Talk:Battle of Ankara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A historian, please take a look[edit]

There is a lot of room for expansion for this article. A historian should take a look.

This could be added: one of the reasons of the Ottoman defeat was that many "Bey's"(Turkish equivelant of Lord) that joined the battle on the Ottoman side defected because they sought independance from Ottoman rule. I read quite a few articles that said that the traditional idea that the Ottoman defeat was due to the use of Elephants by the forces of Timur is not very true, and that the Ottoman defeat could be accredited to political reasons.

War elephants were there and in a sense they were effective but we can't forget the powerful and fast Turkish horsemen. In my opinion, Bayezid I lost the battle because of Timur's tactics. Timur made the Ottoman force tired before the start of the battle. With respect, Deliogul 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well its a combo of all of those. His army was tired, thirsty, forced onto the offensive against elephants, many of his soldiers defecting. There couldn't be a better disaster. Tourskin 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Markus451: the material I have read emphasized Tamerlane's genius in maneuver and reconnaissance. The article as it currently exists is the worst I've ever read in Wikipedia, since a reader who knows no military history will not learn anything worthwhile here. It gives no sense that the exhausted Ottoman army under Bayezid is forced to attack the Timurid army under Tamerlane before it perishes from thirst, or of Tamerlane's genius in maneuvering to the rear of the Turks and retreating "backwards" when the Turks turned to confront them. I'd fix it but I'm not a historian. Markus451 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 13 OCT 2009[reply]

The strength of the armies[edit]

'Forces' section contradicts the reference used for the strength of the armies; "The size of the two armies are reliably estimated at 140,000 on Timur's side and no more than 85,000 under Sultan Bayezid I." (David Nicolle, Armies of the Ottoman Turks, see notes), and the 'source' given in this section should be moved to the external links. Lysandros 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you marked he even counted a few Indian war elephants amongst his numbers as dubious? If you have some other sources denying it or explaining it better - please, add it to this section about forces of both sides. It is quite possible for Timur to have the elephants that time - due to his successful campain in India preceeding this battle.--BarryMar 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little mistake, the statement that i find dubious is; "While Bayezid's army was approximately equal to Timur's..." because it contradicts the reference that i provided. Lysandros 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see why my might be dubious if it disagrees to your reference?! What makes your reference more reliable? You are always welcome to point at another reference and, however, to show us why your reference is more reliable.--BarryMar 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The decisive battle finally took place at the plain of Çubuk, outside Ankara, on July 27, 1402. The sources vary widely as to the size of the two armies, but all agree that Tamerlane's force was larger." Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Cambridge University Press (page 35). Lysandros 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, not everybody agrees that Timur brought the bigger force. Harold Lamb's 1928 biography is neither current nor academic, but it seems fairly well researched, and he asserts that it was Bayezid who brought the bigger army. This somewhat makes sense for several reasons. 1) The Turks are alleged to have used a crescent formation, which would only be appropriate if they could outflank Timur, implying greater numbers. 2) Timur had forces committed elsewhere in the Middle East, especially to counter the Mamluks, while Bayezid was free to concentrate all his forces. 3) While Bayezid's empire was somewhat smaller, it had to be much more densely populated than Timur's the core of which was in the somewhat deserty regions of formerly Soviet Central Asia. 4) The Turks could muster no effective field army in Anatolia after their defeat. 5) The Turks would be inclined to claim Timur had the advantage of numbers, since it would reflect better on their leadership and military acumen. Much more romantic to be outnumbered than outgeneraled. 2 cents.

--98.225.197.59 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which side do you mean by Turks? Both Ottomans and Timurids were Turks. Two armies that met were largely Turkic. After this foreword: Timur's army was indeed larger. All the reasons cited above are mere speculation and are only assumptions. The only source cited is a populist biography by Harold Lamb followed by speculations why it make sense. First of all Lamb wrote the Tamerlane's biography, so it's natural that he tried to emphasize his protagonist's achievements. Much more romantic to win being outnumbered than to win by numbers. Well, if we ever assume that Bayezid brought the bigger army, a very large part of his army which consisted of Anatolian troops defected to the other side when they saw their former lords, Anatolian Beys overthrown by Bayezid, beside Timur. So anyway at the battle Bayezid's forces were largely outnumbered by Timur's.79.173.120.214 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me?[edit]

I have a reliable source; Battle, by R.G. Grant, which stated that Bayezid and Timur's army wearing marching towards each other, missed each other. Then, Bayezid was forced to turn back his army. When it found Timur's army, it was blocking the path to the nearest water source. Therefore, Bayezid's army was forced on to the offensive to reach the water source since his army was tired and thristy. He failed to break through and a Timur counter attack won the day for Timur. 86.136.28.42 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fact that Bayezid escaped temporarliy with a few thousand hundred horsemen, before being captured. Tourskin 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name of turkish commander[edit]

it's aba yazeed, meaning father of yazeed; not beyazid, what does that mean anyway? 213.42.21.156 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Turkish the Ottoman Sultan is known as Beyazid Yildirim (Thunderbolt), Aba Yazeed is probably Arabic.--Lettersound (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False reference[edit]

The reference as given

Bury, John Bagnell, The Cambridge medieval history, (Camb. Univ. Press, 1923), 562

is non-existent. However there is

The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV, The Eastern Roman empire (717- 1453) by J. R. (Joseph Robson); Previté-Orton, Charles William; Brooke, Z. N. (Zachary Nugent), eds.; planned by J. B. Bury (John Bagnell) Tanner (Author); Macmillan (1923)

This book does not support the text where it shall be attached to (instead the non-existent one).

