[HISTORICAL ISSUE] - Greatest defeats of the Ottomans in the Tsardoms timeframe

[Tureuki]

Yes voynuks are mainly camp followers.

[Hrobatos]

Battle of Siget ( hun. Szigetvar ) is very famous in Croatia and Hungary

[Bagatyr]

c'mon do you really believe in these numbers?
yes, it depends of state, but even ottoman empire couldn't gather 60000 for one battle
remember, at battle of velbuzd bulgarians came with very much numbers (counting 15000), so as serbs (18000). after that defeat, bulgaria never gain power as it was before.
so, for battle of kosovo, serbia came with all their menpower, counting max 28000 (it was probably 20000, some say 40000 which is nonsense).
those large numbers are usual for byz sources. they are not real
now, let's see other european battles
battle of grandson (burgundy 20000 vs swiss 18000)
battle of nancy (burgundy 3000 vs 10000 swiss)
battle of agincourt (england 6000 vs france 36000 (this is possible, but not realistic. it is true that england defeated france with less soldiers, but france probably had much smaller number than 36000)
battle of chojnice (teutonic order 14000 vs poland 19000)

so, it's obvious, average number is 15000, while they could gather army of 20000-30000 for battles (stronger states more, but not much)
no battles of 60000-70000 men, it would be devastating for medieval period, in which people died of very much deceases , and health was on vey low level)

Nikola you forgeth that Bulgaria is great power from 7 century .In the period of the furst empire Bulgaria is much much bigger then the second and unlike the late era is centralized state, with strick laws and system.
The enemyes where few and the nobles back then where not separetists atleest not in Bulgaria back then.In VIII-XI century Bulgaria was capable of gather 60 000-70 000 . But one crucial fact is that it was posible in early medieval period.The same was for Roman Empire (Byz) and Frankish empire in Charlemagne time .You give me examples only with states from the late periot when it was really imposible to gather this number.I can give you exampalse but only with centralized states like the Furst Bulgarian empire ,Erly Byzantine ,Frankish empire .Also the Arab empire was capable in gather even greater numbers , not to mention the Mongol empire and her successor The Golden Horde and the Timur empire

[Under_Siege]

Lol, I didn't expect so many posts about my post.
First, about the numbers, look at the world map in XVI century, look at the Ottoman's territories... If Barbarossa can gather 100 000, then why Turks cannot as they have more territories, including Egypt.
The knights were 300, BUT there were also 7500 more soldiers - archers, light infantry, not heavy armoured. And the women were also defending the stronghold
Many scientist suppose that Rhodos was the most unbreakable stronghold, holded by Christians for it's time.
So, turks had build up enormous fleet and army ONLY for that purpose - to crush the hospitallers, otherwise, ottoman's back would not be secured... And you should know that hospitallers have very strong fleet.
How can you really believe, that it is imposible for ottomans to make so big army??? I can't understand that.
So, the turks start the siege - they were sure of winning... And after some attacks were stopped with very big losses for turks, sultan Suleiman I became very angry and he alone start the final attack (17.12.1522). This final attack was 3 days long and the knights escaped in the citadel. And after that they surrendered. I will not talk about the deals, which knights and the sultan did - not to kill citizens or destroy any church, and etc.
50 000 ottoman soldiers died in battle, and 50 000 died, because of their wounds later. Questions? Oh, I forget... The turks had hmmm.... about 100 cannons, which were placed in circle around the stronghold, and bombarding the walls non-stop.

[Tureuki]

Total forces of the Ottomans in that times around 100 000(include garrisons and bodyguards) how can they lost 100 000 soldier ?

[Hrobatos]

exactly, thats just farytale
20 000 at top, and even that is too much

[DobroVece]

@Under_Siege
Barbarossa gathering 100 000 men is also an exaggeration. It was kind of fashion to describe medieval armies in billion-trillion manner.

[Under_Siege]

exactly, thats just farytale
20 000 at top, and even that is too much

20 000... Man, you are joking. The stronghold was well equiped, with citadel and all buildings NEEDED for long siege. With strong walls and strong defenders, not some kind of drunked villagers

Total forces of the Ottomans in that times around 100 000(include garrisons and bodyguards) how can they lost 100 000 soldier ?

