Talk:Suleiman the Magnificent/Archive 1

Archive 1

Map of present Hungary

Relevance?

Correct title

Shouldn't the term be Sultan, not Emperor? -- corvus13

---

Sultan and Emperor were used interchangeably by the Ottoman rulers after 1453. Mehmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, actually went so far as to assume the title of "Caesar" because he had conquered the last remnant of the Roman Empire. As the Ottomans expanded into Christian lands, it was probably expedient for the sultans to assume the more familiar title of Emperor for their subjects in those territories, anyway. -- jsc1973

---

Plagiarism

Huh? Adam Bishop 19:38, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are right, this should have been the Ormus article. But check the www.nationmaster.com encyclopedia; I think this article too was plagiarized.

This is the text from that encyclopedia -- identical to this article: Suleyman I, also called Süleyman I and nicknamed the Lawmaker or the Magnificent, was the sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1494 to 1566 and successor to Selim I. The Ottoman Empire reached its zenith and became a world power during his reign. Although the empire continued to expand one century after his death, this period was followed by a very long decline.

He captured Belgrade in 1521 and Rhodes in 1522. The Ottoman victory at the Battle of Mohacs opened the doors of Hungary and Vienna, the latter of which had been besieged unsuccessfully in 1529. In the following two decades, huge territories of North Africa west to Morocco and all Middle East north to Persia were annexed. This quick expansion was associated with naval dominance for a short period in the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf.

He earned his nickname the Lawmaker from his complete reconstruction of the Ottoman law system. The laws that he gathered covered almost every aspect of life at the time.

When Süleyman died in 1566, major Muslim cities (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad), many Balkan provinces up to today’s Austria, and most of North Africa were under the control of the empire.

That encyclopedia is copywrited, but often uses material from Wikipedia. But that encyclopedia gives no indication that this article was taken from wikipedia, which makes me wonder whether it was cut and posted from that source. Slrubenstein

Solomon

---

Was he named after Solomon? -- Chris Q

And yes, ChrisQ, Suleyman was named after Solomon (who is considered a Prophet in Islam). His Arab subjects called him 'Sulayman', as do many other Muslim people outside the Ottoman Empire...

Elbonian?

That guy bears more than a passing resemblance to an Elbonian: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Elbonia

Picture was really bad and I changed it with a better one. Deliogul 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kipling & Fiction

Shouldn't this article have some reference to the fiction work about him? Isn't he the one from Kipling's Just So Stories?

Cultural depictions of Suleiman the Magnificent

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

I'm guessing the goal of this week is to get it on peer review? Here are some monarchs that are featured that may be useful to model this article after. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],[7]. Dutch monarch], Attila the Hun. Falphin 20:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I really don't know how to add this to the article but Sigismund II of Poland was the one who united the Grand Duthcy of Lithuania, and the Kingdom of Poland during the late rule of Suleiman the Magnificent. While the two never came in direct conflict, the Polish kingdom would be the buffer that kept the Ottomons from expanding further north, and in later years the Kingdom(after Suleiman's and Sigismunds's deathes) would participate in the Battle of Vienna. Falphin 22:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• It might also be worth mentioning the literature written about him. [8]Falphin 01:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Suleiman the Magnificent → Suleiman I – <remainer left blank for User:Cool Cat to fill in>

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose - Google Books tells me that Suleiman the Magnificent is good enough for the Cambridge Ancient & New Modern Histories, and for the Cambridge Histories of S.E. Asia and of Islam, and that, plus common sense, tells me that this is the right place for the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• (no opinion) but we do have Alfred the Great, while we don't have Ivan the Terrible or Pedro the Cruel, and many others. As long as we have some consistency. Imc 19:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose although I would not have a fit if it was moved. There are other people would could conceivably be referred to as Suleiman I (or some other spelling of Solomon), but there is only one Suleiman the Magnificent, and that is how he is usually known in English, to the extent that anyone talks about him at all in everyday English conversation. I note also that many of the Byzanine emperors have recently been moved to their nicknames rather than putting "(emperor)" after their name (not that I necessarily agree with that, but I was not so discombobulated that I had to move them back immediately). Anyway...yeah, oppose. Adam Bishop 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Turkish nicknames are used for disambiguation, like the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. The idea that WP is advocating the magnificence of Suleiman, anymore than the brotherly love of Ptolemy II, is unfounded.Septentrionalis 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as I prefer not to have nicknames in article titles. Olessi 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, many history books use the title--Aldux 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paintings?

