This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hey, I am the author of the page and would like some feedback. Also, I would like to be notified if anyone changes it. Talk to me at tikipuff@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.10.157 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 December 2002 (UTC)
The name is the Battle of Kosovo Polje. I would like to change the name of the page, unless you disagree. -- The Phoenix 16:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It would be useful to provide a little bit of historical context. For example, need to explain why Serbs could only marshal such a small force for such a supposedly significant battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer bullet ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
I added some stuff about the results of the war politically, both in the 14th century as well as in the 20th century. History has it's ironies. -- Kahraman 18:01, 25 December 2004 (UTC)
The battle numbers most likely would not have been in favour of the Serbs, like tracer bullet said, Maritsa was a catastrophic defeat, half the male Serbian population had died out, it is highly unlikely that Serbia could call a force equeal to that of the Ottoman empire under these circumstances.
Also if you like I have a few more details of how the battle went, and we should also state that Obilic killing the Sultan may have been before after and during the battle, as this detail is not known. Also Tvrtko may not have retreated as a traitor, but rather because the battle had already been lost.
An important point is that we should also state that the battle of Marica was far more significant to the Turkish conquest of the Balkans than the battle of Kosovo.
Finally I believe we should make a section in this article for the mythological significance this battle has had on Serbian mentality, and incorporate the mytholigical versions as well.
With permision I would like to make these additions and changes...
Џони —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.56.229 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 June 2005 (UTC)
Lazar infact died not in battle as you mentioned. He was captured after Obilic had stabbed Murad. The sultan did not immediately die, and lived long enough to see lazar beheaded before him. If anyone does not believe me, I can get proof (as I do own a book that has soley to do with the topic at hand..unfortunately it is not at hand) Serbohellas 23:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
From what I know, the sides were never even remotely fair. Again, because I don't have the book at hand, I won't really change anything, but I am sure that the Ottoman side outnumbered the Serbian forces by at least 3 to 1. This I picked up from various internet sources and the award winning movie "Boj na Kosovu"; translated : Battle on Kosovo. Serbohellas 23:41, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know the real sizes of both the Balkan and Ottoman army at the Battle of Kosovo?
Some say the Balkan-Army was 70.000 And the Ottoman 140.000, Some say 70.000/80.000 ??
What is Real? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nexm0d (
talk •
contribs)
14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Turkish sources state Murad I was assassinated by a Serb after the battle while wandering the battlefield, not during the battle. This article turns this event into an epic tale, "Miloš Obilić crushing the Ottoman line and assaulting Murad's tent", which raises doubts that it was written from a nationalist POV. Actually through the whole article I felt more Serbian POV than a NPOV, trying to glorify Serbian efforts and belittle Ottomans. Reading till the end of the article, one would think it was Serbs winning the battle, not Turks then finally the author has to reveal the truth "Pfftt, OK, It was Turks who won, whatever."-- Kagan the Barbarian 08:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Some authors infer assasination of sultan Murad during the battle based on (allegedly unusual if supreme commander was still alive) prince Bayazid's initiative in deciding when to launch his counterattack (the latter came from Turkish sources). To me, it is not so convincing but anyway, I agree this article is a little "thin". I hope someone who reads Serbian could make something out of this link:
http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1998/11/article-6.html , it cites some Turkish chronitians of the time too. I have a problem finding original names of some historians of the time, (i.e.
Mulla Mehmed Neshri,
Ashik Pasha-Zade, Constantine the Yanissari) but several mentioned participants on Turkish side have Wikipedia articles themself (strateg
Gazi Evrenos Bey) while others are only mentioned (
Lala Shahin Pasha) in other cotexts.
Bottom line: It seems that Turks deliberatly let Serbian heavy cavalry thru the lines so that they would hit right into the Turkish supplies-made barrier behind them, and then, after Serb heavy armoured knights lost their momentum and therefore become relatively harmless, surrounded and flailed them down (somewhat similar to what Scipio did to Hanibal's elephants in Battle of Zama). After that, Bayazid introduced fresh reserve that decided the outcome of the battle. Loose Lazar's coalition broke down, panic followed, Serbs and their allies were separated and flew in at least three directions. Lazar was allegedly captured and decapitated as well as nobles that immediately followed him.
'... a Janičar nam saopštava da je Bajazit pogubio Lazara i Krajmira, a posle kratkog vremena i sve one nevernike koji su se nagledali boja koji su ostali (su) kao izdajnici, s objašnjenjem: "Kad ste svome gospodaru bili tako neverni u njegovoj nevolji to isto biste i meni učinili". Ovo je nejasno. Mislim da se to odnosi na vlastelu koja se nije odazvala Lazarevu pozivu, dakle, koja nije učestvovala u bici. Ispalo bi da je kao suveren osvetio Lazara, kolegu-suverena. Setimo se da je kasnije Bajazit savetovao svome zetu Stefanu Lazareviću da svoju vlastelu drži čvrsto u ruci.' translation follows:
('... and (Constantine the) Yanissary tells us that Bayazid slained Lazar and Krajmir, then shortly afterwards also all the infidels who looked battle and left over like traitors, with an explanation: "Since you have been so unfaithful to your master in his need you would be same to me". That is vague. I think it concerned nobles who didn't turn up on Lazars call, hence, who didn't took part in the battle. It would turn out like a sovereign avenged Lazar, his collegue-souvereign. Let's recall that later Bayazid advised his own son-in-law Stefan Lazarevic to keep firm grip on his (Stephan's) own nobles.')
Well, to me it seems like there is a part missing, like the nobles in fact betrayed and killed Lazar as an offer of allegience to Bayazid, but Bayazid choose instead to embrace Lazar (or at least his heir) as more worthy ally. But, I am inclined to see conspiracies everywhere (death of Murad I is also very unlikely and suspiciously described in your reference, Kagan,... considering how convenient it was for Bayazid who was not rightful heir and subsequent dynastic war, but I would nevertheless like to see what you can find on this battle from Turkish sources) and Wikipedia expressly forbids "original research". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.43 ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
As it appears that the NPOV violations were fixed, I'm removing the tag. - Discombobulator talk 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone should edit this article as soon as possible. It is plain wrong. Almost nothing, except the date is correct in this article. What a laugh :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.98.225 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote that the Kosovo battle was fought on the 14th the real date was the 28th Vidovdan!
The change between the gregorian and giulian calendar was already in place! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.75.196.21 (
talk •
contribs)
06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There are some contradicions regarding this article. This battle should be specified that it was between Balkan coualition countries and Ottomans and not Serbs and Ottomans.
So the truth is as followes;
The Ruling Knez (Prince) of Serbia, Lazar Hrebeljanović, marshalled a Christian coalition force, made mainly of Serbs from Serbian empire and from Bosnia, but also troops from Hungary, Albania, and even a contingent of Saxon mercenaries.
