Ottoman Army?

Moved to questions and answers

When we consider the field army numbers we can estimate lower numbers. Prominent ottoman historians like rhoads murphy and andrew wheatcroft consider the field numbers in the 16th century between 50-70000 soldiers. These numbers decrease according to the commander of the army. If the sadrazam(primeminister) commands the army these numbers could be estimated by half of the sultans army.  The provincal armies were 5-10000 I think. Ottomans mustered larger armies than their european counterparts because of their advanced and central millitary system. When a sultan give start to a campaign 10-15000 soldier was ready at their capital , after the provincal soldiers assemble and joined to the army according to the target state. Th logistics were better and ottomans were preparing the provision of their campaign before the movement of the army. After the 16th century millitary revolution( maybe a debate could made about the millitary revolutions initial century) the europeans started to muster larger and more profesional  armies than before.

Originally posted by Yugoslav Didn't the Ottomans muster a huge Army of 100,000 during the Siege of Belgrade (15th century)?

The number 100000 was impossible for a medieval army. A lot of factor had a role on this fact;

Originally posted by Evrenosgazi The army numbers are pride reasons for all of the nations in the world. I am sure that all  of us listened heroic stories about how their nations had bravely fought against the numerous invader. This army and casualty exxagration is in a peak in ottoman history. The aim is to create a reson for defeat and avenge this defeat by making up casualties. My opinion an army about 30-40000 will be reasonable for Belgrade war(1456). But the advanced millitary structure and a powerful millitary tradition made possible for ottomans to muster larger and more efficient armies than their european counterparts for centuries. The 80000 ottoman soldier for the 1683 Vienna expedition was a record for the classical ottoman history.

I agree, 100k is ridiculous. Nevertheless the wiki article uses that number, while the Hungarian army is said to be 57k including Serbs and crusaders, which is just as ridiculous for a feudal state like Hungary. Ottoman casualties are given at astronomically 75k dead, the Hungarian+allies dead at 10k. If I were to make a rough estimate based on what I know of medieval warfare, I'd say cutting all these numbers in half would bring us closer to the truth.

If you look at other battles of the same period and arena, you find the battle of Vaslui  is also exaggerated beyond belief with an Ottoman army at between 60-80k and a Moldavian force of around 40k. Ottoman casualties are given at 40k, another astronomical figure. The battle of Breadfield seems to have been more honestly recorded and may perhaps be seen as a measuring stick for the other battles, with 12-15k on the Hungarian side and around 20k Ottomans, a few thousand casualties on each side.

All the battles mentioned here were Ottoman defeats. Even so the Hungarian-Ottoman wars were in the end won by the Ottomans, who unlike their opponents could afford to lose battles without losing the war due to the organisation and resources of their military.

Originally posted by Reginmund Originally posted by Evrenosgazi The army numbers are pride reasons for all of the nations in the world. I am sure that all  of us listened heroic stories about how their nations had bravely fought against the numerous invader. This army and casualty exxagration is in a peak in ottoman history. The aim is to create a reson for defeat and avenge this defeat by making up casualties. My opinion an army about 30-40000 will be reasonable for Belgrade war(1456). But the advanced millitary structure and a powerful millitary tradition made possible for ottomans to muster larger and more efficient armies than their european counterparts for centuries. The 80000 ottoman soldier for the 1683 Vienna expedition was a record for the classical ottoman history. I agree, 100k is ridiculous. Nevertheless the wiki article uses that number, while the Hungarian army is said to be 57k including Serbs and crusaders, which is just as ridiculous for a feudal state like Hungary. Ottoman casualties are given at astronomically 75k dead, the Hungarian+allies dead at 10k. If I were to make a rough estimate based on what I know of medieval warfare, I'd say cutting all these numbers in half would bring us closer to the truth. If you look at other battles of the same period and arena, you find the battle of Vaslui  is also exaggerated beyond belief with an Ottoman army at between 60-80k and a Moldavian force of around 40k. Ottoman casualties are given at 40k, another astronomical figure. The battle of Breadfield seems to have been more honestly recorded and may perhaps be seen as a measuring stick for the other battles, with 12-15k on the Hungarian side and around 20k Ottomans, a few thousand casualties on each side. All the battles mentioned here were Ottoman defeats. Even so the Hungarian-Ottoman wars were in the end won by the Ottomans, who unlike their opponents could afford to lose battles without losing the war due to the organisation and resources of their military.

You are right. The medieval hungarian state can not afford armies even in 30k. The reason is not about the power of the state. The medieval state structure did not permit a kind of large army. Let us think the battle of Nicopolis. The modern estimates of each army was 15k approximately. The battle of Ankara(1402) the timurids and ottomans had 20-25 k soldier. The field of the war was not that large to carry that large armies. I think that in the 14-15th centuries an army with 10k troop was a quite large army. Casualties like 20-30k is impossible. The medieval weapons was not that lethal. A state which lost even 10k soldier in a battlefield can not fight afterwards efficiently even after years(Even the ottomans).