Murad I, ruler of the Ottoman empire, gathered his troops in
Philippoupolis (Plovdiv) in the spring of 1389, and arrived in Ihtiman
after a three-day long march. From there, he chose the route across
Velbud (Kyustendil) and Kratovo. Though longer than the alternative
route across Sofia and Niava valley which would give him direct access
to Lazar's lands, it led him to Kosovo, which was strategically
important as one of the most important trade crossroads on the Balkans:
from Kosovo Murad could attack either Lazar's or Vuk's lands. After
staying in Kratovo for a while Murad passed across Kumanovo, Preevo
and Gnjilane to Pritina, where he arrived on June 14.
There
are less data about Lazar's preparations, but it could be assumed that
he gathered his troops near Ni, possibly on the right bank of the
Juna Morava. He likely stayed there until he learned that Murad moved
to Velbud, when he too moved, probably across Prokuplje, to Kosovo.
Lazar arrived to the Kosovo Field (Amselfeld) right after Murad's
arrival at Pritina. This was the optimal choice for the battlefield as
it controlled all possible directions Murad could take.
It is
not certain how large the armies were, especially as later sources tend
to exaggerate on their size, launching it into hundreds of thousands.
Murad's
army might have numbered 27-40,000. Taking the 40,000 estimate, it
probably included some 5,000 Janissaries, 2,500 of Murad's cavalry
guard, 6,000 spahis, 20,000 azaps and akincis and 8,000 of his vassals.
Lazar's might have 12-30,000. Taking the estimate of 25,000, some
15,000 were under Lazar's command, 5,000 Vuk's, and as much of
Vlatko's. Of those, several thousands were cavalry, but perhaps only
several hundreds were clad in full plate armour.
The armies met
at Kosovo Field. Center of the Turkish army was led by Murad, while
Bayezid was on the right wing and Yakub on the left. Around 1,000
archers were in the first line of the wings, followed with azaps and
then akincis; in the front of the center were janissary, behind whom
was Murad, surrounded with his cavalry guard; finally, logistics was in
the back, guarded by a small number of troops.
Serbian army
had Lazar at the center, Vuk at his right wing and Vlatko as left. In
the front of the Serbian army was cavalry, while infantry was in the
back. While parallel, the disposition was not symmetric, as Serbian
center overlapped the Turkish.
The battle started with Turkish
archers shooting at Serbian cavalry which then moved into attack. They
managed to break through Turkish left wing, but weren't as successful
against center and right wing. Even the left wing wasn't as defeated as
it was simply pushed back.
Based on many of the Turkish
historical records, it is believed that the Sultan wass killed by Milo
Obilić who was pretending to be dead, while the Sultan was walking in
the battlefield after the battle. On the other hand, in one account in
Serbian records he was assassinated by Milo Obilić, who made his way
into the Turkish camp on the pretext of being a deserter and forced his
way into the Sultan's tent and stabbed him with a dagger.
The
Balkans coalition initially gained advantage after their first charge,
which heavily damaged the Turkish wing commanded by Jakub Celebi. In
the center, the Christian fighters managed to push Ottoman forces back
with only Bayezid's wing holding off the forces commanded by Vlatko
Vuković. The Ottomans in a counter attack pushed Balkans forces back
and prevailed later in the day.
Due to inadequate reliable
historical sources, the result of the battle is not clear. Though the
Ottomans managed to push the Serbian forces back, they didn't move
further to conquer Kosovo right after the battle. Instead, they
retreated. This was due to the death of Sultan Murad; the new sultan
Bayezid had to go to the capital to be crowned. On the other hand, some
Serbian nobles started paying tribute and supplying soldiers to the
Ottomans after the battle, while some didn't. Therefore it is not a
clear victory or defeat. However, Ottomans had the initiative now since
the toll on the Serbian side was heavy.
Both armies sustained
heavy casualties and both armies withdrew from the battlefield, but the
toll on the Christians, especially on Serbia, was catastrophic as much
of their political elite was wiped out. Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović was
taken prisoner and executed.