Everybody knows that Kosovopoje or Fushe Kosova in Albanian was the proper place to have a battle as it was a field. This battle was fought there not because there was living serbs but it was an ideal place for battels. It is a fake history by saying that Kosovo was inhabited by serbs. Albanians were there a long time before serbs came to Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.241.219 ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Or its vandalism, it was eventual victory, in the aftermath there was too much confusion and way too many soldiers killed, dont forget Murat was killed so was Lazar, there was no clear victory in the beginning. Later, when turkish army moved in, they finished the job, but that was over all of Kosovo, not the battle alone, so the current version is ok and valid. Besides you are from turkey and you (possibly) want to look victorious, in fact, you are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.219.50 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget that quite a few Croats fought (and died) alongside their Serbian brothers-in-arms! Mihovil 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
'on Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Field) in 1389, where the vassal troops commanded by Prince Lazar — the strongest regional ruler in Serbia at the time —killed Turkish Sultan Murat but suffered a defeat, due to the legendary "sudden departure" of Brankovic's Serbian troops' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Serbia (just for the record) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.243.17 ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You are putting your point of view which makes no sense, yea it was victory for the turks, but not at that time dude, in the long run, so do not touch this, it will remain like this, you can not claim victory over this, period. This was a draw, but it can not be called a draw because the turks did take kosovo later on, so when it says considered a draw, means that was a draw for that time. Now, whatever it says on wiki site suffered a defeat, this was lost in history, Kosovo in the long run lost to turks, let's be clear about this, but not this particular battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.146 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It is at least a draw, but it is complicated because of long passage of time, so many were killed and turks did not make immediate progress, only in the years to come, so yea, kosovo polje was not defeat, but it was the star as the defeat of kosovo in the years to come, simple as that, but sad for the people of the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.224 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Think about it users... ok... so many articles and sources that we find on the internet were once original research, somebody wrote it, others agreed and became popular, these are golden words, original research, proven, is sometimes best there is especially in the light on a subject that is little known or information comes from one dubious and subjective source a source that has something against a particular topic or individual or even history as a whole, the golden rule are my words... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.107.1.224 (
talk •
contribs)
20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
History could be wrong many times, i do not know, i only passed by serbia, but many people outside of balkans agree with me it was draw, remember what pharaohs of the ancient egypt did and it worked for 1000's of years, they changed history and erased the names of certain pharaohs they did not like and with them all their work and achievements and many were good. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.107.220.109 (
talk •
contribs)
23:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I consider that calling the army led by prince Lazar "a Christian coalition force "or “Balkan army” is incorrect and pointless.
Why? First of all, I must stress that the army of prince Lazar surely did incorporate soldiers of other nations but Serbs, notably his ally in previous wars - Ivaniš Paližna from Hungarian Croatia and (but only MAYBE since we have no record of it) some of other Lazar's allies and relatives (his five daughters were married to neighboring princes). However, these were surely not Djuradj II Balšić (in Albanian Gyergy Balsha) a noble from Serbian Maritime or Gyergy Kastriot - this is a fact. The main problem is that in years previously to the battle Turks conquered large tracts of Balkans and secured subjection of many local lords so that not many nobles could be found to enter the war against the army led by Sultan himself. Losing such a battle would mean losing life (or at least rule). On the other hand, taking a part in the battle with significant forces would mean mustering almost all of scarce knights and sending them away from home, leaving the back vulnerable to the attacks of neighbors - which was a constant problem with divided Christian forces in those times. Therefore all those not directly endangered by the Turks and not feeling strong enough just promised not to attack those who took part in the battle. For what we know, army led by prince Lazar lined in a manner usual in these days: three sections, each one led by the noble who brought the troops - another of problems with Christian strategy against Turkish forces. The center was led by Lazar himself. One wing was commanded by Vuk Branković, Lazar's son-in-law and the ruler in whose domain the Field of Kosovo lay, and the other by Vlatko Vuković a noble of King Tvrtko of Bosnia. However, not even Bosnians were a foreign factor since in 1377 Tvrtko, a relative of the Nemanjić dynasty, was crowned king of Serbs on the tomb of St Sava in the monastery of Mileševa. Moreover, Vlatko Vuković was a noble governing the part of Bosnia called Hum which passed from Serbian to Bosnian hands only 50 years ago. Mind you that apart from living in two separate states Serbia proper and Bosnia were both inhabited mostly with Serbs. And why was it that only Vuk and king Tvrtko sent forces in battle against the Turks? Primarily since they were the most endangered: Vuk was the southernmost Serbian noble that did not subject to the Sultan while both Lazar and Tvrtko felt the Turkish atacks in previous years (smaller battles against Turks at Pločnik, Toplica and Bileća - the last one won by Vlatko Vuković). Additionally, Tvrtko - as the king of Serbs - was eager to be recognized as the leading amongst the Serb lords and therefore had the obligation to intervene. Therefore, although at the battle site there were probably present some lesser nobles from Hungary or of Albanian origin they were to small to be recorded. On the other hand, let's not forget that a significant portion of Turkish forces was made of Serbian, Greek and Albanian lords from Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly who earlier recognized Sultan's sovereignty and many other auxiliary forces from across the Balkans and Asia Minor! And still we don't call the Ottoman army "a coalition of Turkish-Serbian-Bulgarian or whatever forces"!
And, as my last point, imagine calling each of the armies from throughout history by all the contingents that it was made of! Then the French army at Agincourt would be something like French-Genovese-Provencal and the English army would be English-Welsh-French! And what would then be French army at Borodino?!? This are the first examples that came to my mind but almost all of the larger battles in history were fought by forces to some degree made of different nationalities. So, although the people that faced Turkish forces were Christian, there is no point in calling them by so wide-ranging name. No one would say that a Christian coalition fought the Gulf War or that Napoleon in 1812 led a Roman-catholic coalition against the Orthodox or whatever.
For all of these reasons it is a nonsense calling the army led by prince Lazar by name other than "Serbs" (as opposed to "the Turks"), "Serbian forces" or "a coalition of Serb lords" at furthest. If no one opposes it (after reading this, of course), I propose the changing of this "a Christian coalition force" thing.
One more thing: there was no Serbian empire at the time. The last emperor died in 1371, which is why all the chaos erupted. I changed this immediately. -- Dultz 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Karl. Regarding the size of the forces a serious study that I read long ago and Yugoslav Military Encicilopaedia that has a good article on it put the forces as following:
Ottomans 40,000 of these 5,000 janissary, 2,500 cavalry life guards, 6,000 sipahis, 20,000 azaps and akinci (lightly armed infantry and cavalry respectfully) and 8,000 of his vassals.
