Rise of Empires: Ottoman is accurate in its portrayal of when events happened and the context in which they happened, but the show takes liberties with other elements.
There are many reasons why people enjoy watching Netflix’s Rise of Empires: Ottoman, including the combination of drama and education that the show provides.
Although the show does have some inaccuracies throughout its first two seasons, most people agree that the timeline and context it provides for the events that took place during the Ottoman Empire are accurate enough.
Why do people enjoy watching Rise of Empires: Ottoman?
Rise of Empires: Ottoman first started streaming on Netflix in 2020 and while most history buffs were sceptical of this historical docudrama at first, the show has slowly managed to draw in quite a loyal audience.
The series mainly follows the exploits of Mehmed the Conqueror and his part in Turkish history. There is a combination of expert analysis by various historians and dramatised scenes throughout the show. Although it has been criticised for some inaccuracies over the years, most people just find it less boring than the other historical documentaries on their televisions.
How accurate is Rise of Empires: Ottoman?
The first season of Rise of Empires: Ottoman started airing on Netflix on 24 January 2020. This season is divided into six episodes and sees Mehmed the Conqueror waging his campaign to overthrow Constantinople in 1453. This leads to the eventual establishment of the Ottoman Empire. The second season of the show was released almost two years later on 29 December 2022, and it also has six parts.
During this season, the focus is on the conflict between Mehmed the Conqueror and Vlad the Impaler as they meet at the 1462 Ottoman invasion of Wallachia. The famous Turkish actor, Cem Yiğit Üzümoğlu, acts in the lead role as the character of Mehmed the Conqueror to help immerse the audience and provide better context as to how it must have felt to be present when these historical events were taking place.
Although the show ensures that it builds enough drama throughout to keep audiences entertained and engaged in every episode, the discussions from the real-life historians are really what most fans enjoy most about the show. In fact, while many history buffs have complained about small inaccuracies and liberties taken by the production for the character’s motivations and actions during the first and second season of the show, everyone seems to be on the same page that at least the historians’ timelines and contexts for these moments in the Ottoman Empire’s history are entirely accurate.
What was inaccurate about the first season of the show?
It should be expected that any historic docudrama will over-dramatise and embellish certain details to make the show more entertaining. This only really becomes a problem if it contradicts some of the real historical facts.
For this reason, the first season of Rise of Empires: Ottoman is widely considered accurate, save for two small details. Firstly, Mehmed’s childhood would not actually have been nearly as violent, as they frowned upon spilling the blood of royals. Secondly, Mehmed and Giovanni would have been commanding their troops from a safe location, instead of being on the frontlines during battle.
What was inaccurate about the second season of the show?
The second season of the show has a much more accurate depiction of the battles and of Vlad the Impaler’s brutal acts. However, it also takes a much more emotional approach than the first season of Rise of Empires: Ottoman.
While the show seems to place emphasis on the bond between Mehmed and Vlad, there is no real proof that they were that close in real life and although it makes the story more compelling, it has no real historical significance.
Which discrepancies on the show will bother history buffs the most?
Most casual viewers will be able to pick up on and look past the fact that both seasons of Rise of Empires: Ottoman took some liberties to fill in the gaps between what historians know to be true and what really happened all those years ago.
However, real history buffs watching the show may be privy to many other minute discrepancies on the show that casual viewers will miss and that often seem like easy-enough things for production to get right. An example of this is the show’s obvious attempt to make the Ottomans appear much meaner and tougher than they likely would have looked in real life through their heavily painted faces and dark costumes.
Many people have also pointed out details like ships from the wrong decades and weapons that are not historically accurate at all.
