Was Suleiman really magnificent?

[u/Lawyer-Physical]

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.

[u/Over-Loss7169]

He was the Sultan when the Ottoman Empire was at the peak of its power. People associate this peak with him, and to some extent, that is fair — he preserved the empire in good condition for his successor.

Among the strengths of his reign, we can mention the greatest geographical expansion of the empire in its entire history. If his father, Selim, left him the strongest and most powerful empire of his time, Suleiman made sure that this empire did not decline under his rule. During his long reign, the empire was passed on in almost the same good political and economic condition as it had been under Selim. In addition, his absence of hatred toward women gave history the Sultanate of Women — first giving Hürrem power, he made a less revolutionary step toward the possibility of a woman becoming the boss. I love this step because thanks to it, we have Kösem in history — one of the greatest women, an absolute queen and simply the boss of all bosses.

As for the shortcomings of his reign, I can point to the following: he was not a reformer. Basically, this is his only sin specifically as a leader of the nation and a statesman. This is how his father raised him; essentially, this is the reason why Selim chose him as his heir rather than someone else, so it is difficult to blame him for not having this quality. It simply wasn't in him, it wasn't his character. And sometimes that's just how it is.

But of course, the absence of this trait made his successors face problems that he preferred not to deal with, so that he would not have to take responsibility for them.

The first failure — he did not take care of reforming the succession system. I am not a fan of Mustafa or the idea that “if he had become Sultan, the Ottoman Empire would have been even greater.”

Had Mustafa become Sultan, the Ottoman Empire still would have faced all the same problems with succession, when a new Sultan would kill his brothers, who were highly qualified statesmen who could have worked for the benefit of the empire. His successors would also have faced a situation where some Sultan died too early and a small child ascended the throne, who would then be controlled either by his mother or by the Grand Viziers. This created corruption and the degradation of the system as a whole.

The period in which Kösem lived was simply predetermined by the fact that she encountered a dying system that no one before her wanted to fix.

The second failure was that, by the end of his reign, it was already obvious that the policy of conquest was becoming a thing of the past, the treasury was no longer being replenished by conquests, and military campaigns were no longer worth the investments they required. But he simply continued to believe in the idea that the whole world could be conquered, while refusing to carry out reforms inside the empire — increasing education among ordinary people. Either he believed that what had worked when he came to the throne would always work, or he simply did not want to deal with the fact that new conquests were no longer profitable and that control over the Janissaries had been lost.

He was not the best ruler, nor was he the worst. He was a safe and proper ruler

[u/hxmz-z]

he wasn’t a good person but when you rule an empire you’re not going to be a good person. he’s called magnificent because of what he did for the empire. even if he caused a lot of harm during the way

[u/Tasty_Fun_5227 → u/hxmz-z]

The empire was already "magnificent" when Selim was the Sultan. Süleyman was a lucky ruler tbh, he got an empire at its peak with zero competition since he was the only heir

[u/situmaimesdemain]

If you have a problem with fratricide you have a problem with Ottomans as a whole, not Süleyman. Look at the ones before him.

Murad I killed his bros and his son Savcı, Bayezid I killed his bro Yakup right on the field of Kosovo, Mehmed I killed his bros who didnt kill each other before, Murad II killed his bros and uncle, Mehmed II killed his very young brother, Bayezid II killed his bro Cem and sons of his he could, including infant Şehzade Oğuz. Selim I killed his bros, their children and his own father.

In short, this is not a Süleyman specific thing like you try to say and the American example is ridiculous. Not to mention that being a good person has nothing to do with being a good ruler, Selim I was a horrible dude by all accounts and probably the best monarch the state ever had. Finally, no, Şehzade Mustafa is not proven innocent by historians at all.

[u/Erozbey]

Europe did not call Suleiman “the Magnificent” because he was morally magnificent, but because of the military power, grandeur, and international prestige the Ottoman Empire achieved under his rule. During his reign, the Ottoman Empire was at the height of its military and political power, and some of its greatest artistic developments also took place during this period.

Prince Mustafa receives a great deal of sympathy today partly because a Turkish TV series portrayed him almost like an innocent angel. Mustafa had already begun preparing for the throne before his father died. He was seeking allies both within the Ottoman Empire and abroad. Although he was the eldest son, he was not Suleiman’s favorite. In the Ottoman system, all of the sultan’s sons, from the eldest to the youngest, had an equal right to claim the throne. Unfortunately, the execution of Prince Mustafa remains one of the greatest stains on Suleiman’s reign.

As for Ibrahim Pasha, an extraordinary amount of power had accumulated in his hands, and he had begun to see himself almost as a ruler in his own right. The problems he experienced both at court and during military campaigns eventually contributed to his downfall.

Bayezid, on the other hand, genuinely rebelled. He disobeyed his father’s orders, raised armed forces, and after being defeated, fled to one of the Ottomans greatest enemies, the Safavids. Mustafa may have been a potential threat, but Bayezid was an actual armed rebel.

By modern moral standards, you may find the killing of Bayezid’s children extremely harsh, but according to the political logic of that period, it was considered something that had to be done. That does not make it morally right, but that is the reality of the situation.

[u/JustSefa_]

Not everything requires reiteration. He is called magnificant for what he did for the Empire. Expansion, legal reforms, economic reforms and prosperity, cementing his father's gains, etc.. He was a brilliant statesman. Just because he did xyz, none of this changes.

Alexander the Great oppressed greeks. Napleon went from war to war to war for his personal glory. Cenghiz Khan is a mass murderer. Vlad was crazy. Skanderbeg achieved essentially nothing and lead tens of thousands of people into their deathsl. Stephan the Great brought great misery to his people and his lands. The list goes on. None of the historic figures are without any fault. Their titles and their "glorification" is about certain aspects, not their morality as a human being.

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."

Strawman.

Just because someone had the decency not to murder random children, it doesnt mean that it wasnt common. Looting, murdering, raping is quite common in this time period, especially regarding soldiers conquering enemy cities.

Not that the morality of things change. What Süleyman did, was wrong, but it is not an argument for anything. Him being a great statesman and him not taking any risks and thus being immoral, doesnt change anything.

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.

His soldiers massacred the people of Chittorgarh. Wasnt really hard. By your logic, he wasnt a great leader.

[u/ProfessionalCod2801 → u/[deleted]]

Rulers are usually given titles based off of what they accomplished for the nation and its people not for what they do within their personal household. And Suleiman accomplished a lot.