--138.88.103.233 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should tread very carefully. I do not use false references. Considering you first remark was political propaganda", your continued insulting tone won't last here!!

http://books.google.com/books?q=The+Cambridge+medieval+history+Bury --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you do use false reference. What you have offered here is a list of books coming from the Google search engine. Neither of them is: Bury, John Bagnell, The Cambridge medieval history, (Camb. Univ. Press, 1923), nor such book ever existed.
    As to the 'political propaganda' - it is my qualification of the Anzulovic's book, not an insult thrown at you!
    Also, I'd like to challenge you to provide the photocopy of the front cover and of the page 562 of that book you claimed its existence.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess again, http://books.google.com/books?id=f83RAAAAMAAJ&q=Cambridge+medieval+history+battle+angora+Serbian&dq=Cambridge+medieval+history+battle+angora+Serbian&pgis=1
Who the hell do you think you are? You have ZERO references stating 20,000 Serbs were at the battle! Instead of being in a big hurry to label something "political propaganda" you should spend your time doing better research! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J. B. Bury was a well-respected historian. The citation you listed—albeit it appears a little confusing—is of The Cambridge medieval history vol. 4 (1923). Pages 561–562 state: "Stephen Lazarevic was well aware that he only existed upon the sufferance of the Sultan, and for the first thirteen years of his long reign he thought it prudent to follow a Turcophil policy, even at the cost of his own race and his own religion. Content with the modest title of "Despot." which he received from the Byzantine Emperor, he aimed at the retention of local autonomy by the strict observance of his promises to his suzerain. Thus every year he accompanied the Turkish troops; in 1398 his soldiers assisted in the first great Turkish invasion of Bosnia; in 1402 he stood by the side of Bayazid at the fatal battle of Angora with 5,000 (according to others 10,000) lancers, all clad in armour." Anzulović's Heavenly Serbia reflects Bury's figures to the key: "in 1402 he assisted Bayezid at the fatal battle of Angora with five thousand (according to some sources, ten thousand) armoured lancers)". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying this incorrect use of a reference. The reference title and the authors must be correctly given - in order to avoid any confusion. As to Anzulovic - if he just repeats what is given in an older reference - no need to mention him at all, especially along with reference he used in his book.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no harm in mentioning him. By simply restating Bury's words, he has established that he is also in agreement with the Serb troop figures. Having multiple references is always a plus on Wikipedia – it lends to the credibility of facts and figures written in articles. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no use of mentioning him. Restating someone words bears no importance especially in the book used to smear a nation. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honest mistake but a misleading one. I'm a stalwart proponent of the Chicago Manual of Style and, per its guidelines, when citing a work which has one or more editors, it is absolutely necessary that we cite the names of the essays or articles which are written by their respective authors. I'm not sure if the Balkans was necessarily Bury's forte but it shouldn't be too difficult to see who wrote that section of the book. Kind regards, --The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

The numbers aimed to 'prove' the both armies strength are meaningless. No one knows for sure how many men had any of the two armies. When Tamerlaine invaded Turkey his a horsemen army allowed him to move fast through the Turkish Empire - destroying the Empire defense piece by piece. Later, before the main battle and during the battle, a number of Bayezid's allies and vassals joined to Tamerlaine. So, trying to figure out the armies strength makes no sense.

Moreover, if reading some older references, we'll get clear idea that the numbers were matter of the rule of thumb:

  • Turkey, old and new; historical, geographical and statistical: historical, geographical and statistical by Sutherland Menzies, WM Hallen and Co London 1880 page 65: They amounted nearly one million men.
  • Modern History: From the Coming of Christ and Change of the Roman Republic Into an Empire, to the Year of Our Lord 1888 by Peter Fredet, published by J. Murphy & co., 1893 page 373-374 (800 000 Tamerlane, 400 000 Bayezid)
  • New historical atlas and general history by Robert Henlopen Labberton, published by T. MacCoun, 1888, Bayezid 120 000 Tamerlane 600 000

