Print Page | Close Window

Notable Battles of Medieval Hungarians

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8772
Printed Date: 19-Mar-2024 at 07:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Notable Battles of Medieval Hungarians
Posted By: Raider
Subject: Notable Battles of Medieval Hungarians
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 07:19

 

Well, I am planing to post descriptions of some interesting or important battle from Hungarian history. These may be the battles of Brenta, Lechfeld, Zemun, Mohi, Marchfeld (Dürnkrut), Rozhanovce (Rozgony), one battle in the campaign against Naples, Nicopolis, Varna, Belgrad, Wroclaw(Breslau), Kenyérmező and Mohács. I hope these will concern you.

 

The battle of Brenta

 

In 895 the Magyar tribal federation launched the invasion of the Carpathian Basin and conquested its eastern half. From this time various tribal leaders organized campaigns to the west. The fist major campaign was in 899 when emperor Arnulf hired the Magyars as mercenaries against his rival Berengar the king of Italy.

The Magyar army of 5000 cavalrymen was splitted to numereous groups and pillaged the Po Valley in its way to Pavia where they united againg. One of these groups unsuccesfully sieged Venice. To counter this threat Berengar amassed an army of 15 000 men. The Magyars pull back to east pretended to fear the Italian army. Their leaders even asked for peace and free passing to Hungary. Berengar’s troop successfully fought against the rearguard of the Magyar army and drive them to the other cost of river Brenta. Now the Magyar messengers sleekly asked him only to keep their horses in return his mercy. So Berengar thought he was in winning position and became overweening. The Italian kinghts leisurely camped for the night, pull off their armor and started to eat supper.

In this time the main forces of the Magyars attack through the river and simultaneously hidden Magyar troops attacked from the left and right side of the camp. These troop was hidden during the fightings with the main army’s rearguard. All in all the Hungarians completely surprised and encompassed Berengar’s army. According to Liutprand of Cremona the Magyars attacked so suddenly that some of the Italian soldiers died with food pinned on their throat. The Italian army was annihilated and the Magyars remain in Italy till the autumn of 900.  Since the Magyar ally, emperor Arnulf died in December 8. 899 The Magyars captured his province, Pannonia (territories west to the Danube) during homecoming. With these events the conquest of Hungary was complete.

Hungarian warriors reconstructed and painted by Gyula László:




Replies:
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 07:56

Raider on that red flag, is there a half moon sticked on it?

Btw i assume those yellow "balls" on the green flags are resembling the sun, then it is typical to central asian nomadic warriors.



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2006 at 08:01
Well, László was a noted archeologist (and amateur painter), so I think the picture is quite reliable.


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 03:05
Can u inform me about hunyadi


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 06:34

Originally posted by BigL

Can u inform me about hunyadi
Well, I am planning to insert some of his battles (Varna, Belgrade). What do you want to know about him?

 



Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 06:54
Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by BigL

Can u inform me about hunyadi
Well, I am planning to insert some of his battles (Varna, Belgrade). What do you want to know about him?

 

I have problems with who he really whas, a Hungarian (thats what i think) or Romanian (thats what some romanians think of).

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 07:24
Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by BigL

Can u inform me about hunyadi
Well, I am planning to insert some of his battles (Varna, Belgrade). What do you want to know about him?

 

I have problems with who he really whas, a Hungarian (thats what i think) or Romanian (thats what some romanians think of).
Well, It's a difficult question. He was a real christian hero not only among the Romanian and Hungarians, but Serbs etc. also.

The Hunyadi family originated from Wallachia. The name Hunyadi means of Hunyad in Hungarian. The family got this name after Hunyadi's father migrated to Transylvania and received the Castle Hunyad from the king.

Some Hungarian historians presumed that the family had a Cuman origin, because of their names (Vajk, Serbe etc.) But most of the historians rejected this because only the origin of their names is not enough to prove the origin of the family. By the way Cumans in the XV. century were fully assimilated to the Romanians. So I think we could say that Hunyadi's father was a Romanian.

The father of Hunyadi, Vajk (hung.) or Voicu (rom.) married a Hungarian woman and presumably convert to the catholic faith. Being a catholic was necessary to became a nobleman in Hungary and this weas usually the first step of assimilation to the Hungarians.

So John Hunyadi was a catholic nobleman of Hungary whose father was a Romanian and mother was a Hungarian. I do not know his personal ties or his mother tongue.

All in all I think both Romanians and Hungarians could rightfully consider him as theirs.

 



Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 07:34
In serbian epics he is refered as Sibinjanin Janko.He was remembered as a hero.Who are Cumans?


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 07:37

Cuman or Magyar?

I think one of our proverb is coming true...

"Bükülmeyen Türk'ün bilegini bükerse yine Türk büker"

Simply translated; "Only a Turk can win of a Turk"



-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 08:00
Originally posted by DayI

Cuman or Magyar?

I think one of our proverb is coming true...

"Bükülmeyen Türk'ün bilegini bükerse yine Türk büker"

Simply translated; "Only a Turk can win of a Turk"

I don't understand.Who r Cumans?"Only a Turk can win of a Turk"-what do u mean by this?



Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 08:10
Never mind.

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Socrates
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 08:13
OK.


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 23:26
Ok lets talk about the battles Hunyadi fought


Posted By: majkes1
Date Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 10:00
Wich battle is consider by Hingarians as their greates victory?


Posted By: NikeBG
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2006 at 04:47
Originally posted by Socrates

Who are Cumans?

The Cumans are one big ethnos from around the 12-13 centuries, which lived to the north of the Danube and were a considerable factor at their time. There are also reports that they have been used quite often in the Bulgarian army, especially by Tsar Kaloian against the Crusaders from the 4th Crusade. But with the coming of the Tartars they were further pushed out of their homes and were soon assimilated. I think there are reports of them moving to Bulgaria and I've heard even some doubts of the modern day "Gagauzi" to be actually Cuman descendants. Also there are some villages in Buglaria called Kumanovo and I think there's even one in Macedonia (which btw would be interesting if they've reached even there).

On-topic: I also would like to hear more about the Hungarian battles, especially the Varna one (from 1444, right?), due to obvious reasons. Actually, I always love to read about any battle, so just keep posting!


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2006 at 08:34

AD 955 The battle of Lechfeld (the second battle of Augsburg):

 

Background:

 

Aftr the Battle of Brenta and the Conquest of Hungary the Magyar tribes launched various campaigns against Western Europe and Byzantium. AD 899-970 (see map1)>

 

In 953 civil war erupted in Germany. Luitdolf the son of king Otto and Conrad the son-in-law of Otto rebelled against the future emperor. The rebels asked for the help of the Magyars and a Magyar army attacked Bavaria in 954. The campaign was huge financial success for the Hungarians and one year later an other army tried to repeat it.

 

A Hungarian encampment was established on the Eastern bank of river Lech and several raiding party set out for looting the neighboring countryside. The Magyars also sieged Augsburg defended by bishop Udalrick/Ulrich. The Magyar army was consisted 6-8000 men and was led by Bulcsú, Lél and Súr.

 

In August 8th 955 Berchtold, the Lord of Risinesburg arrived to the Magyar camp and warned the Hungarian leaders for the coming of Otto’s army of 3500 men. Bulcsú raised the sieged and the leaders made a battle plan based on the events of 910, when the Magyars destroyed the army of Louis the Child on Lechfeld (first battle of Augsburg).

 

The battle:

 

 >>

According to the plan the Magyar army was divided into two parts. The smaller part should have attacked the enemy, weaken them with arrows and lured the disordered Germans to the place where the hidden main army waited for the attack. However this plan was failed.

 

In August 9th 955 the sun set at 19:36 and it was totally dark on 20:00 because the moon rised only at 21:03. Exploiting the darkness the Magyar army crossed the Lech and the bait-contingent (cca. 2000-2500 men) sepparated and departed to attack the German camp. At the same time count Dietpald left Augsburg with cca. 500 men to join king Otto. Both of them had approximately 6 hours to take his place.

 

Otto had ordered his men to left the camp at early dawn before sunrise and before the Magyar bait-contingent arrived. Presumably he wanted to surprise the Magyars and chose a rough hilly terrain coverd by forrest. (See map2). Otto divided his troops into 8 legion andthese legion left the camp in column. Each legion followed the one before him in hearing range. The first legion consisted Bavarians led by Henry Liudolfing, king Otto followed him with the Saxons, then Conrad the Red of Franconia and at the end the Suabian legions led by duke Burchard. A contingent of 1000 Bohemian soldiers left behind to guard the camp with the impedimenta.

 

When the Magyar bait arrived the Bavarians were 2 km away from the camp and they did not noticed the Magyar attack. With their sudden attack the Magyars easily crushed the Bohemians and they repelled the Suabians who were close enough to the camp. They were likely surprised by the success (Remember their original task was to lure the Germans to the main forces.) But in stead of worrying they started to plunder the camp and presumably they sent a messeger to the main army. (cca. 6:00 am)

 

While they gathered the loot the fleeing Bohemians and Suabians catched duke Conrad’s franconian knights up. Red Conrad returned to the camp surprised and defeated the looting Magyars. (cca. 7:00 am) Conrad left a strong guard in the camp and joined king Otto who decided to continue his plan.

 

Meanwhile Bulcsú in the main army got the message that the German camp was captured and decided to return his camp. It began to rain and the Magyars had to take away their bows to protect them from water. ( cca. 8:00 am) In these moments the Bavarians arrived from the forrest with the Saxon and Franconian troops behind and charged the Magyars. There was no time to bring out the bows there was no place to manoeuvre they were also unable to retreat because of the swampy Schmutter  creek. In the melee the Germans heavy cavalry was unquestionably superior and crushed the surprised Magyar army.

 

In the battle Conrad the Red died (he was the same Conrad who was allied himself withe the Magyars one year before.) and the three Magyar leader was captured.

 

The aftermath:

 

It is widely beleived that this battle crushed Magyar military power and ended the Magyar attacks. However this is an exageration of the events.

 

This attack was a financial enterprise of Bulcsú, Lél and Súr, so the army was only a part of the whole manpower of Hungary. On the other hand the battle showed that with the newly organized border system the uniting Germany were able to defend herself. The attacks to the west stopped, but continued to the South. The last attack was in 970 when a Hungarian-Petcheneg-Kievian alliance were crushed by Byzantium.

 

The battle also had an important role in the creation of the Holy Roman Empire and the unification of Hungary. Otto used this victory as a propaganda to increase his fame and political a power. The Árpáds of Hungary seized control of defeated tribes’ territory laying down the fundament of a unified Hungary.

 

The defeat at Lexchfeld was also very shocking. Before it the Hungarian chiefs were treated as equals, but now king Otto simply hanged the captured chieftains instead of demanding a ransom as a civilized man. Hungarian chronicles tried to compensate this by inventing a “second battle”  in which the Hungarians won.  The Lél legend birthed that the captured chief Lél killed emperor “Conrád” with his blow.  (Conrad the Red was confused with Otto.)

 

 

All in all this is a very important battle in European history.

The description of the battle based on the essay of Lajos Négyesi: Az augsburgi csata in Hadtörténeti Közlemények 1/2003. http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00023/17.htm



Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2006 at 09:31

  

       Hungarians must be proud for their millitary history. Because they were a vast, powerful medieval kingdom , and the most important part is their fight against the turks. After the battle of kosovo the only standing major power was the hungarians. for 137 year they fought with bravery . They win and lost battles.  Their origins was similar with the ottomans, maybe by this they could stop the ottomans.  I think the most important battles are varna, belgrade(1456) and Mohacs. Varna was a missed price, belgrade was a success and mohacs was the unstoppable end. Regards to all hungarian friends 



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 00:46
When Medieval total war 2 comes out in december i will definately favour the Hungarians, Why there disciplined knights were more effective than undiciplined western knights and there use of light cavalry of tartar origin gives a good balance to their army only army i will fear is the Turks who have similiar armies but no Full plate cast iron armour.


Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 07:32
Originally posted by Raider

So John Hunyadi was a catholic nobleman of Hungary whose father was a Romanian and mother was a Hungarian.



Correct, at least for me, in our history (the serious ones) books that is the version presented.


-------------
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2006 at 09:11
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi

  

       Hungarians must be proud for their millitary history. Because they were a vast, powerful medieval kingdom , and the most important part is their fight against the turks. After the battle of kosovo the only standing major power was the hungarians. for 137 year they fought with bravery . They win and lost battles.  Their origins was similar with the ottomans, maybe by this they could stop the ottomans.  I think the most important battles are varna, belgrade(1456) and Mohacs. Varna was a missed price, belgrade was a success and mohacs was the unstoppable end. Regards to all hungarian friends 

1. I think Nicopolis was also very important. Though it was an international crusade it was organized by Sigismund the Hungarian king.

2. By the time the Ottoman wars began the traditional light cavalry units of the Hungarian army [Cumans, Seklers, Saracens-> In the Árpád age notable muslim community lived in Hungary.] were nearly completely assimilated and lost their former skills. In my view the ottoman wars revived this traditions.

 



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 05:22

The Battle of Zemun (hung. Zimony) or Sava river 1167

Background:

a) Hungarian army in the XII. century

After the coronation of St. Stephen and the foundation of the christian state the steppe style army and its organization was changed. Hungary was divided to counties (comitatus) under an appointed count (comes) who represented royal power. In St. Stephen’s time the 2/3 of the counties territory was the private property of the king or more exactly the royal family. These vast estates were the base of royal supremacy and unquestioned power for the next 250 years. The population of the royal estates were theoreticaly the property of the king. (proprius) Of course they were very different from the classical slaves.

The army composed of the contingents of the counties led by the count. In these contingents fought:

- the soldiers of the royal estates led by the várjobbágyok (iobagiones castri) as officers. Their commander was the hadnagy (maior exercitus)

- free people living in the country; the richer fought personally often with their personal retinue, the poorer armed together one soldier.

There were also privilegized ethnic groups with their own leaders like the Seklers, the Petchenegs, the so-called Saracens (mostly muslim khwarezmians) and later the Cumans and the Saxons. The elite troops were the members of the royal retinue. The wealthiest barons, the foreign knights their own retinues, and the rus mercenaries. (King Stephen organized his own varangian guard.)

The bulk of the Hungarian soldiers was some kind of hybrid cavalry. They wore leather armors, their main arms were composite bow, lance, and sword (instead of sabre). This troops was able to fight as horse archers or in melee. The rate of western style knights were low, they fought mainly in the royal retinue. The Seklers, Petchenegs and Saracens fought in traditional steppe way as horse archers.

The overall size of the full royal army was around 30 000 men (in foreign campaigns) and total menpower was 50 000 men.

b) The conflict with the Byzantine Empire

The Rise of Byzantine military power under the Comneni caused rivalry between the empire and Hungary on the Balkans. Altough the the conflicts were limited till the times of Manuel I.

Manuel’s main goal was reviving the ancient Roman Empire. And he shows uncommon interests in the affairs of Hungary. Some historians beleive that this was caused by the simple fact that through his mother (Piroska/St. Eirine) his grandfather was St. Ladislaus of Hungary. (In truth nobody knows what he thought really). All in all Manuel frequently launched campaigns against Hungary and aided more anti-kings and pretenders. On the other hand Hungary aided the Serbs against the Byzantines.

The emperor also found a diplomatic, dynastic way to unite Hungary with the empire. In 1163 according to the currenct peace treaty Béla the younger brother of king Stephen III. was sent to Constantinople to be raised under the personal tutelage of the emperor himself. As Manuel’s relative and the fiance of his daughter Béla (then Alexius) became a despot (a newly created title for him.) and in 1165 he was named as a heir to the throne. He was also the heir of the Hungarian throne and it could be easily happened a union between the two states.

But in 1167 king Stephen still lived and he denied to give Manuel the territories of Béla's duchy. This caused war between Hungary and the Byzantine Empire wich was ended by the Battle of Zemun.

The battle:

Neither the king, nor the emperor was personally present. The Hungarian army was cca. 15 000 men large and aided by an Austrian contingent of knights. This army was led by count Dénes.

The Byzantine army was led by Andronicus Contostephanos andthey had cca. 20 000 men. The Byzantine battle plan was made by emperor Manuel (after consulting his astrologers) and Contostephanos was bound to it.

The first line of the imperial army was light cavalry with heavy cavalry on its flanks. The second line was heavy infantry reinforced with seldjuk archers with also heavy cavalry on its flanks. The third line was the reserve: Serbian and Norman knights (mercenaries) with the general.

Dénes the Hungarian general focused all of his heavy cavalry (Hungarians and Austrians) to the first line of the centre. On the flanks and on the second line of the centre were medium cavalry. There was no reserve and there was no infantry.

