Talk:Battle of Maritsa

This battle has nothing to do with Bulgarians
There was no Bulgarian army involved.


 * The thing is that precisely in this battle on both sides mainly Bulgarians participate! The first janissaries were almost exclusively Bulgarians, and the "Macedonian army" was also mostly Bulgarians.

No one explores the social aspect of military conflict! Why? After the Black Death and the state in which the Balkan Peninsula is located as a result of the plague and the incessant feudal struggles at the expense of the increasingly impoverished and thinning population.

End result: The Ottoman Empire became the world's number one power after two centuries. Станислав Минков (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Strength of the armies
Where this number of 20,000 men come from? According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Serbian forces numbered 70,000 men; "Another campaign to resist Turkish expension was organised in 1371 by Vukasin, the king of the southern Serbian lands, who gathered an army of 70,000 men an marched into the Maritsa valley". The Ottoman army was 'much' smaller; "While halting at Chernomen [...], however, his forces were surprised by a much smaller Turkish army...". And also the Serbian casualties must be considered heavy; "...which slaughtered large number of Serbs, including Vukasin, and drove many of the survivors into the river to be drowned." (Encyclopædia Britannica). Lysandros 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Three years later, in 1364 Philippolis fell to Lala Shahin, the Turkish commander in Europe. The States beyond the Balkan now began to dread the advance of the Turks; at the instigation of the Pope an allied army of 60,000 Serbs, Hungarians, Wallachians and Moldavians attaked Lala Shahin. Murad, who had returned to Brusa, crossed over to Biga, and send on Haji Ilbeyi with 10,000 men; this fell by night on the Serbians and utterly routed them at a place still known as the 'Serbians' coffer' (at Maritsa river)." Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1910, Vol. 27, pp 443, 444 Lysandros 11:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is confusing. It is true that the Serbian Army (with all the allies) amounts to 60,000-70,000 men; but the Turkish force in Europe is overestimated. It was 4,000-4,500 strong (and this is sourced), and not as the article states. And further, the problem is, on what does this article concentrate? These are the sizes of their armies throughout the whole military campaign. For instance, the front which was led by Ugljesa & Vukasin and that (very likely) is the only part of the army that really fought a battle numbered 20,000. There were numerous minor battles along the road. Besides that, in the greatest of the clashes, when the Ottoman Turks caught the Serbs totally by surprise (which is possibly that "Battle of Chernomen" everyone seems to refer to"), the Turkish squadron numbered 800 soldiers. The article should be expanded and corrected. --PaxEquilibrium 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still not corrected :)


 * What is the source of the source, the referenced sources are all indirect. The number of 50-70K for the Serbian army is physically impossible. Even as a large unified empire the Serbians struggled to mount an army that large and yet somehow one bey alone without support while ruling a largely foreign (greek) territory somehow managed to raise a vast army. It's more likely that the original source was a mistranslation of 5-7000 into 50-70. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.71.178 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * an agenda is being pushed with this 70 000 numbers. Ottoman sources also cite that there were hundreds of thousands of Christians in Nicopolis, too. i just don't know why would any encyclopaedia accept the number of 70 000 troops. the only time Serbia had a unified 70k strong army was when Dusan was on his last campaign for Adrianople.. and that army fractured immediately after he died.. Ugljesa & Vukasin certainly didn't have more than 25 000 troops together, and the other powerful lord, Lazar, didn't even participate in the battle. so this 70k take is a very agenda push-y take. 79.101.195.129 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Allied Balkan forces
"the allied Balkan forces (including Serbs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Wallachians and Moldavians) numbering between 60,000 and 70,000 men"

I think that this number is very ovrestimated. Compare it with estimated Serbian forces in the Battle of Kosovo.Also, I couldn't find anywhere (except here) facts about participation of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Wallachians and Moldavians. This information should be checked. Andrija January 9, 2007


 * I’m also confused with information about Hungarians, Wallachians and Moldavians forces. Both Vukashin and Ugljesa were Serbian lords, King Vukashin was even co-ruler of Serbian emperor. I can understand that his forces included local ethnic Bulgarian and Greek lords, but Hungarian, Wallachian and Moldavian lands were hundred miles away. Like any other medieval army, his army probably included some foreigners who served as professional solders. However, it doesn’t mean that was coalition of Balkan forces. Also, we can’t speak about nations in modern sense – they were simply medieval political nations. --N Jordan 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"At the instigation of Pope Urban V, a crusading army of Hungarians, Serbians, Bosnians, and Wallachians was formed, and in 1364 it set forth to recapture Adrianople. It marched undisturbed to Maritsa, but there it was surprised by a night attack and cut to pieces." Leften Stavros Stavrianos, The Balkans Since 1453, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000. p. 43

"A united force of Serbs, Bosnians and Wallachians joined a Hungarian army under the Hungarian king, Louis the Great and marched against Turks at Edirne. [...] Less than two days from Edirne they made camp on the banks of the river Maritsa and celebrated their progress with festing. The local Ottoman commander led his predominately light cavalry arm in an ambush by night. The Christians fled across the Maritsa, which was in spate, and thousands drowned." Turnbull Stephen R., The Ottoman Empire 1326-1699, Osprey Publishing, 2003. p. 15

Maybe the Moldavians were not involved.. Various sources give different dates (1363, 1364, 1366, 1371) for the event. According to some sources (Turnbull, Stavrianos), several battles occurred in the same place; first Maritsa (1363 or 1364), Samakov (1371), second Maritsa or Chernomen (1371). Lysandros 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not be surprised that they are talking about different battles. I understand this is an article about the battle at the Maritsa (Марица, Εβρος) River near the village of Chernomen, on September 26th, 1371. According to Columbia Encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/lo/Louis1Hun.html, Louis the Great campaigned successfully against the Ottomans in 1377. Mrnjavcevics brothers weren't Roman Catholics Orthodox (all Serbian medieval lords were Orthodox), so pope was not involved at all.


 * Turkish sources are not reliable when they describe defeated enemies. The importance of victory is emphasized by increasing number of defeated enemies. Ottoman armies intensively fought against Hungarians, Wallachians and Moldavians during 15th and 16th century. It was good to beleive that they defeted them in 14th century. Also, the battle of Maritsa was from Ottoman point of view just a minor battle, the sultan was not involved. So, even the year (1364) is not correect. For Serbs that was a turning point of their history, probably more important than famous battle of Kosovo.