Accordingly - I've deleted the numbers and 'references' quoting the armies strength arbitrarily.--141.156.229.98 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the section. In general, I would avoid using old scholarship when new, improved scholarship is readily available. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like you to advise to not ever fix anything you do not understand and you do not have relevant knowledge about. That will be greatly benefit Wikipedia.--141.156.229.98 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in action (along with some other scholars) to urge the Wikipedia owners to start removing snotnoses like you from the Wikipedia. Calling upon rules and - at the same time - not knowing the basic facts about this subject nor being educated as a historian - is really a snotnose's behavior.--141.156.229.98 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you a trained historian? I find your reliance on old scholarship, when new and improved scholarship (for the most part, it's usually a confirmation of old scholarship) is available is indicative that you are not educated as a historian. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am a historian with 35 years of the academic credibility (teaching, research). As to the 'new and improved scholarship' - wipe your nose first. All the 'new' estimates of numbers are utter nonsense - all based on the rule of thumb, just like the old ones. I've used a few of the old ones - just to illustrate how it was (is) pointless even to talk about the armies strength through numbers. No matter what Gibbon says ("number given by Timur cannot be accepted"), Tamerlaine was the one who really knew and understood the Turkish Empire might. Bayezid Turkey was far more potent (economically, and more populous) than the Tamerlaine's Empire. Tamerlaine, on the other hand, was far more educated and capable military leader than it was Bayezid. So, to crush the Turks, Tamerlaine avoided confronting Bayezid in a major battle - rather invaded Turkey when Turks were campaigning in Europe, not leaving the least possibility to Bayezid to effectively defend his empire. Turkish horses became the Tamerlaine's possession, the Turkish conscripts slaughtered and dispersed before Bayezid had time to draft them. Before the decisive battle (which was just a chance for Tamerlaine to finally destroy Bayezid) took place, Tamerlaine's agents already persuaded many Bayezid's vassals to abandon Bayezid or to turn against Bayezid. Lazarevic was one of the less important vassals whose misfortune was not understanding looming Bayezid's fall - till the middle of the battle.--138.88.237.79 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it currently exists is the worst I've ever read in Wikipedia. It gives no sense that the exhausted Ottoman army under Bayezid is forced to attack the Timurid army under Tamerlane before it perishes from thirst, or of Tamerlane's genius in maneuvering to the rear of the Turks and retreating "backwards" when the Turks turned to confront them. I'd fix it but I'm not a historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus451 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

In the background section of the article it states that Timur "sought to rebuild the Mongol Empire of his ancestors". The 3 sources given are; Weatherford, J. McIver, Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world, (Random House Inc., 2004), 252., Spencer, Lauren, Iran: a primary source cultural guide, (The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004), 25. and Vauchez, André, Richard Barrie Dobson, and Michael Lapidge, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, (James Clarke and Co., 2000), 1442.

Jack Weatherfords book has come under alot of criticism from scholars for containing inaccurate information and for making misleading generalisations. This is even mentioned in the WP article of the book. H-Net, which is comprised of scholars, has a critical review of the book, one of the criticisms it makes is that the genealogical table in the book is wrong as far as Timur is concerned;

"There is an odd segment of the table though. All of the Khanates or states resulting from the split of the Mongol Empire are shown except the Chaghatayid Khanate of Central Asia. In its place is the Moghul Empire of India. Indeed, the Moghul Empire has connections back to the Mongols (Moghul is Persian for Mongol), but the founder of the Moghul Empire, Babur, was himself a Timurid, the dynasty of the Emir Timur, who was not descended from Genghis Khan. While Babur was descended from Genghis Khan on his mother's side, he cannot be viewed as a direct line from Genghis Khan's grandson, Chaghatai, as Weatherford's table indicates."

It goes on;

"It is quite clear that Weatherford is a brilliant writer, blending anthropological insight and incredible enthusiasm with a captivating narrative. It is easy to see why many reviewers and readers have been enthusiastic about it. Despite all of Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World's acclaim, it is very clear that Weatherford is not a historian. In the general narrative Weatherford is sufficiently accurate. However, in the details, Weatherford is wrestling with material that he clearly does not fully appreciate. It is important to remember that the book is intended for the general public and thus certain allowances are often made, usually in the form of generalizations. While this can be a useful method in writing, often it is misleading or just simply wrong. Unfortunately this is the case with much of Weatherford's book."

The review also adds criticism to the many speculations made by Weatherford too. The review concludes with "I would suggest it to someone might otherwise not have an interest in history."

Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world was not intended to be an academic book and given the negative criticism towards it by scholars saying the book contains misleading, inaccurate, speculative and generalising information makes it unreliable to source it for such a speculative claim.

The second source, Lauren Spencer's book is also non academic and thus hasn't been peer reviewed. I couldn't find much information on who she is but a look at her books on Amazon show this is her only book on Iran and history and the subject diverges greatly from topic of her other books. This source also should be considered unreliable.

