Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Maritsa

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

Why do you use "Serbian Empire"?

[edit]

There was no "Serbian Empire" at that time (1371). There was "Kingdom of Volkashin" with a capital in Prilep - Macedonia.

Why do you convert names to look like todays countries (republics), former kingdoms from 1800s?

Do you have ANY ORIGINAL manuscript where king Volkashin calls his kingdom "Serbian Empire"???

Please post a link where we may see ORIGINAL text about the name of the Kingdom which (unsuccesfully :( ) tried to save Europe with soldiers MOSTLY FROM MACEDONIA. And please analyze, IF IT WAS "Serbian Empire", why other parts of the "empire" didn't participated? But they left people from Macedonia to die first, then in 1389 they died in Kosovo... Not so strong "Serbian empire:, but separate Kingdoms of local people.


For the sake of humanity, please stop spreading gossip from 18th and 19th century, invented to make weak the Ottoman Empire, by strengthening Kingdoms of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria (all founded for the FIRST TIME in 1800s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.223.216 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to say? That Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs didn’t have their kingdoms until the 19th century? All Medieval states were states of individual rulers, and we can’t talk about them in terms of modern nations. However, they all had their states well before Ottoman Turks invaded the Balkans. Re Serbian Empire, the official title of the ruler was βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Σερβίας καὶ Ῥωμανίας (basileus and autokrator of Serbia and Romania), that is a title similar to the title of Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperors. Vukasin was a co-ruler of emperor Uros since 1365, and he was crowned as a king. --N Jordan (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke (false references)

[edit]

The statement "between Ottoman forces commanded by Lala Şahin Pasha and Evrenos, and Serbian forces commanded by King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješa, who also wanted to get revenge after the First Battle of Maritsa." has 4 references, and I checked them:

So, why we make any connection between this battle and the battle of 1364 (I don't want to discuss here if that battle ever happened)? Why we make false references? I'm removing that statement about the revenge. --N Jordan (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some contradictions

[edit]

There is a long tradition of presenting bias, nationalistic sympathies and misinterpretations, ahistorical notes and additions by later authors, and outright nonsense when referring to this battle. This Wikipedia article complies well with this tradition. Most of the references are by authors who never visited the area and have very distorted information about the battle’s whereabouts. Let me address (some of) the issues point by point.

The goal of the Serbian army. The article has it’s “make a surprise attack on the Ottomans in their capital city, Edirne, while Murad I was in Asia Minor.” This is at odds with the size of the army. Surprise attacks are carried on with small mobile armies. Moreover, the fact that the Ottomans themselves surprised the Serbian army suggests that they had prior knowledge of the army’s movements, which rules out the ‘’surprise’’ factor. If the intention was to capture Edrine, as the location of the battle highly suggests, this is again at odds with the size of the army and the date of the events. You do not need 50000-70000 men for a siege of a city. Late September is probably the strategically worst time to begin sieges, as crops are already harvested, the supplies are presumed to be already collected, and there are no issues with drought and heat. Simultaneously you bind much manpower, which is critically needed during field activities in a very active agricultural season. If the intention was to get rid of the Ottomans from the Balkan peninsula then it is more logical to wait until Murad returns to perform a decisive blow against the whole Ottoman power, rather than look for temporary goals, which are likely to be avenged later on. It seems that the most likely goal was a preemptive blow, and some sources claim that Murad was planning a war either with Serbia or with Bulgaria at the time.

The route of the Serbian army. Contrary to what the map in the article (original unsourced work with purely speculative authenticity) and John Fine claims, the domains of King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješa and the territories controlled by the Ottomans were not immediate neighbors. They were divided by the Rhodope mountains and the latter were never Serbian territories. Large armies are unlikely to pass through mountainous areas, especially if there was no rationale to do so. This leaves essentially two routes that the Serbian army may have taken. The northern one, which is more likely, follows the ancient Via Militaris. It passes through Bulgarian territory and leaves open the problem of the Bulgarian involvement in the campaign. It is known that after their victory at Chernomen, the Turks immediately turned on Bulgaria. This is strange if the Bulgarians stayed uninvolved and the main Ottoman forces stayed in Asia Minor, but at least supports the ’’northern route’’. The southern one follows the ancient Via Egnatia. This route requires passing through Byzantine territories, and at the time the relations between Byzantium and Serbia were hostile because of the Serbian schism. Also, then it would have been strategically far more clever to pass the Marica river at a convenient downstream location.

