Vlad dracul

A good book is Matei Cazacu's Dracula which you'll certainly find it in French (2004) and Romanian (2008). The author gives a decent narrative, but beyond that it is a recent monograph connecting the reader with virtually all primary sources and most of the scholarship available on this topic.

Originally posted by es_bih And Ottoman influence and control won out... So yes Vlad failed. 15 years of resistance doesn't amount to success unless you produce that, which didn't happen. The Ottomans had control and influence for a while after 1500.

15 years of resistance?

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by es_bih And Ottoman influence and control won out... So yes Vlad failed. 15 years of resistance doesn't amount to success unless you produce that, which didn't happen. The Ottomans had control and influence for a while after 1500. 15 years of resistance?   Vlad's main enemy weren't the Ottomans (they were just one of them), so I don't see your point. How does the fact that Mathias Corvinus imprisoned him is a merit of the Ottomans?

I didn't mention anything of Corvinus, you're doing that to pat your ego on the back. I am responding to CB - and the fact that ultimately Vlad didn't succeed.

That's not true at all. Mehmed II took Vlad's capital (unless that's what you call 'peasants and cattle') and put Radu on the throne (so you are wrong saying 'Vlad was still on the throne'), and moved on to campaign in Hungary that winter. He was not defeated by Vlad and turned back, that's Romanian nationalist fantasy.

But at that time the Walachian capital was at Târgovişte, a city which was avoided by Mehmed II (for what reasons I can't tell).