Serbs 25,000 (top estimate) of these 15,000 led by prince Lazar, 5,000 of Vuk Brankovic and 5,000 by Vlatko Vukovic
The compostion of the forces I addressed above - there could have been some smaller contingents from other regions but these were too small to be mentioned by the sources. The only one mentioned is Ivan Palizna but since he was a refuge in Bosnia escaping from Hungarian king he could not muster more than a few hunrded at most, more probably less than 100 men. -- Dultz 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing: fantastic numbers and exotic compostion of troops taking part in the battle stem from (1) the importance that the battle later gained as a focal point in Serb epic and (2) from the battle fought on the same grounds in 1448. The numbers given above were made on estimates of population and the extent of territory as well as on paralels to the other battles of the period which rarely involved more then 10,000 on each side, so that, in comparisment with them, the Kosovo battle realy was huge in its day.-- Dultz 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a very reliable source that indicate sthat infact, the Turks numbered only 30,000 against a 'Serbian force' of 20,000. Moreover, the Ottomans only won when the vast majority of the Serbs defected. This would explain the 'none survivors' fact. Also, no foolish Sultan would let a deserter enter his tent without being searched and properly guarded. He was in fact, killed in the confusion of battle, when many of the desserting Serbs could have been mistaken as allies. And further more, the Serbs remained an ally / puppet state of the Ottoman empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PEOPLE! THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE BATTLE OF KOSOVO, NOT THE BATTLE OF THE WORLD! You can leave Niceae and other fights for those articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is rather certain/precise about the size, date and composition of the forces, when, as far as I can see, many academics are not so certain.
First, it might be worthwhile to add that some Turkish sources apparently give the date of the battle as 4 Ramadan 791 (27 August 1389), although it should be made clear that this is not the generally accepted date.
Second, the composition of the forces. The article simply states that it was Serbians vs Ottomans. From what I understand, it was not so clear cut. The Serbian side was a coalition of Balkan groups under Serbian leadership while the Ottoman forces, in addition to Ottoamans and Turkmen princes of Anatolia also included some Serb rivals of Lazar as well as Bulgarians forces under Mircea the Great of Wallachia and George Castriots, an Albanian prince. Some have also suggested that people like Marko Kraljevich of Prilep also fought on the Ottoman side. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to add this type of information to the article? Coalitions in the middle ages were not as clean cut as many 19th century historians would like to think.
Third, as for the size and relative strenghts of the forces, Serbian folklore does indeed say that the 'Serbian' forces were outnumbered. However, for what it's worth, according to Prof. Stanford J. Shaw (Prof. of Modern Turkish History at UCLA and Bilkent Uni. in Ankara, Turkey) the relative strenght (in no. of men) was the opposite, with the Ottoman forces consisting of 60,000 and the Serbian coaltion of some 100,000. I don't know how well researched his sources are (also, although he is American, he is a prof. of Turkish history in Turkey, and so might have an agenda, I don't know), but it might be worthwhile to investigate or even mention in the article. What do you think?
Finally, the article doesn't give any political/military background infro. I would be willing to add this.
So, to summarize:
1. Need to mention any other possible dates for the battle?
2. More nuanced description of the (possible) composition of the two forces?
3. How sure are we about the relative sizes of the forces?
4. Need to add any background info?
Regards KarlXII 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Nikola, Thanks for your reply. My comments as follows:
1. I'm ok with not mentioning any other dates.
2 & 3. The figures you provide certainly are more detailed than any other I have found. Since there appears to be quite a bit of speculation about the size and composition of the forces (especially on the Serbian side) it might be worthwhile to include some discussion of this in the text. I don't know anything about the Vojna enciklopedija, but claiming that it should have precendence over all other sources (while not being able to provide online or English language links or references to it) is not satisfying to me.
4. Good. In that case I think we should work to add a background to the battle (and maybe a more detailed 'Aftermath' section as well.
KarlXII
10:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I also think it would be nice to add a background Ati7 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Nikola (and anyone else who is interested, of course),
In light of the discussion above should the intro of the article really read:
"The battle started with Serbian noblemen and Lazar's son-in-law, noble Vuk Branković, on one wing, Lazar with heavy armor knight cavalary in the centre including German mercenaries, and Bosnian Duke Vlatko Vuković commanding the third wing of the Bosnian Serb army including Albanian (Gjergj II Balsha, Theodor II Muzaka), Hungarian, Polish knights and Knights Hospitallers."
Also, this text is not sourced, referenced or discussion in any way when there appears to be quite some uncertainty about this issue. KarlXII 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've looked through the various External links and feel that some pruning is in order, primarily to save readers having to go through numerous links with very little information. My suggestions for deletion are:
I also feel that the external link The Kosovo Battle, Excerpts from various Encyclopædiæ seems more like an entry into a political discussion about who was the victor of the battle than a valuable external source (some of the quoted encyclopedias are rather outdated and can't be seen as representative of current academic knowledge). If it is to be retained in the list, is would be as an example of previous beliefs on the topic. I'm not sure how interesting the link is. KarlXII 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why I find the inclusion of this link questionable other than as a historical record of what older encyclopedias said on the subject. Most recent research seems to be less clear cut about the outcome of the battle. KarlXII 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at the Encarta, Columbia and Highbeam links? KarlXII 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Lysandros, I don't agree but in a way you are right.
On one hand, most of these encyclopedias simply regurgitate the conventional wisdom, with seemingly littly effort put into trying to establish what the current view of academia is - thay take the easy route by simply updating what the previous version had. So, while their view may or may not be outdated, this really shouldn't matter in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia isn't about original research but about presenting the commonly held view (even it may be wrong, one could say). Thus, I think it best to say that there is no concensus as to the outome of the battle.
On the other hand, however, that still doesn't mean that the External links should be filled with 'useless' links with no text. Instead, they should provide more indepth material. KarlXII 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ati7, thank's for your reply.
I'm all for keeping Balkan sites neutral and free from the national POVs that so often seem to infiltrate them (my recent experience at the Srebrenica massacre article is a good example of these types of problems). Apparently the issue of the outcome of the battle has some type of ideological overtone which I'm proposing to overcome in the article by stating that the outcome is disputed and then listing the various positions. The External links shouldn't act as a covert continuation of the "who won" debate. I am alright with keeping the EB and Columbia if we get rid of the others.
Is that decided then? KarlXII 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nikola, fine, my only comment was that the who-won discussion should not be allowed to affect the External links. As for the who-won debate, I'm proposing putting the discussion about this into a separate section in the article, as there ARE differing views and interpretations. KarlXII 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've understood that there is a bit of a controversy (at least Wikipedia) about who won the battle and from reading articles such as Emmert's article in the External lins. He writes:
He goes on to list what some other historians/experts believe:
As Wikipedia articles are not supposed to reflect original thought but what other sources say, it might be worthwhile to collect different arguments for/against, and summarize and reference them in a separate chapter (as I said earlier, I have no preference one way or another). How about that? KarlXII 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Emmert, who seems to favor the notion that at least the battle was not a defeat for the Serbs it is generally know as, continues to say that:
Emmert concludes by writing:
Your thoughts? KarlXII 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's fine, eventually it could be merged with "Aftermath". I am thinking of adding two more introductory section:
I'd also add some sidequotes to the article - I think I could find a nice one for each section but I will try not to overdue it ;) What do you think? Nikola 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The traditional number always repeated is 140,000 Turks and 70,000 Serbs. That's the figure mentioned, but all other are simple researches. Those numbers still today appear... even though they are criticized (and perhaps in truth overestimated). However, the current numbers are underestimated. For instance, Vlatko Vukovic led a Bosnian Army of 20,000 men alone, while Vuk Brankovic had a 10,000 strong force. -- PaxEquilibrium 11:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no map showing the location of the battle in relation to the Ottoman empire?? Starsky19 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As a historian, i do know that Bosnians helped Serbs, but do we have to use word balkan or serbian forces or a different word, remember at that time there was no bosnian muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.2.33 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this article and hope to make a contribution. One thing which strikes me when reading the article is that it is absolutely littered with references to the Vojna Encyklopedia (hope I got the spelling right). I have a couple of comments on this:
Roncevaux 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Start; "The battle started with Turkish archers shooting at Serbian cavalry which then moved into attack. They managed to break through Turkish left wing, but weren't as successful against center and right wing. Even the left wing wasn't as defeated as it was simply pushed back."
