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

[Wallachian]

What do you guys think were the greatest defeats suffered by the Ottomans between 1345 and 1530? These are my favourites, there is no particular order

1. The battle of Ankara 1402 . It was a great tactical and strategic victory by Timur against the armies of Bayezid the Thunder, who just 6 years earlier had defeated the European crusaders at Nicopolis. While the size of the two armies are disputable, modern day historians estimate the army of Timur was of about 140,000 and that of Bayezid of no more then 85,000. Timur had outmaneouvered Bayezid before the battle and gained the favourable ground. He had also negotiated withe Bayezid's Anatolian and Tatar allies to switch sides during the battle. The Ottomans attacked first but were beaten back by the arrows of the Timurid horse archers. Eventually, the tired and thirsty Ottomans were routed. Bayezid himself was captured after the battle and died within a few months as a prisoner at Timur's court. The crushing victory of the Timurids resulted in the Ottoman Interregnum, civil war and postponed the fall of Constantinopole for 50 years.
2. The first siege of Vienna 1529. The siege was the pinnacle of Ottoman expansion into Europe. After the victories over Hungary the sultan Suleyman the Magnificent seized the opportunity and besieged the city of Vienna. His army amounted to around 120,000 troops who were faced by about 23,000 defenders. Suleyman gambled on attackign Vienna because his troops were faced by harsh conditions, unwilling allies, many artilery pieces were bogged down and lost and the troops were in a poor state of health. After several failed attempts to take the walls of the city, the Ottomans beat a costly retreat, losing many men and baggages in the process. The failure of the siege marked the start of the empire's stagnation and their farthest point of expansion.
3. The siege of Belgrade 1456. After taking Constantinopole, the sultan Mehmed II The Conqueror rallied all his forces and attacked Hungary. Belgrade, the key to the defenses of southern Hungary was besieged by a force of about 60,000 Ottomans (some sources say up to 100,000). The regent of Hungary, Hunyadi quickly gathered a small strike force and attacked the besiegers attempting to lift the siege. The resilience of the defenders and the bravery of Hunyadi's troops who charged against the Ottoman cannons brought fear in the hearts of the Janissaries who fled the field and along with them the whole Ottoman army retreated. The victory stopped the Ottoma advance into Central Europe by 70 years but came at a dear price as Hunyadi died soon after due to disease which had broken out in his army.
4. The battle of Vaslui 1475. The Ottoman Beylerbey of Rumelia Suleiman Pasha was sent with an army of up to 120,000 troops against the Moldavian voivode Stefan III (known as the Great). Stefan attacked the Ottoman army with approximately 40,000 Moldavians and 9,000 allied Szekely, Hungarian and Polish troops at a bridge over the Barlad river, an ideal position for a defender. The Moldavians main force drew the Ottomans over the bridge while a concealed force attacked the Ottoman right flank. Under the pressure of the two-pronged attack the Ottoman force collapsed into panic and over 40,000 Turks were butchered or fell off the bridge and drowned. The battle was described as the greatest victory of the cross of the islam. It was a great tactical victory, however it did not have a long lasting effect as in the following years the Ottomans defeated the Moldavians and brought back the status quo.

I'm sure there are other great defeats like the wars of Skanderberg, the Battle of Breadfield, the Battle of Irong Gates, Krusevac etc. But i chose these four because they are either great strategic or great tactical victories. What other great battles would you consider and why?

[phoenix[illusion]]

Battle of Dubravnica - Fought in the summer of 1380 or December 1381, on the Dubravnica River near Paraćin in today's central Serbia, between the Serbian forces of Prince Lazar of Serbia led by commanders Vitomir and Crep and the invading Ottoman Turks of Sultan Murad I. The battle was the first historical mention of any Ottoman movements into Prince Lazar's territory. It was the first bigger clash between Serbian and Ottoman forces, after Battle of Marica. After this battle there is no record of any hostility between Lazar and the Turks until 1386. The Serbian army emerged victorious, although details of the battle itself are scarce. The victory temporarily slowed the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans.

