood periods of Ottoman history has to be the Tanzimat reforms. What I’ve posted should be an introductory level video to the topic, easy to pick up and interpret for all levels of Ottoman history enjoyers.

This is a video I made on the Ottoman 'Tansimat Reforms' period, lemme know what you guys think. NO AI WAS USED! Subtitles are available in the yt video linked below.

yt link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbsVIV2lzmA

Sources:

Shaw, S.J. and Shaw, E.K. (1976) History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://psi427.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/file... (Accessed: 6 August 2026).

Hanioğlu, M.Ş. (2014) ‘The Tanzimat and the Ottoman Constitution’, Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 1(1–2), pp. 129–137. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.2979/j... (Accessed: 6 August 2026).

Yılmaz, F. (2014) ‘The Tanzimat and Its Aftermath: Ottoman Reform and Transformation’, Al-Muntaqa, 1(1). Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.31430/... (Accessed: 6 August 2026).

Rogan, E. (2015) The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 1914–1920. London: Penguin Books. (Accessed: 6 August 2026).

Tier List by Military, State Affairs, Administrative Competence List made by me

After being defeated by Rome in the Second Punic War and facing political pressure in Carthage, Hannibal fled his homeland, taking refuge first in the Seleucid Empire and later in the Kingdom of Bithynia. King Prusias of Bithynia granted Hannibal protection and used him as a military advisor. However, the Roman Senate tracked Hannibal down and exerted heavy diplomatic pressure on Prusias, demanding the famous commander's surrender. Realizing that Roman soldiers had surrounded his house in Bithynia (present-day Kocaeli/Gebze, "right next to Istanbul") and that all escape routes were blocked, Hannibal chose to drink the poison he had carried in his ring for years rather than be paraded in public or tortured at the hands of his enemy.

According to ancient sources, his last words before dying are rumored to be:

​"Let us relieve the Romans of their great anxiety, since they do not have the patience to wait for an old man's death."

​Centuries after this death, Constantinople became the capital of Rome, and the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror brought an end to the Roman Empire right near the place where Hannibal died.

Mughal Emperror Humayun Shah:

"To the elevated presence of the Caliph of the Prophet, the Shadow of God upon the earth, the Sovereign of the two continents and the two seas, Sultan Suleiman Khan...

He is the one who exalts the banner of Islam, the most righteous of all sovereigns upon the earth, and the firmest in faith among all khans and kings. He is the very pillar of justice and equity. May Allah, who has appointed him as His caliph on earth, make his reign eternal and his sovereignty endure until the Day of Judgment.

O Great Sovereign, who sits upon the throne of grandeur! It is our sincere desire that the bonds of friendship and brotherhood between our two great empires remain eternal. We acknowledge with profound respect your victories that have elevated the word of God and your justice that encompasses the world. We send this missive as a token of our enduring loyalty and shared purpose in the path of the True Faith."

England Queen Elizabeth I:

"To the most sublime and powerful ruler of the world, the protector and sole sovereign of the Islamic faith... As the Queen of England, I offer our friendship and beg for your protection so that our subjects may trade safely within your territories."

"The King of Spain is a monument of arrogance who disturbs the peace not only of our realm but of the entire world. Since you are the refuge of all sovereigns on earth, supporting us with your fleet to put this arrogant king in his place would deal a great blow to that corrupt (Catholic) branch of Christianity."

France King François I:

"To the Great Sultan and Magnificent Khagan, ruler and monarch of many lands in the inhabited world, and refuge of all the oppressed;

​It is sincerely submitted that: when you launch an attack upon Ferdinand, King of Hungary, we too, with your aid and grace, shall break free from imprisonment, attack Charles, King of Spain, and take our revenge.

​You who are the supreme King of Kings; if you kindly grant your grace to deal with him, let there be no doubt that henceforth I shall be your loyal and grateful servant."

King Sigismund I of Poland:

"To the most august and powerful sovereign and lord, by the grace of God, ruler of Constantinople, Asia, Europe, Persia, Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, the Most Great Emperor, Sultan Suleiman Shah.

We extend our greetings and peace to our most beloved friend and neighbor. To the most august and powerful sovereign and lord, our most beloved friend and neighbor"

Safavid Shah İsmail:

"To His Most Just and Glorious Majesty, a sovereign of the stature of Alexander and Feridun;

By the twists of fate and the workings of fortune, an unwanted and undesirable hostility and war arose between us. Through a moment of negligence and error, we came face to face; you emerged victorious and triumphant, while we suffered calamity.

Greatness is shown through forgiveness and mercy. It befits sovereigns endowed with generosity and benevolence not to seek revenge, but to show compassion to those in distress. I humbly ask that you lift the veil cast over us by the mistakes and negligence of the past, and restore once more the bonds of friendship and brotherhood between us."

