User Reviews

Title should be Rise of Legends: Giustiniani. Whole series are about Giustiniani, he was shown more than Sultan Mehmet and Emperor Constantine. They show him/his name at least once every 5 minutes. It is being demonstrated as the war is between 80.000 ottoman army and Giustiniani.

I liked the first season, although I definitely felt that their version of history favored the ottomans. But I didn't know that part of history that well so I let it go. However the second season angered me so much I couldn't even sleep.

First of all - the sets were beautiful, the shots were gorgeous and so were the effects. I even loved the clothes - especially what they were at war and in Walachia - quite accurate since those I have the knowledge to judge, although very much on the dark side, probably meant to match the atmosphere...people actually liked colors back then too The actors that played Muhamed the conquerer and Vlad the Impaler were great, special shoutout to the one that played Vlad - I could tell from a mile off that he is romanian, and that he lived that role, not just acted it. I also loved the ones that played Mara Brancovici and Giovani Lungo - they have great screen presence. And Charles Dance's voice is always amazing as narrator.

Now, I am an actual romanian, born and raised in walahia (walachia is about a third of current day romania, btw), and I am quite proud of my country's history, so couldn't help but pick up on so much historical inaccuracy and turkish propaganda. But it's a turkish docuDRAMA, so it's expected. While I dislike the portrail of Vlad Tepes, and won't be recommending this show, I have to say I appreciated it. I'm happy that now there's a version on tv of Dracula that is more realistic and has nothing to do with vampires. I'll take mad prince over vampire any day.

Now on to the complaining

To begin with, the Ottomans were always the good guys...according to the Turks. It is understandable, all of our heroes were villains for someone else, all of our countries's history gets filtered through a patriotic filter and then half is forgotten and partially replaced by fables. As someone who loves history, I have nothing but respect for great conquerers and empires, however they might have risen of fallen. And in my country, although everyone knows that the ottomans were our historical nemesis, no one has eny leftover "ancestral" anger towards the turks - we actually have quite a good impression of them, from what I've seen much better than other, more western countries, have.

But as impressive as the Ottoman Empire was, it was a force of conquest and testament of power, not a force of good that came over other countries to enlighten them. They conquered because they wanted, and the conquered countries were forced to convert to islam, with many dying for refusing to give up their cristian faith. It was a time when religion was much more important to people, and even as an atheist, I can't help but be impressed by the many of my country's rulers that chose to lose their lives and have their entire family follow then to give up their souls. And about those countries that got conquered and forcibly converted - lets count s Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania - on them it was imposed a money tax, quite high, and also a blood tax. That one was a practice that started in the 14th century, couple of decades at most before the setting of the show, and through which the ottomans forcibly took children, starting from age 7 and up, converted them to islam and trained them, making them into that famous army of jenesarries or yenicers or however you spell it (in romanian it's ieniceri). And make no mistake, these were slaves whose lives were not valued as much as those of normal foot soldiers, brainwashed and forced to fight many times against their own mother countries. Yes, some rose in ranks, but many died as mere animals.

I'm not writing this just to show what good people the ottomans were, but also to point an innacuracy. Vlad and Radu weren't just given as political prisoners, they were taken, and they were first imprisoned along with their father for a year. Then he was released and the ottomans started to raise them for the purpose of making them puppet rulers, loyal to the ottomans before their own people, as they had royal blood and the time to use them might come one day. And they succeeded with the young radu - he was more tame and agreeable and didn't have the violent nature of vlad. Later on, when vlad is on the throne and the vassals are sent to demand years worth of the money tax (he didn't have the money to pay it), they also demanded the blood tax. That angered vlad, as he himself saw his political imprisonment as hell, and he had it easy as he was a prince. He was asked for 500 children, tax which he refused to pay. But I guess were not showing that. Kudos here to the writers, I enjoyed the part where where he killed the messengers - if anyone missed it, he bolted their hats to their heads, to ensure they never take their hats off in front of anyone - that one is from the legends.