This leaves us with the 3rd source, the Encyclopaedia of the Middle Ages volume 1. I requested a quote back in August last year which wasn't given. Since it is perhaps the only academically published work that has been reviewed by scholars that could source the claim it becomes important. The reference says it is in volume 1 page 1442, however the book has only 815 pages in the first volume. Of course this could just be a mistake but due to the discrepancy I think its important to have the quote verified. If it can't be rectified I think the claim Timur sought to rebuild the empire of his ancestors should be removed as merely a presumptuous generalisation. Xaghan (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by the fervent desire to remove what apparently Xaghan finds quite unpalatable, for some reason. IF Xaghan has ALL this information on which books are "academic" and "peer reviewed", shouldn't Xaghan have access to this book[1], which oddly according to google.books[2] has 1624 pages and amazon.com[3],1642, not 815, he is so desperately trying to disguise. And through all of his/her rant, Xaghan does not clarify just exactly what his/her problem is with the sentence in question. The statement that, "Timur sought to rebuild the Mongol Empire" or the statement, "of his ancestors" part????
--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One will also find that Xaghan has removed quoted information in a reference[4], which clearly states exactly what Xaghan is trying to remove from this article.
  • Chaliand, Gérard (2004). Nomadic Empires: From Mongolia to the Danube translated by A.M. Berrett. Transaction Publishers, p.75. ISBN 076580204X. Limited preview at Google Books. p.75. "Timur Leng (Tamerlane) Timur, known as the lame (1336-1405) was a Muslim Turk from the Umus of Chagatai who saw himself as Genghis Khan's heir. He aspired to recreate the empire of his ancestors. He was a military genius who loved to play chess in his spare time to improve his military tactics and skill. And although he wielded absolute power, he never called himself more than an emir.
Such actions should result in Xaghan being blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the encyclopedia of the Middle Ages we have both now provided still show discrepancies with the source [[5]] given in the article. Since it was you who added the source[[6]] surely you should be able to quote it or correct it?

The additional links you provide either make blatant errors such as claiming Timur was a descendant of Genghis Khan; or refer to another Timur the Mongol Tughlugh Timur; or confuse the two. Quantity is not better than quality. This confusion can be explained by the non scholarly nature of some of the books or by writers writing outside their field of expertise, works written by experts in this area of knowledge don't confuse the two Temürs or make such evident mistakes. Your dependence on travel guides and pop history books appear to have confused you as well.

You say I don't clarify exactly what my problem is. That's because I don't have an opinion on the matter, I am only interested in the accuracy of the claim. By trying to find a hidden intent or something you fail to see this. I want to know if there is any actual evidence this was Timur's objective, or if it is the opinion of some writers which have spread through hearsay. If the latter then it would be POV which has no place on WP.

Also your claim I removed quoted information in a reference is wrong, and your weaselish attempt to postulate a charge for my blocking is outright pathetic. If you add questionable references for questionable assertions they will obviously be questioned. Answer them instead of resorting to such pettiness.

Temür's background in the Ulus Chagatay, Turko-Mongol customs and political organisation familiar to him and the memory of Genghis Khan which was fresh and recent in his time would of made similarities between the two evident. This doesn't mean however he was recreating or rehabilitating Temujin's empire. Timur wasn't rebuilding someone else's empire he was building his own. When the Romans left Britain, Roman customs, laws and state practises were in place. What grew out of this, ultimately the British Empire, wasn't a rebuilding of the Roman Empire, maybe a legacy of the Romans influence or one factor in the genesis of the British Empire but not a reconstruction. Today in the West ancient Greek concepts of democracy are considered the norm but that doesn't make the modern world a reconstruction of the Ancient Greeks either. Genghis Khan himself would off drawn his own ideas of empire building from those that preceded his own too, doesn't mean he was rebuilding the Türk or Uyghur empire (even though he adopted the Uyghur script). Temür's empire was focused not on the steppes of his ancestors but towards the south west to the Perso-Islamic world where the traditional Turkic steppe ideology would clash with the sedentary Perso-Islamic one forcing a transition to a new ideology that would synthesise these two and which further weakens those who assert he was rebuilding the Mongol empire. So cool your tone, grow up and be constructive in a positive way. I hope this explains to you what my "problem" is. Xaghan (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Grow up yourself. I don't waste time assigning ethnicity to individuals. I'll leave that to petty little nationalists and self inflated egoists.
2. For someone that "doesn't have an opinion" on this matter, why not post your concerns about Timur's ethnicity on the main article? The main article stated until June 30[7] that he was from the Mongol Barlas tribe, until changed by some anon IP. So show me exactly where you posted your concerns on the main article.
3. "You say I don't clarify exactly what my problem is. That's because I don't have an opinion on the matter, I am only interested in the accuracy of the claim."."He sought to restore the Mongol Empire..." is also mentioned in the main article, where have you mentioned anything on the Timur talk page? Appears your concern is quite limited in scope and hostility. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your points,

1. I'm not assigning ethnicity to him nor am I asking you too, his ethnicity is quite evident and therefore it's unnecessary. Problems with ethnicity only arise when someone assigns another ethnicity to a person other than his own which leads to a situation where said persons ethnicity becomes emphasised to reinforce the obvious. Ideally it would be preferable if ethnicity and identity didn't play such a big part in WP articles. Perhaps once for reference purposes only that should be enough. This is where consistency is useful. To prevent such situations we should be as consistent when dealing with non Turkic identities as Turkic ones. But this is all minor and off-topic for this discussion or the article, not sure why you made that point.