Many of the paintings and depictions of Suleiman the Magnificent, in this article are odd and unauthentic...some of them really look weird.

Reign Infobox

I suggest including his reign of the Ott. Empire in the infobox. All the other sultans have it in theirs.Burningview (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Birth dates

It says in the infobox that Suleiman was born 27 April 1494; the beginning of the article says 6 November 1494. He is also listed under "Births" in the articles for both of those days - the April 27 article also has his year of birth listed as 1495. Does anyone have a good source that confirms which birthdate is correct? The encyclopedias I've checked so far just listed the year, not the specific date. (They seem to all agree on 1494, though.) kane2742 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC) was Suleiman only child to Selim? It is hard to believe because Selim was 50 something years old when he pass-away... There no mention of any siblings at all to Sultan Suleiman... sana

Almost all turkish sources say he was born on the 27th of april. I've checked the internet and a few books, none of them mention 6 november as his birth date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dücanem (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Recently, I have asked the trwiki. Please, be involved in the discussion. hoi (hoi) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

POV

There are some serious POV issues with this article. Even his defeat at Vienna is listed under 'Military Achievements'.

I'm open to rewording. But the fact that the empire reached the borders of Central Europe was an achievement in itself. --A.Garnet 14:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my criticism, but while this article is certainly well written and informative, it strikes me as a "love letter" to Suleiman. The man was great also in his ruthlessness. How about a small mention of that, for example, his ordering the public beheading of 90 year old Piri Reis, a man who served him faithfully. Or his seeming disregard for the lives of his own countrymen, i.e. 25,000+ Ottomans killed at the siege of Szigetvar. Was his ambition ruthless? I think it was. Cutugno (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

that is not just an issue with this page but many monarchs of Europe. Overall I would agree that Piri Reis might be brought up, but the siege wouldn't really show him being ruthless, that was really something every monarch and noble did until the french revolution - treat peasants as expendible and middle class as uppity lower class. That issue is far more complex and widespread, many nations wasted thousands of lives for very little achievement, see the Netherlands revolt from spain or the hundred years wars for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good article review

This article has been nominated for good article review. Baristarim 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas.

I came here from the GA page and I don't know anything about Suleiman, so reading this article was very interesting. I think it will be hard to be a GA without more references -- I would generally expect to see about one per paragraph, or at least one per subsection. If you have books about Suleiman that can be fairly simple to accomplish, just look in the index for the event and there you are.

Also, I think the lead could use some light copyediting. Here's what I would suggest:

Suleiman I (Modern Turkish: Süleyman; Arabic: سليمان‎ Sulaymān) (6 November 1494 – 5 September/6, 1566), was the tenth and longest-serving Sultan from the House of Osman of the Ottoman Empire, reigning from 1520 to 1566. Under his leadership, the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith and became a world power. Suleiman was also considered one of the pre-eminent rulers of 16th-century Europe; a respected rival to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (1519–56), Francis I of France (1515–47), Henry VIII of England (1509–47), and Sigismund II of Poland (1548–72). Suleiman personally led Ottoman armies which conquered Belgrade, Rhodes, and most of Hungary; besieged Vienna; and annexed most of the Middle East and territories of North Africa as far west as Morocco. Under Suleiman's rule, Ottomans achieved naval dominance in the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf, and the empire continued expanding for a century after his death.

Of course, you can take that or lump it! The most notable thing I'd change is that "Suleiman personally led" sentence, because having "led armies to conquer x,y,z" followed by "beseiged" -- well, it confused me when I read it.

Finally, the military campaigns seem a little stubby. If stuff could be merged or expanded I think that would be a good thing.

But all in all I think the main sticking point is the references. If the article had more proper references I think it would be a GA. Katsam 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Suleiman I organized 13 military campaigns during his reign and actually died in the beginning of the 14th one so people who contributed to the article possibly mixed some data and more badly skipped some important details. Also being the sole decision maker of one of the leading world powers of his time for over 40 years makes it hard to prepare an article which doesn't skip or mix many material. I'm personally waiting offers from other Wikipedians so we can discuss more efficiently here. See you, Deliogul 16:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You should unwikilink the year dates, as it is just distracting otherwise and doesn't contribute anything. b_cubed 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting this from the article: - Upon encountering the lifeless body of King Louis, Suleiman is said to have lamented: "I came indeed in arms against him; but it was not my wish that he should be thus cut off while he scarcely tasted the sweets of life and royalty." I can't help but wonder how this correlates to Suleiman's decision to take NO prisoners from Mohacs, thousands were massacred. Why would the Sultan lament the loss of one life, while he took the lives of so many? Cutugno (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

GA failed

This article has a lot going for it. But its copy is sometimes hard to read (I would recommend smaller sentences or at least fewer parenthetical clauses). It is also sort of "stubby." But the biggest issue it has is lack of references -- it's a very big article and should have more than 17 in-line references. I think with references and a light copy-edit, though, it would be a GA -- and it's very interesting! Katsam 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructure Military achievements?