I found it amusing that in the last episode the sultans actually said "Unleash the jenissaries!". Like unleash the dogs..

On the topic of their childhood - vlad was a year or two older than muhamad, but their friendship isn't an actual thing. So all those scenes where they spar are innacurate, especially considering muhamad was more of a strategic genius that commanded the troops from behind than a warrior at the front of the troops, as vlad was. His childhood friend was, in fact, radu, and there are records that state that their relationship later was that of lovers, but I am willing to accept that that might have been walachian propaganda, even though the chronicars that tell those thories are greek - radu died of siphilis too. And radu was known as both radu the beautiful and radu the coward. He enjoyed culture and parties and easy life, and when he was put on the walachian throne it was actually the ottomans in charge and everyone knew and accepted it. Vlad was probably as much of an edgelord as he is portrated, being famous for describing himself as a prisoner and making life at the ottoman court horrible for himself by not complying. I like the kid actor playing him, the rest of the kid actors are meh.

I feel like I have to make my own views clear here - I value peace, and I value freedom, but I value loyalty and patriotism so much more. Betray your country for selfish reasons, like your own safety, and I don't like you. I might not expect this from regular people, but I expect it from leaders and kings. So I'l always prefer a king that will take his country into war for the sake of freedom to one that will choose peacefull opession,and the ottoman terms were not particularely good, even if kept as vassal country and not actual part of the empire.

On the tactics of war - yes, Vlad fought a guerrilla war, and he poisoned the water and burned the granaries before the ottomans arrived. But he evacuated the people. He never touched the ones loyal to him, tho he did hated cowards. He is loved by all romanians now, yes, but even back then he was loved by the small people. Because yes, he was black and white. He appreciated the good and loyal and righteous people and protected them, and the bad ones, the thieves and thugs and traitors ... well they were mostly treated with impalement. And the lords and politicians were always, as they are everywhere, on the bad side rather than the good - selfish and corrupt. So yes, he got betrayed, and yes, he at multiple points ended up executing his own people. He was cruel and violent and probably mad, but he was not indiscriminately cruel and violent and mad. He simply had no mercy for those whom he considered sinners and/or enemies of his people. His cruel nature was most evident in that (the Walachians were not conquerors; they just wanted to protect their own lands, but they did invade sometimes to get revenge or show power, and in those moments it didn't matter whether you were man, woman or child).

Also, he married three women and didn't really love either, supposedly his love belonged to another with whom he had 5 bastards, I don't remember her name. Stories tell that after the bargain was struck with mattias corvinus and he falsely imprisoned vlad, radu decided to take control of his lands, including Poenari castle, where his first wife did suposedly killed herself after hearing of her husband's fate, but it was in fear of meeting the same fate aka ottoman prisoner. So the whole sidequest of his brother is made up, as is his whole presence in the field. He only went "conquering" after Vlad was imprisoned and it was with the whole backing of the ottoman empire

During the night attack, vlad went for the biggest tents, got to two of them, and they were of two of sultan's pasas, which he killed. No brother soap opera drama there. And his head did end up at the gate of constantinopol, but it was 16 years later, shortly after he had taken his throne back and expelled the turks out of walachia

I generally think that the people that learn about him, even if just from this docudrama, and still think he was just some bloodthirsty madman, are either idiots of have roots in the ottomans - I don't judge the latter. But the rest, hear this - the hurgarians betrayed his and didn't show up when they promised. His and Walachia's fight, along with the likes of Stefan the Great of Moldavia (his cousin, Moldavia is another third of current day romania) and Skanderbeg of Albania (with whom I think it was more rebellion than opposition) - they are the only reason the ottoman expansion stopped there and didn't enter central europe. They stood a wall against islam entering europe, and against war plaging so many others. Yes, Vlad did horrible things, but he didn't just do them for fun. He fought what he perceived as evil with everything he had at his disposal, including evil. Orthodox christians are hardheaded and I don't doubt they would've died by the thousands if islam came over them, and romanians, then and now, were very patriotic and would have never stood to be conquered - which is why they kept on fighting the ottomans for centuries to come.