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by Beylerbeyi My source is Inalcik, but even the wikipedia article (written by Romanians) tells that Tirgoviste fell, even includes the date:  With his army of 20,000–40,000 men Vlad was unable to stop the Turks from entering Wallachia and occupying the capital Târgovişte (4 June 1462), so he resorted to guerrilla warfare, constantly organizing small attacks and ambushes on the Turks.  So I guess it is you who has no idea about the campaign, because Mehmed II did occupy Tirgoviste.  Your sources are wrong or you read them incorrectly (Wikipedia, what could be worse?) See Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, book III, last sub-chapter and virtually all common sense historians writing after him. You can even find this version in popularization books: http://books.google.com/books?id=Yz-0ryt0w-cC&pg=PA50 and in scholarly books: http://books.google.com/books?id=P22TnNTonYwC&pg=PA54   The Ottomans had found nothing in Târgovişte but an abandoned city and impaled corpses. They did not occupy the city and they retreated. From the last book I linked:   "Mehmed II chose not to secure the capital but continued on his march ..."   Why he chose that, as I said, I really do not know (probably thinking that if he occupied the city, Vlad could eventually besiege it and massacre its garrison once his main army moved on). And on the next page:   "Before departing, Sultan Mehmed formally appointed Radu as commander-in-chief with the mission of destroying Dracula ... " - oh, so not on the throne, let's read further:   "The last battles pitted Dracula not so much against the Turks as against the powerful Romanian boyars who ultimately and decissively rallied to the cause of Radu 'The Romanian boyars realizing that the Turks were stronger, abandoned Dracula and associated themselves with the his brother who was with the Turkish Sultan'. So ended an account by a Serbian janissary" , even the contemporary accounts tell that Mehmed did not dethrone Vlad.   Mehmed II left Radu in Ibrail, not on Târgovişte, on the throne (which probably wasn't even there at the time Mehmed reached that city). How do we know that? Because the Venetian bailo at the Porte, Domenico Balbi, reported on July 28, 1462 (my translation): "5,000 Wallachians perished and 15,000 Turks, and as the Sultan saw that he left in hurry and crossed the Danube back and reached Edirne in 11 this month. However he left Dracula's brother with an army at the border of Walalchia, to lure the Wallachians to desert Dracula and switch sides." (I don't know how it looks to you, but to me border is not throne, nor capital)   Ottoman campaign against Vlad was not only against him, it was a response to the Hungarians capturing some forts, started with the campaign against Vlad and continued later in winter against the Hungarians (Corvinus).  Actually this Ottoman campaign was only against Vlad. Mehmed's main army followed roughly this trajectory: Nicopolis-Turnu (~June 4),  Târgovişte (not long after June 17), Buzău, Brăila (June 29). In July 11 the Sultan was back in Edirne. Put these on the map and tell me how this campaign was targeting Hungary. Either the Ottomans were very bad at geography or you're wrong and somehow I suspect the latter.   Also the campaign was in retaliation to Vlad's previous actions. One was that he impaled Hamza and Katabolenos, the Sultan's emissaries, and their small army. Another was that he massacred the Ottoman population along the Danube and plundered all the villages and cities in his way. In a letter sent by Vlad to Corvinus in February 11, 1462 he counted "And we killed men and women, old and young [...] numbering 23,884 Turks and Bulgarians, not counting those burnt in houses or whose heads were not reported"   However, it is not correct that Vlad defeated the Ottoman army which went back home to Istanbul (not Edirne). That did not happen. Ottomans took Vlad's capital and later continued to campaign Hungary.  Well, not a total military defeat, but they eventually had to retreat because of these skirmishes eating away his forces (and I'm talking not only of the so-called Night Attack, but of that battle in Eastern Wallachia, right before the Ottoman retreat, or the failed siege against Kiliya). For the Ottoman insuccess you have already the testimony of Domenico Balbi, here are several more:   - in Bologna, in July 17 1462, there were news from Venetian merchants that on June 23, the Ottoman Sultan suffered a great defeat "on land and on water" and that he lost 40,000 soldiers (beyond the hyperbole, certainly it wasn't an Ottoman victory) - a Venetian chronicle wrote in ~1481 that in 1462 "the Turks went against Dracula in Wallachia and were defeated and chased away" - the Venetian annales of Stefano Magno wrote of Mehmed, the emperor of the Turks and the Greeks, who sent a powerful army in Wallachia which was defeated - the Serbian chronicles also mentioned for the year 1462 that the czar Mehmed went against Vlad and he was unsuccesful - in 1475 Florio Roverella, an Italian ambassador at the Hungarian court, wrote that they hope Dracula will perform great deeds against the Ottomans as he did in 1462 when he defeated them before he got imprisoned by his Highness (the Hungarian king, that is)   Of course, if you turn to Ottoman chroniclers you'll read only of magnificent victories and how the Ottoman Sultans crushed their enemies.     Yes, but Wallachia was subdued only by Bayezid II. Actually the Wallachian princes always rebelled (more or less succesful) against the Ottomans. That's also why most of them had short reigns, they lost their throne either to rivals, or changed by one of the neighbouring powers (Moldavia, Hungary, the Ottoman Empire)