I propose the conquests be divided into "conquests in Europe" and "conquests in Middle East and Africa". As it is, to expand each conquest on its own will mean talking more about each conflict as opposed to Suleiman himself. The way i propose a more general narrative can be given of the conquests without dividing the article into little stubs. I'd appreciate suggestions. --A.Garnet 16:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having more sections is good. Deliogul 21:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some sort of division, yes, and geographical seems simplest. Can I say "Well done!"? It's great to see references being added. This is a subject where Wikipedia should have a featured article. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Hopefully in time with a bit of work it can reach FA. --A.Garnet 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article drive for WP Turkey

I took the liberty of replacing Turkey with this article for the WPTR Featured article drive in WPTR tasks page. It is nothing formal or anything :) So what do you think that needs to be done? ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

We need more links to some specific battles and campaigns. We also need more detail about international relations. Current article only features military conflicts. Deliogul 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, i was going to raise this article for a possible FA drive. I began more a less a complete rewrite of the Military achievements section, taking it away from the stubby feeling of before, still need to get round to Mediterrenean and North Africa to finish it. Deliogul is right about international relations, i thought to include a "diplomacy" section where we could highlight the various alliances and detentes with European powers and the role Suleiman had in shaping Europe. For the other sections, the biggest problem i personally have is sources. Talking about the military conquests is not that difficult since many general books about the Ottoman Empire cover them. However culutral and administrative changes under Suleiman require more specific literature on his reign which i do not have, except Andre Clot (which is on loan). Finally there is still much info to add, all of which will require some research from good sources. Need to expand administrative reforms (he is the law giver after all) and cultural achievements as well as the political intrigues by Hurrem Sultan and his relationship with Ibrahim Pasha. Thanks, --A.Garnet 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to find sources for international relations but it seems like many people think that military conflicts and diplomacy are the same thing because in every link that I clicked, I saw Suleiman's conquests rather than the connections between the West and the Ottoman Empire during his reign. Maybe I should go to the university's library. Deliogul 22:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic calligraphy

This section is not "directly" linked to the sultan himself. It is more related to the period, which is defined as "golden age". I'm proposing that anything that does not directly related to sultan should NOT be here; maybe under the culture of the Ottoman Empire? OttomanReference 21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal items!!!

Is it possible to get the pics of his personal items? such as his kaftan, etc.. Hope someone has an access to these resources. --OttomanReference 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the picture of his sword.[9] The second sword from the bottom. See you, Deliogul 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Belgrade

We should create a stub for the Siege of Belgrade (1521). Lysandros 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FA drive

I've placed some tasks above at the top. Would appreciate more users helping out, expanding the stubby sections and providing good sources. Cheers, --A.Garnet 21:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) --Free smyrnan 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

article improvement drive

You can nominate the article for Wikipedia article improvement drive of the week here. Need 4 votes by March 30th. Perhaps we can place this somewhere prominent on the WP:Turkey, like an announcements section on the front page. Thanks, --A.Garnet 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ibrahim Pasha

I think we must mention İbrahim Pasha's position better. According to the Ottoman tradition, Viziers had to govern a given territory before they could be selected as Grand Vizier but in İbrahim's case, Suleiman skipped that and directly made him his Grand Vizier. This shows us the political power of Suleiman above the traditional laws and makes it easier to explain İbrahim's fast fall-from-power in later years. Beylerbeyi title was given to İbrahim after he rose to power ;) Deliogul 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course he deserves more mention and he will get it in time. Did I not make clear he was made beylerbeyi after becoming Vizier? Anyway, feel free to edit this article yourself :) --A.Garnet 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

There are are a few things that need to be done to make the article become GA status.

As it stands the article is lacking references in some areas. A good rule of thumb is that each paragraph must have at least one reference. Here are the places that they are needed.