Turkish counterattack; "The Balkans coalition initially gained advantage after their first charge, which heavily damaged the Turkish wing commanded by Jakub Celebi. In the center, the Christian fighters managed to push Ottoman forces back with only Bayezid's wing holding off the forces commanded by Vlatko Vuković."
As you can see, these sections repeat the same thing with some contradictions... The only sentence who speaks of a 'Turkish counterattack' is "The Ottomans in a counter attack pushed Balkans forces back and prevailed later in the day." and this is not sufficient. Lysandros 07:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the result to "Ottoman victory" based on Britannica, which treats the battle as an overwhelming Turkish triumph. UberCryxic 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to do with nationalism, both people lost lots of men, I was born here, but I am also a little bit croatian, i know the history and this should be more or less a draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.152 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been some editing on the outcome.There is not enough to go on here. Please stop vandalising page.It was a draw , Okay Buffadren 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I am aware that many people wanna see the result as Ottoman victory, however a victory is a victory if and only if both sides come to that conclusion. nobody objects our victory of the second battle of kosovo or battle of manzikert. however, in case of this one, different views are present. The wikipedia is a platform to share thoughts and come to consensus, it's not a battlefield:) Ati7 09:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Note, serbia lost in kosovo battle II, this one was draw, goodness, how many times to explain this, ottomans took kosovo in the long run, duh, i am talking about one battle here!
Battle of Kosovo was not lost by the Serbs. It was kind of a draw were both armies were massacred and both Kings/Prince dead. Being much larger Ottoman Empire easily reorganised an by the time took all of Kosovo and eventually Serbia, Monte Negro took centuries to go down. You are also right that there were other countries involved by sending a military help to a Serbian army (Croatia, Bosnia, Hugary) but that was under Serbian command directly and insignificant to an entire Serbian army that was involved. Difference between Montenegro and Serbia is that Montenegro was the only Serbian land that Turks couldn't fully occupy in five century of their Balkan domination. Many things on wikipedia are wrong so often.
Kimberley Golubovic, Edinburgh—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
125.243.251.195 (
talk •
contribs)
21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This article clearly contradicts itself about the result of the battle, see the 'Outcome', 'Aftermath' and infobox sections. A 'contradict' template will be added. Lysandros 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on many of the Turkish historical records, it is believed that the Sultan was killed by Miloš Obilić who was pretending to be dead, while the Sultan was walking in the battlefield after the battle. On the other hand, in one account in Serbian records he was assassinated by Miloš Obilić, who made his way into the Turkish camp on the pretext of being a deserter and knelt before the Sultan. He stabbed him in the stomach while kneeling before him.
In all Kosovo field in cirkel of 8km it was only on Kulla, an this Kulla hawe belongt to Milosh Kopili (serb. Milos Obilic). The region of (today it was neural place wor both armys, dont forget it was a beatel called from Sulltan, no body is stupied to call a battel inseid a anamy territory, even Bush dont wount the beathel in Irak, but in Afganistan) Kosovo Hi hase came in the Saray of Sulltan to help him as vasal (the east arm is knowit in history as muslim, it was rulet from muslims and ther was not only muslims, Millosh it was one of them). During all the time the turck has maked sucses, eery thing els is onl serbian propagander. But Milosh has kiled sulltan with jatagan. The west sayd (knowied in history as chritia sied) was thingin after the Sulltan is death they have wonte the beatel. The members of the Sulltans kabinet hase killed one son of the Sulltan and one of the sonse was deklareted as Sulltan. It was not a baetel but "a masaker" over west army.
For Ottomans army this was like a air for the peopel. Simpel joop. Tvrtkos vojvoda has taked his army a way, every army witch was came for help was a way. In thate time nationalty it was not discoveried. For the peopel natonalty it was his King or Church. The peopel who belewes more to Church today are called Serbs, the peopel who respect more the tradition and the King today are Montenegrin and Albanians.
Vuk Branković, Lazar's son-in-law, controlled Kopaonik mountain, Kosovo Polje and lands toward south, including his capital Prizren and together with Andrijaš Mrnjavčević the dangerously exposed sailent of Skopje with Skopska Crna Gora mountain; he was forced to withdraw from Priština, under the Ottoman treat, who occupied the mountains east of Priština,
Betwen Prishtina and Kosovo Field is no plans and centrum of Prishtina is not more thane 8 Km from Kosovo Field. When a army like the ottomans in thate time take a plane over east side then you have taket Kosovo Polje but not Prishtina.
When you wount to make a propagander about the baettel go down there, look how it looks, wher are this "east Prishtina plans" and talk with the peopel, liesend some folks music from both sides serbian and albanian they sing the same lied in differend langueges.
Lazar and soe zadruga vojvoda was thinking thate they are going in Ottoman Banket and have taked many singers with thay too watch the Beatel and sing about the "hero", Lazar ect...
It is Vuk and not Buk, if today is Vuk than in thate time must bee BUK (Bizant- Vizant, Servia - Serbia} somthing is not clear, Lazar is bay both, albanians and serbs ho demed knows what the hell he was serb or albanian or perheps Vllah (alb. brothers). Dont tale her pallavra.
Perhaps you dont know that is Ulkiana (lat/gri Ulpiana old centrum of Justian) and Vuk hase somthink together. To finde out go and learn Albanian langueg.
If you mean he belong to servian church then he was byzantin and not a serb. And stop maken serbian nation a same with Serbian Church. We are in year 2007 not in darknis from miedel age. Balsha was member of the Serbian Church (as part of Byzantin Church) but he was albanian.
The first vasals of the Sulltans in Balkan are the members of the population from wher today is commen bom-bom for the christianity, not from Montenegro, not from Albania. In north albania and south montenegro is a same democraty like in Hommer time (see Molosen, Epir, Dardanen, Taulanten ect). They diden wountit to cooperet with Sulltan and they have pay about thate, they hase lose they citys for more thane 500 years, but not there spirit they was free from turkish cultur, Belgrade was not, it was Malsia, Calabria (italien). The paps was from this area not from Belgrade, they was maken bisnis with Sulltan. (See: Skanderbeg during this time Belgrade was dealing with Sulltan, later the Serbian Church came independent from Costatinopol and wth help of the Rusian Church they have taked the Church of Manastir (near Ohrid), Knin (Croatien, it was under Rumun Church))
Today they the members of the Serbian Church dont know to witch nationalty they belong, to witch folk . How himself Vuk Stefan Karagjiq, (Black-vitch from turkish-serbitch) the serbian writter tale as "grcki zakon" (the grece rit also east church) he dont talk about "serbian zakon".