2. Perhaps I will some other time but this is the talk page to the Battle of Ankara article. Again another point I don't see the relevance of.

3. See my reply to point 1 and 2. My concern isn't hostile only your responses. I fail to see the need to include such a dubious and unproven assertion in this article. Xaghan (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So he didn't attempt to revive the Mongol Empire?
--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Angora[edit]

cf. Talk:Siege of Plevna#Move request

Takabeg (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottoman conquest of Anatolia[edit]

Starting in 1397, a Bayezid first of all is facing with Asia Minor, since the time of the battle Nicopolis in 1396 emir Alaudin of Karamanoğlu was at war with the Ottomans and he was a executed Ottoman bey of Anatolia. Bayezid's reply was followed in the campaign who personally took 1397th, and the Ottoman army was so numerous that was Alaudin as to achieve peace immediately freed all the war of prisoners and returned seized prey. Bayezid are not was alert on to a humble moves of his opponent, but he was defeated in the valley near Akçay. Alaudin was took refuge in the capital of Karamanoğlu Konya, but was extradited from residents of city to Sultan Bayezid, who ordered his execution. Then the Ottomans are moved to the south towards the city Larende where there Alaudin widow, sister of Bayezid. She was ordered to open gate of victorious Bayezid who then sent his sister in Brus.[1][2][3][4]

The conquest of Karamanoğlu was opened Bayezid new avenues to the East. During the 1398th Bayezid was expelled Kadi Burhaned from Sivas and then he was annexed several smaller emirates in Asia Minor on the coast of Black Sea. The only city in Samsun on the Black Sea, which was held Genoese was remained outside the Ottoman lands. As are soon died Kadı Burhaneddin, the Ottomans are took Sivas. Kadı Burhaneddin successors, mutually quarrel, they asked for Bayazed's protection of Turkmen from the neighboring principality Ak-kojunlu (White Sheep). The Ottoman sultan is not only heard their pleas, but he was took the whole country Kadi Burhaned and making it a frontier province. After this is the Sultan Bayezid was opened the way to Eastern Anatolia and the 1399th Malatya, east of Sivas, who is the northernmost stronghold of the Egyptian Mameluke, came under Ottoman rule. Already 1401th the Ottomans broke out in the Upper Euphrates and seized Erzincan and Erzerum a local ruler Taharten. Upper Euphrates was not only in the sphere of interest Bayazid, but another ambitious Muslim ruler Tatar Emir Timur Lenk (lame) (1370-1405).[1] [2] [4]

References

  1. ^ a b Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300—1600, 15—16.
  2. ^ a b Inaljik, The Ottoman Empire, The Classical Age, 24.
  3. ^ Mantran, History of the Ottoman Empire, 57.
  4. ^ a b Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, I, 34.

References[edit]

Latest addition, needs to be re-written[edit]

The above paragraphs need to be checked for accuracy and then re-written. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put a reference, so you can check. English is not my first language. These are the books: Imber, Colin: The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1650: The Structure of Power; Inalcik, Halil: The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600; Stanford Jay Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808

Falsely referenced sources[edit]

I removed the whole 'left - right wing' for having the nonsensically referenced.

Stefan Lazarević (Right Wing)[1][2][3][4]
Süleyman Çelebi (Left Wing)