SERBIAN REVOLUTION: FIRST AND SECOND UPRISING AGAINST THE OTTOMANS 1804-1811 / 1813-1815
Srpska Revolucija: Prvi i Drugi Srpski Ustanak
The
First Serbian Uprising was a Serbian national revolution which lasted
one decade (1804-1813), during which Serbia perceived itself as an
independent state for the first time after 300 years of Ottoman and
short-lasting Austrian occupations. Revolutionary Serbia responded to
the Ottoman Massacre of Serbian knights by establishing its separate
government (Praviteljstvujusci Sovjet), Serbian Prince, Parliament
(Zbor) and University of Belgrade. Even though it was brutally crushed
by the Ottomans in 1813, this revolution sparked the Second Serbian
Uprising in 1815, which resulted with the creation of modern Serbia, as
it gained semi-independence from Ottoman Empire in 1817 (formally in
1829). After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Turkish-Austrian
war of 1791, Serbs living under Turkish rule began to realize the
potential for success in an uprising against the Ottomans.
Seeing
the growing displeasure, the Sultan Selim III proclaimed fermans in
1793 and 1796 which gave more rights to Serbs. Among other things,
taxes were to be collected by local Serbian rulers called knezes
("local dukes"), freedom of trade and religion were granted, and, most
importantly, the Janissary corps were to leave Belgrade Pashaluk.
However,
on January 30, 1799, the Turkish court allowed the Janissaries to
return. They and their leaders, the dahias, showed little respect
towards any authority, even the central Turkish government. After
killing Vizier Hadzi-Mustafa of Belgrade in 1801, they started to rule
Serbia on their own. Recently-granted rights were suspended, and dahias
exerted unlimited rule over Belgrade Pashaluk. Taxes were drastically
increased, land was seized, forced labour (čitlučenje) was introduced,
and many citizens fled the Janissaries in fear. Serb leaders began to
conspire about starting an uprising against the dahias. When the dahias
found out about this, they captured and killed many of the Serbian
leaders on February 4, 1804 in an event known today as Seča knezova
(Massacre of Serbian knights). This mistake by the Janissaries incited
the uprising, as it angered the people and the leaders had nothing to
lose.
On February 14, 1804, in the small umadija village of
Oraac, the Serbs gathered and decided to undertake an uprising.
Karađorđe Petrović (Karadjordje) was elected as the leader of the
uprising, which started immediately. That afternoon, a Turkish inn
(caravansarai) in Oraac was burned and its residents fled or were
killed. Similar actions were undertaken in surrounding villages and
then spread further. Soon the cities Valjevo and Poarevac were
liberated, and the siege of Belgrade started.
When he was
informed about the uprising, Selim III started to negotiate with the
rebels. Dahias escaped from Belgrade, but they were captured and killed
on the island of Ada Kaleh in the Danube. Eventually, the negotiations
failed, and the Sultan organised a military campaign against the
uprising.
The first major battle of the uprising was the Battle
of Ivankovac in 1805, where Karadjordje defeated the Turkish army and
forced it to retreat toward Ni. The second major battle of the
uprising was Battle of Misar in 1806, in which the rebels defeated an
Ottoman army from Bosnia led by Kulin Captain. At the same time, the
rebels led by Petar Dobrnjac defeated another army sent from the
southeast in the Battle of Deligrad. In December 1806, the rebels
besieged Belgrade, which was liberated in the beginning of 1807. In
1805 the Serbian rebels organized a basic government for administering
Serbia during the combat. Rule was divided between the Narodna
Skupstina (People's assembly), the Praviteljstvujusci Sovjet (Ruling
Council), and Karadjordje himself. Land was returned, forced labour was
abolished, and taxes were reduced. The young state was modernised and
by 1808 the Great School was founded, regarded as the foundation of the
University of Belgrade.
