Talk:Osman II

Re: Changes

I have added back the paragraph on Osman II's military exploits—which was moved by OttomanReference to another article—on the grounds that this article, Osman II, should not neglect information relevant to the subject/person covered. The article is (at least at the current time) short enough that it is not overwhelming the reader, which is the general reason to start shunting information off to other articles (v. Wikipedia:Long article layout), and any reader coming to this page and wishing to find here any information directly relevant to Osman II should—I believe—be able to find it here. —Saposcat 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is no historical basis for the statement that Mustafa I's mother had anything to do with the janissary revolt against Osman II. I removed that statement. During Osman II's and Mustafa I's reign, their mothers were not very influential. The great Valide Sultan Safiye (Mustafa I's grandmother, Osman II's great grandmother) was still alive. She exerted a lot of power. There is no record in history that Mustafa I's mother got involved with any janissary revolt. Even after Mustafa I was crowned, his mother remained very obscure, so much so that her name is not even known in history (the only Queen mother of the Ottoman's whose name remains unknown). ---Vikiyazar 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have taken away the reference by J.Goodwin stating that Evliya Celebi had purported written that "compression of testicles" was a "mode of execution reserved by custom to the Ottoman sultans". J.Goodwin is more journalistic in his approach and not a proper historian giving correct and real references. This is clear from his bibliography which contains not a single Turkish reference. Mind boggles when he claims that "compression of testicles" is a "custom of killing Ottoman Sultans". The only single case of regicide in the whole of history of Ottoman dynasty, starting from 1300 to 1924 involving 36 reigning Sultans, was the killing of Osman II in 1622. So how could one make a claim that there is a "custom of killing Ottoman Sultans"? Obviously, this statement is again an example of Orientalist journalistic approach to Ottoman history. -

• • Osman II was not the only reigning Ottoman monarch to be killed, Ibrahim I was also killed in office. There are also other Ottoman Sultans who were killed within a year or two after they were deposed: Selim III and Mustafa IV to name a couple. ‘Abdu’l-‘Aziz may also have been killed the same way, although officially he committed a suicide. There are of course many members of the Ottoman dynasty, mostly contenders to the throne, who were killed due to dynastic struggles. The mode of execution reserved by custom to the Ottoman dynasty was strangling by a silk rope because royal blood could not be spilled. One must keep in mind that Ottomans had great respect and reverence for the institution of the Sultanate. Even when a member of the dynasty killed another member, a full state funeral was held in honor of the deceased and the perpetrating member of the dynasty often wept at the ceremony. The dynastic killing was often seen as a necessary evil. It was deemed necessary to preserve the dynastic institution and the Ottoman state, whose esteem was viewed to be much greater than any individual member of the dynasty. Compression of testicles may have been a method of killing men at the Ottoman court at the time (I seem to recall something like that) but it was definitely not used for the members of the Ottoman dynasty. Evliya Chelebi could not have possibly made this mistake. If J. Goodwin indeed states that, then he must not be very well versed in the Ottoman history. ---Vikiyazar 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tuği's Account

You can't just paste a translation of Tuği's primary source account into the article as if it's fact to be relied upon. Tuği was a janissary, and thus a partisan of the group which killed Osman II. Posting a primary source like this means encouraging the reader of the article to do Original Research, which is not the goal of Wikipedia. The rules say you can't post long quotes from primary sources. Tuği has been analyzed by numerous modern historians, it would be more appropriate to provide an analysis of his account based on modern historians. See for instance Gabriel Piterberg's 2003 study, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play. Chamboz (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tuği's Account

This has been directly translated and not copied and pasted as accused. Secondly, this account is unbiased and an actual eye witnessing account, whilst the accounts written by western sources are based on " what they have heard ". This is a Turkish account and it should be included on the page so a different account is also read. Various Turkish historians have used this account in their works of Sultan Osman. I do not understand how you can continue to delete such a historical account very easily! Allow people to read a variety of accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baburhan 1 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

ok boomer

luigi says n-word in 18CE and Jesus gets crucified

"I contend that the purpose of Tuği’s text as speech was not only to entertain but also to establish a narrative of the Haile-i Osmaniye that would depict the kul favorably, justify the role they had played in the event, and render intolerable what was consequently inflicted upon them in Anatolia, especially in Erzurum and its vicinity."

From Gabriel Piterberg, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play, (2003), 67. Chamboz (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan

I cannot understand why it is not admitted that Osman II's mother was "Valide Sultan" during his reign. His enthronement portrait also features Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan, her son ascending the throne in 1618, and Mahfiruz dying in 1620 or 1622. 2A04:2411:300:9800:CBA:6744:59C2:9090 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The documents indicate that it was his wet nurse who was paid to be the valide. Also, the artist wasn’t there. It’s a fantasy painting. 2603:8080:E00:10A6:C2E:246A:B939:7E2 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The documents listed the Daye Hatun as Chief woman in the harem from 1621 on, not from 1618. Venetian Ambassadors wrote that Osman's mother ascended as Valide and that the Daye Hatun was one of Mahfiruz Sultan's relatives, named as such 'cause Mâhfirûz moved to Eyüp due to her health, dying between 1622 and 1628. Eyüp city's website states that Mâhfirûz died in 1628. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As for the painting, no, it's not a fantasy painting. It is based on relations and statements from those present at the coronation of Osman II. Maybe those are not Mâhfirûz Sultan's real characteristics or facial features, but that's a portrait showing the coronation's celebrations, not only Mâhfirûz, so do not use that portrait as an excuse to justify, 'cause it is based on statements, reports, etc. Turkey's government showed off the portrait at Topkapi.

