Yes voynuks are mainly camp followers.
Battle of Siget ( hun. Szigetvar ) is very famous in Croatia and Hungary
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.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)
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
Last edited by Bagatyr; April 02, 2011 at 11:20 AM.
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.
Last edited by Under_Siege; April 02, 2011 at 03:53 PM.
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.
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...
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.
Last edited by Tureuki; April 02, 2011 at 04:12 PM.
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
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.
Last edited by Tureuki; April 02, 2011 at 05:01 PM.
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........
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...)
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
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.
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...
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