During the battle the Hungarian centre frontally attacked the byzantine light cavalry and its right wing pushed back the left wing of the Byzantine army. The Hungarian heavy cavalry simply trampled the Byzantine light cavalry, but was checked by the phalanx of the heavy infantry. Meanwhile the Byzantine right defeated the Hungarian left wing and the Byzantine reserve in a hard fight stopped Hungarian advance on their left wing. With the Byzantine victory on the wings and failure of the Hungarian centre the battle was lost. It is said the after the battle Byzantines collected 2000 armours from the battlefield. Byzantine sources also mentioned the superiority of the weapons of imperial troops. When the lances broken both Hungarians and Byzantines used swords, when the swords chiped the Byzantines used maces, but the Hungarians ran out of weapons.

With this victory the empire secured the newly seized territories and ended the war.

Aftermath:

In 1169 Manuel’s son was born. And the plan of the dynastic union under Béla was changed. Béla lost the title of despot (he became a caesar) and his engagement with Manuel’s daughter was broken. He married the half-sister of the empress: Anna (or Agnes) Chatillon of Antioch. (daughter of Raynald de Chatillon).

In 1172 he was invited to the throne of Hungary and with Manuel help he became the king of Hungary as Béla III. Manuel and Béla remained close allies. After Manuel’s death Béla launched a campaign to save Alexius II. (and he recaptured the teritorries lost after Zemun). Gyula Moravcsik presumed that he tried to seize the imperial throne from Andronicus, but he failed by the sudden appearance of Isaac II.

Nevertheless Béla III. was one of the most powerful and significant kings in the Arpad age.

Reconstruction of Béla's face based on his skull:

Manuel Comnenus:

 



Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2006 at 18:44
interesting

-------------




Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 07:00

The Battle of Mohi (or Sajó River)

Background:

In 1235 a group of Hungarian dominican monks left Hungary in order to find those Magyars who –according to the Chronicles- remained at the east. Finally Friar Julian reached the Capital of Volga-Bulgaria where he was said that the Magyars lived in two day jouney. Julian found them, he could speak with them in Hungarian. He named their country Magna Hungaria (= Hungaria Maior) or Non-Christian Hungary. He also heard about the infamous Tartars who were the enemies of eastern Magyars and Bulgars. Two years later he tried to return to them, but they were devastated by the Mongols. Friar Julian returned with news of deadly danger and a Mongol ultimatum to Hungary.

In 1223 the expanding Mongol Empire defeated an allied Russian – Cuman army at Kalka river. With this victory the Mongol seized control over Eastern Europe and became threat to Central Europe. The defeated Cumans retreated towards Hungary. Hungary continously tried to convert them and expand her influence over the Cuman tribes for the last decades. The Hungarian king Béla IV. even began to used the title king of Cumania. When the Cuman refugees (cca. 40 000 people) sought asylum in his kingdom it seemed that at least a portion of the Cumans accept Hungarian rule. The Mongols considered the Cumans as their slaves and saw Hungary as a rival, and the cuman migration to Hungary as a casus belli. In their ulttimatum they also blame Hungary for missing envoys.

khan Bathu:

The Tartar threat reached Hungary in state of political turmoil. Traditionally the base of royal power was the vast estates in royal property. Under Andrew II. the donations of land reached a new and never seen peak. Whole counties were donated. As Andrew II said the best mesure of royal generosity is measureless. After Béla IV. inherited his father throne he began to confiscate Andrew’s donation and to execute or expell his advisors. He also denied the Lord's right of personal hearings and accept only written petitions to his chancellery. He even had the chairs of the council chamber taken away in order to force everbody to stand in his presence. His action caused great disaffection among the Lords. The newly arrived Cumans gave the king better position (and increasing perstige in Church circles for converting them) in his powerplay, but caused a lot of problem also. The nomadic Cumans seemed unable to live together with the settled Hungarians and Lords were shocked that the king supported the Cumans in these incidents.

Mongol campaigns in the eastern half of Europe:

 

The battle of Mohi:

The Mongols attacked Hungary with three armies. One of them attacked through Poland in order to withhold possible Polish auxiliaries and defeated the army of Henry Duke of Silesia and the Teutonic knights at Legnica. A southern army attacked Transylvania, defeated the voivod and crushed the Transylvanian Hungarian army. The main army led by khan Batu and Subotai himself attacked Hungary through the fortified Verecke Pass and annihilated the army led by the count palatine. (March 12th 1241) The main Mongol army consisted approximately 20-30 000 men.

Béla began to mobilize his army and ordered all of his troops and Cumans to Pest. Frederick Babenberg the Duke of Austria and Styria also arrived there to help him. In this moment the conflict between Cumans and Hungarians caused riots and the Cuman khan -who was under the personal protection of the king- was murdered. Some sources mention the role of Frederick inciting this riot, but his true roles are unknown. The Cumans beleived they were betrayed and left the country to the South piliging all the way. The full mobilization was unsuccesful. Many contigent were unable to reach Pest, some destroyed by Mongols, some by Cumans and many noble denied to take part in the campaign because they hated the king and wanted his defeat. Hardly anybody beleived the Mongol attack is dangereous it was considered a usual minor attack of the Cumans. This misbeleif was also a cause of the death of khan Kuthen. The whole Hungarian army numbered cca. 15-25 000 men.

The Tartar vanguard reached Pest in March 15th and began to pillage the neighbouring area. Béla forbid his men to attacked them, the Hungarian army was still unprepared. Even so Duke Frederick attacked and defeated a minor raiding party, so the king generally beleived coward. After this „heroic” act Duke Frederick returned home. Ugrin Csák the archbishop of Kalocsa also tried to attack a Mongol contingent, but he was lured to a swamp and the armoured cavalry stuck in it. He could barely save his own life.

Finally the king decided to offer battle with the Tartars, but they began to retreat. This affirmed the opinion of the Lords that the Tartars are not a threat and the king’s behaviour is not caution, but cowardice. After a weak of forced march and regular tartar attacks the Hungarian army reached the flooded river Sajó. Here the army stopped to rest and wait for additional suplies. The king and the Hungarians still did not know that the main Tartar army is present, becauses of the wooded terrain of the other side of Sajó. The cautious king ordered to build a heavily fortified camp of wagon trains.

It is highly unlikely that the Mongols originally wanted to cross a wide and dangereous river and attack a fortified camp. It is more likely that their original plan was attacking the Hungarians while cross the river just like in the case of Kalka. But all in all we will never know what thought Mongol generals in reality. We know that a Ruthenian slave of the Tartars escaped to the Hungarians and warned the Hungarians for the Mongol night attack through the bridge of Sajó. The Hungarians still did not beleive that this would be a full scale attack, but the troops of prince Kálmán the younger brother of king Béla (He was Duke of Slavonia, but primary sources often refers him as king, because he was the titular king of Galich too) and archbishop Ugrin Csák with the templar master left the camp to surprise the Tartars and defend the unguarded bridge. They reached the bridge at midnight. The sun set at 18:29 (April 10th 1241) so they had to march 7 kilometres in darkness.  It is very unlikely that the Mongols wanted to attack at night (horse archers avoid night battles), but they wanted to cross the river to be able to attack the Hungarian camp at dawn. When Kálmán and Ugrin arrived they found the Tartars unprepared and in the middle of crossing the river. They succefully forced them to melee and achived a great victory at the bridge. (It was a huge bridge. According to its remains its was minimum 200 metres long.) The Hungarians left some soldiers to guard the bridge and return to the camp. This shows that they still did not know that the main Mongol army was there. When they returned to the camp (cca. 2 am.) they celebratied the victory.

The unexpected Hungarian victory forced the Mongol generals to modify their plans. Sejban was sent to north to a ford with a smaller force to cross the river and attack the back of the bridgeguard. At cca. 4 am (they need light) they began the crossing. Meanwhile Subodai  went to south to build an „emergency” bridge during the Hungarians are engaged at the bridge. (They were able to begin crossing cca. 9 am). At dawn Batu with the help of seven stone thrower attacked the Hungarian guards on the bridge and after the arrival of Sejbán the Hungarians retreated to their camp. The mongol main forces finished crossing the river cca. 8 am.

When the fled Hungarians arrived to the camp they woke up the others. Kálmán, Ugrin andthe templar master left the camp again to deal with the attackers. Other remained there beleiveing this is also minor attack and prince Kálmán would defeat them again. Kálmán and Ugrin saw more and more Tartars and they realised that this is not a minor raid, but a very dangereous attack of the main Mongol forces. After some heavy fight they returned to the camp to reinforce themselves and to return with the full army. They were disappointed, the king didn’t even give orders to prepare for the battle. Archbishop Ugrin opprobriated the king in public and finally the Hungarian army left the camp, but this delay gave enough time to Batu to finish the crossing. A hard struggle ensued. The Hungarians outnumbered Batu troops and the Tartars were unable to move quikly because the Sajó was behind their backs. A Chinese-Mongol source mentions that Batu lost 30 of his bodguards and one of his lieutenant Bakatu and only the personal action and bravery of Batu withhold fleeing. At this moment the Subodai who was delayed by bridgebuilding attacked the Hungarians’ back and the panicked Hungarians retreated to the camp.

It is possible that in the camp the Hungarians would have been able to defend, but the outbreaks were ineffective and they panicked by the flaming arrows (many soldier trampled in the tight room). Finally the panicked soldiers routed andtried to escape on a gap left open on purpose by the mongols. (Fleeing soldiers can be killed more easily than those who forced to fight till death.) The Tartar casulties were so large that Batu didn’t wanted to pursue the Hungarians. Subodais had to exhort him. Archbishop Ugrin was killed, but prince Kálmán and king Béla managed to escape. Altough the wounds of Kálmán were so serious that he died later. The Hungarians lost cca. 10 000 men and were unable to field an other army to contain the Tartars.

Monument of the battle:

Memorial tablet of the Templars:

Aftermath:

There was not an other Hungarian army to fight the Mongols, but there were some remaining troops, mostly those who did not arrived Pest in time and those who remained home. The king supposed to halt the Mongols at the Duna, but when it was iced over, the Tartars crossed the river and tried to capture the king. The royal family escaped to Austria, but Duke Frederick arrested and blackmailed them to pay a huge ransom and give him 3 counties. Finally they went to Dalmatia and locked themselves in the castle of Trau (now Trogir) on an island of the Adriatic Sea.

The fleeing king Béla:

The Mongols gave up and in 1242 they retreated from Hungary. They lost too many man, they might fear a possible german crusade, and they were unable to break Hungarian resistence. Many castles (cca. 160 castles, fortified monasteries etc.) were able to defend themselves. (The Death of the Great Khan was falselly beleived the cause of the retreat.)

Though Hungary was in ruin and lost cca. 25 % of her total population Hungarian power was not broken. In the following year the king was able to recapture the territories and castles from Austria and beat down a rebellion in Slavonia. The fear of the returnig of the Mongols created an exceptional national unity and helped to rebuild the country as a major power player of the region.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 00:51
Originally posted by Raider

The Battle of Mohi (or Sajó River)

The Mongols gave up and in 1242 they retreated from Hungary. They lost too many man, they might fear a possible german crusade, and they were unable to break Hungarian resistence. Many castles (cca. 160 castles, fortified monasteries etc.) were able to defend themselves. (The Death of the Great Khan was falselly beleived the cause of the retreat.)

Hmm i have been really enjoying your posts so far but im not so sure about this information got any evidence?



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 02:47
Originally posted by BigL

Originally posted by Raider

The Battle of Mohi (or Sajó River)

The Mongols gave up and in 1242 they retreated from Hungary. They lost too many man, they might fear a possible german crusade, and they were unable to break Hungarian resistence. Many castles (cca. 160 castles, fortified monasteries etc.) were able to defend themselves. (The Death of the Great Khan was falselly beleived the cause of the retreat.)

Hmm i have been really enjoying your posts so far but im not so sure about this information got any evidence?

1. For the German crusade. The crusade was organized (though without explicit papal permission), large sum of money collected and the troops began to rally. Finally this troops  were used in the current civil war, and the collected extra tax was kept by the lords. But there was a chance to a crusade and this might be affected the Mongol decision.

2. A letter from Béla IV. to the pope in Február 2nd 1242 mentions 17 major fort and numerous, uncount minor castles resisting the Tartars. The source of the 160 number was Hungarian Wikipedia. I will search for more reliable source if you ask.

3. The Death of the Great Khan:

- It is unlikely that this information got to Hungary so quickly.

- The election of the new Great Khan was far later 1246.

- Bathu did not take part of the election and presumably he did not have ambitions to become the supreme ruler.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 23:30

[/QUOTE]

2. A letter from Béla IV. to the pope in Február 2nd 1242 mentions 17 major fort and numerous, uncount minor castles resisting the Tartars. The source of the 160 number was Hungarian Wikipedia. I will search for more reliable source if you ask.

3. The Death of the Great Khan:

- It is unlikely that this information got to Hungary so quickly.

- The election of the new Great Khan was far later 1246.

- Bathu did not take part of the election and presumably he did not have ambitions to become the supreme ruler.

[/QUOTE]

Firstly one cannot take bela's words accurately as he is obviously biased or has a hidden agenda in his words, Why the mongols didnt take the castle of hungary ,The army "invading" Hungary was a recconaisance mission,the mongols do this to nearly every country it invades,Xi Xia ,Jin ,Russia etc.The aim is to destroy the armies in the feild and kill or capture the king/emperor of that country to weaken it for a later full scale invasion which aims to capture and consolidate the enemys population,oppurtunistic capturings of enemy fortifactions were a secondary objective like the capture of beijing.Hungarian castles holding out to mongols therefore is likely due to a lack of a determined effort  by mongols and their purposefull avoidance of drawn out seiges.After all they took the Assasin castles in the mountains of syria,the much larger fortresses of china.

I agree that Ogedei's death didnt cause batu to go back to mongolia,but he knew that the mongol empire was on the verge of splitting and civil war and needed a strong base of operations in russia to protect his new kingdom from the eastern mongol threat.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 02:35
Originally posted by BigL

2. A letter from Béla IV. to the pope in Február 2nd 1242 mentions 17 major fort and numerous, uncount minor castles resisting the Tartars. The source of the 160 number was Hungarian Wikipedia. I will search for more reliable source if you ask.

3. The Death of the Great Khan:

- It is unlikely that this information got to Hungary so quickly.

- The election of the new Great Khan was far later 1246.

- Bathu did not take part of the election and presumably he did not have ambitions to become the supreme ruler.

[/QUOTE]

Firstly one cannot take bela's words accurately as he is obviously biased or has a hidden agenda in his words, Why the mongols didnt take the castle of hungary ,The army "invading" Hungary was a recconaisance mission,the mongols do this to nearly every country it invades,Xi Xia ,Jin ,Russia etc.The aim is to destroy the armies in the feild and kill or capture the king/emperor of that country to weaken it for a later full scale invasion which aims to capture and consolidate the enemys population,oppurtunistic capturings of enemy fortifactions were a secondary objective like the capture of beijing.Hungarian castles holding out to mongols therefore is likely due to a lack of a determined effort  by mongols and their purposefull avoidance of drawn out seiges.After all they took the Assasin castles in the mountains of syria,the much larger fortresses of china.

I agree that Ogedei's death didnt cause batu to go back to mongolia,but he knew that the mongol empire was on the verge of splitting and civil war and needed a strong base of operations in russia to protect his new kingdom from the eastern mongol threat.

[/QUOTE]1. I do not see why would Béla bias this information.

2. The Mongols tried to capture these castles, but they failed. Of course if they concentrate more men and did not lack siege weaponry they might be succeded. But this question is "what if".

When the king returned he began a large (stone) castle building programme. It seems logical that this was because of the former successes of the stone castles.



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 06:20
Maybe Bathu didn't formaly participate in the election, but he could have been backing one of the contenders with his forces? Even if not, you don't want to be far away from an event of such importance...


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 08:02

Hi Maljkovic:

May be you can help me. It is known that Kálmán and his troops had an important role in the Mohi Battle. Since he was the duke of Slavonia it is possible that he had Croatian soldiers. Do you know something about Croats in this battle?



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 12:10

The title of duke of Slavonia was only a royal titular, something like the prince of Wales. It wasn't actually linked to Slavonia, some dukes never even crossed the Drava. From what I know, noblemen from Dalmatia mostly didn't respond to Bela's call to arms. Ironically, this helped save his life later on. Slavonian nobles mostly did respond, so there were Croatian soldiers in the battle of Mohi. One account is of a Ivan Brekovacki who was captured in the battle. He describes the end of the battle, from point where the royal army was surronded, and his description coincides with the one you gave in the forum. Brekovacki also says Mongolian arrows were four times longer then the nes the royal army was using. He further states that he escaped captivity to save his life, since the Tatars (Mongols) were executing all the prisoners.

However, there is one thing that interests me. There are records of a battle fought after Mohi, at the Field of Grobnik (Grobnicko Polje) between the army of Dalmatian nobles and Mongol forces that pursued the king that the Mongols suposedly lost. Since the Mongol forces continued the pursuit, I'm inclined to believe this battle was either a draw or it involved a smaller Mongolian detachment, but I haven't found any accounts of it. Do you know something about that?



