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

[Tureuki]

As far as I know there is several mountains called Bulgar Dağ, but their stories is unknown.

Interestengly the one of the highest points of these mountains(Bolkar) called Gavurdağ, Infidel mountain, there is several mountains called Gavurdağ.

Strange, I looked for Karamanname, its talks about Bulgars, Bulgar soldiers etc. in Karaman(my mind is blowed)

I found a tribe called "Bulgarlu" resides in Karaman and Adana in Ottoman period, my mind is blowed again but I guess it could be just name similarity.

[Thinkerman]

Really now? Well, that would be another reason for me to consider it unreasonable that Turks attributed the toponym Sırp Sındığı to Maritsa battle...

Well, Vulkashin's state was serbian, he was part of the serbian nobility, his nobles too, so the army can be considered serbian as a whole, although it didn't consist mainly of serbs.

In fact I don't think that the Ottomans really found any great difference at the time between Serbs, Bulgarians, Vlachs.

[Tureuki]

What about battle of ankara ? Bayezıd surrounded by Timurids with his remaining man, or a Timurid horse archer chases a Ottoman horse archer both draws their bows to each other.

[Bagatyr]

I like these two, they may be included somehow. Just a note- in the battle of Maritsa, or how we call it- Chernomen, the nobility has been mostly serbian, but the common soldiers were mostly ethnically bulgarian, considering the lands over which Vulkashin ruled.

Not only common soldures but alot nobels where bulgarian and byzantine (proniars ) .


One very intresting book on that matter : http://www.promacedonia.org/hm2/index.html


Добре известният факт, че феодалните княжества в югозападните български земи след средата на XIV век възникват в резултат на разпадането на сръбското царство и че в повечето от тях управлявали сръбски феодали и дори родственици на династията Неманичи, е довел до широко разпространеното мнение, че това били или „сръбски княжества”, или „гръко-сръбски продължения” на Душанова Сърбия. Подобни твърдения съществуват по силата на инерцията, без да се подхожда към този проблем с определени критерии и без да се отчита спецификата на феодалния децентрализъм в това отношение. Доколкото са били правени опити да се установи характерът на тези държавици, се е наблягало на отделни, в повечето случаи нетипични признаци.

Очевидно е, че ако като основен критерий за характера на княжествата се приеме етническата им структура, те не могат да бъдат определени като „сръбски”. В изворите наистина са регистрирани няколко опита за колонизиране на сръбско население в Югоизточна и Южна Македония, но тези опити не водят до съществени етнически промени. Масовото заселване на сръбски феода-

165


ли в Македония по времето на сръбската власт също не променя етническия състав на населението, защото в случая става въпрос за представители само на господствуващата класа, която при това много бързо забравя сръбското си потекло и като правило се приобщава към местните етнокултурни традиции. Няма никакви основания да се твърди, че югозападните български земи през XIV век променят българския си народностен характер [38]. Подобна теза не намира дори и минимална подкрепа в съвременните извори и се опровергава от историческото развитие на тези територии в столетията на османската власт.

[Bagatyr]