First off every single Turk in the show, except the slave girl that converted to Christianity, have the stereotypical "evil guy" look. They always have an evil grin and they always dress in black. Every single scene they are threatening someone etc. Meanwhile the eastern Roman / Byzantines wear colorful clothes, have soft nice expressions (except Giovanni Giustiniani who is portrayed as a "lovable womanizing pirate / mercenary")

In reality the Sultan would have worn colorful robes made from expensive silks with intricate details and embroidery etc etc. He wouldn't have walked around in black leather all day every day.. same for his followers. From the moment we see Mehmet he is wearing his black leather outfit. What even is that supposed to be? Obviously not his actual armor, we even see him wearing more realistic armor to battle, so what's with the black leather? Remember, this is the same for every single Turk. The only people with color are the Jannisary troops, which I'm sure they would have made to wear black if their uniforms weren't as iconic..but strangely they all wear no armor for battles and storm into battle with ceremonial outfits.

Every time we hear the historians talk, they talk about how brilliant Mehmet is. How he spoke 5 languages and was a great commander etc etc. But then we switch to the reenactment parts and Mehmet acts like a angry, bratty, spoiled, bully. This happens with almost everything. The Historians will say something positive and then the reenactment will be a complete mess.

**Let's move on to Giovanni.. Honestly the show is more a dramatization of Giovanni than a a docu about Mehmet or the Ottomans**. Giovanni was a ruthless pirate so brutal even his own nation hated him. He came to Constantinople because he thought it would be an easy way to gain a lot of glory and honor (he damaged his family name with his actions and came from a great family). He also hoped he'd get land etc in the end. Likely expected an easy defense and eventual western reinforcements. He did not realise the Ottomans had giant wall destroying cannons.

The moment he rode into the city the music made it clear he was going to stare at a girl, who'd in turn become his love interest. It was so cliche, I swear I guessed it before it happened. But I hoped it was just a throwaway scene and he wouldn't get some dumb love plot, which is based on absolutely nothing! It only served to make him a likeable guy, a womanizer etc it's a very cliche thing to do with the "HERO" of the story.

There is even a scene where Mehmet goes to the wall and talks to Giovanni, tries to buy him..

This is absolutely ridiculous! Mehmet would have been pierced by hundreds of bolts before he even came close. Those are called KILLING FIELDS for a reason. In that scene Mehmet offers Giovanni the entire Aegean and Giovanni refuses. This is a complete joke and meant to show that Giovanni was now suddenly dedicated to Constantine and Constantinople.

So this dude is getting a nonsense love plot and is made to seem like this honorable warrior that gave his heart to this city and wouldn't ever betray it (he does though, doesn't he). He even threatens everyone else who tries to suggest a truce or tries to stop the war. He threatens everyone by calling them traitors. Suddenly this dude is the most loyal byzantine.

It's crazy that the hero in the show is a mercenary of the other side who is made to seem so much greater than he was.

Meanwhile poor Constantine, who likely bravely died fighting in the heart of his city, takes a back seat to "the great Giovanni Giustiniani" who ran away with all his men and died not long after.

Then we get to straight up inaccuracies and other misrepresentations.

1 We know who Mehmets mother was. It was Hüma Hatun. The show shamelessly claimed we did not know his mother and Mehmet kept it secret?? What? How is a prince supposed to keep his birth mother secret. Ottomans also did not really have "illegitimate" sons. Whether your mother was from a peasant/slave or royal aristocrat background you are equally a prince.

2 The idea that he was beaten like that is absurd. He would have been disciplined. But lashed and wounded? It's illegal to spill royal blood.. when members of the family were killed they would be strangled because of this. They would never cut a member of the House of Osman as it was believed that it was a very bad omen.