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 18:02

When the mongols invaded hungary the castles were mainly made of wood ,after bela rebuilt stone castles because he is scared of mongol invasions

+your estimates of Hungarian casualties and numbers involved are highly exaggerated in the lower case.As several sources mention 40,000-100,000 hungarians died and in battle



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 02:44
Originally posted by BigL

When the mongols invaded hungary the castles were mainly made of wood ,after bela rebuilt stone castles because he is scared of mongol invasions

+your estimates of Hungarian casualties and numbers involved are highly exaggerated in the lower case.As several sources mention 40,000-100,000 hungarians died and in battle

1. And because only the stone castles could resist the tartars.

2. This sources must be quite unreliable or old. 100 000 dead or even 40 000 is totally unrealistic. We speak a medieval campaign. In this time an army of 30 000 was rated a very big army. The total manpower of the country was max. 50 000 men, and the king could field only a small portion of this quantitiy (hence the estimated 15-25 000) as I wrote above. By the way contemporary sources mention either the "whole army" or 10 000 men. And this ten thousand was a very large number anyway. Do not forget that older sholars spoke 100 000 Hungarians in the battle of Lechfeld, where there were only max. 8000 men. Hungary was an underpopulated country and even contemporary Germany (HRE) or France was not able to field an army of 100 000.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 02:55
Originally posted by Maljkovic

The title of duke of Slavonia was only a royal titular, something like the prince of Wales. It wasn't actually linked to Slavonia, some dukes never even crossed the Drava.

 This is quite surprising to me. Of course there had to be cases when the title was only nominal, but in the Arpad age the territorial power of the princes was quite general. Some times the princes as dukes ruled nearly independently from the king. I must do some deeper research in this area.

Originally posted by Maljkovic

From what I know, noblemen from Dalmatia mostly didn't respond to Bela's call to arms. Ironically, this helped save his life later on. Slavonian nobles mostly did respond, so there were Croatian soldiers in the battle of Mohi. One account is of a Ivan Brekovacki who was captured in the battle. He describes the end of the battle, from point where the royal army was surronded, and his description coincides with the one you gave in the forum. Brekovacki also says Mongolian arrows were four times longer then the nes the royal army was using. He further states that he escaped captivity to save his life, since the Tatars (Mongols) were executing all the prisoners.

This seems a very impotant source. I have a book collected Hungarian and foreign primary sources (and modern essays) about the Mongol invasion, but Brekovacki's account is missing. As far as I know this source is completely ignored or unknown in the Hungarian historiography. Are there any English translations?

Originally posted by Maljkovic

However, there is one thing that interests me. There are records of a battle fought after Mohi, at the Field of Grobnik (Grobnicko Polje) between the army of Dalmatian nobles and Mongol forces that pursued the king that the Mongols suposedly lost. Since the Mongol forces continued the pursuit, I'm inclined to believe this battle was either a draw or it involved a smaller Mongolian detachment, but I haven't found any accounts of it. Do you know something about that?

I do not know this battle, but I will try to find some reference.


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 07:04

The title of duke was certainly only nominal in the time of the Anjouvins and later Arpads, but it's possible Kalmans was real.

I'm 99% certain there is no translation. The Croatian historic archives are one of the least studied ones in the world.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 07:11
Originally posted by Maljkovic

I'm 99% certain there is a translation. The Croatian historic archives are one of the least studied ones in the world.

I will try to find it somewhere.

Could you write us some information about the Croatian military system and units during the joint kingdoms in the Arpad age? I have hardly found any information in my sources.



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 11:16

I made a little mistake, it should of said no translation.

The military system was basically feudal. Each noble had a given area of governing and a set number of troops he had to mobilize at the kings request. In the Arpad times the numbers were lowered in favor of quality, as oposed to the situation during the independent kingdom.

P.S. I have another correction to make, it seems I mixed up two brothers, Ivan and Jakov. Jakov was the one who was at Mohi and was not captured,  while Ivan was part of the kings rear guard after Mohi and was captured.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 20:14

 

[/QUOTE] 1. And because only the stone castles could resist the tartars.

2. This sources must be quite unreliable or old. 100 000 dead or even 40 000 is totally unrealistic. We speak a medieval campaign. In this time an army of 30 000 was rated a very big army. The total manpower of the country was max. 50 000 men, and the king could field only a small portion of this quantitiy (hence the estimated 15-25 000) as I wrote above. By the way contemporary sources mention either the "whole army" or 10 000 men. And this ten thousand was a very large number anyway. Do not forget that older sholars spoke 100 000 Hungarians in the battle of Lechfeld, where there were only max. 8000 men. Hungary was an underpopulated country and even contemporary Germany (HRE) or France was not able to field an army of 100 000.

[/QUOTE]

Stone castles couldnt stop Mongols ,firstly castles are small and can only hold thousands of population,they hold no centre of power only can protect local princes,the mongols sacked the citys of hungary,if they made a concerted effort to take castles then we would see them easily taking them , after all they took the mountain top Assasins castles in syria which the crusaders or arabs couldnt.They took the city of Sarmakland in 1 week defended by 100,000 soldiers with walls higher than any castle in europe,and then they took the many fortified citys of China which also had walls higher than any city in europe.

Only in medieval western europe are armies of small size its not uncommon for other countries to feild 100,000 troops,Mongols mobilized 100,000 for invading china,even in roman times the romans could mobilize 70,000 men for the battle of carhaee.

The Hungarian army (some 60,000 on the eve of the Battle of Muhi)/ http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou19.htm#2.11 - 11

 



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 02:57
Originally posted by BigL

 

Originally posted by Raider

 1. And because only the stone castles could resist the tartars.

2. This sources must be quite unreliable or old. 100 000 dead or even 40 000 is totally unrealistic. We speak a medieval campaign. In this time an army of 30 000 was rated a very big army. The total manpower of the country was max. 50 000 men, and the king could field only a small portion of this quantitiy (hence the estimated 15-25 000) as I wrote above. By the way contemporary sources mention either the "whole army" or 10 000 men. And this ten thousand was a very large number anyway. Do not forget that older sholars spoke 100 000 Hungarians in the battle of Lechfeld, where there were only max. 8000 men. Hungary was an underpopulated country and even contemporary Germany (HRE) or France was not able to field an army of 100 000.

Stone castles couldnt stop Mongols ,firstly castles are small and can only hold thousands of population,they hold no centre of power only can protect local princes,the mongols sacked the citys of hungary,if they made a concerted effort to take castles then we would see them easily taking them , after all they took the mountain top Assasins castles in syria which the crusaders or arabs couldnt.They took the city of Sarmakland in 1 week defended by 100,000 soldiers with walls higher than any castle in europe,and then they took the many fortified citys of China which also had walls higher than any city in europe.

Only in medieval western europe are armies of small size its not uncommon for other countries to feild 100,000 troops,Mongols mobilized 100,000 for invading china,even in roman times the romans could mobilize 70,000 men for the battle of carhaee.

The Hungarian army (some 60,000 on the eve of the Battle of Muhi)/ http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou19.htm#2.11 - 11

1. In generally you are right. But in this particular case you are not. Stone castles built in hills were able to resist the Mongols during the Hungarian invasion. This is proven fact. (We have royal charters in which the king granted land to the defenders.) I do not doubt that the Mongols had the ability of capturing large fortresses if they had enough time, men and adequate siege weapons with qualified crew. So in Hungary some of these factors were surely missing.

Naturally you are right, the castles were only capable of protecting a small protion of the population, but this do not change the fact that these castles were needed to control the country.

2. I agree. This was the cause of Hungary (only 1.5 million population) was generally able to field an army of 30 000 men. But those huge numbers you spoke are unrealistic. Of course thre are different recontstructions of the battle. (my source was: Négyesi, Lajos: A muhi csata 1241 április 11. in Hadtörténeti Közlemények 2/1997.) In my observation the older renconstruction means larger numbers. By the way the text on your link mentions 40 -50 000 men not 60 000. According to primary sources the Mongols were able to shoot arrows to all parts of the camp. A camp of 100 000 or even  60 000 horsemen would be simply too large to this actions.

We simply cannot count with so large numbers. Do not forget the Mongols destroyed an army in Transylvania and an other at Verecke Pass separated. And we know that the full mobilization was unsuccesful. If the Hungarians had so large army that the king was able to field and army of 60 or 100 000 against all these factors the king why not used this army against any other enemy? No, the 100 000 Hungarian soldiers is a myth just like the 1 million Persians at Thermopyle.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 03:03
Originally posted by Maljkovic

I made a little mistake, it should of said no translation.

The military system was basically feudal. Each noble had a given area of governing and a set number of troops he had to mobilize at the kings request. In the Arpad times the numbers were lowered in favor of quality, as oposed to the situation during the independent kingdom.

P.S. I have another correction to make, it seems I mixed up two brothers, Ivan and Jakov. Jakov was the one who was at Mohi and was not captured,  while Ivan was part of the kings rear guard after Mohi and was captured.

Were this warriors horsemen or foot soldiers? What kind of weapons did they use.

I have hardly found anything about the battle of Grobnick so far. One essay metions that In 1916 Croats carried ground of important battlefields (where croats defended the kingdom) to the coronation mound of Charles IV to show loyalty. One of these battles was Grobnick.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 03:49

"A southern army attacked Transylvania, defeated the voivod and crushed the Transylvanian Hungarian army" any info on this battle?

"The Tartar casulties were so large that Batu didn’t wanted to pursue the Hungarians" ,Where did you get this from, i know the mongol casualties at the bridgehead were high,but werent the other mongol divisions relatively untouched.

 "A camp of 100 000 or even  60 000 horsemen would be simply too large to this actions." mongol bow can shoot roughly 300m ,the mongols surrounded the camp so shooting from all directions,does this mean the camp has a diameter of 600meters/

How many of the hungarians are horsemen?



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 04:07
Originally posted by BigL

"A southern army attacked Transylvania, defeated the voivod and crushed the Transylvanian Hungarian army" any info on this battle?

"The Tartar casulties were so large that Batu didn’t wanted to pursue the Hungarians" ,Where did you get this from, i know the mongol casualties at the bridgehead were high,but werent the other mongol divisions relatively untouched.

 "A camp of 100 000 or even  60 000 horsemen would be simply too large to this actions." mongol bow can shoot roughly 300m ,the mongols surrounded the camp so shooting from all directions,does this mean the camp has a diameter of 600meters/

How many of the hungarians are horsemen?

1. My reference do not give details, because it concentrates to the Mohi battle. I will search for further information.

2. According to the footnotes of my reference the primary source was The History of the Yuan dinasty - Biography of Subodai.

3. There were no infantry only cavalry in the Hungarian army, but there were the servants and other camp followers.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 04:08

No infantry where do the hungarians get all there horses from

The History of the Yuan dinasty - Biography of Subodai where can i access this source please



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 04:30
Originally posted by BigL

No infantry where do the hungarians get all there horses from

The History of the Yuan dinasty - Biography of Subodai where can i access this source please

1. I'm sorry, but I can't understand you first sentence.

2. The essay of Négyesi refers a Hungarian translation, but I do not know how to find an english copy.



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 05:41
Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by Maljkovic

I made a little mistake, it should of said no translation.

The military system was basically feudal. Each noble had a given area of governing and a set number of troops he had to mobilize at the kings request. In the Arpad times the numbers were lowered in favor of quality, as oposed to the situation during the independent kingdom.

P.S. I have another correction to make, it seems I mixed up two brothers, Ivan and Jakov. Jakov was the one who was at Mohi and was not captured,  while Ivan was part of the kings rear guard after Mohi and was captured.

Were this warriors horsemen or foot soldiers? What kind of weapons did they use.

There wasn't any big difference between the Hungarian and Croation forces, that's probably why they weren't mentioned separatly. In Slavonia the mainstay was made up of heavy horsemen (lance, shield and sword), while in Croatia there was more armoured infantry, but like I said, only Slavonians came to Mohi.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 15:49

Question wat was the compostition of Hungarian armies,All cavalry ,so no infantry what about crossbowmen or archers.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 02:35
Originally posted by BigL

Question wat was the compostition of Hungarian armies,All cavalry ,so no infantry what about crossbowmen or archers.

Well the first information about crossbowmen is connected to the Mongol invasion. The Castle of Esztergom was successfully defended by the Spanish count Simon and his crossbowmen. On the other hand there is no information about the usage of crossbow or any other type of infantry in field battles during the Arpad age. So Hungarian armies of this age were exclusively cavalry forces.


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 08:47

The Battle of Dürnkrut (or the 2nd battle of Marchfeld)

Background:

a) Military force and internal situation of Hungary

In the XIII. century the power of the lords continuously grew thanks to the plentiful royal land donations. Béla IV tried to restore the old days, but he failed and after the Mongol invasion the donations continued to the „faithful barons”. Though these barons were faithful indeed (due to the shocking Mongol invasion), their sons chose a different way. During the rule of the child king Ladislaus IV (the Cuman) the barons became so powerful that one of them even murdered a member of the royal family (Béla the Duke of Macsó and Bosnia) in public and remained unpunished. As Ladislaus reached the age of majority he made an attempt to beat them. Instead of restoring the old land-structure of the kingdom he chose an eastern autokratic way of governing by the help of the Cumans. (His mother was a Cuman princess.) Practically  he spent all of his life in internal warfare.

The disintegration of the royal estate and power structure changed the old military system of the country. The rising class of the royal servants (servientes regis) or in their new name nobles (Originally nobilis was an exclusively aristocratic title) had the right to serve directly under the royal banner instead of the  counties’. Many of them became the familiaris of some lord. Familiarity is often called the Hungarian form of vassality, but in truth the Hungarian familiares  were very different from the western type vassals in some aspects. In the time of the battle of Dürnkrut the king was still able to raise an army from the remnant of the county system, and from the Cumans, but he needed some of the barons and their private armies to have a capable army.

After the Mongol invasion Béla IV also reformed the army to increase the ratio of heavy cavalry, but the overall number of the heavy cavalry was still low compared to a Western European army. On the other hand the Cumans brought new blood to the horse archer traditions and had a great role in the royal army.

b) Alliance against Bohemia

king Ladislaus meets emperor Rudolph: a copy of Mór Than's original painting:

During the Mongol Invasion Frederick the Duke of Austria and Styria blackmailed, „robbed” the Hungarian king Béla IV. Altough in the following year Béla recaptured the lost territories and the status quo ante bellum was restored hostilities didn’t ceased to exist. In 1246 the last of the Babenbergs Frederick died in a battle between Austrians and Hungarians. His duchies became masterless. Hungary and the rising power of Bohemia also wanted to seize the Babenberg legacy and a long struggle began between the two kingdoms. After some years of war Bohemia and Hungary divided the territories. Hungary got Styria while Bohemia got Austria. But this treaty didn’t solve the problem. And the war continued. In 1260 Ottokar II of Bohemia defeated Béla IV in the battle of Kroissenbrunn (or the first battle of Marchfeld) and annexed the whole Babenberg legacy. Ottokar also tried to conquer Hungary itself. He failed, but the Hungarians could regain the last castle from him only in 1277.

With these conquest Bohemia became the strongest within the Holy Roman Empire and Ottokar had the ambition to become the Emperor. He failed. The electors did not want an emperor so powerful, and elected an insignificant count, Rudolf Habsburg (1273). The Bohemian king did not recognized him as an emperor, because the Duke of Bavaria took part in the elections instead of him as an elector. In 1274 Rudolph declared that the Ottokar had illegally captured the Babengberg lands. According to law the emperor had the right to donate masterless lands.

Rudolph was too weak to defeat Ottokar, so he tried to ally himself with Ladislaus IV of Hungary. Realising this danger Ottokar also tried to arrange problems with Hungary, but he wasn’t trusted and the Hungarian court chose Rudolph. After his failed attempt to ally with Hungary Ottokar offered Rudolph the Babenberg territories, but the emperor wanted to crush him and rejected. The war began.


The Battle:

In August 26th 1278 the three armies clashed. Rudolph and Ladislaus had the high ground, thanks to the king’s Cumans who served as excellent scouts and destroyed every Bohemian troops fell behind. Their actions slowed down Ottokar and practically blinded his army.

Imperial and Hungarian troops stood separately: Hungarians on the left side, Imperials on the right side. The Hungarians had cca. 15 000 cavalry among them 5000 Cumans. Rudolph had 2000 knights all of them with their retinues. All together cca. 10 000 men.

The first line of Ladislaus’ army were the Cumans and the Hungarian light cavalry. The second and the third line consisted medium and heavy cavalry. The second line was led by palatine Matthew Csák, the third line was led by Stephen Gutkeled  the royal judge (iudex curiae regis) two immensely powerful baron. The young king (he was only 16 year-old) stood on a hill behind his army and personally did not fight. A German chronicle mentions that Hungarian kings usually stand in well protected places because Hungarian troops generally moves fast and often change their position in battle, while Germans usually stand still in melee.