So when we look at the western neighboors of turks the chronicles are writing a suprahuman defence of wallachia and 100000`s of turks killed. We need a synthesis of the chronicles for both of the sides.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Originally posted by Evrenosgazi So when we look at the western neighboors of turks the chronicles are writing a suprahuman defence of wallachia and 100000`s of turks killed. We need a synthesis of the chronicles for both of the sides. Where do you find 100000s of Turks killed? However, the Ottomans certainly lost thousands of soldiers in this campaign, in skirmishes, of thirst and hunger and also because of disease. Even the propagandistic Ottoman chronicles admit that much.   Halil Inalcık(He is an expert in Ottoman history) So? Radu Florescu is an expert in Vlad III's life (he wrote several books on it, together with Raymond Mc Nally). Moreover the episodes we're talking about involve a lot of non-Ottoman chronicles and even events which the Ottomans did not witness (perhaps they heard news of them). Inalcik had unlimited access to Topkapi archives and many Ottoman documents but he could miss a lot of evidences, especially that for him Vlad III is mostly an insigificant episode in a centuries long Ottoman history. He is a reputable Turkish historian, but that doesn't make him without flaws. If one believes, for instance, that Mehmed II dethroned Vlad in this campaign or that Mehmed left Radu in Târgovişte, it's very simple, he must provide evidence for it. Evidence as in contemporary testimonies, not historiographic fiction. Plus you seem to ignore Franz Babinger or even Matei Cazacu, two other authors I mentioned. If you need quantity I can spam this thread with historians and sources.   In summary these historians opinion is the 1462 Wallachia campaign is not a ottoman or wallachia victory in millitarical ways. The ottomans pursued their foes, the foe prefered only ambushs and flight(A night ambush is very important for the romanian folkloric tradition, it symbolise the heroism of Vlad). The Night Attack is very important in the contemporary sources, together with the failed siege of Kiliya and another skirmish near Buzău, in Eastern Wallachia, as these events echoed throughout Europe being considered an Ottoman insuccess (or even defeat). However, Vlad III is quasi-absent from Romanian folklore. His memory quickly faded away his reign was mostly a one-liner in the Wallachian chronicles. He revived as a historical character only with the historians and the fiction writers of 19th-21st centuries.   Obviously a pitched battle would be an easy ottoman victory when we consider the quantity and the quality of the soldiers. However Radu completed the mission and Vlad escaped to his old ally.  Vlad was imprisoned by his ally in Visegrád. He was released years after.   Quantity the Ottomans may had, but not always quality. Let's remember another battle of the Ottoman forces, also during the reign of Mehmed II, this time against the neighbouring Moldavia. In January 10, 1475, a superior (2-3:1) Ottoman force recorded a shameful defeat against the army of Stephen III. Well, it was winter, it was in a marshy terrain, it was a dark, foggy day, however this battle (and few others) raise serious doubts on the efficiency of Ottoman soldiers against a skillful opponent. Most of the times the Ottoman won because they outnumbered their opponent. But even that wasn't a warrant for victory.

Exxagrating ottoman casualties and army strength is a common feature of the european historians. By this way they are making up excuses for their defeats. All medieval sources claim(ottoman or european) their rivals army great in number and claim heavy inflicted casualties. Without doubt the quality of the army was higher than their neighbors.(By this quality the conquests established). When we look to quantity first of all ottoman army was not a conscription or a national army so huge numbers are ridiculous. Even the ottomans did not have enough infrastructure to supply armies like 50-100000. The total jannisary(4-5000) and sipahi(30-40000) quantity is well known in 15th century.   I am with you in most of your statements about vlad`s story. But considering an ottoman defeat will be innaccurate.  

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Exxagrating ottoman casualties and army strength is a common feature of the european historians. By this way they are making up excuses for their defeats. All medieval sources claim(ottoman or european) their rivals army great in number and claim heavy inflicted casualties. Without doubt the quality of the army was higher than their neighbors.(By this quality the conquests established). When we look to quantity first of all ottoman army was not a conscription or a national army so huge numbers are ridiculous. Even the ottomans did not have enough infrastructure to supply armies like 50-100000. The total jannisary(4-5000) and sipahi(30-40000) quantity is well known in 15th century.   I am with you in most of your statements about vlad`s story. But considering an ottoman defeat will be innaccurate.

Turkish nationalism on a rampage: Janissaries were an army of super-men, fighting against all odds and killing their adversaries in one blow.

? And where have I claimed this? Janissaries were not invincible, but their 'quality' (your wording) as a troop type is not in dispute for this period. According to all sources, they were a disciplined, professional, standing infantry army, nobody in Eastern Europe had anything similar. Many battles were won by their actions, including those you claim 'Ottomans won by numerical superiority'. As such your claim of 'Ottoman troops were of low quality' is just typical Balkan minor fantasy. Yes, Ottomans often outnumbered the minors' and others' armies, because they were richer, had better administration, better logistics, more manpower, etc etc, but it does not mean that a. their troops were of lower quality or b. that they won the battles through numerical superiority.

Also, never believe any number on the Ottoman army which does not take into account studies of the archives. We have a good idea of their army sizes today. Few of the older sources, and practically none of the contemporary sources know these. The numbers show that the armies were of similar size in most of Ottomans' most spectacular victories before the 16th century. To give you an idea, during Suleyman the Magnificent's time there were 90000 feudal sipahi in the Empire, and at most 70% of those were mobilised for campaigns. Plus the Kapikulu (about 10000 max) plus the vassals and other troops, it is clear that the greatest army they fielded was about 100000. In Mehmed II's time, these numbers were much lower. As I have written, greatest army he fielded was about 70000, after serious mobilisation, against Uzun Hasan (not some minor like Vlad or Stefan).  