Some of the leaders of the uprising
later abused their privileges for personal gain, such as the
reintroduction of forced labour in some places. There was dissent
between Karadjordje and other leaders; Karadjordje wanted absolute
power, while his voivods wanted to limit it. After the Russo-Turkish
War of 1806-12 ended, the Ottoman Empire exploited these circumstances
and reconquered Serbia in 1813.
Though ultimately unsuccessful,
the First Serbian Uprising paved the way for the Second Serbian
Uprising of 1815, which eventually succeeded in securing Serbian
autonomy.
Defenders implies some sort of victory, too. Furthermore, there were as many Serbs participating in battle against the Bosnian, Serb, Hungarian, etc.. forces at Kosovo as with the allied contingents, under vassalage to the Ottoman porte.
PS: The general consensus has been that the allied forces(Serb, Bosnian, Albanian, Hungarian,...) outnumbered the Ottoman forces.
Your article is more from a nationalist point of view taking in regard modern political outcomes than from the medieval mindset when the idea of "Serbdom" had not been crafted yet that fully to make this a Serb vs Turk battle as your article makes it seem.
It's been many years ago since I read this, but I remember that Byzantines had asked the Serbs to protect the empire from invading Goths as well. Does anyone has an idea of the source of this?
Invading Goths? Serbian settlement in the Balkans began in the 7th century, at that point the Goths had long since migrated west into Italy, Gaul and Iberia.
And Knez Lazar, a few years after the defeat at Kosovo the Serbs were fighting for the Ottomans against the crusading army at the battle of Nicopolis. So much for the defenders of Christendom.
The wars in the Balkans were not defined by simplistic terms especially not by Christian versus Muslim. The Ottomans were a rather inclusive state in this time period and Christian citizens with potential could attain spahi status just like their Muslim compatriots. Finkle's book Osman's Dream outlines this early era very well. The "jihadis" as pronounced in another thread with similar context is a wrong terminology. "Jihadis' would not include Christians and vice versa.
The wars in the Balkans were not defined by simplistic terms especially not by Christian versus Muslim.
That's not entirely true. I don't know how the Ottomans saw it, but from the Christian point of view at least there was a persistent element of crusading ideology involved in the wars against the Ottomans. Often you would find Christians allying with the Ottomans to fight other Christians, just like in the Crusader states, yet this does not mean the Christians ever forgot about the greater conflict at hand.
The wars in the Balkans were not defined by simplistic terms especially not by Christian versus Muslim.
That's not entirely true. I don't know how the Ottomans saw it, but from the Christian point of view at least there was a persistent element of crusading ideology involved in the wars against the Ottomans. Often you would find Christians allying with the Ottomans to fight other Christians, just like in the Crusader states, yet this does not mean the Christians ever forgot about the greater conflict at hand.
The Ottomans were employing both Muslim and Christian Spahis, and alotting lands to loyal Christian clients. The more Islamic oriented Empire was created in the 1600s.
Defenders implies some sort of victory, too. Furthermore, there were as many Serbs participating in battle against the Bosnian, Serb, Hungarian, etc.. forces at Kosovo as with the allied contingents, under vassalage to the Ottoman porte.
PS: The general consensus has been that the allied forces(Serb, Bosnian, Albanian, Hungarian,...) outnumbered the Ottoman forces.
Your article is more from a nationalist point of view taking in regard modern political outcomes than from the medieval mindset when the idea of "Serbdom" had not been crafted yet that fully to make this a Serb vs Turk battle as your article makes it seem.
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.
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
Correction: The allied Christians did not completely outnumber. The estimates range to a low 12 but I think that is absurd and is used for a more "heroic" version of the battle. The battle took place between a 1-1 ratio most likely.
30 to 30 k seems likely. Either way the Serbian heavy cavalry was lethal: Nikopolis proved that point.
Cowley, Robert. The Reader's Companion to Military History.
Houghton Mifflin Books, 249. On June 28, 1389, an Ottoman army of
between thirty thousand and forty thousand under the command of Sultan
Murad I defeated an army of Balkan allies numbering twenty-five
thousand to thirty thousand under the command of Prince Lazar of Serbia
at Kosovo Polije (Blackbird's Field) in the central Balkans.