Battle of Pločnik - Fought in 1386 (or, according to other sources, in 1387[2]), at the village of Pločnik, near Prokuplje in today's southeastern Serbia, between the Serbian forces of prince Lazar Hrebeljanović and the invading Ottoman Turks of sultan Murad I. It was the second clash between the Ottomans and forces commanded by Lazar, the first being the 1381 Battle of Dubravnica, and this battle would precede the ultimate Battle of Kosovo in 1389. King Tvrtko I of Bosnia sent auxiliary troops and the Bulgarian tsar Ivan Shishman joined the coalition, but he was unable to send troops. The Serbian army used heavy knight cavalry charge with horse archers on the flanks. Miloš Obilić, later a hero at the Battle of Kosovo, was wounded by arrow in the battle. The Serbian army emerged victorious, although details of the actual battle are sketchy. The Serbian victory temporarily slowed the Ottoman invasion of the Balkans, and set the stage for the Battle of Kosovo between the two armies in 1389.

Battle of Bileća - Fought in 27 August 1388 near same named town between Bosnian forces led by Duke Vlatko Vuković and Radič Sanković and the Ottomans under the leadership of Lala Shahin Pasha. It ended with total defeat of Ottoman army, in which Lala Shahin Pasha was almost killed. First facing the Turks at Rudine, the Bosnians finally fought near the town of Bileća and gave them a defeat, which delayed the Ottomans' advances into Bosnia.

sorry for using wiki, i'll find some better sources when i get time, and translate it

[phoenix[illusion]]

oh sorry guys i didn't know it was about the greatest battles. i thought it was about battles with ottoman defeat

[Wallachian]

Yeah my idea was to engage in a discussion as to which were the Ottomans' greatest defeats and why. But that's ok, yours were an interesting read either way. They definetly have a role in slowing down the Ottoman advance, at least until Kosovo.

[phoenix[illusion]]

Yeah my idea was to engage in a discussion as to which were the Ottomans' greatest defeats and why. But that's ok, yours were an interesting read either way. They definetly have a role in slowing down the Ottoman advance, at least until Kosovo.

even kosovo wasn't a defeat. I read couple days ago one critical survey of kosovo battle (the englsih one, i should start bookmarking or saving links :p). He says that in the end it was draw. By his research, serbian reserves were not used, even if they were ready. Thing is that bad commanding and informing was actual reason of both sides to retreat in the end. With all evidence, he says it was mostly draw, both sides proclaimed victory with reserve troops left. Thing is that after kosovo, ottomans could invade with more army but serbia not, and what is the most important, ottomans had great command and control of the army, while serbs were very much in disintegration

[Under_Siege]

Ottomans were masters of making huge armies of poor trained fanatics...

But you forget the siege of Rhodos 1522, when 300 hospitallers were holding 6 months Rhodos against 200 000 turkish soldiers, and when they surrendered, they took with them all valuable things. And the turkish loses were about 100 000. That is not defeat, it is worse

[Hrobatos]

how could 200 men kill 100 000? thats a farytale
if they had artilery maybe, but no other way

[Thinkerman]

I think wikipedia has another opinion about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_%281522%29

[Bagatyr]

how could 200 men kill 100 000? thats a farytale
if they had artilery maybe, but no other way

They have but theyr number was around 7500 and have killed probably 20 000 turks not more.Every force loosing 100 000 man will colapse ! It is absolutly imposible until XVIII century .

[Tureuki]

Yes 100 000 is a joke, If artillery is not working, sieges are always trouble for Ottomans, defenders are always had a advantage and Ottomans weak againts heavy armoured defenders, Turks are mainly missile specialists and good at horsemanship, lack of the hand to hand combat infantry is weak side of the Ottoman armies, In the sieges Ottoman infantry is mainly light infantry like Azabs and dismounted sipahis.

[phoenix[illusion]]

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

[Thinkerman]

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 think it depends on the state and the time frame. There are several sources pointing that in the early Bulgarian- Byzantine battles the armies were- 50-60 000 for the bulgarians and 60- 70 000 for the romans. One such example is the battle of Achelous or battle of Pliska.

I mean at that time these states didn't have much rivals, their territories were large enough to gather that much men.

[phoenix[illusion]]

I think it depends on the state and the time frame. There are several sources pointing that in the early Bulgarian- Byzantine battles the armies were- 50-60 000 for the bulgarians and 60- 70 000 for the romans. One such example is the battle of Achelous or battle of Pliska.

I mean at that time these states didn't have much rivals, their territories were large enough to gather that much men.

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)

[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.

[NikeBG]

I mean at that time these states didn't have much rivals, their territories were large enough to gather that much men.

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.

those large numbers are usual for byz sources. they are not real

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.

[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

[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)...

[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........

[2Shy]

People I think that Uder_Siege didt post it corectly.He ment this siege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_%281480%29

[Thinkerman]

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.