For example, The Late Medieval Balkans, page 449 is visible online here: http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472082605-ch8.pdf The whole page did not ever mentioned Lazarevic--71.178.108.23 (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source says, page 499, not page 449. Bayezid assembled a large army to oppose him, containing contingents under his sons and under his various European vassals, including Stefan Lazaric and George Brankovic. Since when is Cambridge University Press not a reliable source?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still it is a way of falsely referencing sources. This is not a proof that Brankovic or Lazarevic lead Right Wing of the Bayezid Army. --71.178.108.23 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then the prudent thing would be to ask for a reference stating Lazarevic led the right wing. Not remove sources that clearly state he was there. That is simply tendentious editing. "Right Wing" has been removed. What is the issue now? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what? You are caught cheating. How about other references? The same way handled as this one? Lazarevic was not main vassal of Bayezid. Putting him in this role and then referencing falsely sources and using pamphlets as sources is a bad business!--71.178.108.23 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not put "Right Wing" anywhere. Lazarevic was a vassal of Bayezid[8][9][10] and was at the Battle of Ankara. Whether he was right wing, left wing or upside down is irrelevant.
Bury, J. B. (1923). The Cambridge Medieval History. vol. 4.
John Van Antwerp Fine (1994) The Late Medieval Balkans.
John Patrick Douglas Balfour Kinross (1977) The Ottoman Centuries.
René Grousset (1970) The Empire of the Steppes
All state Lazarevic was at the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they do by referencing an edition of Bury where another author gave a free estimate (no reference at all) of the Lazarevic's army numbers. Lazarevic was not the one who had any leading role in the battle. Also, you are frivolously referencing pages of the sources most probably based on incomplete google search without any real knowledge of the history of that time! The main player and factor of the Bayezid defeat was Sultan Tahartan, then Bayezid's Anatolian vassals who abandoned Bayezid during the battle and switched to the Timur's side. Anzulovic is not a historian, just a scribe who referenced Bury. His book is added here completely out of context, which shows that you do not pursue the knowledge, perhaps a political propaganda - which is yet another breach of Wikipedia's policy.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. The information presented states that Lazarevic WAS at the battle of Ankara. No amount of diversion or personal attacks will change that. And yes, I do know about the time period, clearly more than you. Lazarevic WAS a vassal of Bayezid. Continue to edit-war and you will be blocked soon enough.
"Anzulovic is not a historian", which is a side issue. Since his book is published by a university, which is more than you have provided.
You have shown no viable reason to remove the referenced information from this article, simply your own personal animosity against Lazarevic being mentioned.
"Political propaganda tool" Another diversion, since you have NO real reason to remove the references and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And according to his article Stefan Lazarevic, "He participated as an Ottoman vassal in the Battle of Rovine in 1395, the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, and in the Battle of Ankara in 1402." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to, The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4, "The Balkans, 1018-1499", by M. Dinic(Emeritus Professor of Balkan History in the University of Belgrade), "The immediate consequence of the battle of Kossovo was that Serbia became a vassal state of the Turks. Lazar's successor, his son Stephen Lazarevic(1389-1427), had to accept the obligation of paying tribute and supplying an auxiliary army under his personal command. Since it was no longer possible to think of offering serious resistance to the Turks, he concentrated on the careful fulfilment of his obligations; and he was to be seen participating in all the major Turkish attacks: in Bayezid's attack on Wallachia(1396), in the great conflict with the Christians at Nicopolis(1396) and finally in the fateful battle of Ankara(1402).", p551. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@71.178.108.23, thank you for your observations about (mis)interpretation of the sources and presenting information about Tahartan being the main player in this battle. Please respect WP:NPA and comment on content, not on the contributor.
@Kansas Bear, 71.178.108.23 did not deny that Lazarevic was Ottoman vassal or that Lazarevic participated in this battle. He/she emphasized that Lazarevic was not one of important commanders in this battle.
I think that Moravian Serbia and its contigent was very important at that time. Lazarevic's role was obviously very important and adding his name to infobox is justified. If he actually did not lead one Ottoman wing then his name should be indented.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my professional duty to point at ignorance. Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude. Putting as a reference a book that is a pamphlet which has nothing to do with this topic except that it references a book that is already referenced here, and completely out of context says much about this Kansas Bear. Using someone's arbitrary estimate of someone's army number is not history. "I think that Moravian Serbia ..." is yet another nonsense and ignorance. Local sultanates lobbied by Tamerlan's intelligence were there and that time decision makers. You two, except poor use of the Google search engine, are not capable to contribute to the quality of article. Medieval Serbia was here no more than bystander and distant player. Lazarevic withdraw his army from battle just a little later than Anatolians Muslims switched the sides. Tamerlan simply let Lazarevic to leave using his military to further crush Turks.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts 71.178.108.23. Please respect WP:NPA and comment on content, not on the contributor.
I think that you actually supported the assertion that Lazarevic was commander of military force involved in this battle when you said "Lazarevic withdraw his army from battle". That means that you agree that Lazarevic was commander of an army involved in this battle. According to Template:Infobox military conflict this infobox should contain information about "the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary)".
If you think that sources used to support above mentioned assertion are not reliable, please don't delete assertion, but propose better sources here.
If you think that there were other more important commanders, you are free to indent Lazarevic and add them together with reliable sources which support such assertions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am telling you that you have to ask question if something is not clear to you and not arbitrarily interpret my responses here. Lazarevic participated the battle, but military commanders were Bayezid's sons. What was in article is ignorance and misinterpretation of the references. Therefore, I am going to remove all text falsely referenced and especially Anzulovic which book has noo improtance here.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of three sources you used are written more than 100 years ago. I could not verify the third one (Setton). Will you please be so kind to provide a quote from Setton's work which support the assertion you added?
Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my note below. These references you counted here are the weak ones. What are their primary sources? The one that is '100 year old' quotes, for example, Bayezid's agreement with his Serb vassal to provide 2,000 cavalry men.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a question about one source you used. Please don't ignore it and provide a quote from Setton's work which support the assertion you added. Remaining two out of three sources you used are written more than 100 years ago (one of them is outdated tertiary source).
Regarding primary sources, you yourself brought two primary sources which claim that Lazarevic led 5,000 and 10,000 soldiers. Then you denied what they say with your OR deduction based on the irrelevant earlier agreement. Agreement between Bayezid and Lazarevic is irrelevant for this discussion and article. Lazarevic (Bayezid's brother-in-law) could sign agreement for zero cavalry men but in this battle Lazarevic could be important commander who brought 10,000 and led additional 20,000 in the right wing.
I think there is additional primary source (Konstantin, Lazarevic's biographer) who emphasized that Lazarevic was important commander who had very important role in this battle making three attempts to break trough to surrounded Bayezid trying to release him.
There is additional proof that Lazarevic did not retreat without a fight. One of Lazarević's nephews, Grgur Branković, was captured in this battle and later ransomed[11].
Any thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you have just ability to endlessly and pointlessly argue. The numbers you claimed above came out of blue. There was no valid bookkeeping of Bayezid's army numbers nor it was possible that time. I referenced only relevant data, not those that are frivolous estimates which are varying in thousands. Those who spent time researching history of the Turkish Empire know very well that all commanding positions were covered always by sultan's sons and Turkish generals. The fact that a Serb woman was a part of Bayezid's harem did not establish any kinship. Calling Lazarevic Bayezid's brother-in-law is laughable. Agreement between Bayezid and Lazarevic is relevant, because it is a fact. Other numbers are just figments of someone imagination. What was outdated and what is not, I do not want to discuss with you for seeing you as a person of no education and academic attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.108.23 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presented two sources which claim that Lazarevic led the Right Wing of Ottoman forces. One is award-winning author of works on military history Spencer C. Tucker published in 2011 and another is work published by Cambridge University Press in 1972 and reprinted many times. Kansas Bear presented many other sources for Lazarevic being one of commanders in this battle.
Instead to present arguments for your position based on reliable sources you:
  1. violated wp:3rr rule (1, 2, 3 and 4
  2. deleted cited addition of other users,
  3. violated WP:NPA (although you were politely asked not to do it)
  4. violated Wikipedia:Civility on this talk page,
  5. refused to reply to repeated good faith question of other user,
  6. based your position on your own WP:OR
  7. ignored arguments of other users based on scholarly interpretations presented in numerous secondary sources,
  8. contradicted yourself when you claimed that "Lazarevic withdraw his army from battle" and at the same time denying that he was one of commanders,....
I think this is clear case of serious disruption and expect that some user who who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions know how to deal with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Van Antwerp Fine (1994) The Late Medieval Balkans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; p. 499.
  2. ^ Erik Hildinger (2001) Warriors of the Steppe. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press ISBN 0-306-81065-4; p. 189.
  3. ^ John Patrick Douglas Balfour Kinross (1977) The Ottoman Centuries. New York: William Morrow and Company; p. 75.
  4. ^ René Grousset (1970) The Empire of the Steppes, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press ISBN 0-8135-0627-1; p. 451.