Rudolph made two lines from his knights (Austrians, Styrians and Suabians) and providently he formed a reserve of 60 knights under Ulrich von Kapellen. The emperor fought alongside his knights.

Ottokar had a large army of 30 000 men. This army consisted auxilliary troops of different countries. The Bohemian king divided his army to fought separatedly with the two enemy. On the right against the Hungarians he placed Bohemians (1st line), Moravians (2nd line) and Poles (3rd line) led by Milota Dedic. On the left stood German knights from Thuringia and Messen (1st line), Poles (2nd line) with Bavarians and Brandenburgians (3rd line.) Ottokar fought in the left in front of Rudoph.

The battle started with the attack of the Cumans and Hungarian light cavalry. The showers of arrows hurted or killed many Bohemians and disintegrated their formation. This disarrayed Bohemian right was charged by the Hungarian heavy cavalry. They fought well, a German source compared their capacities to the famous French knights’. The Hungarians reached the Bohemian camp and began looting.

Meanwhile Ottokar pushed back Rudolph’s troops. Even the emperor’s life was in danger. In this moment the Imperial reserve under Ulrich von Kapellen flanked the Bohemian army and now Ottokar had to retreat. Finally the return of the Hungarians to the back of the Ottokar crushed retreating Bohemians and the Iron and Golden King -as Ottokar was called- died with his men.


Aftermath:

Although the short lived Bohemian great power was defeated, the great king was dead, Bohemia managed to preserve its influence and remained an important power of the region.

Emperor Rudolph donated the Babenberg lands to his sons and these lands became the core of the future world-wide Habsburg Empire.

emperor Rudolph I

King Ladislaus returned to Hungary with the loot. The continuous Bohemian danger was ceased to exist and the western border was secured. The victory temporary gave him a bright reputation, but his struggle for restoring royal power ultimately failed. A papal legate forced him to accept anti-Cuman laws and only two years after Dürnkrut, where he won with the help of the Cumans, he had to beat a Cuman rebellion. Finally he was killed by Cuman assassins in 1290.



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 23:00

"Hungarian troops generally moves fast and often change their position in battle" Interesting how Hungarian art of warfare differs alot from German,Is this due to a Steppe influnce(Magyar/cuman)??

"They fought well, a German source compared their capacities to the famous French ", What was good about the French knights ,all i know about about their battles is being defeated by English alot and the disaster crusade vs the ottoman turks?



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 03:07
Originally posted by BigL

"Hungarian troops generally moves fast and often change their position in battle" Interesting how Hungarian art of warfare differs alot from German,Is this due to a Steppe influnce(Magyar/cuman)??

"They fought well, a German source compared their capacities to the famous French ", What was good about the French knights ,all i know about about their battles is being defeated by English alot and the disaster crusade vs the ottoman turks?

1. The composite bow remained an important weapon of Hungarian troops. Horse archer tactics was used generally against western knights while against eastern enemies Hungarians used usually western style melee tactics. (see. Battle of Zemun) Naturally the arrival of the Cumans also had an impact.

2. The battle of Dürnkrut was in 1278. Crecy was in 1346. Osman I declared his independence only in 1299.



Posted By: Nagyfejedelem
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 12:54
Good work!Clap


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 06:48

The Battle of Rozhanovce (Hung. Rozgony)

June 15 1312

Background:

In the last decades of the XIII. century anarchy fell to Hungary. Powerful barons ruled vast teritories and usurped royal rights. The continuous efforts of the kings to reestabilish royal power failed.

Domains of the reguli in the begining of the 14th century:

green- name of the oligarch or his family

red - important battle against the oligarchs

purple - seats of the oligarchs

In January 14 1301 Andrew III the Venetian died heirless. With his death the royal line of Árpáds died out. The kingdom remained without king, but at least it remained. It was not unusual that a kingdom ceased to exist after the dinasty died out, but in Hungary the ideology of the kingdom remained strong and all of the oligarchs (in Latin: reguli, little kings) agreed that Hungary need a king, and they all agreed that this king had to be without power.

A king of Hungary had to be the descendant of the Arpad kings. Authority of the Arpad dinasty was still unquestioned. There were three candidates: Venceslaus Premysl the son of the king of Bohemia, Otto Wittlesbach of Bavaria and Charles Robert d’Anjou from Naples. After the struggles of the interregnum Charles I was generally recognized as king and had a valid coronation in August 27 1310. Though Charles I was a king, but he had no real power. The reguli did not obeyed to him. Peaceful solutions failed the only way to regain royal power was war.

The most powerful and most notorious regulus Matthew Csák of Trecin (Hung. Trencsén) openly rebelled against the king and forced him to relocate the royal seat from Buda to Timisoara (Hung. Temesvár) in 1311.

The Aba was an old aritocratic family in Hungary. One of them [Samuel I 1041-44] even became king as a brother in law of king St. Stephen I. In this time they ruled over a large portion of Northern Eastern Hungary.

In the autumn of 1311 Amádé Aba  was killed by the citizens of Kosice (Hung: Kassa) because he tried to deprive the town of its royal priviliges and extend Aba power above the town. Some of his sons were captured and held in custody.

The sons of Amádé Aba wanted revenge, and the king to „keep peace” mediated between the Abas and Kosice (Kassa). In fact the king supported Kassa and forced an agreement wich would have crushed the Aba power. The sons of Amádé Aba did not accept the agreement and attacked Kosice (Kassa). The rebellion of the Abas was supported by Matthew Csák while other oligarchs remained neutral or nominally helped the king.


The battle:

The royal army and the rebels finally met near to Rozhanovce (Rozgony). The Abas had approximately 4000 men amongst them 1700 Moravian heavy cavalrymen, mercenaries sent by Matthew Csák. The others were also cavalrymen mostly medium or light cavalry.  The rebel army was led by „Big” Aba.

The king had cca. 3000 men. His army consisted of the medium/light cavalry of the lesser nobles, who prefered royal power instead of the local lord’s, the infantry of the local towns (mainly Kosice’s, the main target of the Abas.) and the royal retinue of knights. The king was also helped by Hospitaller knights who had at least 30 chapters in Hungary.  The king personally led his army.

The battle began as a tipical battle of the knights. Both armies tried to crush the enemy with a frontal cavalry charge. The Abas had more men and more heavy cavalry so they could push back royal forces. Even the royal standard bearer (Györke Csák) died and Charles had to continue fight under the banner of the Hospitallers. The rebel cavalry nearly  overwhelmed the royal cavalry. In this moment the infantry of the townfolks, who were practicaly ignored by both the king and the Abas, sideattacked the rebels and they managed to kill the rebel leaders. They saved the king and saved the day.

This was the first time in Hungarian military history when infantry played a decesive role in the outcome of a battle.

The battle of Rozhanovce:

Right side - the royal army and the king

Left side - the rebels

Behind - Kosice and its infantry flanking the rebels


 

Aftermath:

This was only the first step. In the following decade the king defeated the reguli one by one. He practically had to conquer his own country. There was only one oligarch whom he couldn’t defeat. Matthew Csák managed to preserve his power though he lost some of his territory. Charles was able to submit Csák domains only after the death of Matthew Csák.

Charles I d'Anjou:

Charles I consolidated royal power and his reforms became strong base of a Golen Age in Hungarian medieval history under the reign of his son Louis I the Great.



Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 13:35
I have a question with the background origin of Hungary. Wasn't Hungary founded by the Huns? With "Hun"gary i think it kind of makes sense


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 16:48

Think it was named after Onogars,a later  tribe



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 09:35
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon

I have a question with the background origin of Hungary. Wasn't Hungary founded by the Huns? With "Hun"gary i think it kind of makes sense
BigL is right. The word Hungary,  more precisely the latin Hungarus originates from the name of the Onogur (= ten arrows) steppe federation.


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 09:41

Anyway It is interesting that in the picture illustrating the battle you can see both element of the Hungarian coat of arms. Red and Silver stripes as the symbol of the Royal House (with additional fleur-de-lys of the Capet-Anjous) and the triple mound with the patriarchal cross as a symbol of the nobilitas, the country itself. The later is broken to sign the defeat.

Coat of arms of Hungary:



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2006 at 14:11
Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by BigL

Can u inform me about hunyadi
Well, I am planning to insert some of his battles (Varna, Belgrade). What do you want to know about him?

I have problems with who he really whas, a Hungarian (thats what i think) or Romanian (thats what some romanians think of).
Well, It's a difficult question. He was a real christian hero not only among the Romanian and Hungarians, but Serbs etc. also.

The Hunyadi family originated from Wallachia. The name Hunyadi means of Hunyad in Hungarian. The family got this name after Hunyadi's father migrated to Transylvania and received the Castle Hunyad from the king.

Some Hungarian historians presumed that the family had a Cuman origin, because of their names (Vajk, Serbe etc.) But most of the historians rejected it because only the origin of their names is not enough to prove the origin of the family. By the way Cumans in the XV. century were fully assimilated to the Romanians. So I think we could say that the Hunyadi's father were a Romanian.

The father of Hunyadi, Vajk (hung.) or Voicu (rom.) married a Hungarian woman and presumably convert to the catholic faith. Being a catholic was necessary to became a nobleman in Hungary and this were usually the first step of assimilation to the Hungarians.

So John Hunyadi was a catholic nobleman of Hungary whose father was a Romanian and mother was a Hungarian. I do not know his personal ties or his mother tongue.

All in all I think both Romanians and Hungarians could rightfully consider him as theirs.

I've actually heard a version where he was the illegitimate son of king Mathias Corwin. I suspect this was only a rumor, but it's an interesting one



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2006 at 02:48
Originally posted by Maljkovic

Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by DayI

Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by BigL

Can u inform me about hunyadi
Well, I am planning to insert some of his battles (Varna, Belgrade). What do you want to know about him?

I have problems with who he really whas, a Hungarian (thats what i think) or Romanian (thats what some romanians think of).
Well, It's a difficult question. He was a real christian hero not only among the Romanian and Hungarians, but Serbs etc. also.

The Hunyadi family originated from Wallachia. The name Hunyadi means of Hunyad in Hungarian. The family got this name after Hunyadi's father migrated to Transylvania and received the Castle Hunyad from the king.

Some Hungarian historians presumed that the family had a Cuman origin, because of their names (Vajk, Serbe etc.) But most of the historians rejected it because only the origin of their names is not enough to prove the origin of the family. By the way Cumans in the XV. century were fully assimilated to the Romanians. So I think we could say that the Hunyadi's father were a Romanian.

The father of Hunyadi, Vajk (hung.) or Voicu (rom.) married a Hungarian woman and presumably convert to the catholic faith. Being a catholic was necessary to became a nobleman in Hungary and this were usually the first step of assimilation to the Hungarians.

So John Hunyadi was a catholic nobleman of Hungary whose father was a Romanian and mother was a Hungarian. I do not know his personal ties or his mother tongue.

All in all I think both Romanians and Hungarians could rightfully consider him as theirs.

I've actually heard a version where he was the illegitimate son of king Mathias Corwin. I suspect this was only a rumor, but it's an interesting one

John Hunyadi was the father of Mathias Hunyadi, who had the epithet of Corvinus.

King Matthias had an illegitimate son who was named John after Matthias' famous father. His full name was John Corvin, because as illegitimate, he can't wore the name Hunyadi.

And there was a fabricated origin of the Hunyadi family, because the real one wasn't too aristocratic. It was said that John Hunyadi was the illegitimate son of king Sigismund of Luxemburg. (By the way Sigismund was a known womanizer who chased women even in his old age.)



Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 09:15

Hello , look what site about the hungarian medieval history i have found today: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Medieval_Hungary.htm - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Medieval_Hungary .htm  ===> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hungarian_Battles.htm - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hungarian_Battle s.htm  - with information about some of the famous hungarian battles in XIV - XV century. There are also few maps.



-------------


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 10:20
Originally posted by The Chargemaster

Hello , look what site about the hungarian medieval history i have found today: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Medieval_Hungary.htm - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Medieval_Hungary .htm  ===> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hungarian_Battles.htm - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hungarian_Battle s.htm  - with information about some of the famous hungarian battles in XIV - XV century. There are also few maps.

They are mainly John Hunyadi's battle. It seems that non-Hungarians interest lies in his battles against the Ottomans.


Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 05:48

Originally posted by Raider

It seems that non-Hungarians interest lies in his battles against the Ottomans.  

Yes, i think so. Just for me the Turkish empire was the cruelest enemy of Hungaria and of all other christian states around. The Mongols in the middle of XIII century were also very cruel, but the turkish invasion continue much longer, than the mongol invasion, and because of that the hungarian victims(military and civilian) were many more in the wars with the turks. Therefore every christian people in the Balkans is proud with the hungarian glorious battles against the turks.



-------------


Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2006 at 11:55

I have few questions to all hungarian users:

How is in hungarian language: war/s, battle/s, uprising/s, threaty/es, frontline/s, commander/s, invasion/s, language/s, historical, history, army/es, settling, raid/s, cavalery, warlord, tribe, populate, colonize, victory, triumph, march, campaign(military)?

I want to use these words(in hungarian) to find more historical maps of Hungary and to post these maps in the thread of Nagyfejedelem "Historical maps of Hungary"



-------------


Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2006 at 12:05
In 1353, the Hungarian Kingdom sent two armies into Bosnia and Herzegovina to overthrow the new King of Bosnia, Tvrtko I Kotromanic. Both armies were defeated.

In 1366, after Tvrtko I Kotromanic had been overthrown by a artistocratic rebellion within Bosnia, his mother - Jelena Subic, from the Croatian royal family - lobbied the Hungarian Kingdom to return Tvrtko I to power. They again sent armies into Bosnia and Herzegovina and this time they won.

In 1711, the Hungarians aided the Montenegrins in the "Annihilation of the Mohammedans" in Montenegro. Thousands of Muslims were killed and tens of thousands fled to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Sandzak of Novi Pazar. Only the Albanian Muslims managed to mount any defense, holding on to their settlements in Montenegro proper. The Slav Muslims were completely driven out and since that time have only returned in small numbers. Still in Sarajevo there are hundreds of families with Montenegrin names.

In the later years of the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarians were constantly attacking the border regions of northern Bosnia. The attacks caused a lot of death and destruction and by the time Bosnia and Herzegovina was annexed, northern Bosnia had the lowest population density ratio in the whole country. It was constantly an area of rebellion and chaos throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire's reign over this region, even compared to the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was never truly calm under Austrian rule.

That's the main ones I know about from here.


-------------
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2006 at 03:54
Originally posted by The Chargemaster

I have few questions to all hungarian users:

How is in hungarian language: war/s, battle/s, uprising/s, threaty/es, frontline/s, commander/s, invasion/s, language/s, historical, history, army/es, settling, raid/s, cavalery, warlord, tribe, populate, colonize, victory, triumph, march, campaign(military)?

I want to use these words(in hungarian) to find more historical maps of Hungary and to post these maps in the thread of Nagyfejedelem "Historical maps of Hungary"

war(s) = háború(k)

battle(s) = csata, csaták [major battles], ütközet(ek) [minor battles]

uprising(s) = felkelés(ek)

treaty(-ies) = egyezmény(ek) or békeszerződés(ek) [literally peace treaty]

frontline(s) = frontvonal(ak)

commander(s) = parancsnok(ok)

invasion(s) = invázió(k)

language(s) = nyelv(ek)

historical = történelmi or történeti

history = történelem

army(-ies)= sereg(ek) or hadsereg(ek) may be had(ak)

settling = letelepedés [settling down] or rendezés [settle a dispute]

raid(s) = portya, portyák [minor attacks] or rablóhadjárat(ok) [major attacks for plunder]

cavalry = lovasság

warlord(s) = hadúr, hadurak

tribe(s) = törzse(k)

populate = benépesít

colonize = gyarmatosít

victory(ies) = győzelem, győzelmek

triumph = diadal

march = menetelés [soldiers' "walking"], induló [a piece of music]

campaign(s) = hadjárat(ok) [military], kampány(ok) [political]

Do not be surprised if you find words with different endings. Thanks to the use of suffixes this is quite ordinary.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2006 at 05:41

The Battle of Capua and the first Italian campaign of Louis the Great
 
1348

A) Hungary under the Anjous

After a long struggle Charles I  (ruled 1311-1342) finally defeated the oligarchs and restored royal authority over the kingdom. Under the rule of Louis I the Great (1342-82) Hungary became more rich and powerful than ever before.

Louis the Great and his court:

The power of the Arpads still based on the vast royal estates. Under the Angevins the royal family was restored as the greatest land owning family of the realm (they had one third of all lands), but the Angevin power rather based on the possession of castles. In the 14th century Hungary had cca. 300 castles and 160-170 of them were in the property of the king. Charles I introduced direct taxation and reformed the royal mining monopoly. At that time Hungary had rich gold, silver and salt mines.