3 During the battle reenactments Ottomans get slaughtered like lv1 enemies vs a lv99 boss. Giovanni stands on his own in the middle of the killing field slaughtering Ottoman after Ottoman. Which is again, complete nonsense. First off giovanni would have stood behind his 700 heavy plate armored men with giant shields, pikes, crossbows etc. They were the last line..

Second of all for the Ottoman soldiers to get to them they had to cross the killing field! This is where most casualties happened not during the fight. So they had to run trough a field that's constantly bombarded. Shot with make shift shotguns, hand cannons. Thousands of arrows and bolts. Trough a moot, then trough multiple walled sections etc etc.

But the docu pretends like Giovanni and a handful of his men were single handily stopping the assaults. Also pretends like Ottomans just threw troops at the problem which wasn't at all the case.. remember Mehmet was a very very well educated and extremely experienced commander. He had been ruling his own province since he was like 10. He had been leading men since he was a child..

The docu also pretends like Mehmet was almost out of men. Which, again, is not reflective of reality.

4 Ottoman troop composition.

The documentary talks about the Serbian miners but never mentions the 1500 allied serbian heavy cavalry that mehmet had in his army! Which reminds me of Moldovan Radu and Vlad Tepes which we never hear off btw but I'll come to that later.

They constantly show these guys wearing furs and bones, with their faces painted. Then they claimed these were Bashi Bozuk. Bashi Bozuk did not dress like that. Deli Cavalry did. They also wore wings on their backs which is where the winged hussars got their wings from.. this is such a huge inaccuracy it's insane that it's in there. They pretend like a large part of the army was bashi bozuk which is also wrong. Deli Cavalry were shock troops they didn't just go in and die, they were meant to intimidate and act as shock troops (hit and retreat)

Bashi bozuk were random irregulars. They did not wear furs, masks, face paint or wings like the deli troops..

All Ottoman troops have dirty faces even the Jannisaries.. the historians talk about how organized this army was, the only true standing army in Europe, first military band in history etc. And then the reenactment shows them as a band of undisciplined savages.

Historians are like the Jannisaries were the best trained, most feared warriors. Cue reenactment of Giovanni Giustiniani slaughtering hundreds single handily lol.

The Ottoman army was so simplified and everyone wore leather. Where are the Sipahi heavy cavalry? Where are the armored Jannisary? Why are they all wearing their ceremonial clothes?

How an Ottoman armored soldier would have looked vs an Aragonese

5 The documentary tries to raise the drama by pretending Mehmet was worried about western reinforcements from the start and that was all he thought about. It wasn't. It would have taken a while for them to arrive, if they ever did. But long before that the Ottomans took control of the horn. And although the Ottoman navy alone wouldn't be able to properly block reinforcements if they came with frigates, the Ottomans had lined the entire bosphorus with cannons. The horn was a death trap

6 They claim the Ottoman navy had a 100 ships. Which it did, but only 35 of those were galleys there rest were large rowboats. The ships could easily overwhelm and destroy any frigate. But frigates are so large and fast they can ram trough those galleys. That's why they were unable to stop them. The wind also didn't ever die down as far as I know. They just rammed through the blockade.

The baltalu scene was a massive dramatization and nonsense. Sure he'd be angry but he understands warfare he understood what happened and that the admiral couldn't help it. He made an example out of him but wouldn't have gone too far as that would create resentment between his forces, as the admiral was very well respected. Remember this is the guy who spared the vizier because his support might come in handy.

7 The documentary pretends like Mehmet had this lonely, cold and horrible life. Never mentions all the kids he grow up with etc.