If you read Christian sources, however, they regularly talk about Ottoman armies of 100000, 200000, even 300000, and raids that resulted in 20000 Ottoman dead, 10000 Ottomans killed for 1000 Christian dead etc... So every year Skanderbeg kills 20000 Ottoman troops and Dracula kills 20000 Ottomans and Hungarians kill 20000 troops and the next year they Ottomans invade with 200000 new troops... Nationalists from Balkan minors can't see the absurdity of the greater picture, because they don't know about what's going on in other countries, and they expect us to believe that the Ottomans are positively cloning people in Constantinople and spamming them into Europe every year, given that their population actually was quite low in that century...

All their adversaries in Eastern Europe used firearms of the same (or even better quality) than the Ottomans - the Hungarians, the Moldavians (at the battle of Vasuli from 1475, the Ottoman army was defeated being lured in a valley surrounded by cannons and archers). Even at the siege of the Constantinople, their biggest cannons were built by Hungarian craftsmen.

Ottoman cannons were not 'built by Hungarian craftsmen'. One craftsman, probably of  Hungarian origin, was involved. Btw, that does not mean that Hungarians had bombards of similar calibre, they did not. Unless you believe that Hungary had hydrogen bombs because Edward Teller, who led the team that built the American H-bomb was Hungarian as well...

Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute that Hungarians had good artillery or guns, they had, especially in the 14th century. However, Wallachians and other Principalities, also other Balkan minors, and surely other Eastern Europeans such as the Polish and the Cossacks were way behind the Ottomans in gunpowder usage. So what you have written 'all their adversaries in Eastern Europe had used firearms of same or better quality than the Ottomans' is absolute bollocks. Only Hungary was comparable, and they were surpassed quickly in quality and quantity by the Ottomans. Read about Mohacs.

The "better Ottoman troops" failed shamfully against under-sized Hungarian or Moldavian armies. Please point out several major Ottoman military victories against these "dwarfs" where the Ottoman army was significantly smaller than the enemy's. After you'll fail to make this point, we'll see who knows better the Ottoman army and who doesn't.

Wars are not like the games that you use as historical sources. They are unpredictible, sometimes you win sometimes you lose. There is no 'shame' involved in history for me. But 

if I were a Romanian emotional with nationalist fervour, like you, I would know what shame is, as your land knows it well... 

Anyway, I have no more interest in discussing Ottoman military with you because I know the Romanians are rather tender about that issue. I'll just point out that when discussing the Ottomans you should make a distinction between an army led by a Pasha (a local army) and the Imperial Army led by the Emperor. As a general rule, minors such as yours defeated the first now and then, but they were crushed by the second, or often surrendered without a fight or resorted to guerilla tactics. 

Hungary was a serious enemy, which was far more stronger than the Ottomans before 1350 (Ottomans started roughly the size of Cyprus, far smaller than any Principality in 1300, by 1350, they were similar in size to the Principalities), but was totally destroyed by the Ottomans in 200 years, Ottoman superiority is quite obvious there. Principalities, however, were not serious enemies. More like a nuisance. I see no reason to devote any more of my time to a side issue to indulge your fantasies.

Edited by Beylerbeyi - 26-Feb-2009 at 16:16

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi And where have I claimed this? Janissaries were not invincible, but their 'quality' (your wording) as a troop type is not in dispute for this period. According to all sources, they were a disciplined, professional, standing infantry army, nobody in Eastern Europe had anything similar.

Most states (even those "minor" ones) in Eastern Europe had a body of disciplined, professional, standing army (sometimes smaller, sometimes larger).

Many battles were won by their actions, including those you claim 'Ottomans won by numerical superiority'. As such your claim of 'Ottoman troops were of low quality' is just typical Balkan minor fantasy.