The Anjous introduced the so called honor (=office; in old Hungarian becsü) system. Instead of large donations the faithful servants of the king were given an office. Powerful officials of the kingdom like the count palatine were appointed count (lat. comes, hung. ispán) to several counties. They became the keeper of royal property (including castles) in their counties and the representative of the king. The barons administered these possessions by their own men (familires, roughly: vassals). Honor ensured real power. While most of the aristocrats had only 2 or 3 castles (even the exceptionally powerful Lackfi family had only 7 castles) the possession of a greater honor ensured power over 10 or 20 castles. These offices were not given for eternety. The king could deprive the baron of his honor any time. Most powerful honors often rotated among the members of aristocracy.

The Hungarian military organization based on the honor system. Every baron, the holders of the great honors, led a banderium (Eng. banner). The banderium composed of the baronical retinue, the armed noblemen of the baron’s counties, and some peasants from the royal estates who served as light infantry. The banderia ensured a numerous, but mostly inexperienced army. Noblemen were obligated to serve 3 month in defense of the country and 40 days for foreign campaign. On the other hand the king was powerful enough to neglect this rule if he wish.

Besides the banderia the king could directly raise an army by paying dispositio (salary) to every noblemen who joined him. The king also hired mercenaries for his campaigns. The privilegized group of Cumans and Seklers also served the king.

The armies of Louis the Great consisted mostly cavalry. There were infantry, but its role was insignificant.  Only the mercenary heavy infantry is notable used mainly in sieges. The bulk of the banderium cavalry was medium cavalry. It was much heavier than before, but still didn’t reach the Western standards. Members of royal and baronical  retinues and the freelancers also had full knightly armour. To increase further the number of heavily armed horsemen the king usually hired mercenaries. Cumans and Seklers continued to fight as steppe style horse archers with light chainmails and small shields.

Clothing and armour in Louis' age:

B) Background

The Charles d’Anjou was the younger brother of Louis IX. of France and the founder of the 2nd (or in other opinions the 3rd) Anjou dinasty. He became the king of Sicily in 1262. The Kingdom of Sicily consisted Southern Italy and the island of Sicily itself. In 1282 Charles d’Anjou lost Sicily,  but he preserved Southern Italy. From that time there were two Kingdoms of Sicily and historians often name Kingdom of Naples –Naples was the capital- the one ruled by the Angevins.

Charles II the Lame was the son of Charles d’Anjou and married Mary of Hungary. They had fourteen children. Their first son Charles Martel died before Charles II. and left a son Charles Robert. Their second son St. Louis of Toulouse also died before his father. The third son of Charles II was Robert the Wise. Based on the rule of primogeniture the heir of Charles II was Charles Robert. When Charles II died Charles Robert (Charles I of Hungary) was in Hungary  struggling with the oligarchs and his uncle used his absence as the eldest surviving son usurped the throne.
 
Charles Robert (Charles I of Hungary) never gave up his right to the throne of Naples, and finally by papal mediation he signed a treaty with Robert. He recognized Robert as the king of Naples, and his second son Andrew married Joanna, granddaughter and only heir of Robert. According to the treaty Andrew became the duke of Calabria and together with his wife the heir of the throne.

Still Robert on his deathbed (1343) changed his last will and appointed Joanna as the sole heir of his kingdom. In order to force the coronation of Andrew his mother the dowager queen of Hungary travelled to Italy. She spent 27 000 mark (6630 kg) silver, 21 000 mark (5156 kg) gold and a half of a coach gold coin (~600 kg) to ensure Andrew’s coronation. A Hungarian cronicle mentions additional 44 000 mark (10 780 kg) silver as bribe to the pope. Finally the pope ordered the coronation of Andrew in 1345.

The conspiracy of those who opposed Andrew’s future rule finally murdered Andrew. Andrew had a talisman protecting him from blade and poison so they strangled him with a cord. It is highly probable that his wife Joanna was also part of the conspiracy.

Since diplomatic solutions failed, Louis I the brother of Andrew lauched a campaign against Joanna to avenge his brother and seize the throne of Sicily and of Jerusalem. (The kings of Naples were also the titular kings of Jerusalem.)

C) Louis’s first Italian campaign and the battle of Capua

Louis carefully prepared his campaign. Since Hungarian - Venetian relations were hostile he had to choose the landtrip from Hungary to Naples. In order to avoid conflict with the powers of Northern Italy he left Hungary with a small army and recruited mercenaries in Italy. When he reached the border of Joanna’s kingdom he had 2000 Hungarian knights, 2000 mercenary hevy cavalry, 2000 Cuman horse archers and 6000 mercenary heavy infantry. He successfully avoided conflict in Northern Italy, his army was well-paid and disciplined. The king forbid plunder, all supplies were bought from locals and paid with gold.

The army of Naples, 2700 knights and 5000 infantrymen  was led by Louis of Taranto (the new husband of Joanna, an Anjou himself) who fortified his position near Capua. Louis ordered count Niccolo Gaetanto (2500 cavalry and 1000 infantry) to keep Louis of Taranto busy while he capture the unprotected Benevento and Naples. Count Gaetano not just kept the Napolitans busy, but managed to flank them. He followed the traditional Hungarian tactics. First Cuman horse archers attacked to cause disarray and to kill the horses of the enemy. In the second wave Hungarian heavy cavalry crushed the disturbed enemy. Louis of Taranto was defeated within two hours and Louis occupied the kingdom of Naples unopposed.

Many of the conspirators escaped, but king Louis could capture Charles of Durazzo and ordered his execution. Unfortunatelly it seems he was innocent and Louis became very unpopular in Italy. King Louis also did not trust in the locals who originally supported Andrew’s cause and because of his behaviour they became hostile. Finally the Black Death reached Naples and Louis left the city leaving only a small garrison under István Lackfi the count palatine. He returned to Hungary with glory as the new king of Naples and Jerusalem.

(His new title was: Ludovicus, Dei gratia Hungariae, Jerusalem, Siciliae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Ramae, Serviae, Lodomeriae, Galiciae, Cumaniae, Bulgariaeque Rex, Princeps Salernitanus et honoris montis sancti Angeli dominus)

D) Aftermath

A few time later Louis of Taranto returned from France with a new army and Lackfi with the Hungarian garrisons had to retreat from the city of Naples. King Louis immidiately launched a second campaign and soon arrived with the reincforcement this time across the Ardriatic Sea. This campaign was more difficult than the first, but the Hungarians won again. (Even the king wounded seriously two times. He was an Alexander type leader. He led assaults personally and climbed citywalls together with his soldiers. His barons one time warned him that this behaviour is not worthy for a king.)

After all this victories he had to realise that Hungary is unable to permanently hold Naples, because supply depended on Venice and the local population was hostile too. Additionally the pope was against him, a Hungarian-Neapolitan union would have harmed papal interest. Finally he resigned as king of Naples, but remaind the prince of Salerno and the lord of Monte Sant’ Angelo (princeps Sallernitanus, et honoris ac montis sancti Angeli dominus). Joanna returned to the throne.

The Naples-Hungary dispute finally settled in 1281 one year before Louis’ death. The pope stripped the royal title from Joanna and authorized king Louis to execute his decision. He was too old and ill to go personally, but  his nephew (Charles of Durazzo) aided with Hungarian gold and men seized the throne and killed Joanna.

When Louis the Great died he was one of the most powerful kings in Europe. Under his rule the prestige of the Hungarian kingdom reached its peak.

The kingdoms of Louis the Great and the vassal states:

Louis the Great drawing by Jan Matejko:

The statue of the king in the Heroes' Square:

The royal Great Seal:



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2006 at 14:19
I think this thread deserves to be sticky. any objections?

-------------


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 01:35

The more empires and countries you learn about the more interesting history become thank you my hungarian friend

ohh i love hungarian tactics



Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 31-Mar-2006 at 06:12

Originally posted by Temujin

I think this thread deserves to be sticky.

Yes. I think so too.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2006 at 14:22

We, Turks have a special passion to Budapest. We call this beautiful city as "Spoiled Girl of Danube"
Here is a Turkish poem about "The Lost of Budapest" written by a Turkish army poet Tamesvarli Gaazi/Ghazi/Gazi Asik/Aschik Hasan. Hasan was a Jenissary soldier, a Bektaschi Derwisch.  This poem was first found by famous Hungarian turkolog Dr. Ignac Kunos in Adakale insel and published at the beginning of last century. I want to write it first in Hungarian language for our Hungarian Brothers. I am sure that they never heard the poem. Then  in English for our forum friends.

Ne énekelj fülemüle

 Ne énekelj fülemüle, tavasz lett,
Vidám hangú dalolásod megzebzett,
Rózsavársár idejére érkezett.
Elvette a német ékes Budánkat.

Forrásoknál fürdeni már nem lehet, A dzsámikban imádkozni sem lehet,
Pusztaság lett sog-sok nápes terület.
Elvette a német ékes Budankát.

Városunknak hosszú lett a bajárja,
Fö helyen áll Mehmed szultán szent háza,
Szent Kábához hasonlít a formája.
Elvette a német ékes Budánkat.

Lánya vagyok a vezérnek magának,
Szemefénye atyámnak és anyámnak.
Elvette a német ékes Budánkat.

Löportorony gyúlt ki s eszünk verztettük,
A szultáni dzsámik égtek felettünk,
Sok kisgyerek tüzbeveszett mellentünk.
Elvette a német ékes Budankát.

Végvárak közt mindig elsö volt Buda,
Vérrel volt a földje, köve átgyúrva,
Cserkesz zászlótartó a fö tanúja.
Elvette a német ékes Budánkat.

Három ágyú dörgött, ahogy lehetett,
Csütörtökre szinte minden odalett,
Pénteki nap volt, hogy Buda elesett.
Elvette a német ékes Budankát.

I translated the "Legend of Budapest" of Tamesvarli Gazi Asik Hasan, a poet of XVII th Century into English.

Eser Saral, Rászáll a galambom a Budai várra.
Legend of Budin

Don’t sing Nightingale, don’t sing, the summer returned to Spring
The laments of Nightingale pierced my breast
It is now the time buying and selling roses
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest.

Now muslims don’t washing for prayers by her fountains
Nobody is praying in her mosques
The inhabited all ruined
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest

The long market of Budapest
And The mosque of Sultan Ahmet at the centre.
Looks like the Kaba of Mecca
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest.

I am the daughter of Pasha of Budapest
I am the dearest two eyes of my parents
I am a lamp in a cage
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest

Suddenly the arsenal exploded we all surprised
All the mosques with six minarets burned and fired
All the young innocent children fell into fire.
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest.

Budapest is the capital of all Turkish Frontiers
All her stones and earth kreated with blood
The Banner- bearer the Circassian leads the Mythts
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest

From the South three guns shotted
It was thustday and solar eclipsed
On Friday Budapest falled
Austrians captured our spoiled girl called Budapest.



-------------


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 09:50

I have noticed that many of the forum members concern mostly the Ottoman-Hungarian wars and John Hunyadi. Should I add more battles to the plan? Originally I have planed to describe the battles of Nicoplis, Varna, Kenyermezo and Mohács in the Ottoman-Hungarian war issue.

What do you think?

 

Tosun Saral:

Very nice poem! Thank you!

(I suggest use Buda instead of Budapest, Budapest was only formed in the second half of the 19th century.)



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 16:52

Dear Brother Raider, I know. In original poem it is written "Budin" The Turks call the city as Budin.

Please visit my Hungary for the Society, Budapest, Estergom, Tekirdag for Rakoci (Rodosto), Kütahya for Kossuth, Izmit for Tökely pages,

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/7d696/ - http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/7d696/

Tosun Saral

Turkish Hungarian Friendship Society in Ankara

President

 



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 17:37
Originally posted by The Chargemaster

Originally posted by Raider

It seems that non-Hungarians interest lies in his battles against the Ottomans.  

Yes, i think so. Just for me the Turjish empire was the cruelest enemy of Hungaria and of all other christian states around. The Mongols in the middle of XIII century were also very cruel, but the turkish invasion continue much longer, than the mongol invasion, and because of that the hungarian victims(military and civilian) were many more in the wars with the turks. Therefore every christian people in the Balkans is proud with the hungarian glorious battles against the turks.

 

Dear Komschu, You are wrong. Turks were not cruel to Hungarians, Bulgarians or other nations of Balkan. If they were really cruel there were no Bulgar or Serb ect in the world. or they would converted to islam.  There is a Turkish proverb. I write in Turkish may be you understand it.

"Tencere dibin kara, Seninki benden kara"

Two potts meet each other in the kitchen one said "Dear pott your buttom is black" The other pott answered "Yours is more black and dark".

OK Dear Komschu the Turks of Bulgaria was left to your honour after 1877-78 war. What happened them? Did Bulgars treated them in a humanitaer way. Or were they treated cruelly by Bulgars?

Your pott is more darker then my pott.

Now it is time to be good friends. It is our benefit to be good friends. Turkey is hinterland of Bulgaria. Bulgaria is hinterland of Turkey. Together we can be rich and wealty.

On The other hand we had always good relations with Hungarians. After withdrawall of Turks from Hungary, Hungarians suffered to much under Austrian Catholic regime. They revolted 3 times and refuged to Turkey

There is a Hungarian song with following verses:

Kuruc tabori dal : Magyar remekicok :

“ Ez az istentelen ne’met annyi kart tött mar Hozza képest hogy mit sem tött Török sem Tatar. “

Turkcesi:
“Bu imansiz Almanlar o kadar mazarrat yaptilar ki
Onlara kiyasen Turk ve Tatarlar hicbir sey yapmadi”

English:

"Those godless Germans/Austrians treated so cruel that acts of the Turks and the Tartars had been so innocent in comparison with those of the Germans."

With my best wishes from Ankara



-------------


Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 19:30

Originally posted by Tosun Saral

OK Dear Komschu the Turks of Bulgaria was left to your honour after 1877-78 war. What happened them? Did Bulgars treated them in a humanitaer way. Or were they treated cruelly by Bulgars?

Well, efendim, i think that the bulgarians treated the bulgarian turks much better than the turks treated the christians in the Turkish empire before the win of the kemalist revolution in 1922. The only exception is the communistic "Rebirth Process" between 1984-89, but in principle the communists treated the bulgarians like a sheeps too.

Now it is time to be good friends. It is our benefit to be good friends...  Together we can be rich and wealty.

Yes! I think so too - you are right about our common future in the European Union.

But please, allow/permit my pride with the christian resistance against the turkish invasion in the Balkans and in Central Europe. I must make for you this explanation - my feelings are not against you, or against the today`s turks, because these feelings are connected only with the history.



-------------


Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 19:41

Originally posted by Raider

I have noticed that many of the forum members concern mostly the Ottoman-Hungarian wars and John Hunyadi. Should I add more battles to the plan? Originally I have planed to describe the battles of Nicoplis, Varna, Kenyermezo and Mohács in the Ottoman-Hungarian war issue.

What do you think?

O, yes, please do this! You have my support! I think that John Hunyadi is one of the greatest generals of all time! I have found few new maps about the hungarian history and i will post them in "Historical maps of Hungary" tomorrow.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 06:48

My Bulgar Efendi, I thank you for your understanding.

Now I want to tell about Nigbolu. I think you call the city Nicopolis or as the Bulgars say Nikopol. The city is located at the south shore of the Danube just in the spot where the river Osma joins to Danube. For 300 years ago the city had 4000 dwellings and 1000 shops. After Turks withdeawel the city became unimportant. After the battle of 1st Kosova in 1389 Turks continued their raidings into Bosnia Albania, Teselya and Morae. Those raids were made by special rider troops called "Akinci". Most of this part of Balkan was under the occupation of Catholic Venecian Republic. But mostly the Hungarians were very restless. Kin Sigismund of Hungary new very well that he could not resist the Turks alone. He ordered the Christian States to unite againts Turks. The Emperor of Bizanz in Costantinopolis declared his  will to join to the Union. Hungarians, French, Germans, Belgiums, Flamans, the Swiss,  English, Scots, Savians, Lombardians, Russians, Walachs established a Crusadres Army agiants Turks in1396. The power of this army was sirca 120 000.  French had 10 000 men commanded by Jean Nevers who was called as "fierless Jean". He was the son of  Duke of Burgonia Philip.The Crusaders greeted Christmas in Vienna and on september 1396 they sieged Nigbolu. The Crusaders were very proud of their strength. They were saying that "If the skyies fell upon us we can hold the sky with our lances."The commander of the castle was Dogan Bey. He immediately send messengers to the Sultan. Sultan Beyazid the 1st was siegeing Costantinapolis at that time. There was no time to march the army againts Cruseders. Sultan Beyazid ride alone with a few men to Nigbolu crossed the lines of Cruseders  and appeared under the walls of Nigbolu  called the commander Dogan Bey. This call is very famous in Turkish History

"Bre Dogan! Bre Dogan!  Two days are enough for me. Hold on!"

A few days later all mighty Turkish army came to Nigbolu. Turks defeated the Crusaders once again. Jean Nevers was among POWs. Sultan invited him to a dinner and told him that is free. He could return to his home and establish a new army to fight againts Turks. He said we would wait him with a great joy.