Mehmets closest friend is never even mentionned! It's Radu III Dracul. Younger brother of Vlad III "the impaler" Dracul. (the guy that Dracula is based on)

8 Weapons.

On one hand I'm happy to see the swords have Yalmans. It's the double edge at the end which makes Turkish Kilij swords/sabers tip heavy. This makes it easy to swing the sword with just the wrist with barely any effort. But I'm also a bit confused as to why experienced Jannisary warriors would attack plate armored foes with kilij swords. Although they can cut trough armor it works best on horseback. **they would have used Maces, Pickaxes and Axes** against armor.. which they carried. Not to mention where are all the Ottoman firearms? Muskets and arquebuses etc?

I can go on forever. But I dont think allows reviews that are much longer than this. Thanks for reading.

Few people can call themselves true world conquerors but when it comes to Mehmed II, there's a reason this man was known as Mehmed The Conqueror. Following the conquest of the iconic city of Constantinople, Rise Of Empires combines narration and expert analysis with dramatic reenactments that'll be instantly recognisable to anyone who watched last year's The Last Czars. With a lot more focus on warfare and strategic battle planning, Ottoman is a fascinating and educational series, one that takes a wise approach to showcase more action alongside the narration.

Split across six episodes, the series begins with Mehmet taking the throne from his Father and desperate to prove himself and appease the people following a few rebellions in the empire. In order to do that, he sets his sights on the "Butterfly" city of Constantinople; a Roman-ruled gateway between Asia and Europe. From here, the series progresses through the build up to this battle and the ensuing issues Mehmet II had to deal with, both on the battlefield and with his personal life.

From ingenious acts of navigating spy-filled forests with ships to bombarding city walls with cannon-fire (or 8 metre long "Basilica" as they're referred to in the first episode), there's a solid amount of educational content here worth digesting. Much like Hannibal & The Punic Wars, Ottoman is essentially a lesson in military warfare and it showcases this perfectly across the series.

At the heart of this tale are a series of impassioned narrators that do a great job fleshing out the scenes and adding more background behind what's happening. These are handled in much the same way as the aforementioned Last Czars, with cutaways to face to face interviews. Personally, Celal Cengal is a firm favourite here, with exaggerated mannerisms, an unwavering enthusiasm and some great colloqualistic language that really helps you understand what's happening. That's not to take away from the others here of course, but he'll likely become a firm favourite over the six episodes. There's a good amount of animations, expository text and diagrams that help to paint a portrait too and seeing the screen filled with shades of blood red is both a cruelly ironic symbol of the bloodshed that went into the conquest of this city and also an informative guide as to how the Ottomans actually accomplished this feat. Most of the series revolves around this epic battle, although there is some history behind Mehmed's life too.

It's not perfect and there are a few stand-out moments that spoil the party. The very last scene at the end of the first episode feels ripped straight from Gladiator, with Mehmed II running his hands through corn, while the finale sees Mehmed look directly at the camera and smile before uttering "Now it begins," which seems a bit of a cheesy way to end things, especially after such an epic explanation around how significant this victory actually was. The face to face narration is engaging although the questionable manner the cameraman skips the shots around three or four times to different parts of their face is a bit distracting.

Gripes aside, Rise Of Empires: Ottoman is a fascinating and educational series for a period in history I admittedly have very little knowledge on. Unlike The Last Czars, the dramatic reenactments wisely stick to the battle and action for large periods of the show. This is ultimately to Ottoman's benefit and hopefully this is a trend Netflix can continue going forward, especially given the History Channel appear to have abandoned these sort of documentaries long ago. It's not without its flaws but Ottoman's battle-centric viewpoint and engaging six episodes make it a step-up from The Last Czars and a welcome addition to Netflix's growing documentary library.

I enjoyed watching the six episode series of rise of empires ottoman. Especially enjoyed the history lessons given throughout each episode.

The issues that I have would be the one example in season one episode six where the Sultan gets knocked off his horse and becomes disoriented but miraculously recovers to kill several Genoese mercenaries who throughout the series are considered the best of the best. I would rather being it is a docuseries that they would stick more to historical facts instead of theatrics.

Otherwise I really enjoyed it