 * The article in Encyclopædia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050991 is very good: (Sept. 26, 1371), Ottoman Turk victory over Serbian forces that allowed the Turks to extend their control over southern Serbia and Macedonia. After the Ottoman sultan Murad I (reigned 1360–89) advanced into Thrace, conquered Adrianople, and thereby gained control of the Maritsa River valley, which led into the central Balkans, the Christian states of the Balkans formed an alliance to drive him back. Their early efforts ended in defeat, and the Bulgarians were compelled to become vassals of the sultan (1366). Another campaign to resist Turkish expansion was organized in 1371 by Vukašin, the king of the southern Serbian lands, who gathered an army of 70,000 men and marched into the Maritsa valley. While halting at Chernomen (Chirmen; located between Philippopolis and Adrianople), however, his forces were surprised by a much smaller Turkish army, which slaughtered large numbers of Serbs, including Vukašin, and drove many of the survivors into the river to be drowned. The battle involved such carnage that the field was later referred to as “the Serbs' destruction.” It confirmed Bulgaria's status as a vassal-state to the Turks and destroyed the independent South Serbian kingdom, whose new ruler, Marko Kraljevic, became a vassal of the sultan. Macedonia and ultimately the remainder of the Balkan Peninsula were exposed to Turkish conquest.


 * Also, the article in Serbian Wikipedia http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0 is also good if somebody has time to translate it.--N Jordan 07:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The place of the battle ocurred in 1364 was also Maritsa river not far from Chernomen, and according to some sources Louis the Great of Hungary was involved:

"The capture of Edirne also stimulated Serbia, Bosnia, and Hungary to unite against the Sultan. In 1364 they formed an allied army and marched toward Maritsa in the hope of pushing the Turks out of Europe before it was too late. However, Murad ambushed their camp on the Maritsa near Edirne in a battle known in Turkish story as the 'Rout of the Serbs' (Sırp Sındığı). Many soldiers and princes were drowned as they tried to swim across the river for safety. Louis the great of Hungary was able to escape only with difficulty." Stanford Jay Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Cambridge University Press, 1977. pp. 18-19

This was maybe the 'First Batle of Maritsa', and the Pope Urban V also played a role (see Turnbull).

"Turkish sources are not reliable when they describe defeated enemies." Ok but, are the Turkish sources reliable when they describe Ottoman defeats? Or not reliable for all?.. Anyway i only cited English language publications (Turnbull, Stavrianos, Shaw).

For the Ottomans the battle was not so 'minor', for them this was the first significant victory against a western crusading army, which made possible the conquest of the Balkans. Lysandros 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t know about the battle in 1364 that was mentioned in Ottoman sources. The battle that is a subject of this article took place in September 1371. Pope and Louis the Great of Hungary were not involved. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, in 1377, Louis campaigned successfully against the Ottomans. However, I haven’t found anything else about Hungarian activities against Ottomans during that time.


 * According to Serbian sources, Vukashin become a king in 1365. From that time his portrait appeared at Serbian money. In 1366 he sent representatives to the Republic of Ragusa, the event was recorded in the city records. In June 1371 Vukashin was with his army near city of Shkodra, waiting for ships from Ragusa to transport his army. He changed his mind after receiving request from his brother to help him against Ottomans.


 * So, the battle on Marica that involved king Vukashin didn’t took place in 1364. Ottoman sources may refer to different battle in same area, or information about the year was not correct. If Turnbull, Stavrianos, and Shaw relied on Ottoman sources, they could be wrong – or simply referring to different battle.


 * Especially at that time, Turkish sources are not reliable when they describe defeated enemies. Yes, because that was just a beginning of their military activities in Europe. If they captured few Hungarian mercenaries they could think that Hungarian army was involved.  In 1371 the sultan was not in Europe. So, Ottoman information about the battle was based on reports received from Lala Şahin Paşa. At the same time, if they received reports about different battles fought at the same place, they could be confused and mix them.


 * Bottom line: if this is an article about the battle in 1371 we should avoid info that doesn’t apply for that battle. --N Jordan 23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some informations about the battle of Maritsa (1371):

"One of these Serb leaders, Vukashin, who ruled in Serres, combined his forces with sympathetic Serbian allies and marched northwards towards the Maritsa Valley full of hope. But far from driving the Turks out of Europe they suffered agreat defeat on 26 September at the battle of Chernomen where all the Serbian leaders were killed. This battle, also known as the second battle of Maritsa, was called in the Turkish chroniclers Sirf Sindigi (the destruction of the Serbs)." Turnbull, Ottoman Empire 1326-1699, p. 23

"Nevertheless, the Serbs resolved to stop the Turks in the valley of the Maritsa and marched as far as Chernomen, between Philippopolis and Adrianople. There, at dawn on September 26, 1371, a greatly inferior Turkish force surprised them and and slaughtered large numbers. So great was the carnage that the battlefield is still called the Sebs' destruction." Stavrianos, The Balkans Since 1453, p. 44 Lysandros 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Both Stavrianos and Turnbull are pretty correct here. Vukashin didn’t rule in Serres, and they marched toward the east (not north).


 * Anyway, the last version of the article is excellent, thank you. The only information that needs verification might be related to the participation of Bulgarian allays. I couldn’t find anything about this battle in articles about Bulgarian history. (The only allays they had were Balsics brothers in Montenegro and Ragusa. Mrnjavcevics were not popular neighbors :-) ) --N Jordan 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About king Louis of Hungary, he haven't lead any army to Maritsa in 1364, I just found his very detailed itinerary here:, , no indications that he event went out of Hungary that year, except one time for Poland. Generally the whole confusion seems to appear cause several authors used incorrect and outdated data , which is understandable owning to lack of sources in English. Once again I point to authors that have deep insight of medieval Balkan such as Konstantin Jireček and John VA Fine which both clearly put the battle in 1371. and consider it a Serbian-Ottoman battle. Both of them medievalists specialized in medieval history of Balkans and fluent in Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian, thus very reliable for this matters.

