Talk:Battle of Kosovo (1448)

Comments

Untitled

I wasn't sure where I should add this comment. In "the Wallachians deserted to the Ottoman side" the word deserted gives the impression that they left the field. Is that correct? If they remained in the field, but joined the other side, "defected" may be better, or another word, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.140.181 (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Re-writing History

Serbs or serb supporters: please stop vandalizing the page by removing accurate but what maybe embarrassing info. Serbs did NOT help the Christians, in fact they helped the sultan (by blocking Skanderbeg and telling them of Hungarian plans) as they were vassals. [1]

Very true, while they overglorify the first Battle of Kosovo they try to hide, fake or to minimize the significance of this very important event in balkan history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.105.7 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Numbers

I couldn't find any info about the size of armies in any reputable source. any help?

The souces from the books regarding the numbers does not cite ANY citations at all. The article is nothing but a lack of quality as long as the numbers are stated as official. It should be noted as Unknown. It is impossible to know how many forces there were. But I doubt that the Ottomans could gather such forces before 1453. the fundamental sources are not being neutral, but they are being irrational, such as most of the battles concerning the Ottomans are.

• It is possible that the Ottoman army numbered about 60,000 men, but there were very few numbers of Turks. The army consisted mostly arabic slaves and Janissares, only 1,000 Turks as a maximum joined the battle, since the actual Turkish population was small.

"Hunyadi,who was now the richest landowner in Hungary, had raised an army of 24,000 men from his private resources, including German and Bohemian infantrymen armed with handguns to supplement his Hungarian cavalry. [...] This time the sultan brought on to the field a force of at least 60,000 men including Janissaries with muskets and a contingent of artillery." Jean W.Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, p. 248

"Hunyadi led an army of 24,000 men, including 8,000 Wallachians, but suffered another military defeat without even seeing his Albanian allies." S.R. Turnbull, The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699, p. 36 Lysandros 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the battle section so that it was in better English. I didn't alter the factual information. I think it is unclear where the position of the Hungarian light cavalry when they were routed by the Turks, someone who knows more about this battle than me might want to elaborate? Hera52 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

15 000 Turkish size 40 000 cristian size and please be obgjecite not only of cristian and slavish side!Kamuran otukenli (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting, every article I read about a war between western powers and ottomans, ottomans fight with too many opponents, but always ottoman armies is twice (or more) the size of opponents, and at the end ottomans have too many casualties, they lose almost all soldiers even if they won. I think turk populations at that time was like china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.173 (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Both Babinger and Setton confirmed that it was believed that Skanderbeg was delayed by Đurađ Branković, then allied with Sultan Murad II and that recent research has shown this belief to be untrue, based on letters Marin Barleti forged to match his interpretations. It is wrong to give undue weight to tertiary source (or some other less scholarly source) which claims different although if it was published after works of Setton and Babinger.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Babinger wrote his book in German in 1978 and the work he labeled as "recent research" had been published in 1968. All the other works are published in later dates, so the 1968 paper can only be a source that disputes certain aspects not to mention that recent/recently are relative. The Oxford encyclopaedia is indeed a tertiary work, but a very reliable one.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Babinger and Setton (published in 1978) are major experts for this subject and their works are far from being outdated. Don't give undue weight to tertiary source. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read Setton, have you? Scanderbeg intended to go “personalmente” with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have. Read the note about forgery of the documents which support that assertion and how "Reports reached Venice from Durazzo at that time that Skanderbeg's preparations were really intended for an attack upon the Venetian-held coast of Albania."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the Battle of Kosovo and Setton doesn't imply anything about it i.e. WP:OR. Please stick to the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has everything to do with the battle of Kosovo and source is very clear about forgeries which are made to support Barleti's inventions. I think there is another work of Setton which also explains this issue, maybe in more details.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Setton's only work we're using as a source says Scanderbeg intended to go “personalmente” with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The source itself says that it is not enough said and says more about it: ...."(Marinus Barletius ... who puts this events in 1444!)"... "Reports reached Venice from Durazzo at that time that Skanderbeg's preparations were really intended for an attack upon the Venetian-held coast of Albania.". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Reports reached Venice from Durazzo at that time that Skanderbeg's preparations were really intended for an attack upon the Venetian-held coast of Albania. don't contradict Scanderbeg intentions to go “personalmente” with an army to assist Hunyadi, but was prevented from doing so by Branković, whose lands he ravaged as punishment for the Serbian desertion of the Christian cause.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Of course it does.
  • First: You again left out very important part of the text which Setton wrote within a note and attributed it to "Marinus Barletius ... who puts this events in 1444!". What he thought of Marin Barleti is well known and can be seen on pages 72 and 73 which can be summarized: "Barletius wrote fiction in the early sixteenth century" because he forged documents to meet his interpretation of events.
  • Second: If Setton says that "Skanderbeg's preparations were really intended for an attack upon the Venetian-held coast of Albania" then any conflict between him and Serbian Despot regarding Kosovo is excluded. On the contrary. Two of them were allies who fought against Venice. This kind of Anti-Venetian alliance was not the first such alliance between Serbian Despotate and Kastrioti family.
• Maybe it will be easier to understand this events if they are observed in the broader context. At that time Skanderbeg and Serbian Despot were allies. Before this battle they attacked Venice in 1447—1448. But when Venetians invited Ottomans to attack Skanderbeg he was in desparate situation. He had to fight on two sides and lost a lot of his men and Svetigrad to Ottomans who afterwards went to Kosovo to meet Hunyadi. One of the main reasons why Venetians signed a piece treaty with (weakened) Skanderbeg in October 1444 was because they were afraid of Skanderbeg's ally, i.e. 'the marching army of the Serbian despot' ("fürchtete das erneut heran marschierende Heer des Serbischen Despoten"). Oliver Schmitt emphasize that Skanderbeg could not join Hunyadi because he 'probably not reckoned from the failure of the Serbian-Albanian attack on Venice in autumn 1448 and was under tremendous time pressure' ("Skanderbeg hatte wohl nicht mit dem Misserfolg des serbisch-albanischen Angriffs auf Venedig gerechnet und stand im Herbst 1448 unter Gewaltigem Zeitdruck.") - Schmitt, Oliver Jens (2001), Das venezianische Albanien (1392–1479), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag GmbH München, ISBN 3-486-56569-9
• Serbian Despot and Skanderbeg were joined (by Naple) to fight against Venice (Christian country). Actions of Serbian despot in Albania were supported both by Naple and Ottomans (Aragon und die Osmanen liessen ihm freie Hand in Albanien.). Taking in consideration presented sources and this context of events, the assertion about (weakened) Skanderbeg attempting to fight Ottomans, but after being prevented by Serbian despot ravaging his lands (lands of his ally who was his protection from Venice) with 'Christianity case excuse' very much contradicts not only Babinger, Setton and Schmitt, but also a common sense. Disputing Babinger, Setton and Schmitt (all three major experts who specialized in the topic of this article) with Sedlar is giving undue weight and against WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(unintend)Setton says Reports reached Venice from Durazzo at that time that Skanderbeg's preparations were really intended for an attack upon the Venetian-held coast of Albania., so don't change the quote to the very different Skanderbeg's preparations were really intended for an attack upon the Venetian-held coast of Albania.. Your OR isn't mentioned in Schmitt's work too. There are 3 reliable sources that support the same issue and the only contradiction is a quote from a 1968 work, which is also mentioned. Btw per 3RR Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect.