XVI century, at that time, turks were military hyperactive, battles in Africa, in Europe... So, Suleiman I had a big trouble with hospitallers, they had really strong fleet, and making well pointed attacks. Before he could think for invasion in Hungary, he decided to secure his back (smart decision), As I say before, Rhodos was strong, and knights were veterans, who really knew how to use their weapons. And Suleiman made strong fleet with one purpose - for taking Rhodos and securing his back... Sooo, he also made huge army. It is simple - there were a lot of fanatics, who will gladly slay some "giaurs"(turkish word for non islam). And after half an year training, they are ready for the battlefield.

[Tureuki]

Numbers of the casualties already high, its really a great loss for a single siege , as I said If artillery not working, sieges are really big troubles for Ottomans, hand to hand heavy combat infantry is weak side of the Ottoman armies , also "maximum" 20 000.

[Under_Siege]

Numbers of the casualties already high, its really a great loss for a single siege , as I said If artillery not working, sieges are really big troubles for Ottomans, hand to hand heavy combat infantry is weak side of the Ottoman armies , also "maximum" 20 000.

The soldiers were mostly not veterans, and the stronghold was very... strong
Ottomans had 100 cannons, but walls were strong
Not a big problem for ottomans to gather 170-180k fanatics and 20-20 000 professionals, right?
And the casualities, this is yout own opinion...

@Under_Siege
Barbarossa gathering 100 000 men is also an exaggeration. It was kind of fashion to describe medieval armies in billion-trillion manner.

700AD, look what islam made for 20 year. This religion is very agressive, what is the problem for Suleiman to make 200k army, as I said, he raise this army in 1522 (for half an year) ONLY for taking Rhodos, he doesn't had any later plans for it.

[Tureuki]

So ? you think billions of the soldiers dying on the charging to walls in sieges ?

its not simple like you said, gather the fanatics and conquer the lands is outdated in that times, Ottomans have a regular military organization they're not used simple fanatic armies. Also Suleiman's army probably around 60 000-80 000.

[Under_Siege]

100000 is very much fairytale for medievals. Even turks couldn't gather that much. It is based by historians who just put number by their point of view. Medieval armies could had 20000- 30000 men in battle. Average number would be some 15000

I red Herodotus once, and I will tell you something - it was the battle of Termopylae - he said that the men, which Kserx led for crushing Greece was 5,200 000, and half of them were slaves. Sounds funny, right. But do you know what I read exactly - he has't wrote 5 000 000, but something like 5 241 132, I don't remember exactly, and he has wrote about 5-6 pages, describing from where are the forces - 20 152 from there according to (some name) and 23 219 according to(other name)...

[Under_Siege]

So ? you think billions of the soldiers dying on the charging to walls in sieges ?

its not simple like you said, gather the fanatics and conquer the lands is outdated in that times, Ottomans have a regular military organization they're not used simple fanatic armies. Also Suleiman's army probably around 60 000-80 000.

Charging the walls... It is not so simple

As I said, the stronghold was well placed, and knights knew how to defend themselves. When you are climbing some ladder, and above your head - rain of arrows, stones, bodies and boiling oil, and some well aromured monsters at the top of the wall, then nothing is simple

[Tureuki]

So Suleiman send his whole army to walls and whole army is killed ? normally maximum few hundred soldier dying in the ordinary charges in the sieges. also charges were done by small numbers, Ottomans usually tried the crack the walls with tunnelers and artillery fire.

[SpyrosM91]

I red Herodotus once, and I will tell you something - it was the battle of Termopylae - he said that the men, which Kserx led for crushing Greece was 5,200 000, and half of them were slaves. Sounds funny, right. But do you know what I read exactly - he has't wrote 5 000 000, but something like 5 241 132, I don't remember exactly, and he has wrote about 5-6 pages, describing from where are the forces - 20 152 from there according to (some name) and 23 219 according to(other name)...

actually he mentions in his text 5 283 220....but it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!! How could you coordinate 5.2 million men, providing them with food (at that time there wasn't a MacDonalds' around to feed them), to give them water (from small rivers and wells...).....etc. etc. etc. etc. etc......most probably Xerxes had around 250.000 troops (300.000 tops...)


and one other thing: it has been calculated that the byzies in the first half of the 14th century (when they had reconquered all of southern balkans except Peloponnesos (apart from Morea..) and Duchy of Athens...) they could field about 5000 professional troops ALLTOGETHER, they could also afford to pay about 1111 mercenaries (or 347 cavalry and 1389 infantry) ALLTOGETHER. But these numbers are for all the professionals the empire could afford,... NOT for the part that could go campaigning....THUS, THE NUMBERS OF THE CONTEMPORARY BYZANTINE SOURCES WHICH MENTION COUPLE (and sometimes much more) OF TENS OF THOUSANDS MEN ARE SIMPLY WRONG......