--Clanedstino (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians?
There were forces from Bulgaria in the battle? --PaxEquilibrium 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria in this time wasn't independent state. Srdjantodorov93 (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please?

Bulgaria at that time was a Tsardom with three royal crowns — Veliko Tarnovo, Vidin and Skopje. From where it was transferred to the current Bulgarian coat of arms! This is precisely the first battle won by the new soldiers of the Janissary Corps, thanks to which Constantinople was captured 80 years later.


 * Quite essential, basic and most important is the question of what is happening, so from three crowns after two centuries we have Suleiman the Great as caliph and empire number one world power on three continents! In the center of which Constantinople is precisely the Bulgarian territory. Fact.Станислав Минков (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Biased non-neutral viewpoint

 * This is a very non-neutral, one-sided and biased article making little or no effort to look at the Ottoman Turkish references. Why is Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050991) which is editted in 1910, is very good at a time when the Western sources that were totally biased against Ottomans in general, Turks in particular? By the say-so of a N.Jordan or a Lysandros?? Many people reading this do not find it so!!!  The language and the tone of the language show clearly it is non-neutral and biased.  The other two references given are by authors writing in English and what they state are ignored. There is no Turkish reference!!


 * The statements by the commentators N.Jordan and (to a lesser extent) Lysandros show the same non-neutrality. Especially the statement that Turkish sources are not reliable when they describe defeated enemies. and Ok but, are the Turkish sources reliable when they describe Ottoman defeats? Or not reliable for all  which clearly show not only the non-neutrality and very biased viewpoints, but it is an insult to Turks and Turkish historians. How could Lala Sahin Pasa, who may or may not have reported it, or for that matter the other Turkish historians (and by other references in English by Turnbull, Stavrianos, Nicolle, Shaw etc.) be set aside by a totally unsubstantiated statement of a N Jordan or Lysandros whoever he/she may be?? I would have thought that this is a sort of insult to Turks and Turkish historians and should not be in Wikipedia. However N.Jordan or Lysandros can be self-righteous declaring nueutality by using English language sources, I propose that they should apologise; and the insulting contributions should be deleted!!


 * This article contains no reference of Turkish origin, even though one side in this battle is Ottoman Turks. Turkish historians do not include a battle that is given the name of Maritsa Battle or Chernomen Battle that has taken place on 26 September 1371. In Turkish Ottoman history books there is a battle called Sırp Sındığı (Rout of the Serbs) which has taken place on 26 September 1364. At least Lysandros has stated that the English language references that put the date the battle took place on 1364. Other references in English that use these dates, not quoted in this article, are  S.J.Shaw (1976) History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Vol.1 Empire of Gazis Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.18 and  D.Nicolle, (1983), Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774, Osprey Pub. London, p.28. Instead of generating many battles at different dates in the commentary pages or taking what non-neutral source written at or before 1910 as the only correct date, I was expecting  statements in the article that there are controversies about the date and the name of the battle. Noyder (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

1364 or 1371 ?
The alternative name of the battle in the introductory paragraph has been given as the second battle of Maritsa. If so, there must be a first battle. Comparing this article with the one in the Turkish Wikipedia which is interlinked, I see an interesting difference. Turkish Wikipedia gives the date of the battle as 1364. And also the name of the Turkish commender is different ie, Hacı İlbey. So I gather that there had been two battles on the very same spot in different years (like the battles of Kosova and Mohacs, each had been fought twice.) However, one thing seems to be somewhat disturbing. Both battles had been fought on the 26th of Sep. I feel that this coincidance is too much to be credible. Searching other sources, I found that all Turkish chronicles, give the date as 1364 and some also refer to a second battle in 1371. But the Balkan chronicles tend to completely ignore 1364 at all. I think that problem of the number and the exact date calls the attention of experts. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the  first  battle of Marica in 1363. never happened, it was misconception of few Hungarian chroniclers from 15th and 16th century that later entered historiography until 19th century when it was refuted, non of the modern historians don't take it as accurate today. --Clanedstino (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understood turkish sources (maybe wrong as I used online translator), first battle in 1364 was between Turks and Crusaders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.48.7 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it would appear Shaw(History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 1, p18) is incorrect about 1364. Sources that state 1371;


 * East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, page 383.
 * Brassey's Dictionary of Battles, p269.
 * The Late Medieval Balkans, p407.
 * The Balkans:From Constantinople to Communism, p.109-110
 * The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, p.411.
 * Just to name a few. Given the facts, the wording Second Battle of Maritsa can be removed. Unless someone can find sources for a prior battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There were two battles: The Ottoman Army won both of them. "The Battle of Sırpsındığı" (in 1364) and "The Battle of Chernomen /Çirmen" (in 1372 /NOT in 1371!) Today, we know that Sırpsındığı is in Edirne Province. Chernomen is not in Turkey. So they were two different battles! "Sırp" means Serb, of course... Maybe, Sırpsındığı means "The battlefield where the Serbs lost" or "The battlefield where we beat the Serbs" Böri (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the question above and after so much discussion I still am not satisfied. If there were two battles how come both were fought on the very same calender day seven years apart ? And one thing more, the commander of Turkish forces was Hacı İlbey who died in 1365. So he can't command the army in 1371. By the way as for Böri's remark about Sırp Sındığı, sındık probably meant raid so Sırp Sındığı meant Raided Serbs. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the book of İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı (Osmanlı Tarihi = The History of the Ottoman Empire)Böri (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Mesut Uyar & Edward J. Erickson, A Military History of the Ottomans: From Osman to Atatürk, ''Only two important Serbian magnates, Vukašin and Uglješa brothers, managed to join forces and collected a relatively large army. The Serbian army easily passed through Ottoman territory and reached Černomen on the Marica (Meriç) river, as most of the Ottoman army units were in the Anatolia. Lala Şahin Paşa, however, reacted resourcefully with available forces by immediately sending a reinforced vanguard under the command of Hacı İlbeyi to reconnoiter the enemy. Hacı İlbeyi found out that the Serbian army had established the camp without security meatures and, using his own initiative, he immediately launched a hastty attack on September 26, 1371. The Ottoman vanguard sudden attack (and laud noises created by them) caused a panic inside the Serbian camp. In the confusion many Serbian soldiers were killed or drowned in the nearby river, including many of their commanders. The battle of Černomen (Sırp Sındığı, litterally rout of the Serbs) greatly weakened the only regional power capable of resisting Ottoman advances. In this sense Černomen had more long-lasting effects than the more famous Kosovo battle of 1389.'' Takabeg (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Note
According to Lord Kinross (Ottoman centuries) there were two battles.But he doesn't give the exact day of the battles. He merely gives the years as 1363 and 1371. Further more, there is one other battle in between. I'll summerize the battles as told by Lord Kinross The first battle of Maritsa was actually a night attack. The allies were routed in a surprise attack of a small force and the second battle was a day battle. But after so many sources which disregard the first battle I still feel the question is unanswered. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There weren't any battle at Maritsa in 1363, at least not the battle that Serbs participated in. I can provide links for two most credited histories of medieval Serbia and Balkan written by western scholars ( beside entire Serbian historiography ) who don't mention any battle of Maritsa in 1363/4, only the one in 1371.The battle at Maritsa where Serbian king Vukašin and Uglješa lost their lives happened in 1371, if there was some battle in 1363. Vukašin and Uglješa haven't participated in, nor any other Serbian lord. It's possible that Turkish historians confused battle of Maritsa with expedition of count Amadeo of Savoy in 1366-7 in Thrace or something like that. For example I read Neshri's history and there is only mention of one battle against the Serbs at Maritsa ( the one called Sirpsindigi ) not two or three battles, just one. This battle is not precisely dated but it is placed after the event that happened in 766 AH. Now if we compare with other sources ( Serbian, Bulgarian and Byzantine ) which also know about one battle and place it in 1371. it's clear that Neshri is referring to same battle just without clear dating and details. --Clanedstino (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