Stop laing the peopel, and let they disede what they are they have a colektiv memory, dont trai to redirect thate with propagander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.215.72 ( talk · contribs)- 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that Murad was the only sultan who died in battle. In 1566 Suleiman I (the Magnificent) died during the siege of Szigetvár (Hungary), but not in fight, since then he was 72. Vamos ( talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dragolub Todoroviq në veprën e tij ‘’Libri mbi Qosiqin’’ – ‘’Në mitin e Kosovës asgjë nuk është e vërtetë... Pas disfatës në Kosovë (më 1389) serbët nuk bien në robërinë turke, sepse u bënë vasalë më besnikë të turqve’’.... ‘’Serbët bashkëkohorë nuk e njohin historinë e vërtetë, ata janë vetëm nën ndikimin e historisë mitologjike, e cila ndër serbët është jashtëzakonisht e zhvilluar...
IN English:
Dragolub Todorovic in his work "The book over Cosic" - In miting in Kosovo is nothing truth ... After After losing the beathel (Aftermath} (in 1389) they was not under the turkish presion, beacose they became the best turkish vasals .... The erbs of today they dont know the real history, they are only under the nfluenc of the mitologie history, witch by the serb is extrem developen....
The articl is identic with the Sllobodan Milosheviq fim over this beatel and summeried with the mitologie created during the metng in Kosovo (befor the last War)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.6.205 ( talk · contribs)- 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
A.F. Gilferding, the russian konsil in Bosnia (19 centery) in his boock : Putovanje po Hercegovini, Bosni i Staroj Srbiji, Sarajevo, 1972, s.241-245
’Serbët e vjetër nuk kanë pasur mjaft talent dhe kanë pasur pak aftësi për ta kuptuar e shkruar historinë... Beteja e Kosovës (1389) për njerëzit e arsimuar ka shërbyer si temë pallavrash gjoja shkencore të divoçme.
The Old Serbains the dident have a talent (intelegenc) and they diden know to understand and write hiytory ... The Beattel of Kosovo (1389) for the edeuketid (non-alphabetisem) was a "pallavra" teme like a argument for the bravery history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.6.205 ( talk · contribs)- 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a notice, anon's additions are completely out of whack, and I do intend to remove them when he leaves the article. Nikola 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Serbia was forced to become an Ottoman vassal so the Ottomans can claim victory since they pretty-much achieved their immediate offensive goal, however the loss of their monarch and subsequent internal unrests that significantly slowed their advance into Europe are also consequences of this battle and qualify it as a Pyrrhic victory.
Veljko Stevanovich 17. 4. 2007. 18:30 UTC+1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.120.29 ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And don't just describe them as Christian armies led by the Serbs. There were significant Albanian-Kosovar, Hungarian, Romanian-Wallachian... numbers that fought in this battle. They have to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.23.196 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the obvious Albanian, Serbian and Turkish languages (the nations involved), how is this important? Why would anybody be interested in what this war is called in German, Estonian or Swedish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.45.242 ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Grb Hrebeljanovica.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The correct name of this battle would be "Battle of Kosovo Field" (battle of the field of blackbirds), not "Battle of Kosovo" (strictly, "battle of the blackbirds") -- this isn't a battle surrounding the Kosovo region (like Battle of Britain), the battle is just named after the field where it took place, " Kosovo Field". This may be splitting hairs, but I do think we would be more accurate in moving this to the longer title. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP REVERTING HISTORY !!!!!!!!!! BALKAN LORDS COALITION ARMY !!!????? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK.that's no problem
The Battle of Kosovo: Early Reports of Victory and Defeat
by Thomas A. Emmert
from Kosovo: Legacy of a Medieval Battle
...On 28 June 1389 the combined Serbian forces from the territories governed by Prince Lazar and Vuk Brankovic together with auxiliary troops sent by King Tvrtko of Bosnia faced Sultan Murad and his army on the field of Kosovo. It had been eighteen years since King Vukasin and Despot Ugljesa failed in their attempt to drive the Turks out of the Balkan Peninsula, and now the Serbian forces were definitely on the defensive. Given the divisiveness among Serbian lords which generally characterized the decades following Dusan's death, the fact that Lazar, Vuk, and Tvrtko were able to conclude an alliance against the Turks was reason for at least some optimism. No one, however, could have known that the struggle was to become a pivotal moment in the history of the Serbian people.
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....
Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1986, Vol. , page 969
Entry: KOSOVO, Battle of:
Quote:
Kosovo also spelled Kossovo (June 28 [June 15, old style], 1389), BATTLE fought at Kosovo Polje [polje = field in Serbo-Croatian] (Field of Blackbirds), Serbia (now in Yugoslavia), between the armies of the Serbian Prince Lazar and the Turkish forces of the Ottoman Sultan Murad I (reigned (1360-89). ...
Thomas Emmert
The Kosovo Legacy
On 28 June, 1389 an alliance of Serbian and Bosnian forces engaged a large Ottoman army on the plain of Kosovo in southern Serbia. When the battle was over, Prince Lazar, the commander of the Christian army, and Murad, the ruler of the Ottomans, lay dead. In the years and centuries that followed, the battle and the martyred Prince Lazar became the subjects of a rich literature of popular legend and epic poetry that has profoundly influenced Serbian historical consciousness. The bard, the storyteller, and, eventually, the traditionalist historian depicted the Battle of Kosovo as the catastrophic turning point in the life of Serbia; it marked the end of an independent, united Serbia and the beginning of 500 years of oppressive Ottoman rule. The legend of the battle became the core of what we may call the Kosovo ethic, and the poetry that developed around the defeat contained themes that were to sustain the Serbian people during the long centuries of foreign rule....
Ok in this source we can see the word alliance...but not BALKAN LORDS COALITION ARMY (hungarians,albanians,etc)...note that king Tvrtko of Bosnia was Serbian king or "King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside"...you can see that in article Tvrtko I of Bosnia on this site...
Stephen Tvrtko I (Serbian: Стефан, Croatian and Bosnian: Stjepan) (1338 – March 10, 1391), was a ruler of medieval Bosnia. He ruled in 1353–1366 and again in 1367–1377 as Ban and in 1377–1391 as the first Bosnian King. He also took the Serbian crown. Tvrtko was a member of the House of Kotromanić.
Tvrtko I was an able ruler and his state included most of Bosnia as well as the neighbouring territories. He transformed the country from an autonomous banate into an independent and prosperous kingdom. After he became the King, he added the title Stephanos (Stefan, the crowned one), and Miroslav or Mircea[citation needed].
The title of King Tvrtko was "King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seacoast".
...