That whole region was widely contested. One could say that the Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Germans, Venetians, Romanians, Transylvanians, Poles, Wallachians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, etc were all "defenders of Christianity."
Cowley, Robert. The Reader's Companion to Military History. Houghton Mifflin Books, 249. On June 28, 1389, an Ottoman army of between thirty thousand and forty thousand under the command of Sultan Murad I defeated an army of Balkan allies numbering twenty-five thousand to thirty thousand under the command of Prince Lazar of Serbia at Kosovo Polije (Blackbird's Field) in the central Balkans.
Yes, that would seem more like it.
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
That whole region was widely contested. One could say that the Greeks,
Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Germans, Venetians, Romanians,
Transylvanians, Poles, Wallachians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians,
Lithuanians, etc were all "defenders of Christianity."
Indeed, that's how they saw themselves; defending the frontier of Christendom against the infidel hordes that sourrounded it on all sides, it was a cliche of medieval crusading ideology.
Originally posted by es bih
Either way the Serbian heavy cavalry was lethal: Nikopolis proved that point.
I'm sure they were, but Nikopolis really doesn't prove that point. All they accomplished there was ride down a group of exhausted and dismounted knights who were fighting an uphill (literally) battle.
"The French, mostly clad in superior armour uniforms, charged towards
the Ottoman vanguard, but soon realized they would have to dismount
when they reached the line of stakes. They did so, and began to remove
the stakes, while under fire from the Ottoman archers. When this was
accomplished, the unarmoured Ottoman infantry met the now horseless but
well-armoured knights, who had the upper hand in close fighting. The
French rushed forward to attack the cavalry and were again successful.
Although they were still without their horses, the French pursued the
retreating Ottomans all the way back to the hill. However, upon
reaching the top, the now exhausted French forces discovered the main
Ottoman army awaiting them. In the ensuing fight, the French were
completely defeated." <- The wiki article doesn't say so explicitly, but this is where the Serbian cavalry played their decisive part.
That whole region was widely contested. One could say that the Greeks,
Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Germans, Venetians, Romanians,
Transylvanians, Poles, Wallachians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians,
Lithuanians, etc were all "defenders of Christianity."
Indeed, that's how they saw themselves; defending the frontier of Christendom against the infidel hordes that sourrounded it on all sides, it was a cliche of medieval crusading ideology.
Originally posted by es bih
Either way the Serbian heavy cavalry was lethal: Nikopolis proved that point.
I'm sure they were, but Nikopolis really doesn't prove that point. All they accomplished there was ride down a group of exhausted and dismounted knights who were fighting an uphill (literally) battle.
"The French, mostly clad in superior armour uniforms, charged towards
the Ottoman vanguard, but soon realized they would have to dismount
when they reached the line of stakes. They did so, and began to remove
the stakes, while under fire from the Ottoman archers. When this was
accomplished, the unarmoured Ottoman infantry met the now horseless but
well-armoured knights, who had the upper hand in close fighting. The
French rushed forward to attack the cavalry and were again successful.
Although they were still without their horses, the French pursued the
retreating Ottomans all the way back to the hill. However, upon
reaching the top, the now exhausted French forces discovered the main
Ottoman army awaiting them. In the ensuing fight, the French were
completely defeated." <- The wiki article doesn't say so explicitly, but this is where the Serbian cavalry played their decisive part.
Transylvanians? I think they never gave birth to their own identity. Similar for the Montenegrins for that time period back then. Also, I doubt most Albanians would today agree with them being defenders of Christiendom - today they mostly consider it was an Albanian national thing, transcending religion.
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
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.
It's been many years ago since I read this, but I remember that Byzantines had asked the Serbs to protect the empire from invading Goths as well. Does anyone has an idea of the source of this?
You probably mean Emperor Zeno asking Bulgars to fight against Goths-foederati ruled by Teodorich Strabo. This was described in John of Antioch.
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum