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

[NikeBG]

During it's initial advances in the Balkans the Ottomans didn't have massive sprawling armies at their disposal.

Didn't they have around 120 000 men at Nikopolis (according to modern historians, IIRC, while contemporary sources (Schiltberger?) give the number of 200 000)?

[Tureuki]

120 000 ? no way

[Erebus Pasha]

Didn't they have around 120 000 men at Nikopolis (according to modern historians, IIRC, while contemporary sources (Schiltberger?) give the number of 200 000)?

Modern estimates (by David Nicolle) put the Ottoman forces at Nicopolis at no more than 15,000.

[phoenix[illusion]]

Didn't they have around 120 000 men at Nikopolis (according to modern historians, IIRC, while contemporary sources (Schiltberger?) give the number of 200 000)?

Modern estimates (by David Nicolle) put the Ottoman forces at Nicopolis at no more than 15,000.

actually, real research historian talk about 12000-15000 number.
as i was saying before, those hundred thousand numbers are from western sources. reason is simple, realms like hungary, poland, lithuania, austria liked to praise and talk up about their might over ottomans. it's impossible for ottomans to deploy hundred thousands troops every 5 years.

Hahahaha what a Hollywood bulshit. What you think Ottoman warriors were levy millitia which numbered millions? They were the best in that time. Most of the victories they achived, they were outnumbered. In their prime, they were the most millitary and tacticaly advanced war machine with support of great zeal.

i agree on professionalism of troops. they had light troops but very professional techniques. but ottomans had larger numbers of troops, although not as large as 10 times as some western sources provide, but max 2 times.

[Little Legionaire]

i agree on professionalism of troops. they had light troops but very professional techniques. but ottomans had larger numbers of troops, although not as large as 10 times as some western sources provide, but max 2 times.

That's right phoenix Ottomans were able to field larger armies compared to their rivals. Plus, they were able to muster their allies plus to professional core of Janissaries, Timariots and volunteer Gazi forces. Such as Serbian knights...

Battle of Nicopolis

The timeline of events is hazy, but it appears that as the French were advancing up the slope, sipahis were sweeping down along the flanks in an envelopment. Accounts tell of the Hungarians and other nationalities in confused combat on the plain and of a stampede of riderless horses, which Tuchman speculates pulled free from their tethers, at the sight of which the Transylvanians and the Wallachians concluded that the day was lost and abandoned the field. Sigismund, the Master of Rhodes, and the Germans fought to prevent the envelopment with "unspeakable massacre" on both sides. At this point, a reinforcement of 1,500 Serbian knights under the command of Stefan Lazarević proved critical. Sigismund's force was overwhelmed. Convinced to flee, Sigismund and the Master managed to escape by fisherman's boat to the Venetian ships in the Danube. Hermann, a soldier in Sigismund's army led the force that allowed the escape and was later rewarded by being named a count.[citation needed] Bayezid and his ally Stefan Lazarevic recognized the Nikola II Gorjanski, Lazarevic's brother-in-law, fighting on Sigismund's side. A deal was made, and Sigismund's army surrendered, completing their defeat in detail.

Just like the Byzantine Thema system the Timars were the source of light and armored cavalry without any cost to the state.

[NikeBG]

Modern estimates (by David Nicolle) put the Ottoman forces at Nicopolis at no more than 15,000.

Does he give any arguments or it's just the usual "We know better"? So far I'm not very impressed by David Nicolle, that's why I'm asking...

[The Despondent Mind]

Were those knights mercenaries ?

[NikeBG]

Croatian historian Velimir Vukšić has pretty same conclusion: both armies had arround 16 000 men.

Does he give any arguments or it's still merely modern speculation, as opposed to medieval one?

[matija191]

Does he give any arguments or it's still merely modern speculation, as opposed to medieval one?

Hmmm..good one.He mentions how much men each French brought with him, and he also in several places mentions the quantity of elite turkish troops.If you want, I can quote those numbers.

[NikeBG]

Hmmm..good one.He mentions how much men each French brought with him, and he also in several places mentions the quantity of elite turkish troops.If you want, I can quote those numbers.

Numbers are ok, though I'm more interested at how they reach those numbers. Because I've seen detailed numbers for the detachments of both the crusaders and the Ottomans (concerning Nikopolis; where the latter do reach 100 000, counting the reserves), but I want to know, if they're incorrect, what makes them so - merely because some other historian says "Nay" or "I was there, I saw it with my own eyes - those guys were more/less" or because the other historian has some good arguments. The same is also valid for the numbers I've seen, of course - they can just as easily be a simple modern speculation, too.

[Erebus Pasha]

Does he give any arguments or it's just the usual "We know better"? So far I'm not very impressed by David Nicolle, that's why I'm asking...

I'll grab his latest work and I'll get a quote for you when I have a little time tomorrow.

Numbers are ok, though I'm more interested at how they reach those numbers. Because I've seen detailed numbers for the detachments of both the crusaders and the Ottomans (concerning Nikopolis; where the latter do reach 100 000, counting the reserves), but I want to know, if they're incorrect, what makes them so - merely because some other historian says "Nay" or "I was there, I saw it with my own eyes - those guys were more/less" or because the other historian has some good arguments. The same is also valid for the numbers I've seen, of course - they can just as easily be a simple modern speculation, too.

Then I do hope you'll provide these numbers and how the historian concerned reached his conclusion as well my friend?

read more about the serbians at battle of ankara, one which ottomans lost. same stefan lazarevic was in control of serbian army, even if it was lost, in chronicles and scripts we can find that serbian armies made biggest progress in that battle.

The Serbians are acknowledged to have fought well at both Nicopolis and Ankara. Although Lazarevic's leadership and the quality of the Serbian troops were obviously more than adequate, I think we can also put it down to the trust and personal friendship that Lazarevic and Bayezid had towards each other.

[phoenix[illusion]]

The Serbians are acknowledged to have fought well at both Nicopolis and Ankara. Although Lazarevic's leadership and the quality of the Serbian troops were obviously more than adequate, I think we can also put it down to the trust and personal friendship that Lazarevic and Bayezid had towards each other.

as i know, at battle of ankara, whole left wing (in some sources i've heard right wing, but serbians say it was left, also this maps shows the same) was under command of stefan lazarevic. as for stefan and bayezid, sure they had personal friendship, although i never understood why stefan was so loyal to bayezid.

i've heard of some hill or monument or something named "sirp gazi" by serbs fought at ankara, but i couldn't find any more info

[NikeBG]

Then I do hope you'll provide these numbers and how the historian concerned reached his conclusion as well my friend?

Unfortunately, the author I'm using is merely using a book (besides the primary sources, like Schiltberger) on the Nikopolis crusade by Necati, and I don't have the latter. If anyone, by chance, has it, I'd be interested to see his arguments as well.

Otherwise, the book I'm using is "Bulgarian military history in the Middle Ages /X-XV c./" by D. Angelov and B. Cholpanov. For the numbers of the Ottomans they give:
"Schiltberger claims the number of the forces reached up to 200 000 [reference to Schiltberger] and was made as a result of the reconnaisance done by the Vlachs led by Mircea the Elder. Some Ottoman sources give it the same way [reference to S. Necati, The battle at Nikopolis..., 85-87]. In reality their army would've hardly been bigger than 120 000 - 130 000 men.
The Ottoman army was formed in three battle lines and a reserve. The first battle line included 20 000 azebs. In the centre of the second line were 20 000 janissaries and troops from Asia Minor, on the right flank was Roumelian cavalry and on the left flank - sipahis from Asia Minor. In the centre of the third battle line stood 30 000 janissaries and on their two flanks - 15 000 sipahis each. At the end of the left flank were 5000 Serbs. The forces from the third line were directly subjected to the sultan. In reserve were left 25 000 men. The armies also had bombards at their disposal, but the sources don't mention their location. Before the second line were placed in the ground sharp stakes pointing forward [reference to S. Necati, The battle at Nikopolis..., 85-87]."
For the crusaders they give no numbers (my mistake), only the location of the units.

[uB1C4]

as i know, at battle of ankara, whole left wing (in some sources i've heard right wing, but serbians say it was left, also this maps shows the same) was under command of stefan lazarevic. as for stefan and bayezid, sure they had personal friendship, although i never understood why stefan was so loyal to bayezid.

i've heard of some hill or monument or something named "sirp gazi" by serbs fought at ankara, but i couldn't find any more info

One of the main reasons Stefan′s vassal obligations under Bayezid was his sister that Olivera had been in the Sultan's harem. Olivera which was just one of the women in the harem of Bayazed, she was at the same time a kind of hostage. Stephen loved his sister, and Bayezid is knew his weakness. In fact, Stefan's attacks on the Tatars which are surrounded the Sultan were desperate attempts to rescue his sister, but had no success

From wiki

[Tureuki]

There was not 20 000(or 30 000 whatever) Janissaries in that times so fail, numbers of Sipahis(and probably Azabs) also looks exaggeration.

edit: with the 15 000 each its mean Qapukulu Sipahis ? if yes, then

[Erebus Pasha]

Unfortunately, the author I'm using is merely using a book (besides the primary sources, like Schiltberger) on the Nikopolis crusade by Necati, and I don't have the latter. If anyone, by chance, has it, I'd be interested to see his arguments as well.

Otherwise, the book I'm using is "Bulgarian military history in the Middle Ages /X-XV c./" by D. Angelov and B. Cholpanov. For the numbers of the Ottomans they give:
"Schiltberger claims the number of the forces reached up to 200 000 [reference to Schiltberger] and was made as a result of the reconnaisance done by the Vlachs led by Mircea the Elder. Some Ottoman sources give it the same way [reference to S. Necati, The battle at Nikopolis..., 85-87]. In reality their army would've hardly been bigger than 120 000 - 130 000 men.
The Ottoman army was formed in three battle lines and a reserve. The first battle line included 20 000 azebs. In the centre of the second line were 20 000 janissaries and troops from Asia Minor, on the right flank was Roumelian cavalry and on the left flank - sipahis from Asia Minor. In the centre of the third battle line stood 30 000 janissaries and on their two flanks - 15 000 sipahis each. At the end of the left flank were 5000 Serbs. The forces from the third line were directly subjected to the sultan. In reserve were left 25 000 men. The armies also had bombards at their disposal, but the sources don't mention their location. Before the second line were placed in the ground sharp stakes pointing forward [reference to S. Necati, The battle at Nikopolis..., 85-87]."
For the crusaders they give no numbers (my mistake), only the location of the units.

Well I'm still away from home at the moment so no direct quote until I get back, but IIRC Nicolle bases his numbers on old Ottoman sources that says they numbered 10,000 at Nicopolis with up to 5,000 Balkan vassals (mainly Serbs). He also suggests that the rapidity of which Bayezid was able to collect his forces and advance towards the Crusaders at Nicopolis also suggests a relatively small number. This is based on the fact that it took larger Ottoman forces in the late 15th century longer to mobilize when their logistical system was more advanced. Bayezid also left forces to screen Constantinople to prevent the Byzantines from actively aiding the Crusaders. Talking about logistics, some have said that it would've impossible for the countryside, both on the Ottoman's marching route and the area around Nicopolis, to adequately support an army that numbered in excess of 100,000.

The are a couple questions I would ask you: What is the evidence for cannon at Nicopolis? I've heard fragmentary evidence for them being used at Kosovo in 1389 but nothing concrete. There isn't anything to definitely suggest the Ottomans used cannon until the Siege on Constantinople in 1422.

Another question would be the numbers of the Janissaries at Nicopolis. It was a relatively new professional body of troops and the Ortas fighting at Nicopolis would've been few in number. Your source cites 50,000 Janissaries in total fighting in the second and third lines. This is rather improbable not just for the reasons I have just mentioned but also due to the fact that the Janissary corps wouldn't have this kind of numerical strength until the beginning of the seventeenth century, due to a process of enlargement that had been going since the mid-sixteenth century motivated by the fact that Ottoman armies were now facing enemies (the Hapsburgs) who were equipped with increasingly greater numbers of troops equipped with the arquebus and matchlock musket.

as i know, at battle of ankara, whole left wing (in some sources i've heard right wing, but serbians say it was left, also this maps shows the same) was under command of stefan lazarevic. as for stefan and bayezid, sure they had personal friendship, although i never understood why stefan was so loyal to bayezid.

Well there was the issue of Bayezid's marriage to Stefan's sister Olivera (something that was reportedly arranged by Stefan's mother) and the fact that Bayezid allowed Lazarevic considerable autonomy (Bayezid hoped to use them as a buffer against Hungary). It seems though that the personal friendship was strong as it is interesting to see that after Bayezid's defeat and capture at Ankara, Stefan largely turned his back on the Ottomans until his later life, although one could argue that this was motivated by the fact that the Ottomans were in the midst of a civil war and that Stefan was using this to detach Serbia from autonomous rule.

[uB1C4]

The are a couple questions I would ask you: What is the evidence for cannon at Nicopolis? I've heard fragmentary evidence for them being used at Kosovo in 1389 but nothing concrete. There isn't anything to definitely suggest the Ottomans used cannon until the Siege on Constantinople in 1422.

Tvrtko I send Vlatka Vukojevica to help Serbs in Battle of Kosovo he bring with him one cannon he got from one Dubrovnik Duke that cannon was only Serb artillery in the Battle of Kosovo

[Hrobatos]

@matija & phoenix

calm down guys, discussion are ok and everything, but seriously keep it civilized, nationalistic insults only show that you dont have real arguments
keep it argumented and civilized or even better dont discuss it, its not like anyone ever changed their opinion on something coz of these internet debates...

[matija191]

No problem, but peacefull discussion with a guy who claims that serbs defended themselves from an Avar invasion (!?!?!?!?!) is not very possible.

[The Despondent Mind]

Your " discussions " are ridiculous .
Phoenix uses Serbian sources , Matija uses Croatian sources and of course it's impossible for one to accept the other ones arguments .