Tvrtko had, parallel with Prince Lazar, plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm. He fulfilled three key conditions to become the Serbian ruler:
Tvrtko crowned himself on 26 October 1377 as Stefan Tvrtko I by the mercy of God King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands. Today, some historians consider that he was crowned in Monastery of Mileševa, even there is no evidence of that [1]. Another possibility, supported by archaeological evidences, is that he was crowned in Mile near Visoko in the church which was built in time of Stephen II Kotromanić's reign, where he was also buried alongside his uncle Stjepan II.[2][3] Stefan was the standard title of the rulers from the House of Nemanjić. In 1375–1377 Tvrtko created a unique genealogy that explicitly stated his descendency from the House of Nemanjić.
And Stefan the King, brother of Milutin the King, Uroš II, that held Srem, with his wife Katalina, daughter of the Hungarian King Ladislaus, birthed Urošica and Jelisaveta. And Jelisaveta had three sons: Stefan the Bosnian Ban, Ninoslav and Vladislav. And Vladislav had Tvrtko the Ban and Vuk.
Tvrtko assessed the Double crown (Sugubi vijenac) as King of Bosnia, his native God-given land and King of Serbia, the land of his Serbian forefathers. Logothet Vladoje abandoned the Serbian throne and went to work for Tvrtko, for whom he modelled his ruling ideology identical to the Serbian. King Stephen Tvrtko took the titles from the Serbian throne and gave them to the Bosnian nobility. His crowning was recognized by the most powerful noblemen in Serbia, Princes Lazar Hrebeljanović and Vuk Branković. Although the Hungarian King recognized his crowning, he continued to call him Ban until his death in 1382. By this, Tvrtko officially declared the independence of the Kingdom of Bosnia and Serbia..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've
been asked to look into the recent edit warring on this page. Here are a few thoughts. Regarding
this edit. Zakipfc has made it 13 times in the last 18 days. It has been reverted by
User:Moncrief,
User:DeadEyeArrow, and
User:Cradel. On top of that has been the intervention of
User:66.99.2.244,
User:69.149.164.249 and others on various sides. It seems to me that the removal of special characters is an accidental product of some sort of technical limitation on Zakipfc's end. His edits are not vandalism. Rather there are two disputed points: was the battle a victory or a draw? was it fought by Serbian forces or a Batltic Balkan (sorry, typo) coalition? I certainly can't answer either question, but rather than continuing to revert Zakipfc, I suggest that anyone who disagrees with him prove him wrong using reliable sources. Zakipfc, I suggest that rather than continuing to edit war, you prove everyone else wrong, using reliable sources. The discussion in the above section is a great start. Just my 2 cents.
Canderson7 (
talk)
17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Kosovo was battle between Ottomans and '''SERBS'''.PERIOD.Somebody is trying to revert clear historical facts.In the same time as this article is changed (serbian forces changed to Balkan Coalition Army) on You-Tube I saw Albanian video about Battle of Kosovo where their key point that battle wasn't fought only by Serbians was "albanian flag" under Serbian soldier Pavle Orlovic on the Uros Predic's picture Kosovo Maiden.Well,for their information,Albanian flag- Skenderbeg's eagle is from 15th century and Kosovo Battle was fought in 1389.Also somebody said that Hungarians also were involved into the battle of Kosovo.For their information few days after the battle Hungary invaded and occupied Belgrade.They held it for short time.
About battle's outcome we can discuss.Serbian and international History says that Battle of Kosovo was long-term defeat for Serbia because country couldn't recover from suffering heavy loses.But one,five,ten days or even a year or more after the battle I don't think that anybody in Ottoman Empire thought that they won the battle.Both sides suffered heavy losses,both sides have lost their leaders in combat.How anybody can say that battle was "Clear Ottoman victory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know what it means but that was definitely not Pyrrhic victory..Years Later Ottomans achieved their goals because of Kosovo Battle so we can not say that it was Pyrrhic victory.I am OK with draw in military terms but long-term defeat for Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK.I think that article is now close to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hey, I am the author of the page and would like some feedback. Also, I would like to be notified if anyone changes it. Talk to me at tikipuff@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.10.157 ( talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 December 2002 (UTC)
The name is the Battle of Kosovo Polje. I would like to change the name of the page, unless you disagree. -- The Phoenix 16:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It would be useful to provide a little bit of historical context. For example, need to explain why Serbs could only marshal such a small force for such a supposedly significant battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer bullet ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 August 2004 (UTC)
I added some stuff about the results of the war politically, both in the 14th century as well as in the 20th century. History has it's ironies. -- Kahraman 18:01, 25 December 2004 (UTC)
The battle numbers most likely would not have been in favour of the Serbs, like tracer bullet said, Maritsa was a catastrophic defeat, half the male Serbian population had died out, it is highly unlikely that Serbia could call a force equeal to that of the Ottoman empire under these circumstances.
Also if you like I have a few more details of how the battle went, and we should also state that Obilic killing the Sultan may have been before after and during the battle, as this detail is not known. Also Tvrtko may not have retreated as a traitor, but rather because the battle had already been lost.
An important point is that we should also state that the battle of Marica was far more significant to the Turkish conquest of the Balkans than the battle of Kosovo.
Finally I believe we should make a section in this article for the mythological significance this battle has had on Serbian mentality, and incorporate the mytholigical versions as well.
With permision I would like to make these additions and changes...
Џони —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.194.56.229 ( talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 June 2005 (UTC)
Lazar infact died not in battle as you mentioned. He was captured after Obilic had stabbed Murad. The sultan did not immediately die, and lived long enough to see lazar beheaded before him. If anyone does not believe me, I can get proof (as I do own a book that has soley to do with the topic at hand..unfortunately it is not at hand) Serbohellas 23:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
From what I know, the sides were never even remotely fair. Again, because I don't have the book at hand, I won't really change anything, but I am sure that the Ottoman side outnumbered the Serbian forces by at least 3 to 1. This I picked up from various internet sources and the award winning movie "Boj na Kosovu"; translated : Battle on Kosovo. Serbohellas 23:41, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know the real sizes of both the Balkan and Ottoman army at the Battle of Kosovo?
Some say the Balkan-Army was 70.000 And the Ottoman 140.000, Some say 70.000/80.000 ??
What is Real? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nexm0d (
talk •
contribs)
14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Turkish sources state Murad I was assassinated by a Serb after the battle while wandering the battlefield, not during the battle. This article turns this event into an epic tale, "Miloš Obilić crushing the Ottoman line and assaulting Murad's tent", which raises doubts that it was written from a nationalist POV. Actually through the whole article I felt more Serbian POV than a NPOV, trying to glorify Serbian efforts and belittle Ottomans. Reading till the end of the article, one would think it was Serbs winning the battle, not Turks then finally the author has to reveal the truth "Pfftt, OK, It was Turks who won, whatever."-- Kagan the Barbarian 08:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Some authors infer assasination of sultan Murad during the battle based on (allegedly unusual if supreme commander was still alive) prince Bayazid's initiative in deciding when to launch his counterattack (the latter came from Turkish sources). To me, it is not so convincing but anyway, I agree this article is a little "thin". I hope someone who reads Serbian could make something out of this link:
http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1998/11/article-6.html , it cites some Turkish chronitians of the time too. I have a problem finding original names of some historians of the time, (i.e.
