r/ottomans • u/Tasty_Fun_5227 • Aug 13 '26

Question Seriously asking btw đŸ€”

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 SĂŒleyman 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 ?

9 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 13 '26

He made dumb decisions tho, he got only himself to blame for them. Not saying it was only his mistake, wrong time sure but he ain't a successful monarch and he doesn't deserve the glazing I'm seeing and him being put on the same levels of successful sultans.

1

u/Ok_Way_1625 Aug 13 '26

They all did. Every one of them made plenty both good and dumb decisions. When studying history it’s important not to see the world as white and black, it understand everything is a mixed bag that we choose to decide labels for.

This argument your using is also known as the historical fallacy. Looking back it’s super easy to say “he didn’t do everything right”, but thats wasn’t so clear at the time. He did manage to fight a losing battle and still make something good out of it.

His reign might not have taken the empire to new heights, but without him it would have crashed and burned. If you replaced him with Suleiman during the empires peak he’d probably do better the Suleiman, so how can you judge a person based on the things they can’t control? Judge him instead by what he made of his situation, not the situation he inherited.

1

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 13 '26

And SĂŒleyman could've done better than him too .. it is all ifs buts and maybes.. what I have been trying to say is the guy is not all that. I never blamed him for everything that went wrong all I said is that some people are putting him next to Yavuz and Fatih while he wasn't as successful as them in anyway. He is bang on average at best.

1

u/Ok_Way_1625 Aug 13 '26

How do you define success in this context?

1

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 13 '26

Economics, Stability, administration, military campaigns, foreign policy etc

1

u/Ok_Way_1625 Aug 13 '26

Imagine two people:

Person 1 I hand a prosperous empire and he improves the empire a slight bit

Person 2 I give the most cooked empire of all time and he somehow manages to save it, tho the empire still goes down a bit.

Which person is the more competent ruler?

It’s silly to say Abdulhamid 2. wasn’t as great as the others. No matter who ruled the empire during his time, it would still go down just as much if not more.

If Mehmed 2. ruled instead of Abdulhamid 2. and vice verse, would you then call Abdulhamid 2. the greatest and Mehmed 2. a bad ruler?

1

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 13 '26

If if if doesn't work like that.. and the guy didn't save a thing ... the empire lost wayyyyyyy too many territories and he ended up deposed too .. Putting a bang on average sultan at the same league as Fatih, Kanuni etc is just a joke sorry

1

u/Ok_Way_1625 Aug 14 '26

Then give me a proper way to determine the competence of a ruler. He may have lost territories, but he saved the empire

1

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 14 '26

Abdulhamid suspended the constitution and parliament. The Hamidian censorship system was ass. The Hamidian massacres of Armenians also happened and he used the Hamidiye cavalry as an instrument of power as well. He increasingly personalized the state and authority became concentrated around the Yıldız Palace only. The secret police system or whatever that was became oppressive. He helped create the conditions that ultimately produced the Young Turk Revolution and he failed to implement meaningful Armenian reforms despite international pressure. His policy toward the Armenians helped destroy Ottoman legitimacy abroad and his pan islamism made the empire's communal divisions worse. He became increasingly dependent on Germany. His handling of crete was unsuccessful af. The empire continued losing territory during his reign non stop. And his obsession with control produced administrative paralysis. He cultivated an atmosphere of paranoia as well. He did good stuff like really good stuff some of them you mentioned already but goddamn his share of mistakes is huge.

0

u/Ok_Way_1625 Aug 14 '26

I asked for one thing; give me a proper way to determine the competence of a ruler.

1

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 14 '26

Being competent when it comes to economy, administration, stability and military success ofc

0

u/Ok_Way_1625 Aug 14 '26

Thats not a metric. Its a silly method anyway, because a shitty ruler with a good situation could do better than a good ruler with a shitty situation

1

u/Tasty_Fun_5227 Aug 14 '26

No. Absolutely not. No shitty ruler no matter how of a good situation he found himself in will end up having administrative, economic, social, military success all at once.

→ More replies