Map of the battle[edit]

An IP editor wrote on the talk page for the file Battle of Angora1402.jpg, which is used only in this article, expressing doubts about its accuracy. I happened upon this comment and thought I would reproduce it below so that it would have a better chance of being noticed, in case anyone more knowledgeable about the subject can fix the problem. The comment is rather vague. A. Parrot (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He or she said:

Here is a serious problem. The source used here is far from the reliable one and, God knows, how it was interpreted here.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I said so. The fact is Lazarevic was not a military leader there, nor any of the vassals had ever that role. Turkish military leaders were always sultan's sons and Turks.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. There were many ottoman military leaders who were not sultan's sons and Turks, like Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, Murat-beg Tardić, Jusuf Mašković, Omar Pasha, Zagan Pasha, Ahmed Izzet Pasha, Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed, Sinan Pasha ... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop talking nonsense. These were Turks, not vassals. I clearly stated above: Turkish military leaders were always sultan's sons and Turks.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were not Turks nor sultan's sons.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slavs are most assuredly NOT Turks. Citizenship - such as it was - is not the point. Ethnicity/Nationality is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.23 (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarevic and primary sources[edit]

Here is a constant, stubborn move to use some numbers that are just generated by rule of thumbs. There is no any counting of the armies numbers of that time, neither on Mongol nor Turkish side. Serb Lazarevic, as Bayezid's vassal, was a military leader of third rank, no more than auxiliary Bayezid's force which was kept a a bay by Tamerlan during this battle. The Tamerlan's move was to destroy Turkish army and not to waste time and force on insignificant Christian auxiliary troops.

As to the battle formation, if it existed at the beginning, it was completely destroyed by Tatars and Anatolian Muslims who joined to Tamerlan. From the beginning, there was complete disorder in Turkish army which was destroyed just within several hours of fighting.

What was already pointed out in discussion, Tamerlan destroyed Turkey military might before the battle, by slaughtering Turkish conscripts (in tens of thousand) before Bayezid was able to enlist them and arm them and taking away best Turkish horses. Tamelan also, as a wise and educated military leader, attacked Turkey when Turks were campaigning in Europe trying to conquer Hungary. He entered Turkey from the east, moving toward Bosphorus. When Bayezid expected to meet him on the west of Turkey, Tamerlan took u-turn destroying Anatolia and moving toward Angora. His army was completely mounted (i.e. cavalry) which Bayezid was not able to catch for having a lot of infantry. Tamerlan stopped at Angora forcing Angora defense to entrench and stay out of battle.