After Nigbolu the Sultan got the name "Yildýrým" the lightning because of his quickness.

Battle of 1st Kosova coused the Turks to settle in balkan. The battle of Nigbolu fixed Turkish maintanence in balkan for 400 years.

May Allah/God rest the Holy Martyrs of all fronts in piece.



-------------


Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 11:27
Originally posted by Tosun Saral

Sultan Beyazid ride alone with a few men to Nigbolu crossed the lines of Cruseders  and appeared under the walls of Nigbolu  called the commander Dogan Bey. This call is very famous in Turkish History

"Bre Dogan! Bre Dogan!  Two days are enough for me. Hold on!"

A few days later all mighty Turkish army came to Nigbolu. Turks defeated the Crusaders once again. Jean Nevers was among POWs. Sultan invited him to a dinner and told him that is free. He could return to his home and establish a new army to fight againts Turks. He said we would wait him with a great joy.

After Nigbolu the Sultan got the name "Yildýrým" the lightning because of his quickness.

Do you have the book of the medieval turkish writer Mehmed Nesri "A mirror of the World"? It`s my favorite turkish book.

Dogan bey told Bayazid: "Since you are here we aren`t afraid any more from the giaours!" Then Bayazid told Dogan bey: "Bre Dogan, let me see what you can do - hold on! I`ll be back like lightning, when the right time comes!"...

...and after the battle Bayazid got the nickname "Yildirim"("The Lightning")...

That`s the story of Mehmed Nesri(Neshri).



-------------


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2006 at 05:20

I have just realised that I frequently used the term "baron", but I omitted to define it. In western Eurpe the term baron usually referd to those lords, who were the direct vassals of the king in the chain of vassality.

In Hungary there was no chain of vassality, in fact there was no vassality at all. The barons were officials of the kingdom appointed and deposed by the king.

These barons were (under Sigismund):

  1. the count palatine (comes palatinus)
  2. the voivode of Transylvania (woyuoda Transsiluanus)
  3. the judge of the royal court (iudex curiae regiae)
  4. the bans of Slavonia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Macsó, and Severin (bani)
  5. the master of the treasury (magister tavernicorum)
  6. the master of janitors (ianitorum regalium magister)
  7. the master of stewards (dapiferorum regalium magister)
  8. the master ofthe cup-bearers (pincernarum regalium magister)
  9. the marchall (agasonum regalium magister)
  10. counts of Bratislava (hung. Pozsony) and Timis (hung:Temes)
  11. the high treasurer (summus thesaurarius)
  12. the count of the Szeklers
  13. the secret chancellor

All of the barons were entitled as magnificus vir.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2006 at 07:56

The Battle of Nicopolis (bulg. Nikopol)

September 25th 1396

A) Background

In 1366 illustrious visitor arrived to the Hungarian court at Buda. John V Palaeologus, the Byzantine emperor asked for help from Louis the Great against a powerful new enemy the Ottoman turks. Louis had good reputation as fighter against pagans. He took part in crusades against the Lithuanians and defeated the Golden Horde. So the emperor tried to convince king Louis to launch a crusade to expel the Ottomans from the Balkans, but he failed. The question did not interested Louis. The Ottoman danger was too far away and insigniciant for him. Additionally the arrogant behaviour of the emperor offended Louis. Finally the king asked the emperor to convert with all of his subjects to catholicism before he helps. Naturally demands like this couldn’t be accepted and the emperor had to return empty-handed.

The first encounter of the Hungarians and the Ottomans was in 1375 at Wallachia. A rebelious voivode of Wallachia was aided by Ottoman auxilliary troops. The battle ended with Hungarian victory and the Ottoman question shelved.

In 1382 Louis the Great died without a male heir, he had only to daughters Hedwig and Mary. Mary was the heiress of Poland while Hedwig inherited Hungary. Elizabeth Kotromanic the widow of Louis shortly after his husband’s death had Mary crowned to queen of Hungary in order to maintain the union with Poland. But the lords of Poland chose Hedwig instead of Mary as their new queen and her plained failed. The union dissolved.

Mary was betrothed to the younger son of the Holy Roman emperor (and king of Bohemia) Sigismund of Luxemburg who was raised at the Hungarian court. The dowager queen, who actually ruled the country, hated Sigismund and opposed the marriage. She prefered a French prince. In 1385 Sigismund with the help of Bohemian and Moravian troops forced Mary to marry him. Meanwhile Charles king of Naples, the nephew of king Louis claimed the throne as the closest male heir of the king. He was supported by many noblemen and lords who did not want women on the throne. In 1385 Mary was deposed and Charles was crowned as Charles II the Short. His reigned was also short. He ruled from December 1385 to February 24th 1386. He was assasinated by presumably the order of queen Elizabeth. (It was a great scandal in contemporary Europe.) Charles II left an underage son Ladislaus of Naples, the later pretender.

Mary returned to the throne, but shortly after she and her mother was kidnapped by a supporter of the late Charles II. queen Elizabeth was strangled and Mary was kept in custody.

palatine Garai dies in the defence of queen Mary and Elizabeth:


Sigismund as the only possible candidate was crowned as co-ruler in 1387 and after his coronation he managed to free his wife. In theory Mary and Sigismund ruled jointly, but practicaly the power was in Sigismund’s hand. When Mary died in a horse accident in 1395 Sigismund remained the sole ruler of Hungary.

Sigismund of Luxemburg:

During the political turmoil the royal power began to decline and the political system of the Anjous collapsed. The amount of royal castles drastically decreased. When Louis the Great died the crown had 160 of the 300 castles. Sigismund had only 70; a great land-owner aristocracy came into existence. There was not enough royal property to maintain the honor system. Some honors remained (voivodship of Transylvania, county of Timis (hung. Temes), bandom of Slavonia etc), but most of them were abolished. The rich gold mines of Hungary gradually depleted, the royal income drastically decreased. The king was not able to rule alone any more. He had to make coalitions to held power.

Naturally the end of the honor system caused changes in the military. The banderia remained, but the weight of the armed baronical retinues within the banderia increased. Due to the decrease of royal income the usage of foreign mercenaries in large quantities became unavaible. The army of Sigismund lacked steppe style horse archers, since the Cumans and Szeklers assimilated to the Hungarians and they fought in the same way.

contemporary armour on the sarcophagus of Stibor of Stiboric the younger voivode of Transylvania:

While Hungary was in the state of chaos and Sigismund tried to consolidate his power the Ottoman Empire expanded and in 1389 defeated Serbia a vassal of Hungary at Kosovo Polje. Serbia became an Ottoman vassal under despot Stefan Lazarevic. From this year Ottoman regular incursions of Ottomans (and Serbians)  began to Hungarian territory.  Sigismund take the danger seriously and between 1389 and 1392 every year personally led a campaign against the Ottomans and the Serbians.

In 1392 after a serious Ottoman incursion Sigismund organized a large scale counterattack. All noblemen was ordered to take part and Sigismund asked foreign help. His army was aided by Bohemian, Silesian and Austrian knights. Even Sigismund’s borther-in-law, Richard II of England sent a notable contingent of knights. This considerable army met with the army of sultan Bayezid I (the Thunderbolt) at Keve. The Ottoman sultan avoided the battle and withdraw. Sigismund pursued him awhile, then returned to Hungary. The campaign did not bring solution to the Ottoman conflict, but convinced Sigismund and christian leaders that the Ottoman Empire is not an equal foe of an army of knights. This is why Sigismund began to organize a great international crusade to crush Ottoman power.
 
B) The Crusade

Pope Boniface IX declared the crusade in 1394 and in the following two years king Sigismund -using his family connections- organized the campaign, and made the necessery preparations.

In 1394 the Ottomans expelled Mircea the Elder voivode of Wallachia and he led and army to Wallachia to overthrone the Ottoman vassal Vlad and  help Mircea to reclaim his principalty.

In 1396 a large crusader force gathered at Buda among them high ranking noblemen like: John of Nevers the heir of Burgundy, Boucicaut the marshal of France, Jean de Vienne the admiral of France, Philippe d’Artois the connetable of France, Ruprecht the Pfalzgraf, the Grand Master of the Hospitallers etc. All in all the largest of the contingents was the French –Burgundian (1100-1200 men) led by John of Nevers (Fearless John). But there were Germans, Bohemians, Englishmen, Knights Hospitallers etc. It is know from contemporary documents that in the retinue of John of Nevers there were 108 knights, 107 sergeants, 12 archers and 22 crossbowmen. It seems that the bulk of the army was heavy cavalry and only cca. 10% was the ratio of infantry. The overall number of this force was cca. 5000 men. King Sigismund left the inexperienced Hungarian noblemen behind to defend the borders and brought along the strongest parts of the banderia. His army numbered cca. 10 000 – 12 000 men and the siegecraft. Later Mircea the Elder also joined the crusaders with 6000-8000 Wallachian troops. The whole army had 25 000 men at the best case. It was still a very powerful army as they said: "If God dropped the sky on our heads, we would maintain it with the tops of our lances!"

king Sigismund with his troops:

The crusaders were aided by a Venetian fleet. This fleet should have precluded the Ottoman forces to cross the Dardanelles.

The crusader army slowly progressed. They Pushed back Ottoman influence step by step. They besieged and captured Vidin, Rachova and soon after reached Nicopolis. They had already besieged the castle for two weeks when the Bayezid I arrived with his army of 30 000 men.

The sultan placed the asabs (light infantry) to the first line of the Ottoman center. Behind them stakes and other horse traps were made and the janissaries (cca. 2000 men) of the second line used these as defense against cavarly. The Anatolian sipahis (medium cavalry) stood on the right wing, while the Rumelian sipahis formed the left wing. Akinci light cavalry formed the vanguard before the army. Bayezid made a reserve force of 5000 Serbian heavy cavalrymen under his vassal Stefan Lazarevic.

There was a heated dispute in the crusaders war council. The Wallachian voivode Mircea and king Sigismund suggested that Hungarian and Wallachian cavarly should attack the Ottoman sipahis as a first line to destroy or at least keep them busy while the crusader knights beats the Ottoman center. The Burgundians and the French heavily opposed this suggestion, they wanted the glory of the first charge. Finally Sigismund had to accept their demands. So the knights of the western crusaders formed the first line. In the second line Wallachian cavalrymen formed the right wing and Transylvanian troops (led by voivode Lackfi) the left wing. King Sigismund and the rest of the Hungarian troops stood in the center.

The French began the battle. As soon as the knights perceived the akincis they charged. The heavily armoured knights easily trampled those akincis who did not keep out of their way, attacked and breached the asabs’ line. Soon they reached the stakes. The knights dismounted and attacked the janissaries on foot. In these moments the sipahis of the wings flanked and crushed them.

The second line slowly followed the first. They routed the remnants of the asabs and strongly pushed back the sipahis. Finally the Ottoman reserve of 5000 heavily armed Serbian horsemen flanked the Hungarians, and when the royal standard fell the crusaders began to flee.

The Ottomans successfully captured notable high ranking noblemen like Philippe d’Artois or Leusták Jolsvai the count palatine of Hungary. Sigismund managed to reach a Venetian galley on the Danube and sailed Constantinople (then to the Adriatic and to Hungary).


C) Aftermath

Military reforms and changes in grand strategy

King Sigismund had to realize that the traditional offensive strategy failed.  Instead of fruitless campaigns he chose an other way. A line of border castles were built in the southern frontier which successfully resisted Ottoman forces till 1521. It worth to mention the name of the executor of this remarkable achievement. It was Filippo Scolari also known as Pipó of Ozora the count of Timis (hung Temes) a powerful baron of Sigismund. Defense in the castles was combined with local counterstrikes.

Filippo Scolari aka Pipó of Ozora aka Pippo Spano in contemporary armour:

Sigismund also tried to organize a cordon sanitare of vassal states and allies. While Louis the Great tried to subdue the southern neighbours, Sigismund bribed them and granted officies and estates them in Hungary. For example the former Ottoman vassal Stefan Lazarevic became one of the largest landowners of Hungary. Sigismund didn’t care how they stopped Ottoman forces while they did it. (Lazarevic with annual tax, Mircea of Wallachia with arms.)

Hungarian military was also reformed. To compensate the lack of light cavarly a law ordered every noblemen to raise one horse archer after 20 (later 33) mansion of serfs. This law assured a large, but low quality force. Unfortunately Hungary lacked quality light cavalry when it was most needed. He also temporary (till the end of the Ottoman threat) suspended the law regulating the maximum length of the noblemen's military service.

After his failure at the south Sigismund turned to the west. He was elected king of Germany in 1410. As the first ruler of the christian world he mediated between England and France in the Hundred Years War. He had to deal with the papal schism, the hussite herecy and rebellion (He became the king of Bohemia in 1419). and finally he was crowned to emperor in 1433.

Sigismund of Luxemburg (emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, King of Italy, Hungary, Bohemia etc)

In 1402 Timur Lenk defeated the Ottoman empire and this crisis gave some time to the Balkans and Hungary.

The siege of Nicopolis in a French and an Ottoman picture:

 



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2006 at 04:32

I have a question about the above miniature.

As far as I know the Islam prohibits portraying people. Still on this picture and other Ottoman miniatures there are portrays. How could this be?



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2006 at 06:13
Islam prohibites portraying of people inside mosques. Only vahabites ban people indescriminately, and the Turks were always suffites.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2006 at 05:16

The first heavenly religion declared by Moses (Jews) forbid to worship to pictures, statues, sky objects, stones and animals. But Christians -please forgive me for my posting- worship  by kneeling to the Mutter Maria or Jesus Christus pictures or ikonas. Christians knee infront of Jesus Christus's crucified staue. This is the main difference between Christianity and Jews and Islam. Islam also vorbids to worship to pictures, stones, statues like Jews. Turks were alsway sufies like my friend wrote above. But there were also very fundamentalists also. Thats the reason that fine arts never flurished in Turkey. Fine artists like Fafaelle,Angelo, Goya never grow in Turkey. On the other hand there was an art of miniature. The Turkish miniature artists like Levni and many others draw all historical scienes into books. The Sultans let their portraits drawn by Italian artists.

 



-------------


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2006 at 06:17

 

A notable exhibition in Budapest and in Luxembourg:

http://www.sigismundus.hu/ - http://www.sigismundus.hu/



Posted By: The Chargemaster
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2006 at 09:24

ZRINYI MIKLOS(NIKOLA SUBIC ZRINSKI) - THE GREAT HERO OF SZIGETVAR

(and my favorite strongholds-defender)

In all of Hungarian history there is only one recorded case of two men with the same name - Count Miklós Zrínyi - having achieved such heights of fame and glory that each serves as an inspiration to Magyars even today.
The two Zrínyis lived a hundred years apart. The first Miklós Zrínyi attained his place in history through his heroic death, while the other his great-grandson, did so by both the pen as a poet and by the sword as a warlord reminiscent of Hunyadi.
To understand Miklós Zrínyi, the poet-warlord, one has to go back to his ancestor who was the central hero of the Siege of Szigetvár in 1566. Both were of Croatian origin.

The Siege of Szigetvár
Szigetvár, situated close to the city of Pécs in Southern Hungary, was never a particularly large or strong fortress. Its existence, however, had been a thorn in the Turks' side since 1556, when Ali Pasha of Buda had lost ten thousand men under its walls in an unsuccessful siege.
Ten years later Suleiman the Magnificent, the victor of Mohács, decided that as a preparatory step to the capture of Vienna, Szigetvár must be destroyed. When in August 1566 he arrived with 90,000 troops and 300 cannons under Szigetvár, he
was not impressed. To him, Szigetvár was a "molehill."
A few hundred kilometers to the north another army, 80,000 strong, struck camp between Gyor and Komárom. These were the troopsgathered by Emperor Maximilian,
King of Hungary, to fend off the anticipated Turkish advance on Vienna after the expected fall of Szigetvár. The efforts of Hungarian leaders to induce Sam Ekhard, the Imperial commander of his force, to aid the beleaguered fortress were of no avail.
Count Miklós Zrínyi, who was then the Ban (viceroy) of Croatia, decided to take charge of the defense himself. With only 2,500 Hungarian and Croatian soldiers he had no illusions about the final outcome. The wives and daughters of Zrínyi's officers refused to leave the city, they wanted to stay with their husbands and fathers until death.
After due preparations for the siege, Zrínyi gathered his men for a meeting during which all swore to defend Szigetvár against the infidels to their last breath. Then red flags were hoisted as a signal to the Turks that Zrínyi was ready for battle.
What made Szigetvár defensible at all were not high hills or strong walls, but the marshes of the Almás Creek which surrounded Szigetvár, a city built on three islands. A dammed lake added to its defense potential. Szigetvár's three islands were connected by wooden platforms built over the water. The largest island was
situated in the middle, serving as the base for the "old city." Connected to it on one side was the "new city" and on the other side the fort proper, which included a high point called Nádasdy Hill. From Nádasdy Hill, gun emplacements looked down on the plain around Szigetvár.
The defenders were at an immediate disadvantage, because an unusually dry summer had reduced their best weapon: water, to inundate the marshes. Whatever was left in the lake and moats had been drained by the Turks, who had destroyed the dam
in preparation for the siege. As a next step, the Turks built three causeways of brushwood and dirt across the drained lake bed. The Portuguese artillery expert, Aliportug, whom the Sultan had used at the siege of Malta, devised a monster platform, made of forty-two wagons (three wagons wide, fourteen wagons long).
fastened together by tree trunks to bridge the gap between the bastion and the causeway.
The Turks took the indefensible "new city," built on the smallest island, in two days, a feat claiming the lives of 3,000 Turks and 300 defenders. But the fortress proper still stood and the guns from Nádasdy Hill continued to batter the attackers, causing heavy casualties.
In his frustration, Grandvizier Ahmed Sokolovits changed tactics. He sent envoys to Zrínyi, promising him eternal possession of all of Croatia and Slovenia if he would only surrender. Zrínyi turned the offer down with contempt. Next, the Turks used arrows to shoot messages written in Hungarian and Croatian to the defending soldiers to induce them to open the gate. The result was the same.
Angered. the Grandvizier ordered the fortress to be bombarded on all four sides day and night. At the same time, his men began sinking shafts to underminethe entrenchments, to no avail. The general attack on the night of August 26 was beaten back with the Turks losing Ali Pasha of Buda, and Ali Borsuk, the commander of Turkish artillery.