about christian army
Sure Serbs are Christians but there is no reason why to put their religious affiliation before the national one, the battle was fought by Serbian lords Vukašin and Uglješa who were Christians by default, no need to epmhasise their confession. As for  per Jirecek  tag made by one of the users I'll quote the Jirecek:

Най-после крал Вълкашин, деспотът Углеша и много сръбски боляри се вдигнали, та начело на 60 000-на отбор войска да изгонят турците от Европа. Тъй като султан Мурад тогава бил зает в Азия, те дошли почти до Одрин. Лалашахин, който бил там със слаб отряд, изпратил Хаджи Илбеки с 4000 души да разузнае неприятелската войска. Сърбите, разположени на лагер при Черномен (по турски с. Чирмен), пред моста на Марица, безгрижно пирували, напълно уверени в превъзходството си. В тъмна нощ Хаджи Илбеки ненадейно ги нападнал, макар войската му да била 15 пъти по-слаба. От всички страни турците се хвърлили в лагера. Настъпило страшно безредие и ужасно кръвопролитие, в което изчезнали братята на Вълкашин, Углеша и Гойко, а с тях заедно и много боляри. Мнозина намерили смъртта си във вълните на Марица. Когато на 26 септември 1371 г. [47] слънцето изгряло над кървавото поле на битката, гордата сръбска войска била унищожена; малцина от бойците видели пак отечеството си. Хаджи Илбеки, ликуващ и с богата плячка, се върнал в Одрин, но завистливият беглербег Лалашахин побързал да се отърве от победителя, като го отровил. И досега още това поле се нарича „Сърб синдюги”, т. е. гибел на сърбите. Още в XVII в. се е виждал каменният паметник върху гроба на деспот Углеша. [48]



If someone needs translation to English I'm happy to provide one. As for the adding the cats relating the Bulgaria, I don't see how that has any connection with the article, Serbian army fighting Turks in the area that is now in Greece really has nothing to do with Bulgaria. --Clanedstino (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An exact reference was provided. And why are you constantly removing valid cats about a battle that took place on the frontier of the Bulgarian Kingdom/Empire? It's just like you have something against any mention of Bulgaria in here. This is one of the most important battles of the Serbs, but it's naive to think they fought such a battle alone, especially since they went through Bulgarian lands to get to Chernomen.-- L a v e o l  T 14:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, note that removal of sourced material that you do not like, is close to vandalism. And vandalis is often punishable around wikipedia. And since you do started this, how fluent are you in Bulgarian? -- L a v e o l  T 14:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cause, all the time Jirechek refers to the Serb army, he only speaks of the leaders. Serb bolyars led it; Serbs (e.g. the Bolyars) got killed, the Serb led army was destroyed. Sorry, that won't suffice. Find a better reason to remove the things you do not like. -- L a v e o l  T 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is vandalism alright. Especially since you insist on edit-warring prior to discussing it. -- L a v e o l  T 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

He refers to it because it was Serb aemy, not the Bulgarian one, just as Fine refers to it as Serbian army cause it was Serbian, just like primary sources refers to it as Serbian army ( including the Bulgarian chronicle ). Here is the passage from Bulgarian article:

За числеността и състава на християнската армия участвала в битката при Черномен сведенията са кратки и противоречиви. Най-близкият до събитието източник – монах Исая разказва, че деспот Урош събрал “всички сръбски и гръцки войски и брат си крал Вълкашин и други мнозина велможи, нещо около 60 000 избрана войска”.1 Димитър Кантакузин пък сочи, че армията се състояла от “70 000 обучени въоръжени мъже”2 Без да посочва точния брой на войската Безименната българска хроника, дава следните сведения за състава й: “събра се множество сръбска войска, а също от Далмация и от Требине”3 

No mentions of Bulgarians at all, and you still put mixed Serbian-Bulgarian army? Sorry but that is forging of the history. I'm presenting the neutral, wide accepted and relevant sources that army was Serbian, you are putting reference to some paper-back encyclopaedia that no one ever heard of? Also the Britannica article of the battle is not good enough for you? What's good? About the cats, as I said Bulgaria has nothing to do with this battle and for your information Serbian army didn't cross Bulgarian terittory to reach battlefield, state of Jovan Uglješa bordered Ottoman empire in this point. --Clanedstino (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that John Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, p.379, mentions no Bulgarian participation (actually, he explicitly mentions that the Serbian leader may have expected Bulgarian support at first, but then had "his plans overturned" by the death of the Bulgarian ruler, John Alexander.) I don't see what value a passing mention in an "encyclopedia of waterways", the only source cited by Laveol, should have for this issue. Laveol, by your comments above I take it you accept it was a Serbian army in terms of its leadership. Well, if you mean it would likely have had some Bulgarian forces within its ranks, that's indeed quite likely, but rather irrelevant OR – essentially, every army in pre-modern times and in multiethnic regions like the Balkans would have included units of multiple ethnicities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hah, so much about  valid source . Anyway if Laveol insists I'll keep adding references that mention no Bulgarians in battle, just Serbs. --Clanedstino (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also share Clanedstino's surprise at seeing that Laveol first made his edit replacing "Serbian" with "mixed army" with an edit summary of "per Jirecek", but failed to cite anything from him, and both Jirecek sources we actually have in the article fail to mention anything but a "Serbian army" in the context of this battle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About my fluency in Bulgarian, the translation of the above mentioned passage from Jireček:

Finally king Vukašin, despot Uglješa and many other Serbian lords gathered and with the army of 60,000 men started to exppell Turks from the Europe. Since the sultan Murat was bussy in Asia they came near Edirne. Lala Shahin, who was there with small detachment, sent Haji Ilbeki with 4000 men to scaut the enemy army. Serbs, encamped near Chernomen ( Chirmen in Turkish ) in front of the bridge on Maritsa, cheerfuly feasted, completely confident in their superiority. During the dark night Haji Ilbeki suddenly attacked them although his army was 15 times weaker then theirs. Turks attacked the camp from all sides. The terrible chaos and bloodshed came in which brothers of Vukašin, Gojko and Uglješa perished along with many other lords. Many of them found their death in the waves of the Maritsa. When the sun rose above the bloody battlefield on the September 26, proud Serbian army was destroyed, few of the warriors saw their homeland again. Haji Ilbeki, elated and with great loot returned to Edirne, but the envious Lala Shahin hastened to get rid of him and had him poisoned. This field is still called  Serb sindigi  i.e  Serbian disaster . The stone monument at the grave of despot Uglješa could be still seen in the 16th century. --Clanedstino (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

about names in Serbian and Turkish
It seems that it's a custom to have name of the battle in the tongues of the participant sides, compare:

battle of Kosovo

Battle of Mohács

Battle of Nicopolis

etc.

I believe that this principle should be followed in this case as well, no reason for opposite. --Clanedstino (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a "custom", it is a bad habit mindlessly propagated by some editors, against our actual guidelines (see Lead section). There is in fact no reason for having these translations, but lots of reasons against them: They clutter up some of the most valuable screen space, make the lead sentence hard to read, and contain no encyclopedic information of any value. Foreign-language name versions and synonyms should be included in cases where they are actual diverging proper names (e.g. "Munich (German: München)") or where there is a chance a synonym would likely be used also in English. But "battle of..." isn't a proper name, it's merely a descriptive phrase. Its foreign equivalents are never used in English, and they are predictable for anybody who knows the language in question: the fact that "battle" is "bitka" in Serbian is not an encyclopedic piece of information about this battle, but a piece of information about the Serbian language (interesting if you want to teach your readers Serbian, but that is not the task of this article.)
 * As for precedents: Battle of Waterloo, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Manzikert … Just because some other article do it wrong doesn't mean we have to follow them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, well if it's against guidlines then it should be removed, although the Turkish name could stay cause it's not simple translation of the name but name of its own with specific meaning.

--Clanedstino (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, there wasn't battle of 1364. and if there was it's certainly not the one that Serbs participated in. As I pointed out battle of 1364. is missconception of latter authors, compare Fine and Jirecek, they don't even mention this so-called battle. And according to Jirecek and Britannica article the battle of 1371. was called  sirb sindigi . --Clanedstino (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It may well be true that the battle of 1364 never happened, and it is true that Britannica states the location of 1371 was later called Sirb sindigi, but I cannot confirm that Turkish sources today refer to the 1371 battle as "Battle of Sirbsindigi" . Whenever they use that appellation, it usually seems to be in reference to the presumed (phantom) battle of 1364, often in explicit contrast to the 1371 battle, which they call by a different name, "Çirmen Savaşı". This may all very well be worth an explanation in the article (do we have reliable sourcing about 1364 being a phantom event, and where that misinformation comes from?), but it's too complex to go in the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: This book might help; unfortunately Google doesn't show me pp.9-10, which would appear to contain the relevant discussion of whether there were really two battles or just conflicting accounts of the same battle ascribed to two different years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This and this also has some relevant info. Dang, this is complicated Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I found this comment,, and even Finkel mentions the battle was in 1371. Cyril Mango states the same thing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good finds. The first of these at least leaves open the possibility that there was in fact another battle in 1364. None of them seem to deal with the question of naming though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I have all main histories of Serbian people written by most respected Serbian and Yugoslavian historians having the date of 1371. and the name of Sirb sindigi for it, while the battle of 1364. is not even mentioned, also according to contemporary sources that I found the battle in which Vukašin and Uglješa died was fought in 1371. I don't think that battle of 1364. ever existed, and if it existed it certainly wasn't fought by the Serbs. Some Turkish sources like Neshri give 1364. as the date of battle, but Neshri lived in 16th century so he's not really contemporary source and his work is full of obvious mistakes, also he knows only about one battle against the Serbs at Maritsa although he puts it in wrong year ( actually he doesn't gives the date of battle at all but the passage about the battle is located between the events that happened in this year so it's usually intepreted that battle was fought at that time, although it could be simple anachronism in the text). So even if the Ottoman sources gives the year of 1364. they only know about one battle of Maritsa, for which the other sources ( much closer in time and space ) give year of 1371. Since it's known fact that Vukašin and Uglješa died in battle of Marica then the year of 1364. drops out as year of the battle cause Vukašin and Uglješa were alive in 1371, which is corroborated by many sources. --Clanedstino (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is nothing about a battle in 1363 in Serbian sources. More important, the archives of the Republic of Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik) are full of details about the situation in Serbia in that time, and they are probably the most reliable source for that period of time. Serbia was very important trade partner and Ragusa had trade posts all over the country. They recorded many feuds among Serbian lords and their battles. They recorded battle in 1356 against Matthew Kantakouzenos, a Byzantine throne pretender who gathered an army of 5,000 Turks - but nothing after that, until 1371. Also, Hungarian king Louis I invaded Serbia in 1358, so there is a slim chance to have them together in the same army just 6 years latter. It is also difficult for Louis I to participate in that battle. According to Hungarian sources, in spring 1363 he was in Bosnia, leading his army. In July he unsuccessfully besieged one of Bosnian forts. In early 1364 he signed agreements and ended his conflicts with Austria. The Congress of Krakow about possible anti-Turkish crusade was held in September 1364, and Louis was one of participants. If we cross-reference possible participants, it is extremely difficult to allow possibility that they participated in that battle. --N Jordan (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a battle in 1364!
and this was "Sırp Sındığı Muharebesi" (Battle of Sırpsındığı)... Stephen Uroš V of Serbia, Louis I of Hungary (Lajos) and Tvrtko I of Bosnia wanted to attack Edirne... Murad I was in Bursa at that time... Hacı İlbeyi attacked the Serbs at night and beat them... Böri (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No there wasn't, Louis of Hungary never went out of Hungary in 1364 ( see his itinerary I posted earlier ), same goes for Uroš and Tvrtko and any other Serbian ruler, if there was a battle in 1364. called Sirpsindigi I don't know which Serbs fought there. There is absolutely no mention of any battle at Martica in 1364 in Serbian historiography and as far as I know in Hungarian as well. Also John VA Fine clearly states that battle was fought in 1371. while Jireček not only puts battle in 1371. but expressively calls it Sirpsindigi. It's not necessary to say that both of them have absolutely no knowledge on battle of 1364. So shell I put my trust to several dozens of prominent Serbian, Hungarian, Austrian etc historians or to you?

