Ottoman army

Edited by Sikander - 06-Aug-2007 at 19:23

Yep, in general you are right.

Of course the French and Germans didn't fought the Otomans (unless you count Nicopolis, which is just another fait d'ivers, a French one, in this case, eheheh!).

I don't think anyone mentioned the system of the vassalage. 

After the death of Stephen Dusan in 1355 his empire divides in ten little regions, which goverened itselves independently.
The situation in the Bulgarian Empire is not good at all. The rule of tzar Ivan Alexander started in 1331 and lasted for 40 years. Althought very supportive for the Bulgarian religion and culture, he was a poor politician and warrior. Wallachia, Moldavia and Dobrudzha became independent states *. The tzar divided the country in two, giving his youngest son Ivan Shishman the western part with capital city Vidin, and the eldest - Ivan Sratzimir - the old capital Turnovo. Five states for now, only on the Bulgarian people. Constantine Dragash established a little state of Eatern Macedonia. The sister of the former tzar Ivan Alexander is in Seres (also a widow of Stephen Dusan), Vulkashin is in Prilep. In todays Greece and the islands there are are people from Venice, Genua and so on.

I'm not going to describe every battle of the conquest. Just the basic strategy. The Balkan states did not use ordinary people for the armies. They hired soldiers, and since the Balkans were divided into hell of a lot of states, they coudn't afford much. The ottomans win a battle and immediately after that offer the states to become vassals. Using the powers of these vassals, they destroy the ones, who didn't want to become Ottoman vassals. A famours historian, whose name I can't remeber sayd "The Ottomans conquered the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians using the courage of the Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians." When Krali Marco and Constantine Dragash were killed in battle, following their duty as vassals, the Ottomans claimed their thrones and didn't allow their heirs to get to them. They even used Balkan troops in the battles in Asian Minor.

That's basically how the Ottomans conquered the Balkans (At least a big part of it)

* That's not the beginning of the Romanian nation. The official and church language is Bulgarian. The names of their leaders are Slavonic, their titles are "voevode", which is the lord, who is in command of the regions on the borders. The Dobrudzha leaders were "despots", which implies that they accept the supremacy of the tzar, but are independent to do what they like.

P.S. Correct me for some of the names, if neccessary

Of course the French and Germans didn't fought the Otomans (unless you count Nicopolis, which is just another fait d'ivers, a French one, in this case, eheheh!).

Edited by Beylerbeyi - 16-Aug-2007 at 15:04

Originally posted by Tancr�de Ottomans won also thanks to their numerical superiority, very often they won with very heavy casualties ( Kosovo 1389 Constantinople 1453 Rhodes 1522 etc )

Originally posted by Sikander Now, refering to copying "Ottoman military tactics, units, administration and technology", I don't see what did the Europeans copied from the Ottomans. it wasn't light cavalry (the Europeans never used Tatars and such alike); it wasn't in the field artillery: the Europeans had it from the mid-14th

Kurt said:

Who was the owners of TIMARs?  = Genneraly Begs of Turcoman tribes. And who were the soldiers they trained? = Turcomans.

Edited by Beylerbeyi - 16-Aug-2007 at 15:03

Originally posted by axeman Originally posted by kurt Originally posted by Sikander Now, refering to copying "Ottoman military tactics, units, administration and technology", I don't see what did the Europeans copied from the Ottomans. it wasn't light cavalry (the Europeans never used Tatars and such alike); it wasn't in the field artillery: the Europeans had it from the mid-14th     The Battle of Tannenburg, 1510, is considered the defeat which marked the beginnning of the decline of the Teutonic Knights. In the battle, tartar cavalry destroyed Teutonic artillery. In Eastern Europe, Tatar cavalry were employed quite often, be it by the Byzantines in medievil times, or the Polish in world war two. For the most part, they were employed as mercenaries.   As for field artillery, Europeon models were definitely influenced by Ottoman artillery, for instance the Howitzer is in fact a development of the Abus Gun, which is an Ottoman inventions Firstly - the battle of Tannenberg was fought in 1410. Secondly - tatar cavalry was small fraction on Lithuanian army on the left side (The Poles were on right) and the Teutonic artilery and infnatry was routed by general charge by whole Lithuanian army (which was all cavalry), the counter attack by Teutonic knights pressed the Lithuanians who started to retreat, the Tatar cavalry was one of the first to run away and never return (part of Lithuanian army returned and flanked Teutonics who were tied with Poles). The Tatar cavalry was nothing execptional in eastern European warfare as cavalry type. For example most of Russian and Lithuanian cavalry consisted of native horse archers.

Originally posted by Majkes Your description of Tannenberg Battle is very good. Though I wouldn't say Teuton artillery was routed by Lithuanians. It was just so uneffective that it didn't play any role in the Battle.

Yeah I agree, all we know that at the beginning of the battle the Teutonic artillery fire was ineffectual + we don't know where it was positioned, before or behind Teutonic infantry.