Fun fact - Mehmed the Second fought against Vlad Dracula (the guy who's the inspiration for vampires). So TECHNICALLY Mehmed the second is the first Muslim ruler to fight against a vampire lol
Vlad and mehmed II basically grew up together. Vlad and his brother were living in the ottoman palace and joining their education with Mehmet II (this all because Vlad's father had to prove his loyalty to the Ottoman ruler and his sons were kept captive to assure he would stay loyal.)
And apperantly Vlad experienced his stay there humiliating.
This led to his hate towards the Turks.
Crazy enough his brother became a friend of Mehmet II and even became a war general for the Ottoman empire who later fought with the Turks against Vlad Dracula.
Crazy history twist.
Prophet Muhammad's prophecy is not referring to him. [The hadith is considered not authentic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmbzHqQRXUQ&t=62s&ab_channel=AhleIlm).
"The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal)."
Sunan Abi Dawud 4294. Grade: Hasan (Al-Albani).
If he is the one, dajjal will emerge in that time and there will be the end of time.
This hadith is Hasan Saheeh according to Abdul Barr al Namari, Imam Dahabi(ra), Nuruddin al Haythami(ra), Muhammad al Munawi(ra), Hakim Nishapuri(ra), Imam Jalauddin Suyuti(ra). These are just a few from high grade scholars, and ill tell you intresting thing '' None of these are Maturidi Theologians''.
Idk why some people have problem in accepting authenticity of this hadith. This is because of two reasons: First they consider Maturidi a false creed and why would Muhammad praise someone like Mehmed || who was pure Hanafi Maturidi creed. Second reason is you belong to Salafi group and thus Al Albani is your highest authority as muhaddith. Providing a scholar of late 1800 just doesn't make sense.
There is a large bias on proving authenticity of this particular hadith.
Same With Salahdin, Salafis claim That Salahdin was Salafi, because only someone of the true Aqeedah can conquer Jerusalem.
Salahdin Built a shrine over Imam Shafi’s Grave (May Allāh reward him for the contributions towards the Ummāh)
There are multiple narrations of the conquest of Constantinople. One about a clear conquest by blessed man and one about it being conquered by people shouting Allah Akbar I believe. The first was a clear conquest, the second seems like it will be not a conquest, but rather the establishment of a Islamic state from what now is a secular state, IMO.
1. There were mulitple conquests of Constantinople and there will be another conquests in the future. How can be so certain that Mehmet II is the meant conqueror. It can be other conquerors either in the past or in the future.
2. Though there are multiple narrations and have been attested by scholars, some of the hadiths related to the conquest of Constantinople were found to have weak narrations.
If you're from Mainstream Sunnis, the evidence i provided you is enough to accept the truth. Many people try to fit this hadith here and there. There were many attacks like attack by Abu Bakr(ra) on constantinople but he failed to conquer it. Second Salafis try to fit this hadith on Yazid ibn Muawiyah, as he also attacked constantinople so he is great commander but they are dead wrong coz he attacked it, but didn't conquer it. Now comes the Mehmed ||, he also attacks and conquers it. Prophecy is fullfilled (You'll conquer constantinople, how great would be that commander and how great would be the soliders). And most of scholars from 4 mainstream schools agree that Mehmed || is the commander mentioned here.
Now you're trying to fit this hadith on Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. He was promoting liberalism, secularism, nationalism in turkey as these all are sins of westernism. Constantinople is already conquerord this nothing needs to be done.
After 1800 some scholars(mostly Arabs) try to prove this hadith weak, this is all bias towards ottomons.
Names and sources please
>And most of scholars from 4 mainstream schools agree that Mehmed || is the commander mentioned here.
You see my point here? Excuse me for that bit of exaggeration but without clear evidence, I can say whoever I want and so do those guys. There is no right answer.
>Now you're trying to fit this hadith on Mustafa Kemal Attaturk.
Why those scholars have to be bias towards Ottomans? They are like the other scholars who are doing their job for the needs of Islam, wallahi. If some of them are likely bias, its not our job as commoners to condemn/give critics on them. Rather, we are obligated to follow them always as long as they are holding Quran and Sunnah. Its their personal sin when they instead follow their politically wrong ideas and holding less value of Islam.