--Clanedstino (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Sırpsındığı in Ottoman Turkish: ...nâgâh haber geldi,  Sırf leşkeri hücûm itdi didiler. Kasdı Edrene’ye gelmekdür. Kırk Elli Bin mikdârı leşkeri vardur... Sırf leşkeri Edrene’ye yakın gelmiş idi... şimdi ana Sırf Sınduğu dirler...gâziler bir gece tabl-bâz kakup dün basgunı itdi. Sırf leşkeri mağrur olup sarhoş yaturken nâgâh tabl âvâzın ve gâziler ünin işitdiler. “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine dokındılar. Atları ürkdi ve boşandı, bunları çiğnedi. Kâfirler dahı kılıç çeküp birbirin kırmağa başladı. Âhir sınup münhezim olup kaçdılar. Ba’zı râvîler rivâyet ederler kim Sırf leşkerin Hacı İlbeği sıdı dirler... Hacı İlbeğü aydur: “Yoldaşlar nice idelüm” dedi, Yoldaşlar aydur: “Tedbîr sizindir. Siz nice idersenüz eyle idelüm dediler. Andan Hacı İlbeği her yoldaşını bir depeye kodı. Andan bulara ısmarladı. Her kaçan ben tabl-bâz urup haykıram, herbirinüz dahı eyle idün didi. Kendüsi kâfirlerün bir yanına geçüp heman tabl-bâz urup tekbir getürüp bire gaziler koman diyü çağırdı. Çün kâfir leşkeri ol  âvâzları işitdi, gördiler kim dört yanların Türk almış, kendüler ara yirde kalmışlar. Hemendem “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine tokuşup, ol orman arasına tağılup birbirine kılıç urdılar. Karanu gice içinde birbirin fark itmeyüp, eyle kırdılar kim vasf olunmaz. Hemandem münhezim olup kaçdılar gitdiler... Lala Şâhin dahı, İlbeği’nün dilâverliğini görüp, ol zaman beğlerine hoş gelmeyüp adâvet bağladılar. Âkıbet hîle ile Hacı İlbeği’yi helâk ettiler.

= my translation: Suddenly a news came (to Bursa*) that the Serbs were coming... Their target was Edirne. They had 40-50 000 men... They have come close to Edirne. Today, this place is called Sırp Sındığı. A small group of Turks (10 000 men*) attacked at night (with mehter!) The Serbian soldiers were drunk! The Serbs shouted: “The Turk came!” (they thought that Murad I was there!*) The horses of the Serbs ran away and killed the Serbian soldiers... In the darkness of night the Serbs didn’t see anything and they began to kill their own soldiers! (thinking that they were the Turks!*) At the end, the Serbs escaped from the battle... Hacı İlbeği defeated the Serbs. Hacı İlbeği said “What will we do, my soldiers!” His soldiers said: “We will do whatever you want” They attacked the Serbs from four directions... The Serbs lost the battle... Most of them ran away to the forest and killed each other there! Lala Şahin Paşa (Beylerbeyi) saw that Hacı İlbeği was a crazy man! [because Hacı İlbeği fought against the Serbs... and at that time Lala Şahin Paşa didn’t fight against the Serbs, he was waiting the army of Murad I. Lala Şahin Paşa became the enemy of Hacı İlbeği (The hero of this battle)...]* Hacı İlbeği was killed! (by poison*) Böri (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Source: "The History of the Ottomans" (Anonymous), this book is from the time of Bayezid II. We don't know the name of the author. This work is edited by Necdet Öztürk and published in 2000. Böri (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does it says that it was 1364? One more question, does this source ( although since it's written more then 100 years after battle it's hardly a source ) mention one or two battles on Maritsa river? If it only mentions one battle then it has to be the one from 1371 cause that's the battle where Vukašin and Uglješa got killed fighting against the Turks. There are a lot of Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Papal sources, all of them written shortly after 1371, that clearly put the battle in 1371 and report the death of Vukašin and Uglješa in the battle.

--Clanedstino (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Hacı İlbeğü /Hacı İlbeyi fought at the battle of Sırpsındığı in 1364. After that battle, he was killed by Lala Şahin Paşa. Lala Şahin Paşa fought at Chernomen /Çirmen. Two different battles! & Sırpsındığı is in Edirne Province. Chernomen is not in Turkey! Most of the modern historians don't know the history of the Ottomans very well. Don't believe them! The Ottoman historians also forgot Hacı İlbeğü (or they had to forget him, because he was killed by Lala Şahin Paşa!), some of them thought that the two battles were the same! Today, everyone in Turkey knows this battle (Sırpsındığı). Böri (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, does Turkish history knows about two battles or one? I read Mehemd Neshri's Miror of the world and he knows only about one battle with Lala Sahin as Turkish leader. On the other places I found that Haci Ilbegi was poisoned in 1371. by Lala Sahin after he won the battle at Marica:, , . There are dozens of sources that state the same, battle was at 1371, Haci Ilbegi was killed after it, not in 1364. but in 1371.