And who said the Ottoman troops were of low quality? I said specifically "I don't want to suggest Ottoman armies were worthless or overall inefficient, only that their enemies had - many times - at least equal skills". In such conditions, the trump of the Ottomans was in their numbers.
Usually the janissaries were used with good care, as most elite troops were. Many battles were won by exhausting the enemy with the irregulars (like that report of Domenico Balbo was pointout about the high losses of azaps at the siege of Kiliya or take the siege of Constantinople where the first waves of attackers were those of irregulars exhausting the defenders and the janissaries attacked afterwards; even at Mohács, a battle you mentioned, the janissary charge came after the Hungarian army was already engaged with the Ottoman irregulars). That these elite troops were used for decissive blows it doesn't mean they were ab initio superior to the already exhausted/engaged enemy troops.

Yes, Ottomans often outnumbered the minors' and others' armies, because they were richer, had better administration, better logistics, more manpower, etc etc, but it does not mean that a. their troops were of lower quality or b. that they won the battles through numerical superiority.

Of course it doesn't, but then you have to provide evidence where Ottoman soldiers proved their individual skills. I can provide many examples to the contrary, where Eastern European armies defeated Ottoman armies against odds. Because of the genius of a military commander, because of some elite troops they had, you can't tell me every time it was only a matter of chance. If Ottomans military had a sustained military superiority which was not just that of numbers, I'm sure you can prove it with examples. So far I see only rhetoric and inaccuracies from your side.

Also, never believe any number on the Ottoman army which does not take into account studies of the archives. We have a good idea of their army sizes today. Few of the older sources, and practically none of the contemporary sources know these. The numbers show that the armies were of similar size in most of Ottomans' most spectacular victories before the 16th century. To give you an idea, during Suleyman the Magnificent's time there were 90000 feudal sipahi in the Empire, and at most 70% of those were mobilised for campaigns. Plus the Kapikulu (about 10000 max) plus the vassals and other troops, it is clear that the greatest army they fielded was about 100000. In Mehmed II's time, these numbers were much lower. As I have written, greatest army he fielded was about 70000, after serious mobilisation, against Uzun Hasan (not some minor like Vlad or Stefan).

That's Turkish nationalistic agenda if anything. The Ottoman army was not composed only of sipahi and janissaries (the bulk of the infantery was of azaps, not of janissaries, so when you estimate its size or its efficiency make sure you take that in account) and talking of archives, it was Mehmed himself who said he raised 15 tumens against Vlad (probably a hyperbole, but certainly he had an army greater than Vlad's). Most of the estimations for the siege of Constantinople start usually from 80,000 upwards (e.g. Donald Nicol gives 80,000-200,000) and we know these numbers contained a large number of irregulars used to storm the walls. And then we have the testimony of Chalcocondyles saying that in 1462 it was the largest army Mehmed summoned after the siege of Constantinople.
As for Uzun Hasan and Stephen, Stephen reigned more than the former and defeated the Ottomans in worse ways. Considering overall in military encounters Stephen was rather victorious, that he reigned 47 years on the throne, that Mehmed II failed to subdue Moldavia, we must either consider him a not so minor prince, or that Ottoman army was a bunch of clowns unable to defeat a minor opponent.

If you read Christian sources, however, they regularly talk about Ottoman armies of 100000, 200000, even 300000, and raids that resulted in 20000 Ottoman dead, 10000 Ottomans killed for 1000 Christian dead etc... So every year Skanderbeg kills 20000 Ottoman troops and Dracula kills 20000 Ottomans and Hungarians kill 20000 troops and the next year they Ottomans invade with 200000 new troops... Nationalists from Balkan minors can't see the absurdity of the greater picture, because they don't know about what's going on in other countries, and they expect us to believe that the Ottomans are positively cloning people in Constantinople and spamming them into Europe every year, given that their population actually was quite low in that century...

For the 1462 campaign:
Tursun-bey in his chronicle: 30 tumens = 300,000
Mehmed II himself: 15 tumens = 150,000
An Italian ambassador at Buda = 60,000
The Christian source is more conservative.