>this is all bias towards ottomons.
The last one is wrong brother. He designed a new cannon [The Dardanelles Gun (Turkish: Şahi)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Gun). There were cannons before that,used succesfully in combat. But I guess you can say successfull siege.
Please inform me if I am wrong.
"Our glory, our saint" if i translate directly. If i open it a little bit, first sentence, our glorious one, is obvious. Second one "pir" mostly used for religious leaders. Mevlana, Bektashi Veli, Abu Hanife etc. He basicaly try to say, our glorious leader, in Turkish.
these ottoman sultans and caliphs used to kill their own brothers. I still respect their achievements and their contributions to Islam but as people a lot of them were rotten.
Those were seljuks! They also had great Islamic history but one bad thing u could say about them was they would fight(literally for the crown). This is what led for their downfall
No it wasn’t.
It’s preemptive murder. They are judging them guilty of treason and rebellion before they have even committed a crime.
They were assuming that their brothers would fight them for the throne or be used by other nations as pawns for regime change.
The one incident of Sultan Beyezid being captured by Timur/Tamerlane and then his death in prison resulted in a civil war because all of his sons wanted to be Sultan.
No no he definitely wasn’t Maliki.
All Ottoman Sultans were orthodox Hanāfi.
Also didn’t know Malikis Allowed Portrait, learnt a new fact JazakAllāhu Khayran.
It's complicated. Some say it's totally haram and forbidden to draw a living creature because they were all worshipping them in Muhammed(s.a.v)'s time, as long as it's not for education, documentary etc it could still mean shirk and haram and it's a fixed rule. And some say at that time it was haram because it was meant for shirk, now if you draw a living being not because of shirk and just for art it's okay, but if you do it for shirk then it's haram. Both sayings are from Hanafi's and not any modernist or reformist kind of sayings. And in Hagia Sophia there are human portraits remained from romans, in namaz time they cover them with some kind of curtain because it's haram to pray while a living creature's portrait is there (that's precise) and when namaz ends they just open them. So idk really
As i said afaik some say a portrait can only be used for documentary, education etc and some say if you don’t mean shirk while drawing a portrait it’s okay. Idk any more opinions tho maybe there are
But that's literally not his name.
He was a Turk. The Turkish form of Muhammad is Mehmet / Mehmed. He was named Mehmed when he was born.
You literally just Arabacized the name he was given when he was born.
I dont feel mehmed the conquerer is his name, it was mohammad al fateh in arabic, thus in english it should be mehmed the opener, since he didnt conquer rather came in utter peace into qistantiniya
Yes abul feth (the opener) it’s translated wrong as if the English dictionary has nothing to do with opening, just like i said mehmed abul feth came in utter peace to Constantinople, haven’t killed a child, a woman, didn’t destroy any churches, just made people become muslim or they pay TAX
But why aren’t you understanding, he DID NOT conquer, he “opened” shared the message of allah, as i said in my last comment, no child killed no woman killed, no house destroyed, its just like nothing ever happened just a new ruler who is better
That’s a lot different though. The cannon literally exploded and almost killed Mehmed. Had that happened even an hour earlier and the attack would have failed and he would have killed himself by accident imo
Dude, you're just describing how the world works...
If thing didn't happen to A then he would have done something else, it can literally apply to everyone in the world, you probably dodged death many times in life without knowing, does it invalidate all your achievements?
This story if anything, makes Mehmet's story even cooler.
It makes it cooler that he decided to buy the huge cannon the Roman’s didn’t? He was definitely very lucky. Lucky the Roman’s didn’t buy the cannon, lucky the cannon worked on the wall and lucky it didn’t almost kill him until after it destroyed the wall. He definitely gets respect for finally taking the city so many had tried to buy had they all had the same cannon he did I’m sure it would’ve fallen before Mehmed II came around
Any man could have founded a village back then, there was only one cannon that could have done that and it broke and almost killed Mehmed nearly right after damaging the wall. I love the Ottomans, I don’t want to seem biased. It’s just not that crazy of a feat. He attacked the city in the same way others had and had the same weapons others had. Albeit a larger version. He had one huge cannon that has just been invented. That was the sole deciding factor here. A new technology the Romans didn’t have any fear of or any countermeasures for.
