Rise of Empires: Ottoman

As a a Greek, I could have been pre-emptively negative about this series. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the producers did some serious research and consultation before they put pen to paper. From the small conversations to the serious arguments, it appears that they have checked first with the historians.

There is good acting, good atmosphere, good costumes, decent battle scenes and loved the fact that the producers were careful with not allowing the documentary bit to take over.

The only three things that stopped me from giving it a 10/10 are that -) The utter obsession with Justinian to the point the whole series is about him and how heroic the Italians were. -) The obsession with portraying all Greeks as treacherous cowards (you couldn't help yourselves there :) -) Portraying the Turks as inferior and Mehmed a hotheaded and reckless

I strongly recommend and can't wait for the sequel (probably about Vienna)

Yes historically not accurate, lots of BS etc.. But it was entertaining. I actually watched the whole series in a day. Mehmed vs Vlad is better than the previous one. I like the actor who played Mehmed ( Cem Yigit Uzumoglu) I think he was great. Story telling was also great ( I think he is the guy who played the lanister in GOT) . But what people should notice is the actor who played Vlad Dracula. He wasn't acting, it looked real. We don't see this level of acting very often. Absolutelly amazing. I think he is World Class and he should be in Hollywood. What a great actor. Well Done Daniel. I wish you all the best. And would like to see more from you. 10/10.

I'm not sure what exactly the future of this series is - will the next seasons be about Ottomans, other empires, or will there not even be more seasons? Regardless, this first season could more aptly have been named the Siege of Constantinople, as it is almost all about that famed siege. Good thing too, because 6 episodes seems to be the perfect length for depicting the siege in full. And the series is very well paced, although some of the flashback scenes feel a bit too long.

The siege itself is exceptionally well depicted. The budget was either very high, or very well used, because the quality of the CGI, the sets, and the costumes is simply superb, and the actors too are brilliant. The show doesn't quite bias towards one side. If there is a bias, there is a bias against realism. Both sides are depicted in a more positive light than should be. The Genoans and Venetians were far less scheming than they were in real life, and the mercenaries defending the city more adept and brave than they truly were. Conversely, the show also glosses over the Ottoman plundering of the city. But apart from that criticism, I can't really find anything I disliked about the depiction of the siege itself. I also really appreciated that the show stressed the importance of it - the demise of the 1500 year old Empire, giving birth to one that would last nearly 500 years more.

I'm not sure I quite like the docudrama style of storytelling. I think it is a tad lazy compared to just telling a story through actors. But that is a minor issue I have with an otherwise excellent depiction of a legendary siege.

I found this mix of drama and documentary highly entertaining, visually impressive, and educational. I've read a few books about the siege of Constantinople, and always thought "what a great story, why doesn't anyone make a movie out of it?". When I found out that this was a Turkish production, I was afraid it'd be based as they are too close to the subject to be objective, but the basics of the story are accurately displayed. Yes, they puffed up Giustiniani and added a couple of female characters while other protagonists are missing. They simplified a lot of stuff and didn't go in depth into what preceded the siege and the motivations of the characters. But most of what made the cut is historically accurate, always allowing for the conflicting accounts and various viewpoints. Choices were obviously made on basis of which made better dramaturgical sense and which were more realistic, not in order to glorify this or that side. Some Turkish reviewers insist that "this isn't how it happened" (meaning "not what was I taught at school") and even believe that sultan Mehmet actually designed his cannons himself. Now maybe that's reported by one of his biographers but how possible is it that a 20-year old prince with no knowledge of metallurgy designed the most advanced weapons of his time? Anyway, I found that the producers used the source material well and come out with a gripping docu-drama that generally respected historical truth. If you want more nuances, read some books! I'm already looking forward to the next series.

All chronicals besides turkish ones say that Vlad scored a great victory at the Night Attack and Mehmed fled the camp. If this was not the case then i ask you Where would he gather so many ottomans to impale near Targoviste? How about time to impale?

Recommend HistoryMarche on youtube for a better view on Vlad the Impaler

The show has it.s ups and downs , depictes some aspects good and some rather miserable. Since it.s a documentary, historical facts should be represented as they were and not florished to make Mehmed more apealing to viewers. I still recommend the show and the actors playing Vlad and Mehmed did a great job. Still better than hollywood movies. At least Constantinopole had a ditch in front of the walls and this was the most esential defending construction during that time. Enjoyed the costumes as well. Anyway, keep this genre going as it.s way better than any movie.