In a similar way, the contemporary writers of that time did not write the actual numbers of the soldiers either for simple reasons (they didn't know)...or for political ones (they wanted to present the facts as great victories/losses etc. etc.), or for many other personal reasons........

[SpyrosM91]

and sth else, at that time there wasn't any bombs and explosive weapons that could inflict all these casualties......you had to kill 100 000 men, one at a time.....that IMPOSSIBLE for the 6-7000 (or so) defenders of the citadel...the cannons of that time were very innacurate and were used only (or for the most part) against walls; in the field they were practicly useless...(except for causing terror and smoke...)

[Hrobatos]

when I said artilery I meant modern artilery, weapons before were very simple AND there was much less people, like a LOT much less people
how could Ottomans suply with water and food 200 000 men at Rhodos? difficult even today, imposible back then

[Wallachian]

c'mon do you really believe in these numbers?
yes, it depends of state, but even ottoman empire couldn't gather 60000 for one battle
remember, at battle of velbuzd bulgarians came with very much numbers (counting 15000), so as serbs (18000). after that defeat, bulgaria never gain power as it was before.
so, for battle of kosovo, serbia came with all their menpower, counting max 28000 (it was probably 20000, some say 40000 which is nonsense).
those large numbers are usual for byz sources. they are not real
now, let's see other european battles
battle of grandson (burgundy 20000 vs swiss 18000)
battle of nancy (burgundy 3000 vs 10000 swiss)
battle of agincourt (england 6000 vs france 36000 (this is possible, but not realistic. it is true that england defeated france with less soldiers, but france probably had much smaller number than 36000)
battle of chojnice (teutonic order 14000 vs poland 19000)

so, it's obvious, average number is 15000, while they could gather army of 20000-30000 for battles (stronger states more, but not much)
no battles of 60000-70000 men, it would be devastating for medieval period, in which people died of very much deceases , and health was on vey low level)

There's another thing that comes into play when counting the amount of troops an army has. Many medieval chroniclers counted all the camp followers and non-combatant auxiliaries as part of the army. So if they say an army has 100,000 probably less then half of that would actually be fighting men.

And the medieval chroniclers definetly tended to over-exagerate the size of the enemy. There's some wild accounts of the battle of Ankara having been between one million turks and one million timurids, or 800,000 versus 400,000. But even modern estimates are of about 140,000 timurids.

Very interesting viewpoint on the battle of Kosovo and it definetly makes sense. The Ottomans had the capability to raise another army straight away while the Balkan states didn't. Even if the Christians defeated the Ottomans they would return with a new army. It was the same story everywhere in the Balkans.

[phoenix[illusion]]

It's not only that. One of the main differences is the recruitment - by Tzardoms' time, most armies were fully or almost fully professional (regular troops + mercenaries, eventually local levies/militias when defending), while in those earlier times armies mostly consisted of the "armed peoples" (въоръжен народ) type. Plus, of course, early FBE was a warrior society, while late SBE was a very much settled agricultural one.
Except those numbers aren't from Byzantine sources (at least not alone), but from analyses of modern historians about the army potential of Byzantium at the respective period. Which period, I repeat, is extremely different from the one in Tzardoms' and the two situations simply cannot be compared.

it is explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Bulgarian_army

and to add: the ottomans could use only muslims in their army, which limited seriously their army numbers.