All above is the reason why I am removing nonsensic numbers and irrelevant military commanders. --71.178.108.23 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia states anything of the type(usage of primary sources). Your opinion here, which is not supported by anything viable, means nothing. You have presented no reason to removed Lazarevic or the references from the Infobox. This statement, "...based on references with no valid primary sources.", has NOT been proven at all. You have reverted 3 other editors and are edit warring. --Defensor Ursa 21:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have tagged the paragraph you have added since the sources do not support your opinion, which is original research. --Defensor Ursa 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to be capable of demonstrating clear knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss. Calling upon Wikipedia rules does not support your insertion of the knowledge of tertiary importance here. I've already supported my view with two formidable references, even by quoting one about Lazarevic's army numbers.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Four secondry sources (I believe it was that before it was removed from the infobox) to support the presence of Lazarevic certainly is enough. Whether those four sources need to be supported or not (IP's argument) should be decided by Wikipedia guidelines, although, as I have said, I'm quite sure there is no problem with four secondry sources. Also, infobox space really doesn't seem to be a problem with this article, even with the addition of Lazarevic. Uhlan talk 06:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with primary sources. Constantine of Kostenets described details about Lazarevic's participation in this battle. The text on Serbian language can be seen here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The serbs[edit]

Serbia fought on this battle as Belligerents and their flag should be next to the ottoman.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

I read I. Djuric's book Sumrak Vizantije (Twilight of Byzant). It was stated there that Ottoman Empire size was three times of the Timur's empire, Turkish army was at least three times larger than Timur's army. The Timur's army big advantage was in being completely cavalry. Morever, Timur's envoys met and persuaded many Turkish vassals to switch the sides. I am not sure that the Turkish army was outnumbered. Turks had a lot of infantry which makes them a slow-moving army which was a big strategical disadvantage of Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same book says that Timur did not fight Lazarevic's armored unit for not finding it useful. The same way, Lazarevic did not actively fought Timur. The statements about Lazarevic breaking Timur's ranks three times sounds as an urban legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ankara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: "vassals that did not participate were Wallachian Mircea" vs "knights together with Wallachian forces"[edit]

Perhaps Mircea I of Wallachia didn't participate himself in the battle but he sent troops under Serbian commander. 79.115.204.175 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the Battle[edit]

There's not source for the date 20 july. Many sources give 28 july.--Jolle (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Turkish name[edit]

I added recently the Ottoman Turkish name for the battle, that being آنقره محاربه‌سی, Anḳara Muḥârebesi. It was reverted by @Beshogur, claiming that Ottoman Turkish did not call the city آنقره, Anḳara, but Engüriye.

Perhaps older Ottoman texts used Engüriye, but I am unsure in this regard. I have not encountered it in any Ottoman manuscripts regarding the battle.

For an example of آنقره محاربه‌سی, Anḳara Muḥârebesi, in Ottoman Turkish, see it written above the map on page 68 of رسملى و خريطه‌لى عثمانلى تاريخى, Resmli ve ḫarîṭalı 'Os̱mânlı târîḫi, (1890) by Ahmet Rasim, as well as on the preceding page, where it is written as a chapter heading.

It is certainly a spelling that was used in Ottoman Turkish, even if possibly not at the time of the battle. If there is a source using Engüriye in reference to the battle, that would be useful, but I cannot find such a thing. Samiollah1357 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the date of this work? Beshogur (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1890, as was stated after its name. It should be noted that آنقره محاربه‌سی, Anḳara Muḥârebesi, has 32 results on Google Books, whereas انکوریه محاربه‌سی, Engüriye Muḥârebesi, has 0 results. A number of the results for the former are duplicates, but they are nonetheless still more than for the latter. Given that no historical sources seem to use انکوریه محاربه‌سی, Engüriye Muḥârebesi, and that multiple use آنقره محاربه‌سی, Anḳara Muḥârebesi, I would consider it a more appropriate option for inclusion in the article, even if it is possibly associated with later Ottoman. Samiollah1357 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I didn't claim "Engüriye Muḥârebesi" exists. I told it was an Ottoman name. I agree for inclusion if it's 1890. Beshogur (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not claiming that it existed either, simply that the battle was not referred to with the name Engüriye as far as I know. Some other sources from the period that refer to it as آنقره محاربه‌سی, Anḳara Muḥârebesi, include تاریخ دولت عثمانیه, Târîḫ-i Devlet-i 'Os̱mâniye, (1891) by Abdurrahmân Şeref Efendi, and ممالك عثمانیه‌نك تاریخ و جغرافیا لغاتی, Memâlik-i 'Os̱mâniyeniñ târîḫ ve coğrâfyâ lüğâtı, (1894) by Alî Cevât.
It seems we agree on the appropriate nature of its inclusion, so I will add it back to the article. Samiollah1357 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ankara&oldid=1194724906"