About Chernomen battel :
Трудно е да се повярва, че в подготовката на антиосманска коалиция сярският деспот се е задоволил само с постъпки в Константинопол. Изворите от втората половина на 60-те години на XIV век дават известни податки, че като евентуален участник в нея била смятана и българската държава, пряко засегната от османското нашествие. Подходящи съюзници за деспот Углеша са можели да бъдат и други християнски владетели от югозападните български земи и Северна Гърция. В литературата са изказани мнения, че в битката при Черномен са участвували и зетските владетели Балшичи, тъй като през лятото на 1371 г. те били едни от най-близките съюзници на братя Мърнявчевичи [23]. За такова участие обаче в изворите няма никакви сведения. Изказани са и мнения, че в битката край бреговете на Марица участвували и отряди, изпратени от влашкия воевода Владислав Влайку [24]. Те се основават на някои не особено ясни и доста общи сведения на османския хронист Саадедин, който пише, че „деспотът” (Углеша — б. а.) привлякъл помощ от „Босна, Унгария и Влашко” [25]. Тези податки не могат да се приемат за точни не само защото османските исторически съчинения с по-късен произход са доста несигурни в сведенията си за XIV век, но и защото със сигурност се знае, че нито Босна, нито Унгария са имали нещо общо с похода на Углеша и Вълкашин в Тракия. Срещат се и твърдения, че те били придружени от валонския владетел „господин” Александър, наследил баща си деспот Йоан Комнин Асен около 1366 г., и дори че самият Александър загинал на бойното поле при Черномен [26]. Те също не намират подкрепа в изворите. Като се има предвид отдалечеността на Валонското княжество от центъра на събитията и борбата на Александър срещу претенциите на съседните му албански феодали, може с по-голяма сигурност да се твърди, че той не е имал възможност да участвува в Черноменската битка. Същото може да се каже и за болшинството от останалите владетели и феодали в Северна Гърция и Южна Македония. Заети в борби помежду си и все още незастрашени пряко от османската експанзия, тези феодали не проявяват достатъчно далновидност и не схващат тежките последици, които поражението на Мърнявчевичи щяло да има и за самите тях. Единствен съюзник на деспот Углеша — фактическия организатор на похода, бил неговият брат крал Вълкашин. Той не се поколебал да изостави войната с жупан Никола Алтоманович и да се отзове на неговия повик. Ако се разсъждава формално и не се отчита реалната обстановка в сръбските и югозападните български земи през 60-те години на XIV век, участието на крал Вълкашин в Черноменската битка може да се приеме като ангажиране и на Сърбия в нея, тъй като теоретично кралската титла му осигурява власт в цялото сръбско царство [27]. Но вече бе изяснено, че по-възрастният от братя Мърнявчевичи е имал реална власт само в непосредствените си владения и на практика бил областен владетел преди всичко в Македония. Освен това няма никакви сведения, че някои от феодалите в същинските сръбски земи са взели участие в коалицията на Мърнявчевичи. Широко замислената от деспот Углеша военна офанзива остава в действителност начинание на двама областни владетели в югозападните български земи. Независимо от това тя безспорно представлява един от най-сериозните опити на балканските християни със свои сили да прогонят османските нашественици от Европа. Цялата дипломатическа подготовка на похода в Тракия, която в края на краищата не осъществява предварителната си задача, ляга на плещите на сярския владетел. Името на крал Вълкашин въобще не се споменава в изворите, които дават сведения по този въпрос. Създава се впечатление, че между двамата братя е имало някакво съглашение за съвместни действия от по-рано, като при избирането на времето за похода и при привличането на евентуални съюзници деспот Углеша е имал свобода на действие. Това се доказва и от следния характерен факт: през лятото на 1371 г., когато в Сяр кипяла трескава подготовка, крал Вълкашин и синът му Марко предприели поход срещу жупаи Никола Алтоманович, по време на който ги заварва и вестта на деспот Углеша. Крал Вълкашин без колебание, очевидно изпълнявайки предварителната договореност, веднага откликва на неговия призив и повежда събраните си войски по дългия път от Югозападна Сърбия до Източна Тракия.

Още Константин Иречек бе отбелязал, че за Черноменската битка науката не разполага със съвременни описания и че в късните извори — османски, византийски и славянски, е очевидна тенденцията османската победа да се представя като твърде лека [28]. Сред многобройни опити да се проследи ходът на битката през тези късни сведения, пътищата на движение на войските и тяхното разположение [29] в съвременната литература отново надделя схващането, че ако се следват само съвременните и сигурни извори, не би могло да се каже нещо повече от датата, мястото и резултата от битката [30]. Затова и всеки повторен опит за изясняване на самия и ход е безпредметен, без да е известен някакъв нов извор. Няколко момента обаче трябва да се подчертаят. Самият факт, че деспот Углеша и крал Вълкашин не посрещат с оръжие османците в собствените си територии, а напредват в ядрото на османските владения в Тракия, показва истинската им цел: прогонването на нашествениците от европейските земи и кардиналното премахване на опасността от тях. Именно поради това Черноменската битка се оказва толкова съдбоносна. Макар че на 26 септември 1371 г. край бреговете на Марица били сразени само двама областни владетели от югозападните български земи, отзвукът на това събитие бил общобалкански и далеч надхвърлял границите на техните владения. Победата при Черномен осигурява на османците не толкова бързи и значителни териториални придобивки, а политическо и военно превъзходство над балканските християни.

[Tureuki]

Good source bagatry, I'm enlightened

[Bagatyr]

googel transation my ottoman frend it should do the work

[Thinkerman]

Perhaps someone should at least move the most of the last posts to the Ottoman defeats thread.

What about battle of ankara ? Bayezıd surrounded by Timurids with his remaining man, or a Timurid horse archer chases a Ottoman horse archer both draws their bows to each other.

That's a good one.

[Bagatyr]

Perhaps someone should at least move the most of the last posts to the Ottoman defeats thread.

Chernomen was ottoman victory not defeath .Well tureuki generally the historian say that we know almost noting for the battel .There is information that serb/bulgarian coalition was slaughtered by the ottomans at naght when Valkashin and Uglesha where sleeping and the gard troops where not on theyr post .After the battel the turkish akinci troops plunder all the way to Serbian Hrebelyanovich princepalety and some even to the Adriatic coast

[Son of Serbia]

Wait, wait... Wait. Need to ask before Spyros reacts (I'm wondering what held him up, it's high time now ). Can you people come to an agreement - were there a number of Bulgarian common soldiers amongst Serbian ranks, a large proportion of them, or was Serbian army made mainly of Bulgarians? Or were the nobility also Bulgarian? Perhaps even Mrnjavchevich brothers?

Good source bagatry, I'm enlightened

Don't forget the rep.

googel transation my ottoman frend it should do the work

B, brother, Google translate always messes the translation up. It never has any sense, particularly when the text is quite long. You need to have had at least basic experience with the original language to get it all right. For us Slavs, the ones that use the same script Bulgarians do in particular, it shouldn't be much of a problem, but still... Also, it's a tad bit ticklish matter, that history. When approached from different sides (read: nations), we get a lot of different "Добре известният факт"s on one and the same matter.

[2Shy]

Well you should know that the lands of macedonia was contest by the Bulgarian and the Roman empire for centuries ( since 640 IIRC when the Kuber bulgars settle in this region) and the population was bulgarian and greek (and still is but that's another topic). In 14th Serbian empire conquered this territory but this doesn't mean that the population suddenly changed to serbian (Yugoslavia put a lot of efforts but failed - you can't go against your nature). The ordinary people were bulgarian/greek and the low-middle aristocrasy too (the pronia).
And you might find it strange but there are a lot of sources claiming that the Mrnjavchevich brothers were bulgarian by orgin. I even read that the number of sources were more than the number of sources claiming that they were serbian by orgin. But don't get me wrong - I think that they were serbian nobles. But to stay on the topic, there is reason Vukasin to be "king of Serbia and not small part of Bulgaria".

[Bagatyr]

Wait, wait... Wait. Need to ask before Spyros reacts (I'm wondering what held him up, it's high time now ). Can you people come to an agreement - were there a number of Bulgarian common soldiers amongst Serbian ranks, a large proportion of them, or was Serbian army made mainly of Bulgarians? Or were the nobility also Bulgarian? Perhaps even Mrnjavchevich brothers?

My frend sources show 50/50 .Some say bulgarian other serbian or both .I belive that is mixed due to analise of the sources - local inhabitans and nobels(bulgarian ) and foreign great lords (serbian) .A very intresting mix that gave burth to intresting states . I my self reasurch them since my mother rooths are from there .
About the origine of Mrnjavchevich house there alot of source that clame difrend .Ho knows ... I think that they are probably serbians but ho knows... medieval nobels are never pure .All are have other blood - bulgarian,serb,hungarian,byz etc.

B, brother, Google translate always messes the translation up. It never has any sense, particularly when the text is quite long. You need to have had at least basic experience with the original language to get it all right. For us Slavs, the ones that use the same script Bulgarians do in particular, it shouldn't be much of a problem, but still... Also, it's a tad bit ticklish matter, that history. When approached from different sides (read: nations), we get a lot of different "Добре известният факт"s on one and the same matter.

if you can reed it it is very intresting book about Serbian tsardom .It trace the rise of the kingdom to tsardom at its furst topics .


Now i will stop and go watch TV.''Brave heart'' on bulgarian chanel

[Thinkerman]

Wait, wait... Wait. Need to ask before Spyros reacts (I'm wondering what held him up, it's high time now ). Can you people come to an agreement - were there a number of Bulgarian common soldiers amongst Serbian ranks, a large proportion of them, or was Serbian army made mainly of Bulgarians? Or were the nobility also Bulgarian? Perhaps even Mrnjavchevich brothers?

Bagatyr and I share the same opinion, it's just that he counts the proniars as nobility.

If we talk about the battle of Chernomen(the second battle of Maritsa and not Sırp Sındığı) the army was Serbian, the common soldiers were mainly bulgarian, the lower nobility(pronoia) was mainly bulgarian and the higher nobility was serbian.

[SpyrosM91]

although Maritsa battle, and the others, are not an ottoman defeat... the discussion fits better here...

[NikeBG]

I found a tribe called "Bulgarlu" resides in Karaman and Adana in Ottoman period, my mind is blowed again but I guess it could be just name similarity.

Add to that the similarity between Kayi's tamga and the old Bulgar (9th-10th century) and extremely popular IYI tamga and your mind will be blowed again.

Chernomen was ottoman victory not defeath .Well tureuki generally the historian say that we know almost noting for the battel .There is information that serb/bulgarian coalition was slaughtered by the ottomans at naght when Valkashin and Uglesha where sleeping and the gard troops where not on theyr post .After the battel the turkish akinci troops plunder all the way to Serbian Hrebelyanovich princepalety and some even to the Adriatic coast

I can't say what was the ethnic composition of the Serbian army at Chernomen, though I also believe that if there were common soldiers (levies), they would've been mostly Bulgarians and maybe Vlachs, while the professionals and nobles would've been mixed, with probably a Serbian domination (especially in the nobility, which does include the proniars, just as knights in the West are a part of the nobility as well). But that doesn't really matter that much - the difference between Serbians and Bulgarians in those times was minimal - just look at all that enormous amount of Bulgarian-Serbian relations (heck, even how a big part of the Bulgarian royal family went with Elena and so easily became incorporated in the Serbian state). Actually, the 14th century Balkans, while they seem rather divided, also seem rather cosmopolitan - look at the spiritual people (clerics, teachers etc) and how they freely move all around the place, from Bulgaria to Byzantium, to Serbia, to Wallachia and Moldova, serving everywhere despite their origins.
Anyway, what I find interesting about Chernomen is some new (or maybe old, but recently repopularized?) analyses, which suggest that Ioan Shishman might have been in coalition with Vukashin and Uglesha, since after the battle the Turks (was it Murad ruling over them then?) went against Bulgaria first and soon met a Bulgarian army which they routed (supposedly, late-arriving reinforcements). So, who knows, maybe the Balkan rulers did sporadically try to unite, but they were just damm too drunk to do anything right (remember the description of Sofia's garrison, as well as the recent finding about the "rakinya" drinking?).

P.S. Why would the Mrnjavcevici be Serbian? Weren't they supposed to be of Bosnian origin and only served in Serbia?

[phoenix[illusion]]

I can't say what was the ethnic composition of the Serbian army at Chernomen, though I also believe that if there were common soldiers (levies), they would've been mostly Bulgarians and maybe Vlachs, while the professionals and nobles would've been mixed, with probably a Serbian domination (especially in the nobility, which does include the proniars, just as knights in the West are a part of the nobility as well). But that doesn't really matter that much - the difference between Serbians and Bulgarians in those times was minimal - just look at all that enormous amount of Bulgarian-Serbian relations (heck, even how a big part of the Bulgarian royal family went with Elena and so easily became incorporated in the Serbian state). Actually, the 14th century Balkans, while they seem rather divided, also seem rather cosmopolitan - look at the spiritual people (clerics, teachers etc) and how they freely move all around the place, from Bulgaria to Byzantium, to Serbia, to Wallachia and Moldova, serving everywhere despite their origins.
Anyway, what I find interesting about Chernomen is some new (or maybe old, but recently repopularized?) analyses, which suggest that Ioan Shishman might have been in coalition with Vukashin and Uglesha, since after the battle the Turks (was it Murad ruling over them then?) went against Bulgaria first and soon met a Bulgarian army which they routed (supposedly, late-arriving reinforcements). So, who knows, maybe the Balkan rulers did sporadically try to unite, but they were just damm too drunk to do anything right (remember the description of Sofia's garrison, as well as the recent finding about the "rakinya" drinking?).