• First and second paragraphs in 'Mediteranean and North Africa" need references.Y Done
• This sections in 'Cultural Achievements' needs a reference: Furthmore, in the city of Jerusalem, the rule of Suleiman and the following Ottoman Sultans brought an age of religious peace; Jews, Christians and Muslims enjoyed the freedom of religion that the Ottomans granted them and it was possible to find a synagogue, a church and a mosque in the same street. Dhimmi was enforced on the populace granting some freedoms and restricting others. - Removed, see below --A.Garnet 21:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• First paragraph of the personal life section needs a reference.Y Done
• Last paragraph in succession section needs referencing. Y Done
• Last paragraph in legacy section needs a reference. Y Done

In addition, the citations have inconsistent formatting that needs to be fixed in order to follow one single style. Here are a few things that need to be done. Y Done

• All citations must have period at the end of them.
• You don't need to author's first name in the citations.
• Follow a consistent form of citation.

Another issue:

• This does not be quoted: "The earliest document, drawn up in 1526, lists 40 societies with over 600 members; by Sthe 17th century the number of societies had increased and their membership had risen to some 2,000. In addition to the artists employed in the imperial societies, in Istanbul, like all the major centers of the empire, had diverse guilds of artisans which catered to both domestic and foreign needs."

I would paraphrase this entire quote, as it really adds nothing to the article in its current format. Y Done

Besides these referencing issues, the article is very good, and fulfills all the other GA requirements. Zeus1234 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeus, thanks for your prompt review of this article. I hope my edits today meet your above suggestions. As for the Jewish related paragraph, I have chose to remove it since I do not believe it contributes to Suleimans cultural achivements, it was also one of those sections left behind since I began rewriting this article so it was always problematic in trying to get it to fit in. Thanks, --A.Garnet 21:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saying it, i found some books in my university's library written directly for Suleiman, i think they might be useful in further referencing and improving the article as it is said that there is such a need. Im going to check them myself, for anyone who might be interested in them:

-Suleiman, the Magnificent : Sultan of the East / by Harold Lamb, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1951.

-Suleiman the Magnificent, 1520-1566 / by Roger Bigelow Merriman, Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1944.

-The zenith of an empire : the glory of the Suleiman the Magnificent and the law giver / S.Z. Ahmed. ISBN 0971587302 (pbk.) :

-Lords of the Golden Horn : from Suleiman the Magnificent to Kamal Ataturk / Noel Barber, London : Pan Books, 1976 ISBN 0330247352

-The government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent / by Albert Howe Lybyer, London : Harvard University, 1913.

-Süleyman the Magnificent and the Ottoman Empire / by Miriam Greenblatt, New York : Benchmark Books, 2003. ISBN 0761414894

-The Grand Turke : Suleyman the Magnificent, sultan of the Ottomans / by Fairfax Downey, New York : Minton, Balch & Company, 1929. --laertes d 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, if more info can be added from those sources that would be a great contribution. Specifically, the areas I believe that need expanding are his early life, cultural and administrative reforms and relationship with Hurrem Sultan. Cheers, --A.Garnet 10:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I havent checked all the books in the list yet but i did some edits, in case you think some of them are rebundant they might be deleted...--laertes d 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Garnett, i think the parts you deleted do not harm the article as they mention about Suleımans knowledge and interes of antiquity, lıke his youth hero being Alexander or that he was ınfluenced by Aristotle..ı try to fit them into the article..--laertes d 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Relations with France

Suleiman wasn't a "respected rival" of Francis because the king of French was the only ally of the Ottoman Empire in the Western Europe. He was also depended on Suleiman because of his fragile power and surrounding rivals. Imho, we need to fix that part of the article. Deliogul 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So nobody reads the discussion page? Deliogul 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul youre right actually but i think that wording "respected rival" is being used in the sense that eventually all these men were rivals to each other even though they may form alliances among themselves against others..no problem for me though if somebody change it..--laertes d 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reared in Crimea?

Older sources claim that "Suleiman had been governor of Kaffa while his grandfather Bayezid was alive".[10] If true, this fact certainly should be reflected in the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an edition of Fisher's 1948 Foreign relations of Turkey 1418-1512 available through the Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies at Utrecht uni. The relevant part is chapter 8, which deals with 1511-1512. On p.98 (=p. 4 of the pdf), Fisher states that Suleiman governed Kaffa in 1511 (?from 1510 the year of Korkud's return?). Governor for two years =/= "reared in Crimea". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the article should reflect in some way that Suleiman served as governor of Kaffa/Crimea/whatever the technical term for the territory was. Lord Kinross's The Ottoman Centuries also mentions that he was governor there (saying specifically Crimea), while suggesting that Suleiman was partially responsible for the army assembled by his father there during his bid to replace/oust Bayezid and outmaneuver Ahmed. If someone can find further corroboration of this, it would make a wonderful addition to the early section of the article. 204.52.215.69 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla already add that he was governor there to the article. The Fisher piece should have a bibliography and some of the Turcophone editors may be aware of sources which deal in depth with the war. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on FA status

FA

Many congratulations to all concerned with bringing this article up to FA. Thoroughly deserved. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all editors who contributed. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Congratulations. CeeGee (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice article

I don't often get sucked in to read FA articles when they are on the front page, but this one managed it. Really nice read and very interesting part of history. Thanks to those who wrote and worked on this article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lock

Lock the article to prevent the ongoing vandalism efforts please. W3bu53r (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

S was a pivotal Turkish Leader. His predecessors were nomads who lived in tents ( Selim I would not sleep in a city and died in his tent). S became the first to live in Istanbul. The article does not emphasis enough the legal structure and administrative structure created by S. While the west looked at him with fear, his legacy is mostly in the creation of systems that would carry the Empire until World War I. As a student of S, I have had the impression that he used the Chinese Empire for an administrative model, but have not found any evidence of this. Unfortunately for posterity, S created systems that were easily corrupted. Thus the Janissarys who were the bulk work of the Sultans, became the main corrupting entity. S's apparently humane treatment of Hurrem Sultan, led to relaxation of draconian rules for the harem that led to the Harem being another corupting influence. Hurrem Sultan's intrigues leading to the death of S's Mustafa is an immediate corruption of the principal of reward for performance.

Another issue is the Sultan's relationship with Islam. The Ottoman Sultan's adopted Islam in order to control the Arabs. Selim I took on the title of Calif to better control the followers of Islam, especially the Arabs. S, in codifying the laws of land, raised the importance of Islamic law in the Empire. Still, we can see that Turkish Islam is different from the mainstream Arab sects of Islam.

Inclusion of conquered people was a pillar of the S's conquests. This practice strengthened the Empire and conversely lack of it weakened the European's ability to deal with the Ottoman's. Toward the end of the Empire, corruption had undermined tolerance and resulted in the loss of support from many of the subject peoples.

All this said, S is the most recognized Sultan in the west and was equaly imprtant to the Empire. Not until Attaturk do we see great reforms and restructuring accomplished by S.

Saltysailor (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Fatih was not a cosmopolitan "city" man? I think he actually defined the very term before S--24.46.20.158 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CONSTANT VANDALISM - PLEASE LOCK EDITING NOW

Lock it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamathan (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mhm, agreed. Baseballbaker23 (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for the writers for making this a featured article.

Congrats for the writers of this article, it seems it's very nicely done. Thank you for the wealth of information. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Exhibition" section

The following section was added today under the title "Exhibition of masterpieces from his era":

More than 130 masterpieces from the Topkapi Palace Museum and national museums in Istanbul and, some other objects lent by European, Middle Eastern, and American museums and collections as well were on display in three art museums in the USA for a total time of almost one year in 1987-1988:

• January 25-May 26, 1987 (extended from May 17) - National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.
• June 14-September 7, 1987 - Art Institute of Chicago
• October 4, 1987-January 17, 1988 - Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

At the exhibition titled "The Age of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificient", 55 kaftans, embroideries, and rugs; 51 ceramics and tiles; and 40 imperial items of gold, silver, and rock crystal embellished with gems; along with 68 illustrated books and manuscripts were shown.

I don't know if this information warrants its own section. The exhibition was over twenty years ago and there doesnt seem to be much here which is relavant to Suleiman himself. I understand the good intention of editors, but if new sections are to be added on the day it is FA they should be carefully considered. Regards, --A.Garnet (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Turban

I know this is a random question but my mind boggles at the turban S. is wearing in that Titian portrait. Is that enormous onion-shaped thing supposed to be a realistic depiction of something he would actually wear on his head? If so, what exactly is giving it its shape? If it were entirely composed of wrapped cloth, I would think that it would be too heavy for the poor man to hold his neck up! --Jfruh (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have a cabbage...I mean onion...for a head!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.235.198 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I had the same question when I saw it. Perhaps Europeans over-exaggerated these types of things when they painted them, because they didn't quite understand them. Just an idea.--Eva ^bd 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From Turban#History_of_turbans: "Probably the largest-ever Turbans were worn by high-ranking Turks of the Ottoman period, including soldiers. These were enormous round turbans, wrapped around a hollow cone or framework, that often projected at the top... Suleiman the Magnificent was renowned for the size of his turban."

So its not an exaggeration and is probably not that heavy given that it is just a wrapped hollow frame. 128.227.99.215 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged.--Eva ^bd 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a sign of his great status. Earlier he wore smaller ones I am pretty sure. In Civilization 4, Suleiman has a small Turban (also a beard, perhaps it's a portrait of when he was younger that they modeled it after-- though I never understood why they made his eyes kind of glow red, perhaps the artists were a little racist). — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Title below picture

Someone hacked this article and wrote spam under the picture appearing at the top. I tried to change it but apparently the changes made were not found in the code. Someone please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.199.123 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted text due to vandalism

Reverted to previous version due to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.250.2.10 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NO SOURCE

This main image has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You think that something that was obviously painted in the 1500s still has a viable copyright claim? Wow, talk about copyright paranoia! Anyway I think the external link at the bottom answers any attribution or source questions. 128.227.99.215 (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's painted in the 1500s? external link not a Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 (talk • contribs)

Are you volunteering to personally go to the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Schloss Ambras and verify that the picture is there then? 128.227.97.18 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia:Reliable Sources says it is there? I'm ok with Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.

[11] 128.227.97.18 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

SUCH A TERRIBLE source! says the image is (C) Bridgeman Art Library. can't be worse. better research here User_talk:Antandrus#NO_SOURCE. but still could be forgery. no one is sure. is better remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is better(sic) you sign your posts. 128.227.97.18 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem. You prefer address my bad English instead of Wikipedia Policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep you image. I no longer care. :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, why do you care so much? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bridgeman Art Library thinks this is an image of Suleiman II, not Suleiman I: http://www.credoreference.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=3329674&secid=.-&hh=1#74847.jpg Myrvin (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The site for Schloss Ambras also says it's Suleiman II, BUT it gives him the dates for Suleiman I: http://bilddatenbank.khm.at/viewArtefact?id=2427&image=GG_2429.jpg - There must be doubt about the use of this image. Myrvin (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They might number Suleyman, one of the rival Sultans of the Ottoman Interregnum (1402 - 1413) as "Suleiman I". A number of older works do. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But the Bridgeman people give his dates as 1641-91. Myrvin (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Harem girl"?

Article says: " Suleiman married a harem girl Roxelana, who became Hürrem Sultan".
I understand that PC or indifference thereto is a controversial subject, but is "harem girl" (although perhaps literally correct) really the best way for us to phrase this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How about, "Suleiman married Roxelana, a woman who had previously been in the harem. The marriage made her Hürrem Sultan."? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As a female member of the household, she would still have been part of the harem. I don't really see a problem with the term. I suppose we could change "girl" to "slave," if that's what the problem is. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with map and other article

This article says "Suleiman's conquests had brought under the control of the Empire the major Muslim cities (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem..." but this is contradicted by the map on the right in the same section and the article on his father Selim I, which both attribute the conquest of these areas to the father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.171.249 (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suleiman's fleets didn't sail the Indian Ocean

I've just reverted a revert. Suleiman's fleet, as we can all read in the article, didn't sail to the Indian Ocean. The source, as far as I remember, says "to the shores of the Indian Ocean", that is, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Suleiman didn't pass the Strait of Hormuz. The Indian Ocean was then sailed by the Portuguese, who had some war affairs with Suleiman confined to the Persian Gulf.
It is not acceptable to give a false information at the beginning of the article contradicting the rest of the article. Velho (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

Why are there discrepancies regarding Suleiman's date of death throughout the article? The first line of the article says Suleiman died on September 5/6, while the infobox and "Succession" section say September 7 and September 5, respectively. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Encarta states Sept 6, Brittanica Sept. 5/6, I dont have access to the sources I wrote the article with so cannot check where the 7th came from, but for the time being maybe put sept 5/6th since both can be cited. --A.Garnet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do you mind making a note as to why there is a discrepancy with the date of death? I'm sure other readers were also a bit confused by the use of both September 5 and September 6. I originally thought it was because he died somewhere around midnight. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would if I knew why but at the moment I dont, I will look into it next week when I should have access to the sources. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There can be problems about the old and new time measurements. It can also be happened because of his place of death. You know he died during a campaign and this was a secret until the imperial army managed to win the battle. Deliogul (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Whatwas the cause of death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.33.164 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ebussuud/Abu’s-Su’ūd/Ebu's-su'ud?

