Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Yugoslav
General
Joined: 18-Mar-2007
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Serbian Warriors, Defenders of Christian Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 19:37 |
Originally posted by Tar Szernd
After the french knights had had been defeated, the main christian forces begun a second attack. This crashed the ottoman cavalry, but cc. 5000 serbian heavy armoured riders under Lazarevic (the same unit fought in Ankara, too) chased the hungarians, Johannits etc. into the Danube.
King (ok, emperor) Sigismund said before the battle : "We got so many lances, we could hold the whole sky." And he had to swim through the Danube after the battle:-/ and was captured by a violent noble party in Hungary.
The original christian battle plan was made by the hungarian barones. They wanted to fight after the traditional hungarian art-so just with cavalry, with mounted archers in the firs line, middle armoured units in the second, and the third line, the heavy hungarian, french etc cavalry should had made the final stroke. But the french knights wanted to begin the battle.
Transylwanians: until 1551 Transylwania and the Partium (East-Hungary) was part of Hungary. In this year the widow of the last hungarian (hungarian hungarian:-) we got an other "hungarian" king beside the other, Ferdinand of Habsburg, who ruled the western part of Hungary since 1526) king gave up the title, and the territory of Transylwania got the independence. It was a hungarian state, ruled by the princeps with the "three nations", szeklers, hungarians and saxons. |
Who were szeklers again? I always thought szekeli're Hungarians...
|
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 11:41 |
The seklers are hungarians, but created by the first hungarian kings as an autonom military and administrative group after the oguz principe (7 groups, with 4-4 clans), made of different hungarian, pecheneg, kabar, onogur bulgar groups.
Edited by Tar Szernd - 08-Dec-2007 at 11:42
|
|
Tar Szernd
Consul
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 11:48 |
Originally posted by Reginmund
Originally posted by Tar Szernd
The original christian battle plan was made by the hungarian barones. They wanted to fight after the traditional hungarian art-so just with cavalry, with mounted archers in the firs line, middle armoured units in the second, and the third line, the heavy hungarian, french etc cavalry should had made the final stroke. But the french knights wanted to begin the battle. |
I've heard the Hungarians intended to fight the Ottomans by harassing them from fortified strong points, whereas the French desired an all out charge, and had their way. |
I think this was the strategy of the ottomans too.
After/during the long siege of Nicopolis (the chr. army didn't have seige instruments) Sigismund wanted to turn back into Hungary (he stored enough food and wine for the whole army) and to wait until the winter.
The cristians got enough light cavalry who could defend the ottoman light cavalry attacks. Maybe Sigismund wanted to attack during the winter again.
|
|
Theodore Felix
General
Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 05:22 |
Harassment was usually the most successful approach to holding back Ottoman armies. In the mountainous terrain of the Balkans, its not too difficult.
In attacking Albania, Ottoman armies would often face continuous strikes from hill top archers, hit-and-run cavalry, poisoned wells, barren fields, etc. On occasion, the more skillful captains would try and lure Ottoman detachments into narrow spots where the number superiority and organization of the Ottoman force would be compromised.
I would think that this is the reason why more fertile states such as Serbia fell first; whereas territories like the Peloponnese, Albania etc. were continuous battlegrounds.
Edited by Theodore Felix - 12-Dec-2007 at 05:24
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 06:59 |
Note also the first important clear victory against the Ottomans in 1475, from the hands of Stephen III, the voivode of Moldavia. Mehmed II's ~100,000 strong, under the leadership of the beylerbeyi of Rumelia, had to advance in December and January through a scorched country-side and being harassed along the way. The main battle started in a foggy January morning, the Moldavians trapping the Ottomans in a swampy valley. The Ottomans lost about one third of their troops and they were chased back to Danube.
Here the terrain, the weather, the scorched earth policy, the trap and the ambush - all played important roles in the defeat of the Ottoman army.
What's also important to note is that since the 15th century the Ottomans could throw ~100,000 troops on a battlefield even after a severe defeat (of course, troops of extremely mixed origin). As a consequence, no Balkan state (not even the Hungarian kingdom in 15-16th centuries) could make a long stand before this growing empire.
|
|
vranakonti
Samurai
Joined: 11-Jun-2007
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 07:14 |
Serbian Warriors, "Defenders" of Christian |
What about the serbs foughting bravely(since they won)in the other camp,by following your reasoning we should name them "Defenders of Islam"?!
Originally posted by Yugoslav
According to sources I know, there were only Bosnian forces next to the Serbian, and most probably a contingent of Croats. There is no historical evidence for others.