Suleiman Dead and Still "Alive"
Suleiman the Magnificent was furious. On August 29, the 40th anniversary of his Mohács triumph, the aged Sultan personally took charge of an all-out attack which was renewed ten times during the day. But this time it was Zrínyi who took revenge for Mohács: thousands of the Sultan's best soldiers were piling up dead
or wounded in the ten futile attempts at a breakthrough. The Portuguese Aliportug was one of the first victims, felled on his wagon-bridge trying to crossover with Janissary troops. The defenders even captured the commander of the Janissaries.
The "Magnificent" was crying in shame and anger when he witnessed how his best regiments took to flight from the walls. At the end, when he was helped down from his horse, he was a dying man although he had not been touched by any weapon.
For five days a deadly silence fell upon the Turkish camp while new attempts were made to sink shafts under the fortress. This time the Turks succeeded. On September 5th a shattering explosion demolished Nádasdy Hill, fire engulfing all surrounding buildings. Through the gaps caused by the explosion thousands of Janissaries rushed in and began to sack the buildings in the marketplace,
killing women and children. They thought the fortress was already theirs.Not quite. Zrínyi and his soldiers descended on them like avenging angels killing most of the invaders and repelling two new attacks. Turk bodies were piled up in the passages made by the explosion, blocking further attempts to enter. Those who remained alive were seen fleeing like scalded ants from an ants' nest.
Sultan Suleiman could not bear the sight any longer. When the Turkish trumpets signaled retreat again, a fatal stroke felled him.Sultan had come to kill Miklós Zrínyi and ultimately it was Zrínyi whose resistance killed him.
Suleiman died, but he lived for three more days - officially, that is.The Grandvizier believed it was essential to conceal the truth from his troops to prevent general panic. In an act of make-believe unprecedented in history, he had the Sultan dressed up in his imperial robes with a diamond-studded turban on his head and a golden war-hammer in his hand, and placed him in a chair under
his tent as if he were watching his troops in review.
This farce continued for three days to allow time for the complete capture of Szigetvár, now practically ruined and with only 300 defenders left under Zrínyi's command. All their cannons and supplies, except for the ammunition, had been destroyed by the flames.
Zrínyi knew that the end was near.

Storming out into Certain Death
The defenders were all prepared to die in keeping with their oath, but first a horrendous task awaited them. Their wives and daughters were still alive in the tower. Should they fall into Turkish hands, they would suffer a fate worse than death, and so, they had chosen instead to die at the hands of their beloved
fathers and husbands.After tearful farewells the men plunged daggers into their loved ones' hearts. This was the Hungarian version of Masada. the immortal self-sacrifice of Jewish
zealots in a Roman-besieged fortress two millenniums ago.
With this tragic event behind him, Zrínyi donned the silk and velvet garment he had worn on his wedding day, and hung a heavy gold chain around his neck. He discarded his shirt of mail and instead, stuffed his pockets with gold pieces to "provide for my funeral" and with the unsheathed sword of his father in hand he
joined his men in the tower yard. He blessed and thanked them for their loyalty.
His men, following their commander's example, also discarded their armor.Then Miklós Zrínyi, with the national flag in one hand, his sword in the other, ordered the opening of the gate behind which enemy troops swarmed on a bridge.
When the gate was flung open Zrínyi's men fired two heavy cannons stuffed with nails and sharp pieces of iron, point blank into the enemy ranks. A moment later
Zrínyi and his 300 men stormed out of the fortress. "Like a fiery ray of lightning he cracked down on them, cutting down everybody within range to make way for himself and for the courageous men following him," wrote the German historian Wagner.
The bridge had been cleared of Turkish troops when the inevitable happened. Zrínyi was fatally hit by two bullets in the chest and by an arrow in his eye. His officers and men also fell - all except three.
Zrínyi's head was promptly severed by the Janissaries and his body placed on a cannon. As a sign of victory, his head was put on a plate and rushed to the Sultan's tent by troops still unaware of the Magnificent's death.
This, however was not the end of the resistance.
Booty-hungry Janissaries invaded the fortress searching for the alleged treasures of Miklós Zrínyi. Thousands jammed the yard and the tower when the last holdout, a young woman hiding in the underground ammunition chamber, threw a flaming torch into the gunpowder stored in the cellar. The terrible detonation which followed buried not only those in the tower but practically everyone in the yard. Thus, it became the burial ground for 3,000 Janissaries.
All told, the Battle of Szigetvár claimed the lives of 2,500 Magyars and Croatians and 25,000 Turks in a siege in which no stones remained unturned.
The remains of the fortress of Szigetvár still stand as a silent memorial to a battle fought for country, faith and honor.

Source: http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/history/zrinyi_szigetvar.htm - http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/history/zrinyi_szigetvar.htm

Ban Zrinyi Miklos(Nikola Zrinski):

  

 

The last Zrinyi`s charge of the Turks from the fortress of Szigetvar

 

 

 

IN CHARGE !!!

The gravestone of Nikola Zrinski(Zrinyi Miklos) of Szigetvar

 

THE STRONGHOLD OF SZIGETVAR

http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvar27.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvar28.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvar50.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi001.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi01.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi04.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi05.htm">A legszebb képek
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi22.htm">
 
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi23.htm">
http://mars.elte.hu/varak/szigetvar/szigetvarlegi24.htm">
 


 

Válasszon az alaprajzon lévő nyilak közül, a fényképek megtekintéséhez!



-------------


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2006 at 09:47
It is worth to mention that Zrínyi (the younger) wrote a notable baroque epic poem in Hungarian language about his famous ancestor titled the Peril of Sziget.


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 04:28
I wonder what would of happened if the Sultans death was publically announced? Would the Turks consider it a bad omen and retreated or figured "in for a peni, in for a pie" and continue storming anyway?


Posted By: pegasusdi
Date Posted: 04-May-2006 at 08:06
i wonder in respect to which Zrinyi, one of the streets of Budapest has been named?

-------------
imagination sets us free to be what we want to be


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 06:22

Hi!

I had some work to do, but now I am back.

Soon I will post a new battle description again.

I wonder what would of happened if the Sultans death was publically announced? Would the Turks consider it a bad omen and retreated or figured "in for a peni, in for a pie" and continue storming anyway?

It is clear that the moral would have seriously decreased, but Sziget was a minor fortress and the siege was near to the end. It is hard to say.

 wonder in respect to which Zrinyi, one of the streets of Budapest has been named?

More than one, but the Zrínyi Miklós National Defence University was named after his descendant, Miklós Zrinyí the younger (Who wrote not just poems, but works about military science, and military policy), not him.



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 13:31

In 1394 the Ottomans expelled Mircea the Elder voivode of Wallachia and he led and army to Wallachia to overthrone the Ottoman vassal Vlad and  help Mircea to reclaim his principalty.

This may look like a nit pick, it may be only that I've read some material about it not so long time ago and I am still chewing on it.

If the paranthesis is too large, I apologize, the moderators can delete it.

I don't think this statement is accurate. I won't go in the details of the battle of Rovine (which may happened in october 1394, may 1395, or some suggested two battles - I personally am persuaded by the arguments for one battle in may 1395). Also many accounts mention a victory of Wallachians at Rovine, so Mircea being expelled right after the battle is unlikely. But other two things are certain:

- Vlad reigned until the spring of 1397. He took the Wallachian throne in 1394 (unlikely), 1395 or even in 1396. The documents signed by Vlad are AFAIK from 1396, there are some hints that he may have got his throne during the end of 1395, as the messenger of the duke of Mantua wrote to his duke from Buda in the end of that year about some Ottoman occupation in Wallachia. There are no records of Ottoman invasions during that period, so it may be the usurpation of Vlad. Vlad will be first defeated in 1396 by Stibor, the voivod of Transylvania, but it seems he takes back the throne as in the spring of 1397 Stibor will siege the castle of Dambovita and send Vlad and his family to Buda.

- as you can see, it was not Sigismund leading an army. There were other Hungarian expeditions in 1395 led by Stephen of Losoncz (400 people) and the king himself, only that king's expedition (a document mentions it gathering at Brasov/Brasso in june 1395) was too late for Ottoman invasion (october 1394/may 1395), and too early to dethrone Vlad (which as I pointed out was ruling in 1396 and was dethroned for good only in 1397). Some later diplomas seem to suggest that this army was used to retake Nicopolis Minor from Ottomans. Which is a campaign at Danube, not an action of restoring a throne.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 12-May-2006 at 03:47

Chilbudios:

Well, I did not make deep research in this question.

My reference was:

Memoria rerum Sigismundi regis: János Hóvári - The Battle of Nicopolis. A Landmark in the History of the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkan in Hadtörténeti Közlemények 3/1998.

Hóvári states that voivode Mircea was defeated in October 10th 1394 by the Ottomans. And at the request of Mircea Sigismund personally led an army to Wallachia in 1395. Mircea was restored and the king in the same campaign captured Nicopolis Minor/Holovnik/Turnu Magurele.

But I will look for more references.



Posted By: The Guardian
Date Posted: 12-May-2006 at 06:18
Very intersting tale of Szigetvar, but what interested me the most was that the same facts-25000 Turks dead, small number of defenders for a long time-wasgiven under the warning "This article 'may not conform to the neutral point of view'  policy".  Can somebody give me a neutral, detailed site(or the name of a book) that contains information about the siege and battle?

-------------
It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.
                             &nb


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 12-May-2006 at 08:01
Originally posted by Raider

My reference was:

Memoria rerum Sigismundi regis: János Hóvári - The Battle of Nicopolis. A Landmark in the History of the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkan in Hadtörténeti Közlemények 3/1998.

I know there was a trend in some historiographies to involve king Sigismund as much in the restoration of Mircea. I don't know the work you mentioned, but I know (from quotes and excerpts, didn't read the original works) similar arguments made by Alfons Huber and Janos Karacsonyi.

Hóvári states that voivode Mircea was defeated in October 10th 1394 by the Ottomans.

I know the date of the battle - 10th October 1394 (from 17th century Serbian sources) or 17th May 1395 (from contemporary documents concerning the death of Constantine Dragash) is controversial - but I don't know of many accounts to support the defeat of Mircea. Let me browse few accounts: the account of Philippe de Mezieres (1397) - Bajezid was defeated and lost 30,000 men; Constantine Kostenetki (1431) - large battle with heavy casualties from Ottoman side; the Bulgaro-Byzantine Chronicle - the river was red from the blood, Bajezid ran in despair (and this is a similar view in many of the early Serbo-Byzantine chronicles - in the Postbyzantine chronicle from 16th century Bajezid ran being chased by Mircea to Danube and few Ottomans could escape); the chronicle of Laonic Chalcocondil (second half of 15th century) - Mircea harassed the Ottoman army, Bajazed camped, listen to one of his advisers and ran after Ister/Danube the next day; the chronicle of Pseudo-Sphrantzes (Macarie Melissenos, second half of 16th century) - the sultan withdrew because of the unfavourable place. The Ottoman chronicles of Enveri, Orujd, though not admitting the defeat of Bajezid, they don't affirm the victory, either. Ibn Kemal at the end of 15th century / beginning of 16th century describes an epic battle with heavy casualities which he credits as a victory to Ottomans, yet after this epic battle Bajezid rushed to cross the Danube back (full of spoils as the chronicle says). So except some Ottoman chronicles (as we may expect) all the others suggest only an Ottoman defeat.

A very interesting source is the letter send by Bajezid to Sigismund, letter which reached Buda in November 1395, letter which basically says that the king of Hungary credits himself for the victory on the battlefield while Bajezid threatens him to stop praising himself and that other situations were those who drove him away. So from this source we know that Ottomans were previously defeated north of Danube and that Hungarian king, seemingly unworthy, was praising himself for their defeat.

I don't know the full context of this letter, could Bajezid refer to the campaign of Sigismund which sieged Nicopolis Minor? To me seems unlikely, as Bajezid didn't participate himself in the events, why would have he taken it so personal? So I think it's about the previous battle, the battle from Rovine.

There is one interpretation which says there were two battles - one won by Wallachians, one by Ottomans. Yet, no written source mentions two battles, and as you can see most of them mention Ottoman defeat or insuccess to a degree.

 

I assume a Wallachian defeat is a pretext for further scenarios. I guess the modern trend was started by Alfons Huber who opposed Konstantin Jirecek (whose arguments were based on the testimony of Kostenetki and on the Chronograph of Michael Moxa). Huber's arguments (probably reissued by Karacsonyi and your source, Janos Hovari) were based on some diplomas of Sigismund of Luxemburg which he interpreted as an aid given to Mircea to regain his throne. I think the interpretation of other events surrounding this battle should be revised to their own meanings as the striking majority of sources identify an undebateable Ottoman defeat.

 And at the request of Mircea Sigismund personally led an army to Wallachia in 1395. Mircea was restored and the king in the same campaign captured Nicopolis Minor/Holovnik/Turnu Magurele.

As I've said, the usurper was still in reign in 1396, as the documents prove. From the Hurmuzaki collection of documents, here's a document from this usurper Vlad addressed to Sigismund: "In nomine domini amen. Wlad Woyewoda Bessarabie necnon Comes de Seuerinio etc. Significamus vniuersis quibus expedit presencium noticiam habituris, [...] Harum quibus Sigillum nostrum presentibus est appensum testimonio literarum. Datum in Opido Argisch Ipso die sancte et individue trinitatis. Anno domini Millesimo Trecentesimo nonagesimo Sexto.". However one may suggest, Mircea was restored and then he was usurped again

 

Let's see some of those diplomas who were analysed to construct this scenario:

The diploma issued in 1397 for two brothers Nicholas and John, mentions the campaign for Nicopolis, but no restoration in throne. This diploma is reissued in 1406 and 1408, having some modifications (and I won't get into their details right now). A similar account can be found in the diploma issued for John of Maroth in 1403, reissued in 1404 and 1408. Another similar account is in the two diplomas for John and Stephen of Kanisza (1397 and 1401). These latter two diplomas (unlike the other ones!)however mention masses of Ottomans and Wallachians who were damaging the Hungarian interest. No reference for an usurper, no reference for a restoration though.

A Romanian historian, Al. V. Dita, claimed that Huber and other historians created an argument from a formula who occurs in the diploma from 1406 given to Nicholas and John:  "laudabiliter reobtinendo et fideles castellanos in eodem reliquendo, eorundem fidelium nostrorum tutaminibus Merche voyvodam Transaplinum per Turkos de suo dominio depositum, suo restituit pristino dominio", yet the paragraph refers to the castle of Nicopolis Minor (castle about the previous version of this diploma, the one from 1397, it doesn't say it was given to Mircea, it only mentions "fidelles castellanos in eodem reliquendo" , but also "et nostrorum castellanorum manibus prorsus duximus applicandum et reliquendum").

I would like to add, that these diplomas also helped Johannes de Thurocz and Antonio Bonfini to construct similar hypotheses like Huber.

note: I don't have the entire original text of the diplomas only quotes which were used as arguments by various historians. If you have larger excerpts from their text I'd appreciate it.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 12-May-2006 at 09:00

It is quite impressive. I can't argue with this.

But there is a point that disturbes me. You said that in 1396 Vlad still ruled over Wallachia and was deposed in the Spring of 1397. But the Battle of Nicopolis was September 25 1396 and we know that Mircea took part in the battle with a Wallachian army. If he was exiled how could he lead the army of Wallachia? (The restoration of Mircea is generally seen as a preparation of the Crusade by Hungarian historians.)



Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 16:32

But there is a point that disturbes me. You said that in 1396 Vlad still ruled over Wallachia and was deposed in the Spring of 1397. But the Battle of Nicopolis was September 25 1396 and we know that Mircea took part in the battle with a Wallachian army. If he was exiled how could he lead the army of Wallachia? (The restoration of Mircea is generally seen as a preparation of the Crusade by Hungarian historians.)

There are few points which maybe should be issued in a clearer form:

- Vlad was indeed deposed in 1397, but it is likely he lost some part of the control he had over Wallachia since 1396 when voivod Stibor defeated him the first time. In 1396 there seems to be a battle, in 1397 only a siege. This action (from 1396) can be correlated with Hungarian Kingdom's effort to wage that Crusade against Ottomans.

- As we know from other documents, at that time (1390) Mircea was not only voivod of Wallachia, but also duke of Amlas/Omlas and Fagaras/Fogaras (geographically in southern Transylvania), was ruling Dobrogea/Dobrudja, perhaps even the southern parts of Moldavia. With Mircea still alive and still having Hungarian support Vlad surely had difficulties to receive the full loyalty (of the boyars, of the administration, of the army, of the population) and control over the entire state. That's why is not hard to imagine a recruiting ground for Mircea. He could also benefit from the help of rebellious elements to the ruleship of Vlad.

- In the act from 1396 signed by the usurper Vlad there are some interesting things to note (and one to correct, I made a mistake earlier due to a rushy reading): he thanks and supports Vladislav and Hedwiga, the king and queen of Poland (not Hungary like I earlier wrote!). Vlad is grateful to Polish crown for the support he received from them to obtain the voivodate of Wallachia and possessions in Hungarian kingdom. He also recognizes Hedwiga as the only true successor of Hungarian crown and declares his full support and loyalty to them and their successors as kings of Poland and Hungary. It looks like the usurpation of Wallachian throne was not only a Hungaro-Ottoman question but is also (I would say rather, but the diplomas of Sigismund say Vlad was supported by Ottomans - it could have been an Ottoman-Polish coordonated action against Hungary) related to the death of queen Mary, married to Sigismund, sister of Hedwiga and both daughters of the great king Louis, king of Poland and Hungary.

- And one thing I missed to say - Huber and others used also another piece of text from the Byzantino-Bulgar chronicle, which although states an unquestionable defeat of Bajezid, after battle the sultan ran south of Danube, but he appointed a "vlastel" over Wallachia, and Mircea had to run to Hungarians. This is the only chronicle which makes that menton (a bizarre mention - after the battle both the winner and the loser have to run!), it may be a reference to Vlad but also may be some later interpolation.



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 06:16
1) Well, I look for more references (Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó etc) and it seems that all agreed with Hóvári.
 
2) I am plannig to write about the early military career of John Hunyadi and I found some disturbing element. It is presumed that the original Hunyadi arms (the Raven) came from an old possesion of the family: Raven's rock. There is a Hollókő (Raven's rock) village in Hungary, but I can found no information that it was ever a Hunyadi possesion. More over an internet source mention that this possesion originally belonged Hunyadi's grandfather. Since Hunyadi's father immigrated to Hungary not his grandfather Raven's rock must be in Wallachia. Do you know something about this question?
 
PS
I saw the Sigismundus exhibition last week and it was truly marveleous. If any of you would be Budapest or Luxembourg, then I recommend to see it. It definitively worthy.
http://www.sigismundus.hu/index.php?l=en - Sigismundus - Art and Culture in the age of Sigismund of Luxemburg


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 23-May-2006 at 08:55

1) It makes a difference if they reached the same conclusion coming from different sources or using different arguments. If they all follow the same source then it's only a historiographical trend, nothing more.

2) I don't know of any historical evidence to corelate this hypothesis with a real place but I can help you with different "Stanca/Piatra Corbului" (Romanian for Raven's rock) locations, though before that we should check what was their name in 14-15th centuries. All of them so far are in Carpathian mountains.
Another identification attempt could start from the hypothesis that the actual name of the place is a phonetic adaptation (in Romanian if we assume the place is on the current territory of Romania) of a foreign form. E.g. Hollókő -> Hălăcău. But I haven't find any possible solution to this one, yet.
 
edit: I found two volumes from the publication of Hunyad Castle Museum - Corviniana. There are some interesting studies about John Hunyadi and some particularily about some of his military campaigns.
 
a very later edit: I ran into some Italian sources which claim an Ottoman victory and as well this very interesting article: http://www.stratisc.org/partenaires/cfhm/rihm/83/RIHM_83_12.htm - http://www.stratisc.org/partenaires/cfhm/rihm/83/RIHM_83_12.htm
I guess, there's more to chew about this battle :)
 


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 06:57

The early career of John Hunyadi


A) Hungary after king Sigismund

When Louis the Great died and left his throne to his daughter a period of political turmoil began in Hungary and Sigismund needed more than a decade to stabilize his rule. Sigismund just like Louis I also did not have a male heir, only a daughter and he did everything needed to avoid such a chaos after his own death. He appointed his son-in-law Albert Habsburg (as Albert V duke of Austria) to his sole heir. His daughter, Elizabeth had to content herself with the role of a queen consort. In 1437 the dying Sigismund also had his willfull wife (Barbara Cilli) seized to ensure Albert’s succession. Finally Albert I. was crowned without any problem although he had to nullify some of Sigismund’s reforms because of the demands of the Diet. (January 1st 1438) After the coronation he left Hungary to secure his other heritage the throne of Bohemia.

Hungarian estates confirm the Habsburg succession:

Meanwhile the Ottoman Empire successfully regained her strengh after the disasterous battle of Ankara against Timur Lenk. The peace treaty between the Ottomans and Hungary expired, and in 1439 an Ottoman army besieged an important Hungarian border castle Smederevo (hung. Szendrő). By the time Albert assembled an army, the castle fell and the king did not risk a battle. Cholera appeared in the camp and Albert died.

King Albert:

Albert only had an unborn child and the country faced a dilemma. Even if Albert’s child would be a boy and survive the birth, a baby is not able to rule and defend the country from the Ottoman threat. A fraction invited Władysław III of Poland from the Jagiellon dinasty (hung. Jagelló) to the throne while the other wanted the newly borned Ladislaus Posthumus to the throne. Plans of a marriage between Władysław and Elizabeth , the dowager queen (daughter of Sigismund) failed.

Elizabeth secured the Holy Crown. Her handmaiden Helena Kottanner stole the Holy Crown from the castle of Visegrád, and baby Ladislaus was legally crowned as Ladislaus V.  There was no crown to the coronation of
Władysław so the Diet temporary transfered all power of the Holy Crown to a reliquary crown of St. Stephen. The Polish king as Uladislaus I was crowned with this jewel, altough the legal validity of this act is highly questionable.

There were two kings, the civil war was inevitable. In the war of the two Lászlós the Bohemian László (Ladislaus V.) was supported by the richest and most powerful lords (Garai, Cilli, Brankovic, Szécsi), the cities and his uncle Frederick III king of Germany. The Polish László (Uladislaus I.) was supported by the majority of the Lords (Újlaky, Rozgonyi, Hédervári, Pálóczy etc.) and the lesser noblemen. POlish help was minimal, Polish nobility did not want to encroach into a Hungarian civil war.

It was a perfect time to an ambitious man to ascend.


B) John Hunyadi’s way to power

John Hunyadi (hung. János Hunyadi, rom. Iancu de Hunedoara, serb. Sibinjanin Janko) was born cca. 1405/1407. His father Voicu (hung. Vajk or Vojk) was Wallachian immigrant who became a knight-at-court (lat. aulae regie miles) in the service of king Sigismund. In 1409 for his services the family was given the castle of Hunyad (Hunyadvár, later Vajdahunyad, rom. Hunedoara) hence the surname Hunyadi (= of Hunyad).

The castle of Hunedoara (hung. Vajdahunyad) today:

As a young noblemen John Hunyadi served several lords. He was a page at Pipó of Ozora around 1420 then served Stefan Lazarevic the Serbian despot till 1427. Here he met László Szilágyi of Horogszeg his future father-in-law who was a leading familiaris of the despot. After the death of the despot he served the Csáki family (~1427-29) then István Újlaki (~1429-30). [NOTE: In Hungary the contract between lord and familiaris could be dissolved any time and was not inheritable unlike the contract between the Western vassal and overlord.] He made a friendship with the younger brother of his lord Miklós Újlaki, and later their cooperation became decisive in Hungarian politics. (Hunyadi became regent of the kingdom, while Újlaki became king of Bosnia) In 1430 he entered the service of king Sigismund whom he escorted to his foreiging travels. Bonfini (the court chronicler of Hunyadi’s son) states that in Italy Hunyadi served Filippo Maria Visiconti the duke of Milan, but the solidity of this statement is questionable. He fought in the Hussite Wars under Sigismund and the Southern Frontiers of Hungary under Frank Tallóci the ban of Severin (hung. Szörény) When Tallóci abdicted in 1439 he was appointed as the new ban of Severin (hung. Szörény). As a ban he became a baron of the kingdom, but still only a lesser baron (33rd in the list).

In the following civil war he choose Uladislaus I. and in the battle of Bátaszék (1441) Hunyadi and Miklós Újlaki defeated the supporters of Ladislaus Posthumus. After this victory the Habsburg fraction lost his army. Only the hussite mercenaries of Jan Jiskra (hung. János Giskra) [a Bohemian mercenary leader] held Northern Hungary. The Habsburgs also held some castle on the western edge of the kingdom and Esztergom was succesfully defended by Cardinal Dénes Szécsi, archbishop of Esztergom. Uladislaus I ruled over Central, Southern and Eastern Hungary. As a reward for their victory Uladislaus appointed Újlaki and Hunyadi (jointly) to voivode of Transylvania and count of Timis (hung. Temes). Hunyadi also remained the ban of Severin (hung. Szörény) and Újlaki kept the banate of Macva (hung.Macsó) and the capitancy of Székesfehérvár (lat. Alba Regia). They also gained control over the royal salt-monopoly. Tremendous power even if they had to pacify this territories. Hunyadi and Újlaki nominally administered these territories jointly, but it seems that the territories west to the Tisza river were Újlaki’s and east to the Tisza were Hunyadi’s.


C) Early battles with the Ottoman Empire

Little known about the early battles of John Hunyadi. To reconstruct these battles historians often use the chronicle of Antonio Bonfini. Unfortunately he is rather unreliable, his descriptons sometimes too modern, too sematic and full of many antic clichés. Many reconstruction can be found about these battles

Yet in 1440 an Ottoman army unsuccessfully besieged Belgrade (hung. Belgrád or Nándorfehérvár, lat. Alba Bulgarica) defended by Jovan the prior of Vrana and his brothers, the Tallócis. When a year later Ishak, bey of Smederevo (hung. Szendrő) approached Belgrade Hunyadi defeated him with his troops.

Battle of Irongate 1441

Perhaps as a retort the following year a large Ottoman force attacked Hungary. The Ottoman forces divided into three parts. One army attacked Slavonia and was defeated by Matkó Tallóci, one besieged the castle of Szrebernik. Frank Tallóci led a relief force to Szrebernik, but he was defeated and got POW. The third Ottoman army of 10 000 irregulars led by Mezid, bey of Vidin attacked Transylvania. Mezid bey defeated bishop György Lépes near Sântimbru (hung. Marosszentimre). Then Hunyadi left Timisoara (hung. Temesvár) where he waited the Ottomans to attack the withdrawing marauders near to the Vaskapu (Irongate, not the Danube gorge, but a pass in Hunedoara/Hunyad county). It is said that a Hungarian spy managed to overhear the Ottoman plan. Mezid bey concentrated his forces to kill Hunyadi, he beleived that the masterless army would be an easy prey. To avoid this danger one of Hunyadi’s trusted men Simon Kemény (in other references Simon Kamonyai) carried Hunyadi’s banner. Kemény stood on the right wing with the banner of the commander, while in reality Hunyadi stood in the left wing. The Ottomans concentrated to the Hungarian right to kill Hunyadi. Altough they managed to kill Kemény, the real Hunyadi on the left could charge the weakened Ottoman right wing. An outbreak of the Hungarian captives on the back of the Ottomans ensured Hungarian victory. Mezid and his sons were killed. In the same year Hunyadi helped a Hungarian friend voivode to the Wallachian throne.

[NOTE: Some sources says that Hunyadi was present at Sântimbru and he led the army.Sometimes Sibiu (hung. Nagyszeben) appears falsely as the place of the second battle.Others says that the second battle were at Alba Iulia (hung. Gyulafehérvár)]


Battle of Ialomiţa river 1442

In 1442 Sehabeddin (Sa’d ed-din ?) the beylerbey of Rumelia (commander of Ottoman troops in Europe) attacked Wallachia with an army of 25-30 000 men. This time the army was reinforced with akincis and janissaries. Though the akincis were not present in the battle they were sent away to plunder countyside. The Hungarian army (cca. 10 000 men) waited in the valley of Ialomiţa (In Hungarian references often seen as Jalomica) and was reinforced by Hussite warwagons. In the strait valley the traditional Ottoman flanking tactics did not work well and the power of the knight’s charge could be more effective. The pretentious beylerbey did not mind the unfavourable terrain. Even so the Hungarians were not able to break the Ottoman line till the warwagons attacked the Ottoman rear simultaneously with a frontal charge of the heavy cavalry. This was the first time that Ottoman forces encountered with war wagons and the element of surprise was a key factor.


D) Aftermath

None of these battles were decisive, none of these battles caused notable damage to the Ottoman power, but they were long awaited victories for the Hungarians and estabilished the Hunyadi myth, his reputation as an invincible „turkish beater”. It was a turning point also. The defensive policy ended and a series of crusades and offensive campaigns followed.

John Hunyadi in the Thuróczy chronicle:




Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 08:25
I'm not informed about the Hunyad family.

I heard that Voicu was coming from Wallachia but I know that the fortress in Hunyadvar/Hunedoara is existing from 14th century. Who was the ancient owner?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">



Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 08:52
Originally posted by Menumorut

I'm not informed about the Hunyad family.

I heard that Voicu was coming from Wallachia but I know that the fortress in Hunyadvar/Hunedoara is existing from 14th century. Who was the ancient owner?
I have found some (internet) references. It seems that Hunedoara/Hunyadvár was built during the reign of Charles I, because of the newly formed Wallachian Pricipality. The castle remained in royal property till 1409, and belonged to the honor of the voivode of Transylvania.
 
[There is an outdated theory that the castle was given not Hunyadi's father but grandfather. The cause of the confusion was the false interpretation of the nova donatio legal formulation]


Posted By: antisocrates
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:14
Originally posted by Raider

Originally posted by BigL

"A southern army attacked Transylvania, defeated the voivod and crushed the Transylvanian Hungarian army" any info on this battle?

"The Tartar casulties were so large that Batu didn’t wanted to pursue the Hungarians" ,Where did you get this from, i know the mongol casualties at the bridgehead were high,but werent the other mongol divisions relatively untouched.

 "A camp of 100 000 or even  60 000 horsemen would be simply too large to this actions." mongol bow can shoot roughly 300m ,the mongols surrounded the camp so shooting from all directions,does this mean the camp has a diameter of 600meters/

How many of the hungarians are horsemen?

1. My reference do not give details, because it concentrates to the Mohi battle. I will search for further information.

2. According to the footnotes of my reference the primary source was The History of the Yuan dinasty - Biography of Subodai.

3. There were no infantry only cavalry in the Hungarian army, but there were the servants and other camp followers.

 
I have heard, from Hungarians only, repeatedly that the Mongols suffered so much losses that they hesitated to continue.  I'm very skeptical about this claim, because no major historian that I know have substantiated this, nor have my Chinese acquaintances unearthed anything close to this in Mongol-Chinese primary sources.


Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 21:48

AFAIK both the battles of Santimbru and of Irongate (Waskapu) occured in the year 1442.

Bonfini describes Hunyadi and Lepes leading the Hungarian army at Santimbru. He also suggests that the Ottoman forces surrounded and trapped Hunyadi's small army. The geography of the place and the flow of events allows that, now only matters how reliable is Bonfini's account.


Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2006 at 02:41
Originally posted by Chilbudios

AFAIK both the battles of Santimbru and of Irongate (Waskapu) occured in the year 1442.

Bonfini describes Hunyadi and Lepes leading the Hungarian army at Santimbru. He also suggests that the Ottoman forces surrounded and trapped Hunyadi's small army. The geography of the place and the flow of events allows that, now only matters how reliable is Bonfini's account.
Well, I used more than one references (Engel, Kristó, Pálosfalvi, Winkler), plus Bonfini and the Thuróczy chronicle. As you might find out all of them contained a different reconstruction. I tried to write an own version what I thought the most likely. (I do not really trust Bonfini's account.)



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com