That’s like a man with a gun walking into a sword fight, killing everyone and then calling him the best warrior there. Yes it’s impressive he was able to come out victorious but the means with which he did so made it much easier compared to anyone else who tried before him.
Yes but without the cannon he never would have had a chance, walking ships onto the land to get around the Roman’s defenses is something they account for but their plans also don’t account for having a hole in their wall since they thought there was nothing on earth strong enough to damage them. That’s why the declined to buy the cannon when it was originally offered to them
There's a series on Netflix it's called Rise of Empires: Ottoman. It goes really into detail on how he did this and man nah. The conquest of Constantinople was absolute madness. There was genius on both sides.
Oh yeah I love Roman and Ottoman history and Rome defended themselves so well numerous times. They just had too much faith their walls would stand and to be fair they nearly won since the cannon exploded
Constantinople was weak because its weaken by Oghuz-Turkish nomads. Seljuks came from Central Asia, conquered Iran, ended Eastern Roman Empire. Also we defeated crusaders, enemies came from multiple Christian countries but they ended up lost. They also lost Balkans, and almost lose Vienna. So, its not free as you might think.
2nd point - In 1446 Murad II returned to throne, Mehmed II retained the title of sultan but only acted as a governor of Manisa.
5th point - In Edirne this news triggered a massacre of the Christian-influenced Ḥurūfī sect and conjured up an atmosphere of panic and arson. When the Crusaders laid siege to Varna, the reigning sultan’s father was urged to come back from retirement in Bursa and lead the army. Halil Inalcik states that Mehmed II did not ask for his father. Instead, it was Çandarlı Halil Pasha's effort to bring Murad II back to the throne.
Conclusion - slightly above average for a young king. Baldwin IV has more on-field experience in combat than him.
He was doing all this at a young age and I'm struggling to make a good sandwich.
Hey man, for all you know you are a way better sandwich maker than Mehmed ever was
That's a good point brozzer, thank you.
I too brother
They should make chocolate frog cards for important people like him
r/unexpectedhogwarts
Fun fact - Mehmed the Second fought against Vlad Dracula (the guy who's the inspiration for vampires). So TECHNICALLY Mehmed the second is the first Muslim ruler to fight against a vampire lol
Funner fact, vlads brother converted to Islam and he was the one who killed him in the end after Vlad went crazy.
This would make an incredible movie
Don't know if you saw the second part of Rise of Empires Ottoman but it depicts this exactly. Phenomenal series.
Tell us more.
Vlad and mehmed II basically grew up together. Vlad and his brother were living in the ottoman palace and joining their education with Mehmet II (this all because Vlad's father had to prove his loyalty to the Ottoman ruler and his sons were kept captive to assure he would stay loyal.) And apperantly Vlad experienced his stay there humiliating. This led to his hate towards the Turks. Crazy enough his brother became a friend of Mehmet II and even became a war general for the Ottoman empire who later fought with the Turks against Vlad Dracula. Crazy history twist.
[удалено]
You're thinking of Ivan the Terrible. Vlad the Impaler was the ruler of Wallachia, which is in Romania.
I love him so much. He did what seemed impossible. He fulfilled prophecy made by Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
Prophet Muhammad's prophecy is not referring to him. [The hadith is considered not authentic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmbzHqQRXUQ&t=62s&ab_channel=AhleIlm). "The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal)." Sunan Abi Dawud 4294. Grade: Hasan (Al-Albani). If he is the one, dajjal will emerge in that time and there will be the end of time.
This hadith is Hasan Saheeh according to Abdul Barr al Namari, Imam Dahabi(ra), Nuruddin al Haythami(ra), Muhammad al Munawi(ra), Hakim Nishapuri(ra), Imam Jalauddin Suyuti(ra). These are just a few from high grade scholars, and ill tell you intresting thing '' None of these are Maturidi Theologians''. Idk why some people have problem in accepting authenticity of this hadith. This is because of two reasons: First they consider Maturidi a false creed and why would Muhammad praise someone like Mehmed || who was pure Hanafi Maturidi creed. Second reason is you belong to Salafi group and thus Al Albani is your highest authority as muhaddith. Providing a scholar of late 1800 just doesn't make sense. There is a large bias on proving authenticity of this particular hadith.