Also, where did you get that? I've read from countless sources and they all agree that the Turkish forces outnumbered the Serbian (and not by small). Only in one single Turkish source it is said that the Ottomans faced a grandiose Christian coalition in Kosovo of half of Europe which was between 10 and 20 times larger than their own force, an obvious result of the victory's showing to the world.
|
There were albanians in the balcan coalition,under the lead of Teodor Muzaka,an albanian noble,killed during the battle.And probably the turkish coalition was superior in numbers but not that much,the armies strength was comparable.
|
Ti Shqipri m ep nder...
|
|
vranakonti
Samurai
Joined: 11-Jun-2007
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 01:13 |
Originally posted by Chilbudios
Note also the first important clear victory against the Ottomans in 1475, from the hands of Stephen III, the voivode of Moldavia. Mehmed II's ~100,000 strong, under the leadership of the beylerbeyi of Rumelia, had to advance in December and January through a scorched country-side and being harassed along the way. The main battle started in a foggy January morning, the Moldavians trapping the Ottomans in a swampy valley. The Ottomans lost about one third of their troops and they were chased back to Danube.
Here the terrain, the weather, the scorched earth policy, the trap and the ambush - all played important roles in the defeat of the Ottoman army.
What's also important to note is that since the 15th century the Ottomans could throw ~100,000 troops on a battlefield even after a severe defeat (of course, troops of extremely mixed origin). As a consequence, no Balkan state (not even the Hungarian kingdom in 15-16th centuries) could make a long stand before this growing empire. |
i don't think that was the first important defeat suffered by the ottomans,there were many important ones before achived by Scanderbeg,Hunyadi or even Vlad Tepes.
|
Ti Shqipri m ep nder...
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 12:06 |
Yes, it depends on what you mean by an important defeat. Scanderbeg, Hunyadi, and Vlad all contributed to halting the Ottoman advance, but in the end their lands were overrun. Likewise, the Moldavian victory was great enough, but they too were later defeated and forced to accept Ottoman suzereignty.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 17:25 |
The Hapsburgs with Polish help and a bit of luck were able to actually maintain their defiance of an already overstretched but still powerful Ottoman Empire. These earlier mentions were dents in Ottoman power that were quickly polished and negated through victories and conquest of the before mentioned territories. Like Reginmund posted as well. It is one thing for it to be a symbolical defeat, however, in realistic terms it did nothing as all of them fell to the Ottomans. The Hapsburgs retained their lands and were able to create a new status quo with the Ottomans.
|
|
HEROI
Baron
Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 12:29 |
Not all of them fell to the ottomans as you sugest.Skanderbeg never fell to the ottomans,he fought and defeted them for 28 years,and after his natural death,the ottomans conquered Albanian lands,but,many regions,remained quasi-independent,and many others remained under ottoman rule,but not with an ottoman presence in their region,and many other regions remained in constant uprisings.
|
Me pune,me perpjekje.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 18:59 |
And yet Ottoman-Balkan culture is so vibrant within Albania today as it is throughout Turkey-BiH-Serbia-Greece, ...
Yes the invincible Scanderbeg saved all Albania....
Nationalism and history do not coincide. They did lose, if they had not, then the Ottoman state would not have had such a strong base in the Balkans and Anatolia for five centuries.
|
|
GoldenBlood
Samurai
Joined: 06-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 21:57 |
Originally posted by Reginmund
Yes, it depends on what you mean by an important defeat. Scanderbeg, Hunyadi, and Vlad all contributed to halting the Ottoman advance, but in the end their lands were overrun. Likewise, the Moldavian victory was great enough, but they too were later defeated and forced to accept Ottoman suzereignty. |
Only Skanderbeg has stature in Vatican and several capitals of Europe
|
Kosova dhe Ilirida, pjese te Dardanise
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 22:15 |
I admit my criterion for naming that victory clear and important was obscured (and now reading my text perhaps this wasn't the best choice of words). AFAIK, that was the first time an Ottoman army over 100,000 was soundly defeated. Skanderbeg and Dracula dealt with smaller forces, and Hunyadi too (for the battle of Belgrade I've heard higher numbers, some reaching 100,000 but conservative estimates giving less than that).
|
|
vranakonti
Samurai
Joined: 11-Jun-2007
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 01:28 |
Originally posted by es_bih
And yet Ottoman-Balkan culture is so vibrant within Albania today as it is throughout Turkey-BiH-Serbia-Greece, ...
Yes the invincible Scanderbeg saved all Albania....