--Clanedstino (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hacı İlbeyi was killed in 1365. (I know that, but I must look at the sources...) The historians think like that: there was only one battle, this was in 1371. so Hacı İlbeyi died after that... = That is wrong! ( & Mehmed Neşri's History was "official history", you can't find Hacı İlbeği as the hero of The battle of Sırpsındığı on it. Because he was killed by Lala Şahin Paşa!)and what about The Battle of Kosovo (in 1389) Some Serbs say that the Serbs won it! (So why were you under The Ottoman rule? :) )Böri (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not? There isn't a single contemporary source that says it was Ottoman empire, if you don't trust Serbs there are some American authors like Fine and Emmert who claim that outcome of battle was inconclusive, perhaps even a Serbian victory:

The historian is faced with a difficult problem when he attempts to discover what occurred in the Battle of Kosovo. There are no eyewitness accounts of the battle, and rather significant differences exist among those contemporary sources which do mention the event. There is little doubt that the confrontation occurred on the field of Kosovo on 28 (15) June 1389 between Christian forces led by Prince Lazar of Serbia and Ottoman forces led by Sultan Murad I. When it was over, both leaders were dead and Murad's son, Bayezid, returned to Edirne to secure his succession. The picture becomes very cloudy beyond these meager details. The early documents are not particularly concerned with armaments, tactics, size of forces, and the general course of the battle. Surprisingly enough, it is not even possible to know with certainty from the extant contemporary material whether one or the other side was victorious on the field. There is certainly little to indicate that it was a great Serbian defeat; and the earliest reports of the conflict suggest, on the contrary, that the Christian forces had won.

About the Ottoman rule, Serbia was conquered in 1459, not in 1389. That's 70 years after the battle of Kosovo, so I should ask you: if it was Ottoman victory why Ottomans haven't conquered Serbia in 1389. but in 1459? But let's return to Marica, was there one or two battles, 1364. and 1371? If there was battle in 1364. then the Serbs haven't participated in so it can't be called Sirpsindigi. Only major battle of Serbs against Turks on Marica happened in 1371, that year king Vukašin and Despot Uglješa gathered 60,000 Serbs and Greek soldiers and marched to Thrace, but were defeated. Also you say Serbs tried to take Edirne, but Edirne was captured by Turks between 1365. and 1369, so the 1364. as the date of the battle is impossible. As for the Neshri and all other Turkish chroniclers they wrote much latter after the battle, more then 100 years after, so they can't be taken as fully reliable. --Clanedstino (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Serbia became a vassal state after 1389, and was conquered by Mehmed II at the end. / all other Turkish chroniclers they wrote much latter after the battle, more then 100 years after, so they can't be taken as fully reliable. : & What about your sources?(how many years? :) ) This is demagogy!  Böri (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Serbian sources about battle of Marica? We have one from the year of the battle, 1371, commentary of the monk Isaiah from Athos mountain who wrote that in the year of 1371, on 26th September Serbian lords Vukašin and Uglješa started campaign against the Turks but were defeated, then there is Bulgarian chronicle from 1418. which gives same date and story, then reports of several Serbian chronicles from early 15teen century then a report of several Byzantine chroniclers from 15teen century etc. All of the sources written between 1371. and 1450, right after the battle. Monk Isaiah is exceptionally important, he wrote immediately after the battle and was quite close to the place of the event, pretty well informed person.

About battle of Kosovo I can quote two American scholars ( both of them great experts on history of medieval southeastern Europe ):

1. John VA Fine, The late medieval Balkans, p.410-411

...Thus, though the Serbs did not loose the battle, in the long run, over next 2 to 3 years, they lost the war because they were no longer able to resist the Turks effectively; and the loses they had suffered at Kosovo were, of course, the major reason they had so few people to defend Serbia. Thus one can say that immediate result of Kosovo was draw, but the long-term result was a Serbian loss...

2. Thomas Emmert, Kosovo: Legacy of a Medieval Battle, p19-41.

The historian is faced with a difficult problem when he attempts to discover what occurred in the Battle of Kosovo. There are no eyewitness accounts of the battle, and rather significant differences exist among those contemporary sources which do mention the event. There is little doubt that the confrontation occurred on the field of Kosovo on 28 (15) June 1389 between Christian forces led by Prince Lazar of Serbia and Ottoman forces led by Sultan Murad I. When it was over, both leaders were dead and Murad's son, Bayezid, returned to Edirne to secure his succession. The picture becomes very cloudy beyond these meager details. The early documents are not particularly concerned with armaments, tactics, size of forces, and the general course of the battle. Surprisingly enough, '''it is not even possible to know with certainty from the extant contemporary material whether one or the other side was victorious on the field. There is certainly little to indicate that it was a great Serbian defeat; and the earliest reports of the conflict suggest, on the contrary, that the Christian forces had won'''.

To summarize: Serbian and Turkish army had same losses at the battle of Kosovo and the outcome of the battle was draw, however Serbian loses were irreplaceable while Turks could always bring reinforcements from Anatolia. In the next few years after the battle of Kosovo Turks continued to raid Serbia which didn't had army to defend it self while in the same time Hungary also attacked Serbia ( from the north ). In that situation Serbia had to become Ottoman vassal, although it didn't lost the battle of Kosovo. I remind you, these are American scholars, both of them highly regarded in scientific circles, certainly not some Serbian propagandists. --Clanedstino (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Stanford J.Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume I   Please read it!