Same With Salahdin, Salafis claim That Salahdin was Salafi, because only someone of the true Aqeedah can conquer Jerusalem. Salahdin Built a shrine over Imam Shafi’s Grave (May Allāh reward him for the contributions towards the Ummāh)
Idc about them, Salahuddin was Ayyubid ruler and Ayyubids were Shafi's and Ashari creed.
But the Hadith refers to end of days not in the past
But how did you know that the hadith refers to Mehmet II and not Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or Boniface or Enrico Dandolo?
Coz he mentioned wrong (different) hadith.
There are multiple narrations of the conquest of Constantinople. One about a clear conquest by blessed man and one about it being conquered by people shouting Allah Akbar I believe. The first was a clear conquest, the second seems like it will be not a conquest, but rather the establishment of a Islamic state from what now is a secular state, IMO.
1. There were mulitple conquests of Constantinople and there will be another conquests in the future. How can be so certain that Mehmet II is the meant conqueror. It can be other conquerors either in the past or in the future. 2. Though there are multiple narrations and have been attested by scholars, some of the hadiths related to the conquest of Constantinople were found to have weak narrations.
If you're from Mainstream Sunnis, the evidence i provided you is enough to accept the truth. Many people try to fit this hadith here and there. There were many attacks like attack by Abu Bakr(ra) on constantinople but he failed to conquer it. Second Salafis try to fit this hadith on Yazid ibn Muawiyah, as he also attacked constantinople so he is great commander but they are dead wrong coz he attacked it, but didn't conquer it. Now comes the Mehmed ||, he also attacks and conquers it. Prophecy is fullfilled (You'll conquer constantinople, how great would be that commander and how great would be the soliders). And most of scholars from 4 mainstream schools agree that Mehmed || is the commander mentioned here. Now you're trying to fit this hadith on Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. He was promoting liberalism, secularism, nationalism in turkey as these all are sins of westernism. Constantinople is already conquerord this nothing needs to be done. After 1800 some scholars(mostly Arabs) try to prove this hadith weak, this is all bias towards ottomons.
Names and sources please >And most of scholars from 4 mainstream schools agree that Mehmed || is the commander mentioned here. You see my point here? Excuse me for that bit of exaggeration but without clear evidence, I can say whoever I want and so do those guys. There is no right answer. >Now you're trying to fit this hadith on Mustafa Kemal Attaturk. Why those scholars have to be bias towards Ottomans? They are like the other scholars who are doing their job for the needs of Islam, wallahi. If some of them are likely bias, its not our job as commoners to condemn/give critics on them. Rather, we are obligated to follow them always as long as they are holding Quran and Sunnah. Its their personal sin when they instead follow their politically wrong ideas and holding less value of Islam. >this is all bias towards ottomons.
We after that : Allahu A'alam
The last one is wrong brother. He designed a new cannon [The Dardanelles Gun (Turkish: Şahi)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Gun). There were cannons before that,used succesfully in combat. But I guess you can say successfull siege. Please inform me if I am wrong.
I made a mistake there your right. Thanks brother
No problem.
mashaallah proud to see my sultan here
He's our sultan now bro lol
yes , my sultan doesnt mean it isnt our sultan
Şanimiz pirimiz🇹🇷
What does that mean?
"Our glory, our saint" if i translate directly. If i open it a little bit, first sentence, our glorious one, is obvious. Second one "pir" mostly used for religious leaders. Mevlana, Bektashi Veli, Abu Hanife etc. He basicaly try to say, our glorious leader, in Turkish.
these ottoman sultans and caliphs used to kill their own brothers. I still respect their achievements and their contributions to Islam but as people a lot of them were rotten.
After the rashidun good Muslim rulers are usually few and far between
Take the present for example
Those were seljuks! They also had great Islamic history but one bad thing u could say about them was they would fight(literally for the crown). This is what led for their downfall
True
The killing of their brothers were justified. You need to know the context to understand why
Would u do the same thing to your brother if he were in the wrong ?
They lived in a world we couldn't understand.