Mulla Mehmed Neshri,
Ashik Pasha-Zade, Constantine the Yanissari) but several mentioned participants on Turkish side have Wikipedia articles themself (strateg
Gazi Evrenos Bey) while others are only mentioned (
Lala Shahin Pasha) in other cotexts.
Bottom line: It seems that Turks deliberatly let Serbian heavy cavalry thru the lines so that they would hit right into the Turkish supplies-made barrier behind them, and then, after Serb heavy armoured knights lost their momentum and therefore become relatively harmless, surrounded and flailed them down (somewhat similar to what Scipio did to Hanibal's elephants in Battle of Zama). After that, Bayazid introduced fresh reserve that decided the outcome of the battle. Loose Lazar's coalition broke down, panic followed, Serbs and their allies were separated and flew in at least three directions. Lazar was allegedly captured and decapitated as well as nobles that immediately followed him.
'... a Janičar nam saopštava da je Bajazit pogubio Lazara i Krajmira, a posle kratkog vremena i sve one nevernike koji su se nagledali boja koji su ostali (su) kao izdajnici, s objašnjenjem: "Kad ste svome gospodaru bili tako neverni u njegovoj nevolji to isto biste i meni učinili". Ovo je nejasno. Mislim da se to odnosi na vlastelu koja se nije odazvala Lazarevu pozivu, dakle, koja nije učestvovala u bici. Ispalo bi da je kao suveren osvetio Lazara, kolegu-suverena. Setimo se da je kasnije Bajazit savetovao svome zetu Stefanu Lazareviću da svoju vlastelu drži čvrsto u ruci.' translation follows:
('... and (Constantine the) Yanissary tells us that Bayazid slained Lazar and Krajmir, then shortly afterwards also all the infidels who looked battle and left over like traitors, with an explanation: "Since you have been so unfaithful to your master in his need you would be same to me". That is vague. I think it concerned nobles who didn't turn up on Lazars call, hence, who didn't took part in the battle. It would turn out like a sovereign avenged Lazar, his collegue-souvereign. Let's recall that later Bayazid advised his own son-in-law Stefan Lazarevic to keep firm grip on his (Stephan's) own nobles.')
Well, to me it seems like there is a part missing, like the nobles in fact betrayed and killed Lazar as an offer of allegience to Bayazid, but Bayazid choose instead to embrace Lazar (or at least his heir) as more worthy ally. But, I am inclined to see conspiracies everywhere (death of Murad I is also very unlikely and suspiciously described in your reference, Kagan,... considering how convenient it was for Bayazid who was not rightful heir and subsequent dynastic war, but I would nevertheless like to see what you can find on this battle from Turkish sources) and Wikipedia expressly forbids "original research". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.43 ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
As it appears that the NPOV violations were fixed, I'm removing the tag. - Discombobulator talk 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone should edit this article as soon as possible. It is plain wrong. Almost nothing, except the date is correct in this article. What a laugh :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.98.225 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote that the Kosovo battle was fought on the 14th the real date was the 28th Vidovdan!
The change between the gregorian and giulian calendar was already in place! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.75.196.21 (
talk •
contribs)
06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
There are some contradicions regarding this article. This battle should be specified that it was between Balkan coualition countries and Ottomans and not Serbs and Ottomans.
So the truth is as followes;
The Ruling Knez (Prince) of Serbia, Lazar Hrebeljanović, marshalled a Christian coalition force, made mainly of Serbs from Serbian empire and from Bosnia, but also troops from Hungary, Albania, and even a contingent of Saxon mercenaries.
Everybody knows that Kosovopoje or Fushe Kosova in Albanian was the proper place to have a battle as it was a field. This battle was fought there not because there was living serbs but it was an ideal place for battels. It is a fake history by saying that Kosovo was inhabited by serbs. Albanians were there a long time before serbs came to Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.241.219 ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Or its vandalism, it was eventual victory, in the aftermath there was too much confusion and way too many soldiers killed, dont forget Murat was killed so was Lazar, there was no clear victory in the beginning. Later, when turkish army moved in, they finished the job, but that was over all of Kosovo, not the battle alone, so the current version is ok and valid. Besides you are from turkey and you (possibly) want to look victorious, in fact, you are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.219.50 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget that quite a few Croats fought (and died) alongside their Serbian brothers-in-arms! Mihovil 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
'on Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Field) in 1389, where the vassal troops commanded by Prince Lazar — the strongest regional ruler in Serbia at the time —killed Turkish Sultan Murat but suffered a defeat, due to the legendary "sudden departure" of Brankovic's Serbian troops' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Serbia (just for the record) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.243.17 ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You are putting your point of view which makes no sense, yea it was victory for the turks, but not at that time dude, in the long run, so do not touch this, it will remain like this, you can not claim victory over this, period. This was a draw, but it can not be called a draw because the turks did take kosovo later on, so when it says considered a draw, means that was a draw for that time. Now, whatever it says on wiki site suffered a defeat, this was lost in history, Kosovo in the long run lost to turks, let's be clear about this, but not this particular battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.146 ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It is at least a draw, but it is complicated because of long passage of time, so many were killed and turks did not make immediate progress, only in the years to come, so yea, kosovo polje was not defeat, but it was the star as the defeat of kosovo in the years to come, simple as that, but sad for the people of the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.224 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Think about it users... ok... so many articles and sources that we find on the internet were once original research, somebody wrote it, others agreed and became popular, these are golden words, original research, proven, is sometimes best there is especially in the light on a subject that is little known or information comes from one dubious and subjective source a source that has something against a particular topic or individual or even history as a whole, the golden rule are my words... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.107.1.224 (
talk •
contribs)
20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
History could be wrong many times, i do not know, i only passed by serbia, but many people outside of balkans agree with me it was draw, remember what pharaohs of the ancient egypt did and it worked for 1000's of years, they changed history and erased the names of certain pharaohs they did not like and with them all their work and achievements and many were good. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.107.220.109 (
talk •
contribs)
23:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I consider that calling the army led by prince Lazar "a Christian coalition force "or “Balkan army” is incorrect and pointless.