1. I presented full Setton's quote without changing. Setton presented claim of Barletius (and wrote 'loud' comment how Barleti "put those events in 1444!") and another claim which contradicts Barletius and which is based on Venetian reports.
2. There is no OR in my comment. I presented a quote from Schmitt's work for every assertion which was based on him. His alliance with Serbian Despotate is well known. Even famous Albanophile Robert Elsie emphasized in his work (p. 34) how Skanderbeg "allied himself with the Serb despots"

I think that your comment is Poisoning the well fallacy which actually does not at all address what I wrote as arguments (based on presented modern sources) for my position. Instead with unnecessary harsh comment, "pre-emptively presented" accuasation for gaming the system, and unjustified accusations you are "discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say".

I believe that my position is carefully explained and supported by most authoritative sources for this subject. The existing Citation overkill shows that one "editor desperately tries to shore up his point". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)The event has to do with Brankovic preventing the Albanian army from reaching Hunyadi's troops. The quotes you've used don't mention a contradiction to the event i.e. WP:OR. Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Skanderbeg's men joined Hunyadi?

Here on page 53 Stanford J. Shaw in his History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1 says:

• "As he (Hunyadi) marched south, he was joined by soldiers sent by Scanderbeg as well as from Wallachia. "

It is undisputed that Skanderbeg did not participate in this battle. But is it possible that Skanderbeg managed to send some of his troopss to Hunyadi? Are there some additional sources which could confirm this assertion? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Athens

I've noticed the relationship between the Duke of Athens and this timeline. In Dukagjin, there was a "Duke John" who primarily ruled the area. I'm not sure if there is a correlation, but there seems to be a relationship between the battles of the Ottoman Empire in both Athens and Kosovo simultaneously. In addition, John, Duke of Randazzo seems to be the best fit and was buried in Sicily, quite West of any assumed efforts in Athens. I'm curious to know if these correlations have occurred to anyone else or if any research joins this information.

Twillisjr (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That Duke John (Duka Gjin) lived more than 600 years before the battle of Kosovo. The Dukagjini are first mentioned in the 7th century(Ducagini d'Arbania in a seventh-century document at Ragusa (Dubrovnik). These Ducagini instigated a revolt against Byzantine rule in Bosnia and in particular at Ragusa, but they had to submit.)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

On October 4, 1448, Skanderbeg signed the peace agreement with Venetians, in Alessio. That is about 180 miles from Kosovo Field near Prishtina. The 2nd Battle of Kosovo started on October 17. There is no way his (or any other) medieval army could march 180 miles in 12 days through Albanian mountains.

Regarding Brankovic's motives, I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the peace of Szeged (1444). He couldn't go to war against the Ottomans without breaking the oath. --N Jordan (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman casuelties

Highly unlikely that the ottomans lost “30,000”. 4000-8000 is more likely. Germanicus44 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

More historians have more opinions, many of them presented. Wikipedia is not about the personal POV or what do you like to see, but about to show the reliable academic contents.

It is also very strange that a new user like you, in a very short time delete the sourced numbers by historians and academic sources, or even overwrite the provided numbers in the marked source from a lot of battle articles in the same day. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why aren’t there any ottoman sources mentioned? only sources are either modern sources,or christians one who always exaggerate the numbers of ottoman troops. Having both ottoman and Christian sources makes more sense then having just Christian sources.Also adding the modern estimates.

I’m gonna stop removing the Christians sources and also try to add reliable ottomans sources. Germanicus44 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox: If you have reliable academic modern Turkish historian sources you can present them among the other estimations, you can see there are many estimations regarding all medieval battles.

Text: Also you can mention the contemporary estimations if secondary modern academic sources mention what the old sources claimed (if they are not fringe) as an extra info. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)