Rageh Omar's documentaries are normally very good.

I would have preferred it if the historical stuff mentioned was re-enacted too instead of just pictures of the modern day world in those locations.

As a lesson in history though its not comprehensive as it seems like for the 3 part series a specific question was asked and this is an attempt to answer that instead of just being a lesson in history and some sections could have benefited with more exposition. or it could be that there is a lot to cover in 3 episodes.

My dad was watching this.

I jumped in around half way through and I felt somewhat offended by what i was hearing. I felt like they were making Islam seem like a religion that couldn't tolerate others and was very invasive. Did anyone else feel like that too?

I also remember watching the part when the empire would take one child from each family and pick the handsome and healthy ones, convert them to Islam and make them join the army. 

That happened and it created the force called the Janisseries.

The idea was to avoid the elite that held power in typical kingdoms and empires.

It just ended up moving the elite to a new place and soon the Janissaries were a very powerdil state within a state that eventually became very corrupt and avoided any attempt at reform, often murdering the ottoman sultan who proposed reform.

Hummus wrote:

My dad was watching this.

I jumped in around half way through and I felt somewhat offended by what i was hearing. I felt like they were making Islam seem like a religion that couldn't tolerate others and was very invasive. Did anyone else feel like that too?

I also remember watching the part when the empire would take one child from each family and pick the handsome and healthy ones, convert them to Islam and make them join the army. 

I don't think it made *Islam* look intolerant, it was the Ottomans who looked wrong but even then the guy kept said they were more tolerant than others during that time. I was pretty shocked at some of the stuff but I don't know if it was biased since I don't know much about it.

Admin are you saying it's balanced/accurate but doesn't include as much detail as you would like?

Context would make it fairer.

For instance explaining what it was meant that they considered themselves to be the inheritors of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire (and the early Ottomans did not consider themselves Caliphs).

Them being civilised was "proven" by just a visit to the ruins of a hamaam/bath house and the statement that surely a group of savages who were not civilised would not build a bath house.

Both of thingswere mentioned, had reasons but overall its hard to get the gravitas of what is being said in both instances.

But I think that is because they are trying to get to answer a specific quesiton about the middle east as opposed to give a history lesson of the Ottoman Empire.

As with any empire, it had its dark sides.

Another thing was when discussing fear in europe, they mentioned people being impaled.

They did not mention Vlad the impaler AKA "dracula".

He was known for impaling. He was fighting the ottomans (his brother for them, tasked to stop him).