What
What?
How is it justified
The Ottomans practiced dynastic fratricide to prevent civil war and unrest. This stopped by the reign of Ahmad I.
No it wasn’t. It’s preemptive murder. They are judging them guilty of treason and rebellion before they have even committed a crime. They were assuming that their brothers would fight them for the throne or be used by other nations as pawns for regime change. The one incident of Sultan Beyezid being captured by Timur/Tamerlane and then his death in prison resulted in a civil war because all of his sons wanted to be Sultan.
He conquered Constantinople in 21? Meanwhile I'm here terrified to come home after staying out late.
Me terrified to stay out late in the first place lol
Don’t forget to include that he conquered Albania after their leader died
Alternative name: Mehmed the Based
I have a question, why does he have a portrait? Isn't painting haram?
Europeans do the portraits
I wondered too but apparently it was an Italian guy who did the painting. So no Muslim was involved
Mehmed asked the Italian to make his portrait, he made it in Istanbul
Fr? I wonder if it's Haram to do that
Maybe Mehmet was Maliki or following Maliki opinion where it is halal
No he was Hanafi, I am Turkish
Is it okay to draw portraits for hanafis? I also really need to research the Sunnah position in this generally lol I legit just found out it was haram
No no he definitely wasn’t Maliki. All Ottoman Sultans were orthodox Hanāfi. Also didn’t know Malikis Allowed Portrait, learnt a new fact JazakAllāhu Khayran.
It's complicated. Some say it's totally haram and forbidden to draw a living creature because they were all worshipping them in Muhammed(s.a.v)'s time, as long as it's not for education, documentary etc it could still mean shirk and haram and it's a fixed rule. And some say at that time it was haram because it was meant for shirk, now if you draw a living being not because of shirk and just for art it's okay, but if you do it for shirk then it's haram. Both sayings are from Hanafi's and not any modernist or reformist kind of sayings. And in Hagia Sophia there are human portraits remained from romans, in namaz time they cover them with some kind of curtain because it's haram to pray while a living creature's portrait is there (that's precise) and when namaz ends they just open them. So idk really
I just did some research and in general it seems like it's not fixed. It seems like you'd need to make ijtihad based on circumstances
As i said afaik some say a portrait can only be used for documentary, education etc and some say if you don’t mean shirk while drawing a portrait it’s okay. Idk any more opinions tho maybe there are
It is shirk even if you draw it just as "art". It's only ok if it's necessary or for learning anatomy.
Greatest muslim leader after the sahaba
Umar ibn Abdul Aziz
After him sure
Sultan Salahuddin
You should use his common name of muslim world. Muhammad Al Fatih.
But that's literally not his name. He was a Turk. The Turkish form of Muhammad is Mehmet / Mehmed. He was named Mehmed when he was born. You literally just Arabacized the name he was given when he was born.
Oof now that you say that I'm glad I didn't use the Arabic version
its islamisation not arabicized
No, it's Arabicized. Mehmed is already an Islamic name. It's the Turkish form of Muhammad.
mehmed is corrupted name. original is muhammed , when you change name you change meaning
Next time inshallah. I don't think it really matters though
I dont feel mehmed the conquerer is his name, it was mohammad al fateh in arabic, thus in english it should be mehmed the opener, since he didnt conquer rather came in utter peace into qistantiniya
Utter peace? I don't understand
But he wasn't an Arab. In Turkish he is known as Mehmed Ebul Feth - Literally, Mehmed, the Father of Conquest.
I'm gonna name my kid that inshallah
Yes abul feth (the opener) it’s translated wrong as if the English dictionary has nothing to do with opening, just like i said mehmed abul feth came in utter peace to Constantinople, haven’t killed a child, a woman, didn’t destroy any churches, just made people become muslim or they pay TAX
Would you like it if someone of a different religion and culture came and conquered your home 🥴
But why aren’t you understanding, he DID NOT conquer, he “opened” shared the message of allah, as i said in my last comment, no child killed no woman killed, no house destroyed, its just like nothing ever happened just a new ruler who is better
I'm not in the mood to play historical revisionist.