No mention of Ebussuud/Abu’s-Su’ūd/Ebu's-su'ud (however you wish to romanize his name)? (Unless I missed it.) He was rather important to the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman, so I'm surprised he isn't in here. H. Inalcik in “Suleiman the Lawgiver and Ottoman law” (published in Archivum Ottomanicum 1 (1969)) refers to him as, "“Abu’s-Su’ūd, the famous şeyhü’l-islām of Suleiman I"; hence my surprise. RobertM525 (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Herenzaltan vs. Hürrem Sultan

The article uses both terms with saying that the terms are equivalent. Is there a difference? If not, it should probably be changed to just use one and make the other noted as an alternative. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire

The article refers to the Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire but does not define what span this refers to or that this is a direct reference to the cultural achievements section. Perhaps a new Golden Age section, or rename the Cultural Achievements section? Or maybe it a section should be added to the Ottoman Empire article. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Queen as famous as Suleiman??

" her intrigues as queen in the court and power over the Sultan have become as famous as Suleiman himself." - The "have become" would imply that it is the case today. Is there any evidence what-so-ever for this claim? Kdammers (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a hard time finding credible evidence to that effect. Roxelana is a historically significant person in her own right, but she's not the equal of an Ottoman Sultan who gained the sobriquet "The Magnificent" and had it stick. Roxelana was far from the only scheming wife of a monarch; her notability is only because of the achievements of Suleiman. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The true Caesar

Not the fact that the 1541 treaty mentioned Charles "King of Spain" led S. to "consider himself the true 'Caesar'", it was rather otherwise. The Sultans after Mehmet took over the title of Roman Emperor after conquering Constantinople, whose rulers were the true "Roman Emperors" - as Odoacer had deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476, he had simply sent the Regalia into the Eastern Part, ending thus the division of the Roman Empire. Indeed, gradually, over the centuries, in the Eastern part the Greek element became domiant over the Latin one, but this doesn't affect the fact that the so-called Byzantine Empire was actually THE Roman Empire. Its inhabitants called themselves "romans", and the label "byzantine" was a late western concoction. On the other hand, Charles was the head of an truly artificial construction, which was neither holy, nor roman, nor empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.18.3.165 (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Full Style

This section, which is very long and detailed, does not cite any reference, so I put a {{Unreferenced section}} there. Grenouille vert (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mustafa's age

In Busbecq's words: Mustafa, marvellously well educated and prudent and of an age to rule, since he is 24 or 25 years old. Well Busbecq seems to be in error. Mustafa was born in 1515 and Busbecq came to Turkey in 1554.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Death?

the article gives no details about Suleiman's death, except the date and location (Hungary) in the side panel. why did he die in Hungary and not in his own vast Empire? How did he die? natural death? in his sleep? in battle? poison? etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This still needs improvement. I can't find info about this. GMRE (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. GMRE (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized again.

Look at "Early Life", possible elsewhere  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.151.202.147 (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 

KANUNİ WASN'T TURKİSH

He was pure Trabzonoid Devşirme a caucasoid from Trabzon, via encourage of Europe after Fatih Sultan Mehmet, and ultimately his heirs kicked after WW1.(88.242.151.165 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)).

Kanuni was Turkish. You should learn Ottoman history, but seems like don't know anything about it enough, sorry KARA (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Six languages?

The sentence reads "He spoke six languages: Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, Bosnian, Chagatai (a dialect of Turkish language and related to Uyghur), and Persian." I count this as 5 languages, as "Uyghur" is parenthetical as being related to Chagatai. Unfortunately there is no reference to check to see which language is missing, or if the total should be 5. Still an impressive number, though.  :-) Fromthemitten (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Bosnian language is created recently, because political not factula reasons. There are no such a thing as Bosnian language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.215.15 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC) 

Please always sing your editings on the talk page using 4 tilde keys (~). There is more than proof that the Bosnian language existed centuries before what you are talking about. Many historians consider it to be the oldest west-balkan language. The first Turkish-Bosnian dictionary was written in 1631. and is the first štokav dictionary ever made. Don't say anything if you can't proove what you are saying. --Ministar Nesigurnosti (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Stanford J. Shaw

Doesn't extensive use of books by this author with controversial ideas, lead to bias in the article? --sicaspi (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Suleyman's Father

The name of his father or at least"Selim the Grim" should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.246.123 (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

War With Safavids

I'm wondering why in the whole section of Ottoman-Safavid wars there is no sign of Shah Abbas I as the Shah of Persia who had the most conflicts with the Ottomans. This section also ends very fast and is too briefly explained. I definitely think that more information is needed in that part to show both Ottoman and Persian victories and losses. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza1366 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Damad İbrahim Pasha