Nikola you forgeth that Bulgaria is great power from 7 century .In the period of the furst empire Bulgaria is much much bigger then the second and unlike the late era is centralized state, with strick laws and system.
The enemyes where few and the nobles back then where not separetists atleest not in Bulgaria back then.In VIII-XI century Bulgaria was capable of gather 60 000-70 000 . But one crucial fact is that it was posible in early medieval period.The same was for Roman Empire (Byz) and Frankish empire in Charlemagne time .You give me examples only with states from the late periot when it was really imposible to gather this number.I can give you exampalse but only with centralized states like the Furst Bulgarian empire ,Erly Byzantine ,Frankish empire .Also the Arab empire was capable in gather even greater numbers , not to mention the Mongol empire and her successor The Golden Horde and the Timur empire

so, you telling me that in earlier times forces were much bigger, not 2x but 4 to 5 times bigger. next i'll here that source men fought on marica were 70000 (cause it's all we have today). sorry for sarcasm, but that's not possible, cause in would be devastating for one country, losing that men per battle (economy falls, agriculture, taxes etc.). and not to talk about expenses of keeping that army. war didn't last 5 or 6 days, but couple of years. they needed food for that army. and what's more important is that you tell it was in periods of first bulgarian empire, when bulgars settled balkans, they came in "enormous" numbers and suddenly in times of second empire, when they totally settled, and were much more widespread than in dark ages, they dropped in menpower.

and let's put the real examples. i'll take normans, just cause of difference of records
so, fearsome normans conquered many nations and lands, got to even sicily, and had smaller armies than bulgaria and byzantine empire. at battle of hastings, which prevented taking british lands, both sides had up to 8000 men. at battle of civitate, which prevent taking part of south italy by normans had about 3000 men while papal and swabian-lombards had 6000

so the mighty normans who took many lands were fighting of strength max counting 10000, but on balkans bulgaria and byz empire fought with 60000-80000, and they were stuck of battling for the same regions cause they both had that much armies (sarcasm again, sry)

now let's tak the crusades, in which many christians were evolved. first crusade had 35000 men, but counting whole western europe. second crusade the same. and yet, in siege of damascus, they were suddenly 50000 crusaders (what would it be if they counted reserves, cause if they failed the battle). this only tells how sources are not reliable, that historians put some numbers by their point of view, and it was very popular on balkans in early periods as i can see

and yet famous croatian-bulgarian battle of 927. in some sources it is said that bulgarians had 70000 men. thank god that croats take 30000 as valuable (even that's too much, but only one excising with small number). that famous battle was described by porphyrogenitus that croats had 100000 foot soldiers, 60000 horse soldiers and 80 battleship. so, judge by your will, but this only shows how byz sources are not reliable, so as other early balkans. you say that first armies were consisted of ordianry men, but what's with the 60000 horse soldiers? suddenly, horses were much scaled to 6000-8000 in late medievals, yeah right...

actually he mentions in his text 5 283 220....but it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!! How could you coordinate 5.2 million men, providing them with food (at that time there wasn't a MacDonalds' around to feed them), to give them water (from small rivers and wells...).....etc. etc. etc. etc. etc......most probably Xerxes had around 250.000 troops (300.000 tops...)


and one other thing: it has been calculated that the byzies in the first half of the 14th century (when they had reconquered all of southern balkans except Peloponnesos (apart from Morea..) and Duchy of Athens...) they could field about 5000 professional troops ALLTOGETHER, they could also afford to pay about 1111 mercenaries (or 347 cavalry and 1389 infantry) ALLTOGETHER. But these numbers are for all the professionals the empire could afford,... NOT for the part that could go campaigning....THUS, THE NUMBERS OF THE CONTEMPORARY BYZANTINE SOURCES WHICH MENTION COUPLE (and sometimes much more) OF TENS OF THOUSANDS MEN ARE SIMPLY WRONG......

In a similar way, the contemporary writers of that time did not write the actual numbers of the soldiers either for simple reasons (they didn't know)...or for political ones (they wanted to present the facts as great victories/losses etc. etc.), or for many other personal reasons........

agreed
xerxes had even smaller troops. i was suprised how many people were in those time, very small scales, smaller than medievals, even if medieval ages was low level health time

[phoenix[illusion]]

Battle of Siget ( hun. Szigetvar ) is very famous in Croatia and Hungary

hahaha nice one i like that battle just cause it shows how historians like to changes some things in their records, 2000-3000 men vs 100000 - 300000 men

exactly, thats just farytale
20 000 at top, and even that is too much

Numbers of the casualties already high, its really a great loss for a single siege , as I said If artillery not working, sieges are really big troubles for Ottomans, hand to hand heavy combat infantry is weak side of the Ottoman armies , also "maximum" 20 000.

yup, i think the same. defenders probably had some 7000-8000, bit still it would be almost 3 ottoman soldiers to one rhodes. (by casualties they've done to ottomans, ottomans were probably more, but not much)