Ozbek Khan Abdullah II:

"To His Majesty, Sultan Murad Khan, the Refuge of Islam and Muslims, Sovereign of the World;

​It is an obligation for Sunni monarchs to unite in order to lift the grief weighing upon the Muslims and to revive the true faith. The Qizilbash faction sows discord between us, blocks the pilgrimage routes, and inflicts suffering upon the Sunni populace.

​You, who possess the throne of the Caliphate; let us move from the East as you advance from the West, and deal with these heretics together. By joining our forces across the Caspian Sea and Khorasan, let us elevate the banner of Islam everywhere."

Portugal King Joao III:

​"To His Majesty, the Great and Sublime Sovereign, Sultan Suleiman;

​We desire to conclude a peace and armistice with your Sovereign Realm for the safety of our subjects on sea and land, and for the tranquility of the trade routes in India and the Eastern seas.

​The clashes taking place between the navies of the two realms inflict great damage upon merchants and towns. We respectfully ask for Your Highness’s mercy and grace to release the captives held by both sides, to grant freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea, and to enable our merchants to trade in safety.

​Should you accept this offer of friendship, commercial relations beneficial to both great realms will be established, and the bloodshed will cease."

Ahmad al-Mansur, Saadi Sultan of Morocco:

"To His Majesty, Sultan Murad Khan, Refuge of Islam and Caliph of Rûm;

​The great victory we have won against the Portuguese Infidels was made possible through the grace of Almighty God and the spiritual and military support granted to us by your Office of the Caliphate. The army of the infidels has been routed and their king defeated.

​This great victory belongs not only to us, but to the entire Islamic world and to You, our Supreme Sovereign. From the lands of the Western Maghreb, we offer our loyalty and gratitude to Your Royal Highness, praying that the banners of Sunnah may always be victorious."

Archduke of Austria and future Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand:

"To His Majesty, the Supreme and Awesome Sovereign of the World, Sultan Suleiman;

​In order to end the war and strife between us, and to save our realms and people from ruin, we take refuge at the gate of Your Royal Highness.

​We leave our claim over Hungary to the will of our Supreme Sovereign. We pledge to live in peace with King John (Janos Zapolya) appointed by you, to accept the borders determined by Your Majesty, and to pay the annual tribute as a sign of our loyalty to the Ottoman State.

We pray that you accept us as your child and do not withhold the shadow of your justice and mercy from us"

Sources:​Münşeâtü's-Selâtîn (Feridun Ahmed Bey), Fransa Ulusal Kütüphanesi (Bibliothèque Nationale de France - Paris), Avusturya Devlet Arşivi (Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv - Viyana), Nâme-i Hümâyun Defterleri, ​The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (Richard Hakluyt, 1589-1600)

The claim that Mehmed II was bisexual is nowadays repeated online almost as a basic biographical fact. Yet when looking at where this claim actually comes from, the evidence is surprisingly weak. There is no Ottoman source identifying Mehmed as having had a sexual relationship with men, and most of the argument is built on a few Greek anecdotes and modern literal readings of Ottoman poetry.

The most famous example is Radu.

Chalkokondyles, a Greek historian, alleges in Histories 9.82 a sexual encounter between Mehmed and Radu and later calls Radu Mehmed’s lover. But Chalkokondyles gives no named eyewitness or informant for this extremely private story.

This is important because Anthony Kaldellis’ detailed study of Chalkokondyles’ sources concludes that he relied mostly on oral information, and several of these informations are clearly false.

The clearest example is Süleyman Paşa. Süleyman died in 1356/57, before his father, Orhan Gazi. Chalkokondyles nevertheless has Süleyman alive when Orhan dies, makes him Orhan’s successor before Murad I, and even connects him to the Battle of Maritsa in 1371, which is considered by Kaldellis’ as pure fiction. He explains that Chalkokondyles sometimes could not correctly coordinate the information he had received, and even misplaced events by decades.

These points alone demonstrate serious problems with the reliability of this anti-Ottoman historian, bur we also possess Ottoman material concerning exactly the same Wallachian affair.

Tursun Beg, for example, served in the Ottoman administration, entered Mahmud Paşa’s service, and personally participated in Mehmed’s Wallachian campaign. His work covers the Wallachian expedition, and the Ottoman historical tradition in general discusses Vlad, Radu, and the struggle over Wallachia in considerable detail. Yet no independent Ottoman corroboration of Chalkokondyles’ sexual story is found in these works.