No need to dwell this long, in this article, on Damad İbrahim Pasha, Sadrazam (Grand Vizier) of Suleiman for 13 years. Suleiman's sultanate (reign) lasted 46 years and İbrahim as his closest bureucrat-military for less than a third of that period. The pasha has his own WP article and a shorter reference to him, together with a bluelink to his article would be enough. --E4024 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Languages

"...He spoke five languages: Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, Chagatai, Persian and Serbian." I'm sure he never publicly stated whether he spoke Serbian or Bosnian, but I'm sure Bosnian was confused with Serbian when this article was made. Noel Malcolm calls Bosnian the 3rd Ottoman language, and says that it isn't suprising that a whole part of Ottoman literature was written in Bosnian. I'd recommend changing the part of the artice from Serbian to Bosnian. --Ministar Nesigurnosti (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph Wives

The texts describing the four wives are all incomprehensible. I am not sure why this is, maybe there is a reason that escapes me. But they are not real sentences, abrupt and ungrammatical. I do not feel competent to change them, as I lack detailed knowledge. Who can do something about this to improve an otherwise very good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gertjaap56 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible improvements

To keep the status of the article, I am careful to discuss the following before editing:

1. In the lede the names are too long and confusing with the Arabic alphabet, dates etc. I think a simple lede like "Süleyman I (1494-1566), known as Kanuni in Turkish and Magnificient in the west was an Ottoman sultan (emperor) " is a better lede. The titles and other details can be given in a separate section.
2. Hürrem Sultan's personal name is given as Roxelana. Although she is known as Roxelana in the West, her native name was Anastasia Lisowska.
3. Most of Süleyman's campaigns are given in the text except for Corfu (1537), Moldavia (1538) and Estergom (1543). These should also be given.(His last campaign that of Szigetvár was given only in the succession section)
4. In subsection Mediterranean and North Africa, the sentence "The Portuguese had taken Ormus (in the Strait of Hormuz) in 1515 and would continue to vie with Suleiman's forces for control of Aden, in present-day Yemen" seems to be misplaced.
5. In subsection Conquest in Europe, a reference to John Zapolya has been made in conjunction to 1540 events. It is also misplaced. Zapolya was supported by Süleyman in his 1529 campaign.
6. Although the wars have been given treaties have been omitted i.e.,Treaty of Amasya, Treaty of İstanbul (1533) and Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq's efforts in armistice. (A reference has been made to the treaty with Habsburgs. But its date is uncertain.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
7. His nickname Kanuni's meaning as "lawgiver" is a misunderstanding. Kanuni also means "law-abider". He strictly abode the law throughout his reign. Since his strict adherence to the law he had to execute his own sons who rose against him. He was unable to execute his grand vizier for years since he had made it a legislation that he would not ever execute him (which he did after he changed the legislation). The true meaning of Kanuni is "law-abider" not lawgiver. This should be changed.

"In popular culture"

If we just take a look at the most visited pages in different Wikipedias in 2013, it seems that the Turkish TV show about Suleiman deserves a mention. Also, he has been pictured in many other films and books, so someone better versed in those matters should probably add a section about it. After all, here is a similar section in Roxelana. --Ehitaja (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Marriages and offspring

Marriages

Suleiman had three known wives:

• Mahidevran Gülbahar Hatun (m. 1512), daughter of Prince Mirza Haydar Temruk Bey and Princess Nazcan Hatun;
• Ayșe Gülfem Hatun (m. 1518), daughter of an Albanian Bey;
• Haseki Hürrem Sultan (m. 1531), daughter of Ukrainian Orthodox priest, Havrylo Lisovsky and his wife Leksandra Lisovsky.

Issue

• Şehzade Mahmud - son with Mahidevran
• Şehzade Mustafa - son with Mahidevran
• Şehzade Murad - son with Gülfem
• Şehzade Mehmed - son with Hürrem
• Şehzade Ahmed - son with Mahidevran
• Şehzade Abdullah - son with Hürrem
• Sultan Selim II - son with Hürrem
• Şehzade Bayezid - son with Hürrem
• Şehzade Cihangir - son with Hürrem
• Fatma Sultan - daughter with Mahidevran
• Mihrimah Sultan - daughter with Hürrem
• Raziye Sultan - daughter with Mahidevran

Note:Suleiman had no wife by the name of Fülane Hatun Retrieverlove

Ambiguous wording in intro

His other son Bayezid, had been killed by his support and Selim's order in 1561 with four of his sons.

Does this mean that Selim's four sons were killed at the same time? Or that the four sons of one of them were involved with the killing of Bayezid? --Chriswaterguy talk 04:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)