Official statement by the Government regarding the portrait: "The oil painting was made by an anonymous artist belonging to the entourage of Baron Hans Mollard von Reinek, the Austrian ambassador who was in Istanbul during the accession of Osman II to the throne and who was allowed to attend the enthronement ceremony. The artist, who was present with the ambassador at the ceremony, faithfully captured the enthronement ceremony in his 127x107.5 centimeter painting'."

They are able to judge a portrait's validity and truthfulness; if it was a fantasy portrait, the government firstly would have never showed it off, 'cause it would have been an incoherent move on the history's side. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

French ambassadors wrote that Mahfiruze has been long dead before Osman became sultan 79.143.107.115 (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually the French Ambassadors never met her, reporting of her by Palace rumours. Other Ambassadors reported she ascended, she was alive, and returned to the Palace. The same as the painting's author, present with the Ambassadors. The government has showed off the portrait, returning it to Topkapi. The description of the portrait is clear. The Presidential office bought it. If it was a fantasy painting, the would have never done such a thing, don't you think. The Ambassadors who actually met Osman II or his advisors, reported Mâhfirûz was alive. The Daye Hatun served as de facto Valide by 1621 on. It is determined that Mâhfirûz moved to Eyüp due to her health, not able to be Valide 'cause of this. She died between 1622 and 1628.

We don't base ourself only on French Ambassadors' reports. Other Ambassadors were present as well and they reported other things. So, it is reductive to take only their informations as right and legitimate.

Actually, Ambassadors based themselves on hearsay.

Other Ambassadors reported Ahmed I's other consorts, one of them dying ca. between 1610 and 1615. It is possible, given the other informations by other sources and ambassador, that they were talking about the other consort. Moreover, we don't know if Ahmed's other consorts were named as "Sultan".

There is a contradiction in saying that Osman's mother was a Sultana, 'cause some persons here say she never was a Haseki Sultan (information reported instead by other sources and ambassador), but these persons then take as good informations by French Ambassador reporting her as Sultana? Decide.

She had a life in Eyüp, also establishing a foundation, creating monuments, mourning structures and others.

Eyüp city itself list all of Mâhfirûz' actions there. That website is monitored, 'cause it talks about a city, so, the informations it should report must be true. Questioning the government's actions is reductive. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Its not just french ambassadors but more even earlier than 1618 that report her being dead 79.143.107.12 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

“Other Ambassadors reported Ahmed I's other consorts, one of them dying ca. between 1610 and 1615. It is possible, given the other informations by other sources and ambassador, that they were talking about the other consort.” And who told you this? You? Yourself? Original research… in reports done by Cristoforo Valier, Simone Contarini, Pietro della Valle, Achille de Harlay refer to her as mother of Osman or “dead sultana” so please there was no confusion between the consorts of Ahmed 79.143.107.12 (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Referring to Mâhfirûz by taking into consideration the reports of these ambassador, who called her Sultana, but at the same time denying her such a title, is incoherent.

I repeat, other ambassadors reported she was alive and Ahmed I had other consorts, one of whom died between 1610 and 1620. Yes, it is sufficient to do researchs on your own and to not base on ambassadors who talked about her by hearsay.

This is not useful for the project nor for Wikipedia.

Mâhfirûz is recognized as Valide also by Turkey.

The Austrian Ambassador present at Osman II's coronation, was followed by a painter who depicted those presents.

You may like it nor not. That's what happened and that's what the country recognised. End. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

“Other ambassadors” and “one of whom died between 1610 and 1620” again original research, Also i never said she wasn’t sultana so you are confusing me with someone…please. 79.143.107.12 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about ambassadors. Yes, original researchs based on books, documents, etc. Since you are stuck in your vision not able to have a discussion, I'll refrain from commenting other times, 'cause this is leading to nothing. So please. I'm not supposed nor to answer you about my research methods, nor my opinion. You can think what you want, but don't put it as evidence, 'cause other sources, the majority, say other things. Next time it's better for you not to diminish the work of others by assuming it's not worthy of being here. Thanks again. Bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Original research 79.143.107.12 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

"Original research". Call it as you want dear. Bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Original research 79.143.107.12 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Daye Hatun is recorded as de facto valide in 1620 not 1621 62.4.45.34 (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

A source states 1621, while others 1620. But I think that since the majority of them brought 1620, then this is the correct date but I'm not sure. However, until then, as per sources, there was a Valide Sultan: Mâhfirûz. As per some sources, she died in October or November 1620, and the Daye Hatun started her tenure as de facto Valide in 1620. A report wrote by Ambassador Giorgio Giustinian dated to 1620 states that in that year, Osman's mother and Valide Sultan died. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Source? 62.4.43.45 (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Precise reference? Which book? Which page ? 77.204.105.174 (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Because registers note no Valide Sultan during Osman’s reign ~2026-60457-3 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)