Just like Osmangazi, the many sultans that followed after protected his leadership status through warfare. In their desire to prove their competence, personal desire may very easily cloud their judgment. Ambition drives motivation and will but being overly-ambitious may easily prove to be their undoing. As such, restraint is a crucial factor in leadership as well. In 1302, Emperor Michael IX launched a campaign which reached south up to Magnesia. Osman I recognized their numerical disadvantage and thus called for a retreat and avoided battle. Michael, on the other hand, sought to confront them but was thankfully dissuaded by his generals. Here, we are presented two contrasting leaders where Osman readily practiced restraint while Michael knew only to follow the heat of the battle. The Ottoman society was a patrimonial one and power, as a result, flowed from the leader himself. As such, the course of actions could have easily gone wrong for the Ottomans had Osman been like Michael and insisted on fighting despite their obvious disadvantage. Instead, Osman came up with a strategic plan where the Turks resumed their raids and virtually isolated Michael at Magnesia, leading to the enemy's army dissolving without a fight, allowing the Ottomans to successfully conquer Bapheus which signified the start of the Ottoman Empire. Likewise, Orhan's son Murad I, also practiced restraint in his conquests. Constantinople itself was bypassed, because Murad I understood that despite the weakness and disorganization of its defenders, its thick walls and well-placed defenses remained too strong for the nomadic Ottoman army, which continued to lack siege equipment. Pragmatism, practiced by the sultans, allowed the Ottoman military to gain numerous military conquests and therefore succeed in their territorial expansionism quest that led to the rise of the empire as they were not afraid to recognize their inferior position when they had to and therefore fought battles intelligently and strategically.