You naively believe the Ottoman army was bred in Constantinople. Considering the huge population of the Ottoman Empire, I don't see any absurdity in having tens of thousands of soldiers dead (mostly irregulars). That's my point, they could afford such spendings, they were campaigning on yearly basis, regardless of losses. Many of their enemies couldn't afford that.

Ottoman cannons were not 'built by Hungarian craftsmen'. One craftsman, probably of  Hungarian origin, was involved. Btw, that does not mean that Hungarians had bombards of similar calibre, they did not. Unless you believe that Hungary had hydrogen bombs because Edward Teller, who led the team that built the American H-bomb was Hungarian as well...

Yes, in the siege of Constantinople (which I also mentioned) we know of only one named craftsman, probably of Hungarian origin (if he was not Hungarian, he was German or Slovak or something like that, anyway, not a Turk). But we know that Ottoman artillery was copied mostly after European one and that (at least) the first gun-founders were Europeans. We know the models and we even know the names. For instance, the Ottoman şakaloz is nothing but a version of the contemporary Hungarian szakállas puska (basically a hand-gun). Bacaluşka is nothing but a version of a well-known European cannon, the basilisk. Certainly the Ottomans developed their own gun-foundries, and that eventually they learned the art of gun-making, but the European influence and gun-makers were instrumental, and it's of little doubt that the Europeans had artillery and hand-guns of the same if not even better quality.
Actually some already argued that the Ottoman military technology, not only that was copying, was also of inferior quality. For instance, the military historian Geoffrey Parker famously (in his book The Military Revolutions, published in the 1980s) said of Ottomans they were "expert in imitating, but poor in innovating" (approximative quote). He also argued that Ottoman metallurgy was of inferior quality, so that many cannons captured by the Europeans were unusable by the military standards of the era. IIRC he mentions an episode after the battle of Lepanto (1571), when the cannons captured by Venetians had to be melted and recasted because the metal was of poor quality. And Lepanto was just few years after the reign of Suleiman Kanuni, a period considered the apogee of the Ottoman Empire.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute that Hungarians had good artillery or guns, they had, especially in the 14th century. However, Wallachians and other Principalities, also other Balkan minors, and surely other Eastern Europeans such as the Polish and the Cossacks were way behind the Ottomans in gunpowder usage. So what you have written 'all their adversaries in Eastern Europe had used firearms of same or better quality than the Ottomans' is absolute bollocks. Only Hungary was comparable, and they were surpassed quickly in quality and quantity by the Ottomans. Read about Mohacs.

I stand by my previous claim. In the aforementioned battle of Vaslui, the Moldavian artillery, hand-gunners but also archers wreaked havoc (even the Ottoman chronicles admit that, Kemal Pashazade noted that because of the Moldavian fire the Ottoman soldiers had difficulties to engage their enemies in close combat) in the advancing Ottoman army (with firearms of its own). That was a battle where many Ottoman soldiers were killed or captured, four pashas died and most banners lost (some thirty or so were sent to the Polish king as trophy).
In the campaigns of John Hunyadi, the Hungarian fire power brought streaks of victories for the Hungarians. Even the siege of Belgrade (where Ottomans had the cannons on positions) the Hungarian cannons and guns were instrmental in achieving the victory. Hunyadi is also famous for using cannons fixed on wagons for greater mobility (the Hussite way). Even when Hunyadi lost battles (like Varna or Kosovopolje) his gunmen caused much damage to Ottoman army (a fact admitted even by Ottoman chroniclers, for instance, Orudj bin Adil describing the Kosovopolje battle mentions that "from the wagons they shot with cannons and guns, and that caused the deaths of many soldiers"). And these are 15th (not 14th) century events!

Probably you know nothing about the use of firearms in the era. Because if you would, Ottoman technology is not impressive by any means. The battle of Mohács was a open-field battle where the Hungarian forces were severely outnumbered and also became outflanked. I don't see how they could have won that battle.

Edited by Chilbudios - 27-Feb-2009 at 14:19