P.S. Why would the Mrnjavcevici be Serbian? Weren't they supposed to be of Bosnian origin and only served in Serbia?

well, thing is, that there was no such nationalism as we know today. people moved, assimilated, and usually become part of the state they live in (in nationalistic way). as for differences between bulgarians and serbs, there was little as you say. i read many times of bulgarian nobles, priests, scholars who came to serbia and "became serbs", so was in other way too. in fact, i don't know if there was any language differences between bulgarians and serbs in medievals. they communicated very easy, and probably with similar laguage with small differences.

as for mrnjavcevic family, well they came from bosnia, but as we said, no really nationality in medieval. and to put out a question about bosnia would be unappropriated

and about nationality, it was until 19th century that many serbs/croats/bulgarians considered themselves as only slavs or better to say illyrians. example is mavro orbini and hristifor zefarovic. so, it was probably in medievals too, south slavs (or to say illyirians) as one ethnic group. heck, the language of south slavs was called illyrians til 19th century, or rise of nationalism

[Bagatyr]

and about nationality, it was until 19th century that many serbs/croats/bulgarians considered themselves as only slavs or better to say illyrians. example is mavro orbini and hristifor zefarovic. so, it was probably in medievals too, south slavs (or to say illyirians) as one ethnic group. heck, the language of south slavs was called illyrians til 19th century, or rise of nationalism

until mid 18 century bulgarian where very vonrable and most of them where not very awear with their selfdetermination .Becuse of the ottoman opression meny bulgarian determinate them selfs as christians witch make them very vonrable to greek fanarioth propaganda .It was taken mass cases in bulgarian land that bulgarians start to greekanaised .Thats why Paisius of Hilendar wrote his great work '' Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya'' english ''Historia Slavobulgarica ''.This more or less signifies the purpose of the author who speaks about the danger of Bulgarians falling victim to the hellenization policies of the mainly Greek clergy. The book's first manual copy was done by Sophronius of Vratsa in 1765. Structurally, Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya consists of two introductions, several chapters that discuss various historic events, a chapter about the "Slavic teachers", the disciples of Cyril and Methodius, a chapter about the Bulgarian saints, and an epilogue. As Paisius toured Bulgaria as a mendicant friar, he brought his work, which was copied and spread among the Bulgarians. He is thought to have died on the way to Mount Athos near Ampelino (modern-day Asenovgrad my town ).The book was the first attempt to write a complete history of Bulgaria and attempted to awake and strengthen Bulgarian national consciousnesses. Most Bulgarians think of him as the forefather of the Bulgarian National Revival.

I don't know bulgarians to have call them self slavs or ilyrians back then before the revaivel

as for mrnjavcevic family, well they came from bosnia, but as we said, no really nationality in medieval. and to put out a question about bosnia would be unappropriated

oh comoon it will be so fun .

[2Shy]

Nikola I agree with you for the most things. But we don't talk about nationality but for ethnicity which existed in the medieval. We don't talk about bosnians and bosniaks(nationalities) but about serbians,bulgarians and greeks(ethnicities).
I think that the freedom of movement and the absence of language differences helped a lot people from Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia and Bosnia to easily accept each other but still there were other differences. The examples you gave are inappropriate because they were accepted mainly because their importance- they were needed. The same happen in the modern world- if you are good at what you do you can go to work in UK or Germany. The difference in their perspective is that they are english/german and their countries are conquered.

[2Shy]

I just cant wait for Spyros to look at this tread !!!

[SpyrosM91]