Nationalism and history do not coincide. They did lose, if they had not, then the Ottoman state would not have had such a strong base in the Balkans and Anatolia for five centuries.
|
Its not about nationalism,its a fact that Scanderbeg fought for 25years and his army was defeated only two times,and in these particular occasions he wasn't even on the lead,because he used to divide it in two brunches.The Ottomans took kruja,his city 12 years after his death.In conclusion,of course he saved Albania,during his segment of history though,and maybe he was not invincible,but a winner for sure.
Edited by vranakonti - 18-Dec-2007 at 02:59
|
Ti Shqipri m ep nder...
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 03:24 |
Originally posted by vranakonti
Originally posted by es_bih
And yet Ottoman-Balkan culture is so vibrant within Albania today as it is throughout Turkey-BiH-Serbia-Greece, ...
Yes the invincible Scanderbeg saved all Albania....
Nationalism and history do not coincide. They did lose, if they had not, then the Ottoman state would not have had such a strong base in the Balkans and Anatolia for five centuries.
|
Its not about nationalism,its a fact that Scanderbeg fought for 25years and his army was defeated only two times,and in these particular occasions he wasn't even on the lead,because he used to divide it in two brunches.The Ottomans took kruja,his city 12 years after his death.In conclusion,of course he saved Albania,during his segment of history though,and maybe he was not invincible,but a winner for sure.
|
In the end a generation of "independence" is a futile effort. Heroic for sure, however, heroism also does not coincide with practicality. More people suffered from the mountain wars than would have had he not initiated the revolt.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 03:30 |
Originally posted by GoldenBlood
Originally posted by Reginmund
Yes, it depends on what you mean by an important defeat. Scanderbeg, Hunyadi, and Vlad all contributed to halting the Ottoman advance, but in the end their lands were overrun. Likewise, the Moldavian victory was great enough, but they too were later defeated and forced to accept Ottoman suzereignty. |
Only Skanderbeg has stature in Vatican and several capitals of Europe
|
In the end however they still were futile. A few statues do not change the fact that their efforts were nulled through the Ottoman war machine that subdued those lands under Ottoman control. The Austrians were the only ones with allied help of course that were able to stop an overstretched Ottoman Empire not Scanderbeg or Kosovo, etc...
|
|
vranakonti
Samurai
Joined: 11-Jun-2007
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 04:26 |
Originally posted by es_bih
Originally posted by vranakonti
Originally posted by es_bih
And yet Ottoman-Balkan culture is so vibrant within Albania today as it is throughout Turkey-BiH-Serbia-Greece, ...
Yes the invincible Scanderbeg saved all Albania....
Nationalism and history do not coincide. They did lose, if they had not, then the Ottoman state would not have had such a strong base in the Balkans and Anatolia for five centuries.
|
Its not about nationalism,its a fact that Scanderbeg fought for 25years and his army was defeated only two times,and in these particular occasions he wasn't even on the lead,because he used to divide it in two brunches.The Ottomans took kruja,his city 12 years after his death.In conclusion,of course he saved Albania,during his segment of history though,and maybe he was not invincible,but a winner for sure.
|
In the end a generation of "independence" is a futile effort. Heroic for sure, however, heroism also does not coincide with practicality. More people suffered from the mountain wars than would have had he not initiated the revolt.
|
I don't agree with your interpretation,but thats another topic!
|
Ti Shqipri m ep nder...
|
|
Sarmata
Consul
suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 07:49 |
True, many states can claim being defenders of christianity. Hungarians held that title for a while. Poles took that title, and would argue that they are the true defenders of christianity after their relief of Vienna in 1683.
|
|
HEROI
Baron
Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 12:20 |
Originally posted by es_bih
And yet Ottoman-Balkan culture is so vibrant within Albania today as it is throughout Turkey-BiH-Serbia-Greece, ...
I never said Albanians were not culturally influenced by the region they lived in.
Yes the invincible Scanderbeg saved all Albania....
At the time he was alive he did actualy saved Albania.He came to an already couquered land ( exept few pockets of resistance) ,and he freed that land from the Ottomans,and then he mantained it free for 28 years.
Nationalism and history do not coincide. They did lose, if they had not, then the Ottoman state would not have had such a strong base in the Balkans and Anatolia for five centuries.
Ok Albanians did lose in the end as a KINGDOM,but not Skanderbeg,he did not lose,thats what i meant.
And after the fall of Kruja ,many regions such as Mirdita (the bigest region in albania) Himarra,and small regions in the MALESIA,were never conquered militarily.And there was constant uprising in many regions ,specially in the south of Albania.
|
|
Me pune,me perpjekje.
|
|
Reginmund
Arch Duke
Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 12:22 |
Originally posted by GoldenBlood
Only Skanderbeg has stature in Vatican and several capitals of Europe |
For obvious reasons Vlad Dracul did not get one.
|
|