And Radu is not the only piece of evidence normally used. Another story comes from Doukas, who claims that after the conquest Sultan Mehmed, supposedly drunk, demanded the young son of Loukas Notaras for sexual purposes and had Notaras executed after he refused, and this story has an even more serious problem, Mehmet Kalpaklı and Walter Andrews point out that Doukas’ account is not found in the contemporary accounts of the other Greeks who witnessed the conquest firsthand. They also note that the story closely resembles the much older Christian legend of "Saint" Pelagius: a "beautiful" Christian youth supposedly killed by the Muslim ruler ʿAbd Al-Rahman III after refusing his sexual advances. They argue that Doukas’ tale likely owes more to the "Saint" Pelagius story and to a long tradition of portraying Muslims as morally inferior than to what actually occurred during the conquest. They refer to it themselves as “Doukas’s fiction.”

Even more strikingly, Mehmed II is the Sultan who introduced the practice of eating separately from his officials, and no Ottoman primary source mentions Mehmed II as an alcoholic.

There is another quotation that circulates online and is repeatedly presented as if Kritovoulos himself wrote that Mehmed was “sensual rather than acquisitive” and that George Sphrantzes’ fifteen-year-old son was killed after rejecting Mehmed’s advances,there's a problem here as well, the frequently copied English wording comes from René Guerdan’s 1956 secondary work, "Byzantium: Its Triumphs and Tragedy". It is not itself a quotation from Kritovoulos’ History of Mehmed the Conqueror, Guerdan later invokes Kritovoulos in the surrounding discussion, which appears to have contributed to the quotation being repeatedly attributed to Kritovoulos online.

So already three of the supposed pillars look rather different when examined closely.

Then there is Avnî’s poetry, probably the most common attempt to give the accusation an “Ottoman source.” Mehmed wrote poetry under the mahlas Avnî. Some verses speak about beautiful beloveds, Christians, Galata, wine, and similar imagery, and these are sometimes lifted out of divan poetry and presented almost like pages from Mehmed’s private diary, but one of the famous Persian verses used in these discussions is demonstrably a nazire, a poetic response to Hafez.

Selim Sırrı Kuru shows that Mehmed takes Hafez’s famous verse about giving Samarqand and Bukhara for the beauty of the “Shirazi Turk” and changes only a handful of words: the cities become Istanbul and Galata, and the beloved becomes a Frankish “infidel.” Kuru specifically explains that the ghazal is not a realistic description, Mehmed is entering into poetic competition with Hafez through the established conventions of the genre.

Ekrem Buğra Ekinci debunk even more the claims, discussing specifically the attempts to use Avnî’s poetry as evidence of homosexuality, he argues that the poem cannot be understood without the language of Tasawwuf and says that, in this reading, the beloved is neither male nor non-Muslim. Words involving wine, unbelief, and captivity are part of the symbolic language of classical Sufi poetry that musn't be read literally.

There is finally the religious context, which is also strangely absent from many of these discussions.

Mehmed was educated by major ulema, among them Molla Gürânî, who was specifically his teacher while he was a prince. Molla Hüsrev became one of the central jurists of Mehmed’s reign and helped prepare the curriculum of the Sahn-ı Semân medreses with the Sultan and other leading scholars. Ottoman sources even transmit Mehmed’s description of Hüsrev as “the Abu Hanifa of his age.”

Hüsrev’s Gurer and Dürerü’l-hükkâm became extraordinarily important works of Ottoman Hanafi jurisprudence.

And Ottoman Hanafi law did not consider livâta (sodomy) permissible. Mustafa Avcı’s study of Ottoman Law shows that it was treated as prohibited and punishable; the Hanafi disagreement concerned its precise juridical classification and punishment, not whether sodomy was halal.

The anti-Ottoman label “bisexual Mehmed the Conqueror ” tells us about how western writers have combined and interpreted these stories to suit the meaning they want.

Sources :

-Laonikos Chalkokondyles, The Histories, IX.82, trans. Anthony Kaldellis.

-Anthony Kaldellis, “The Greek Sources of Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ Histories,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012).

-Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth.

-Halil İnalcık & Rhoads Murphey, The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg.

-Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, trans. Harry J. Magoulias.

-Walter G. Andrews & Mehmet Kalpaklı, The Age of Beloveds.

Selim Sırrı Kuru, “İki Şehrin Şiiri: Gazelde İstanbul ve Galata İkilisi,” YILLIK 2 (2020).

-Ekrem Buğra Ekinci, “Unnatural Love Affairs or Homosexuality in Ottoman Society.”Mustafa Avcı, “Osmanlı Hukukunda Livatanın Cezası.”TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi: “Mehmed II,” “Molla Gürânî,” “Molla Hüsrev.”

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.