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=E9-YfgVZDBkC&pg=PA18&dq=Battle+of+Maritsa+1364&hl=tr&ei=c8bUTNK4KIG2vwPC7PDQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Maritsa%201364&f=false Böri (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Stanford J. Shaw is not a medievalist, he's expert for modern history, also he doesn't put any references to his claims, generally for medieval period he just takes information from the other ( obsolete ) authors and he is not an original researcher. Also he knows just for one battle on Maritsa, not two, he is just mixing the dates.I can list several hundreds of authors who put battle in 1371. most importantly, modern authors, experts for medieval Balkan like John VA Fine. You have to be straight, if there are two battles, then fine, make an article about the battle of 1363. But don't claim that battle on Marica in 1371. happened in 1363, cause it isn't correct. --Clanedstino (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbers??
Uhhmm where does that 15.000 men come from?? sources?? The ottoman army was according to the sources 800 men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gala260 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

IMPOSSIBLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S%C4%B1rp_S%C4%B1nd%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1 Sırp Sındığı was a sudden night raid by an Ottoman force led by Hacı İlbey on a Serbian contingent at the banks of the Martisa river about 15 kilometres from the city of Adrianople. It occurred in 1364 between an expeditionary force of the Ottomans and a Serbian army that also included crusaders, sent by the Pope. The Ottomans destroyed the Serbian army, which is why the battle was known as "sırp sındığı" (destruction of Serbs). The battle was the first attempt to throw the Ottomans from the Balkans with an allied army Despite all efforts, the allied army crossed the Maritsa river very easily without any important resistance; and made a camp in Sarayakpinar (old name: Sirpsindiği) village in Edirne near the banks of Maritsa river. They were very near to Adrianople.The army leaders made an early feast that night. They hoped to take Adrianople with ease. They neglected to take any measures that might protect the camp, but the camp was being monitored by expeditionary forces. Hacı Ilbey decided to make a surprise attack without waiting for any reinforcements. Ottoman akinjis attacked the allied camp in the darkness of night, and they carried 2 torches for the purpose of deceiving the enemy into thinking that they had double their actual numbers. This trick worked. This surprise attack threw the allied army into a panic that they were drunk or asleep because of the feast. They supposed that the Ottoman Sultan Murat I had arrived there with a large army. Most of the alliance troops tried to retreat back to the road from whence they came. Many of them were drowned in the Maritsa river while trying to swim to the opposite side. Most of the soldiers were Serbians.

30,000-60,000 Serbian Empire,Bulgarian Empire,Banate of Bosnia, Wallachia, Kingdom of Hungary vs 10,000 Ottoman Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maritsa The Battle of Maritsa, or Battle of Chernomen (Serbian: Маричка битка, бој код Черномена, Bulgarian: Битката при Марица, битката при Черномен, Turkish: Çirmen Muharebesi, İkinci Meriç Muharebesi in tr. Second Battle of Maritsa) took place at the Maritsa River near the village of Chernomen (today Ormenio in Greece) on September 27, 1371 between the forces of Ottoman commanders Lala Şâhin Paşa and Gazi Evrenos and Serbian commanders King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješa [10][11][12][13] who also wanted to get revenge of First Battle of Maritsa. A crusading army consisting of 30,000-60.000 troops began to move on Adrianople, at that time the Ottoman sultan Murat I was fighting the Catalan mercenaries in the Byzantine army at Biga, (Çanakkale). Also most of the Ottoman army was in Asia Minor. Lala Sahin Pasha who was the first Beylerbey of Rumelia, demanded Sultan to send him some reinforcements. Also Lala Şahin Paşa appointed “Hacı İlbey” to a be the commander of an expeditionary force that was supposed to monitor and slow down the allied army.

The Serbian army(THAT IS ARMY OF SOUTH SERBIAN STATES,NOT ALL SERBIAN STATES) numbered 20,000[2]–70,000[2][3][4][5][6](https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87irmen_Muharebesi 70,000 vs 800  90 vs 1). Most sources agree on the higher number. Despot Uglješa wanted to make a surprise attack on the Ottomans in their capital city, Edirne, while Murad I was in Asia Minor. The Ottoman army was much smaller[15] Byzantine Greek scholar Laonikos Chalkokondyles[2] and other sources[7] give the number of 800 men, but due to superior tactics, by conducting a night raid on the Serbian camp, Şâhin Paşa was able to defeat the Serbian army and kill King Vukašin and despot Uglješa. Thousands of Serbs were killed, and thousands drowned in the Maritsa river when they tried to flee.[9][16] After the battle, the Maritsa ran scarlet with blood.[16]

'''That is same battle, not two battles! And numbers ?! hahahahahahha Somebody belive in this hahahahahahha''' One man with sword cant kill 90 men ! He dont have energy for that ! Serbian army never had that number of men :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Velbazhd (That is one of the biggest battles of medieval Serbia. ALL SERBIAN ARMY have 18 000 men)--Sinhua111 (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Sinhua111

Sorry, what?
Apart from the question of how the Serbians at the time somehow assembled an astounding army of 70,000 soldiers at their campsite, the only explanation as to how each Ottoman soldier somehow defeated 100 Serbian soldiers is that it was "due to superior tactics, by conducting a night raid on the Serbian camp". Either this battle has been overlooked by every war historian ever or (as I suspect) was a blown out of proportions reimagination of a level in Halo. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As an added fact, the sources synthesize material that they did not themselves connect. It occasionally describes army size but no mention is commonly made of a "Battle of Maritsa" with 70,000 against 800. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you use "Serbian Empire"?
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)


 * 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)

This is a joke (false references)
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:


 * Jirecek, Konstantin. History of the Bulgarians, p. 382 (http://www.promacedonia.org/ki/ki_22.htm) - It doesn't mention revenge.
 * Jirecek, Konstantin. Geschichte der Serben, pp. 437-438 (https://archive.org/stream/geschichtederser00jire#page/437/mode/1up) - it doesn't mention revenge.
 * Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans since 1453, p. 44 (https://archive.org/details/balkanssince145300lsst/page/44/mode/2up) - On page 43 Stavrianos is talking about a crusade in 1364, but on page 44 he doesn't describe this battle as a revange for the battle in 1364. According to him, this battlefield (1371) is the one called "the Serbs' destruction".
 * Fine, J. V. A. The Late Mediaeval Balkans, p. 379 (https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472082605-ch7.pdf) - It doesn't mention battle in 1364.

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)

Some contradictions
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)

Sort of a summary
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)


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

Joke of a page and biased sources.
Needs to be changed to the correct number in a neutral stand point. Theonedudefromcity (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

first battle
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)

Sirp qualcosa
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)