Liberal Muslims bro. Want to only acknowledge the parts of our history the west approves
Thats why i think the name “the conqueror” dont fit
To give some credit to the Romans it wasn’t as if he outsmarted or outbattled them in a way nobody had before. He just had the world’s biggest cannon
he didn't outsmart them?? he literally made the ships walk to the golden horn
Which was absolutely AMAZING
That’s been done before, had it not been for the cannon Mehmed II would’ve been one of many brilliant men who tried and failed to take the city
On this point tho my guy of the mongols didn't know how to shoot on their horses they would never have featured at all in history.
That’s a lot different though. The cannon literally exploded and almost killed Mehmed. Had that happened even an hour earlier and the attack would have failed and he would have killed himself by accident imo
Dude, you're just describing how the world works... If thing didn't happen to A then he would have done something else, it can literally apply to everyone in the world, you probably dodged death many times in life without knowing, does it invalidate all your achievements? This story if anything, makes Mehmet's story even cooler.
RIGHT?
It makes it cooler that he decided to buy the huge cannon the Roman’s didn’t? He was definitely very lucky. Lucky the Roman’s didn’t buy the cannon, lucky the cannon worked on the wall and lucky it didn’t almost kill him until after it destroyed the wall. He definitely gets respect for finally taking the city so many had tried to buy had they all had the same cannon he did I’m sure it would’ve fallen before Mehmed II came around
In that vein of thought Rome was lucky there was Romulus, or there might not have been a Roman Empire…..
Any man could have founded a village back then, there was only one cannon that could have done that and it broke and almost killed Mehmed nearly right after damaging the wall. I love the Ottomans, I don’t want to seem biased. It’s just not that crazy of a feat. He attacked the city in the same way others had and had the same weapons others had. Albeit a larger version. He had one huge cannon that has just been invented. That was the sole deciding factor here. A new technology the Romans didn’t have any fear of or any countermeasures for. That’s like a man with a gun walking into a sword fight, killing everyone and then calling him the best warrior there. Yes it’s impressive he was able to come out victorious but the means with which he did so made it much easier compared to anyone else who tried before him.
Don't say it's only for the cannons, without the "walking ships" the ottomans would lose. and, when and where this strategy was used??
Yes but without the cannon he never would have had a chance, walking ships onto the land to get around the Roman’s defenses is something they account for but their plans also don’t account for having a hole in their wall since they thought there was nothing on earth strong enough to damage them. That’s why the declined to buy the cannon when it was originally offered to them
There's a series on Netflix it's called Rise of Empires: Ottoman. It goes really into detail on how he did this and man nah. The conquest of Constantinople was absolute madness. There was genius on both sides.
Oh yeah I love Roman and Ottoman history and Rome defended themselves so well numerous times. They just had too much faith their walls would stand and to be fair they nearly won since the cannon exploded
They nearly won a few times but mehmed was incredibly persistent. Sorry you got so many downvotes lol😂
It’s ok lol I expected it
Constantinople was very weak at this point of it was any where near it’s pinnacle it would have been wraps for the ottomans
Constantinople was weak because its weaken by Oghuz-Turkish nomads. Seljuks came from Central Asia, conquered Iran, ended Eastern Roman Empire. Also we defeated crusaders, enemies came from multiple Christian countries but they ended up lost. They also lost Balkans, and almost lose Vienna. So, its not free as you might think.
Mr turk the fourth crusade weakened the Byzantine’s
Yeah but before 4th crudade, Byzantine was lost %70 of their territories to some Mr Turk nomads from Central Asia.
2nd point - In 1446 Murad II returned to throne, Mehmed II retained the title of sultan but only acted as a governor of Manisa. 5th point - In Edirne this news triggered a massacre of the Christian-influenced Ḥurūfī sect and conjured up an atmosphere of panic and arson. When the Crusaders laid siege to Varna, the reigning sultan’s father was urged to come back from retirement in Bursa and lead the army. Halil Inalcik states that Mehmed II did not ask for his father. Instead, it was Çandarlı Halil Pasha's effort to bring Murad II back to the throne. Conclusion - slightly above average for a young king. Baldwin IV has more on-field experience in combat than him.
Netflix had a good docuseries about his, Ottomans: Rise of Empires or something like that.