The date of the battle. I do not know of a reliable contemporary source fixing the date on 26 September. It is notable that exactly 25 years later, on the same date, the massacre of the POWs at Nicopolis happened. There are more common traits with the Nicopolis battle (both battles happened near a river, in both cases the Turks appeared unexpectedly, both battles involved large Christian armies which were annihilated, and in both cases, the Christian army had a long passage before the events) which leaves open the problem of a possible bias.

The exact location of the battle. I do not know of a reliable contemporary source fixing the location at Chernomen. I am not aware of any archeological studies confirming the location. Turkish sources place the battle at Sirp Sindigi, on the left bank of Marica. The left bank seems far more probable for a series of reasons. Most notably, the Serbian army tried to flee through the river. Had they been on the right bank near Chernomen, it is not logical for them to look for refuge on the right (Turkish) bank through a wide river such as Marica. Unless you are pushed to or encircled (the Turks lacked the manpower to do so), you do not tend to jump at night into an unknown wide and possibly deep river: https://www.google.pl/maps/@41.7730265,26.1921474,3a,75y,163.25h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYKXTdqXWrZnzqnQxSRpOiA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 

The existence of a ford must have been known to the Serbs, who probably used it the previous day.

The sequence of events. According to http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases1301.html On 26 September 1371 it was almost full moon. Unless it was raining, it would have been a very bright night with very good visibility. The terrain is very flat. See yourself: https://www.google.pl/maps/@41.7072647,26.2424501,3a,75y,27.41h,86.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svGi5Ev4iej9nYvuJoHUsTA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvGi5Ev4iej9nYvuJoHUsTA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D203.55655%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 

Although I do not know anything about the forestation of the area, it seems that in such circumstances it is unlikely that significant forces would approach unnoticed.  It is unlikely that the Serbians did not set guards or reconnaissance, as the distance to Edrine is just 20-30 kilometers, so they were literally almost on the spot, well inside the Enemy territory. In my opinion, the only two possible explanations are an exhaustive passage through the river (there was no bridge at the location in the middle ages) earlier in the day, which supports the ‘’left bank’’ conjecture above, or a betrayal inside the Serbian camp.  The latter is probable, as the Turkish sources claim that the Serbians killed each other in the mess.

,,After the battle, the Maritsa ran scarlet with blood’’. This does not happen as a result of drowning, stampede or killings that are not located immediately by the river bank. The only two possible explanations of the phenomenon (if it is not just literary fiction) are that either the Serbians fought each other for the limited places in boats or rafts, or there were massive executions of POWs at the river bank. Both suggest a possible bias with the battle of Nicopolis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.220.23 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a summary

[edit]

More than 17 years since the creation of the article, the same is practically a little one with content like from a children's fairy tale.

Sitz im Leben! This battle is not so important with and because of the number of soldiers who participated in it, but with another — the fulfillment of Osman's Dream! Why the dream came true:

  • The social discontent after the Black Death among the Bulgarian population, exhausted to the limit by the internecine feudal wars on the peninsula, led to nothing but more and more feudal fragmentation and new wars! The price is paid by this population, from which the main military contingent is recruited!
Result: Rockado with change of flag ie. the soldiers abandon their leaders who drown in the waters of Maritsa and join the new janissary corps as warriors. Otherwise, there is no way the bill will come out!
  • The Ottomans have nothing to brag about or pay attention to "this battle" because its result was not achieved through bravery. And the opposite: complete silence in the Christian sources about the shame!
  • At that time there was no "national historiography with its own school". On one side are mostly akinjis and the replaced yayas — renegades of Köse Mihal. On the other side are not Serbian and Greek troops, but troops serving against the Serbian and Greek borders from the time of Stefan Dušan. The title of the latter "Emperor of the Serbs and Romans" is a similar mockery from INRI.

p.s. How else to explain the decisive involvement of Stefan Lazarević's cavalry in the Battle of Nicopolis only 25 years later?Станислав Минков (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this battle, it is simply about Punica fides.Станислав Минков (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joke of a page and biased sources.

[edit]

Needs to be changed to the correct number in a neutral stand point. Theonedudefromcity (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

first battle

[edit]

I wanted to ask a link on the first battle. Then I read here the long discussion about it. I suggest to add a footnote stating that the first battle never happened. pietro 151.29.149.29 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirp qualcosa

[edit]

Above I have read a claim the battle occurred at Sirp ... My Century Cyclopedia of 1911 (among other dubious info, e.g. that the battle occurred in 1364) says that the place was nicknamed "Sirf Sindughi" i.e. "serb's rout". 151.29.149.29 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Maritsa&oldid=1262069897"