Why? First of all, I must stress that the army of prince Lazar surely did incorporate soldiers of other nations but Serbs, notably his ally in previous wars - Ivaniš Paližna from Hungarian Croatia and (but only MAYBE since we have no record of it) some of other Lazar's allies and relatives (his five daughters were married to neighboring princes). However, these were surely not Djuradj II Balšić (in Albanian Gyergy Balsha) a noble from Serbian Maritime or Gyergy Kastriot - this is a fact. The main problem is that in years previously to the battle Turks conquered large tracts of Balkans and secured subjection of many local lords so that not many nobles could be found to enter the war against the army led by Sultan himself. Losing such a battle would mean losing life (or at least rule). On the other hand, taking a part in the battle with significant forces would mean mustering almost all of scarce knights and sending them away from home, leaving the back vulnerable to the attacks of neighbors - which was a constant problem with divided Christian forces in those times. Therefore all those not directly endangered by the Turks and not feeling strong enough just promised not to attack those who took part in the battle. For what we know, army led by prince Lazar lined in a manner usual in these days: three sections, each one led by the noble who brought the troops - another of problems with Christian strategy against Turkish forces. The center was led by Lazar himself. One wing was commanded by Vuk Branković, Lazar's son-in-law and the ruler in whose domain the Field of Kosovo lay, and the other by Vlatko Vuković a noble of King Tvrtko of Bosnia. However, not even Bosnians were a foreign factor since in 1377 Tvrtko, a relative of the Nemanjić dynasty, was crowned king of Serbs on the tomb of St Sava in the monastery of Mileševa. Moreover, Vlatko Vuković was a noble governing the part of Bosnia called Hum which passed from Serbian to Bosnian hands only 50 years ago. Mind you that apart from living in two separate states Serbia proper and Bosnia were both inhabited mostly with Serbs. And why was it that only Vuk and king Tvrtko sent forces in battle against the Turks? Primarily since they were the most endangered: Vuk was the southernmost Serbian noble that did not subject to the Sultan while both Lazar and Tvrtko felt the Turkish atacks in previous years (smaller battles against Turks at Pločnik, Toplica and Bileća - the last one won by Vlatko Vuković). Additionally, Tvrtko - as the king of Serbs - was eager to be recognized as the leading amongst the Serb lords and therefore had the obligation to intervene. Therefore, although at the battle site there were probably present some lesser nobles from Hungary or of Albanian origin they were to small to be recorded. On the other hand, let's not forget that a significant portion of Turkish forces was made of Serbian, Greek and Albanian lords from Macedonia, Epirus and Thessaly who earlier recognized Sultan's sovereignty and many other auxiliary forces from across the Balkans and Asia Minor! And still we don't call the Ottoman army "a coalition of Turkish-Serbian-Bulgarian or whatever forces"!
And, as my last point, imagine calling each of the armies from throughout history by all the contingents that it was made of! Then the French army at Agincourt would be something like French-Genovese-Provencal and the English army would be English-Welsh-French! And what would then be French army at Borodino?!? This are the first examples that came to my mind but almost all of the larger battles in history were fought by forces to some degree made of different nationalities. So, although the people that faced Turkish forces were Christian, there is no point in calling them by so wide-ranging name. No one would say that a Christian coalition fought the Gulf War or that Napoleon in 1812 led a Roman-catholic coalition against the Orthodox or whatever.
For all of these reasons it is a nonsense calling the army led by prince Lazar by name other than "Serbs" (as opposed to "the Turks"), "Serbian forces" or "a coalition of Serb lords" at furthest. If no one opposes it (after reading this, of course), I propose the changing of this "a Christian coalition force" thing.
One more thing: there was no Serbian empire at the time. The last emperor died in 1371, which is why all the chaos erupted. I changed this immediately. -- Dultz 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Karl. Regarding the size of the forces a serious study that I read long ago and Yugoslav Military Encicilopaedia that has a good article on it put the forces as following:
Ottomans 40,000 of these 5,000 janissary, 2,500 cavalry life guards, 6,000 sipahis, 20,000 azaps and akinci (lightly armed infantry and cavalry respectfully) and 8,000 of his vassals.
Serbs 25,000 (top estimate) of these 15,000 led by prince Lazar, 5,000 of Vuk Brankovic and 5,000 by Vlatko Vukovic
The compostion of the forces I addressed above - there could have been some smaller contingents from other regions but these were too small to be mentioned by the sources. The only one mentioned is Ivan Palizna but since he was a refuge in Bosnia escaping from Hungarian king he could not muster more than a few hunrded at most, more probably less than 100 men. -- Dultz 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing: fantastic numbers and exotic compostion of troops taking part in the battle stem from (1) the importance that the battle later gained as a focal point in Serb epic and (2) from the battle fought on the same grounds in 1448. The numbers given above were made on estimates of population and the extent of territory as well as on paralels to the other battles of the period which rarely involved more then 10,000 on each side, so that, in comparisment with them, the Kosovo battle realy was huge in its day.-- Dultz 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a very reliable source that indicate sthat infact, the Turks numbered only 30,000 against a 'Serbian force' of 20,000. Moreover, the Ottomans only won when the vast majority of the Serbs defected. This would explain the 'none survivors' fact. Also, no foolish Sultan would let a deserter enter his tent without being searched and properly guarded. He was in fact, killed in the confusion of battle, when many of the desserting Serbs could have been mistaken as allies. And further more, the Serbs remained an ally / puppet state of the Ottoman empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PEOPLE! THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE BATTLE OF KOSOVO, NOT THE BATTLE OF THE WORLD! You can leave Niceae and other fights for those articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.230.65 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is rather certain/precise about the size, date and composition of the forces, when, as far as I can see, many academics are not so certain.
First, it might be worthwhile to add that some Turkish sources apparently give the date of the battle as 4 Ramadan 791 (27 August 1389), although it should be made clear that this is not the generally accepted date.
Second, the composition of the forces. The article simply states that it was Serbians vs Ottomans. From what I understand, it was not so clear cut. The Serbian side was a coalition of Balkan groups under Serbian leadership while the Ottoman forces, in addition to Ottoamans and Turkmen princes of Anatolia also included some Serb rivals of Lazar as well as Bulgarians forces under Mircea the Great of Wallachia and George Castriots, an Albanian prince. Some have also suggested that people like Marko Kraljevich of Prilep also fought on the Ottoman side. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to add this type of information to the article? Coalitions in the middle ages were not as clean cut as many 19th century historians would like to think.
Third, as for the size and relative strenghts of the forces, Serbian folklore does indeed say that the 'Serbian' forces were outnumbered. However, for what it's worth, according to Prof. Stanford J. Shaw (Prof. of Modern Turkish History at UCLA and Bilkent Uni. in Ankara, Turkey) the relative strenght (in no. of men) was the opposite, with the Ottoman forces consisting of 60,000 and the Serbian coaltion of some 100,000. I don't know how well researched his sources are (also, although he is American, he is a prof. of Turkish history in Turkey, and so might have an agenda, I don't know), but it might be worthwhile to investigate or even mention in the article. What do you think?
Finally, the article doesn't give any political/military background infro. I would be willing to add this.
So, to summarize:
1. Need to mention any other possible dates for the battle?
2. More nuanced description of the (possible) composition of the two forces?
3. How sure are we about the relative sizes of the forces?
4. Need to add any background info?
Regards KarlXII 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Nikola, Thanks for your reply. My comments as follows:
1. I'm ok with not mentioning any other dates.
2 & 3. The figures you provide certainly are more detailed than any other I have found. Since there appears to be quite a bit of speculation about the size and composition of the forces (especially on the Serbian side) it might be worthwhile to include some discussion of this in the text. I don't know anything about the Vojna enciklopedija, but claiming that it should have precendence over all other sources (while not being able to provide online or English language links or references to it) is not satisfying to me.
4. Good. In that case I think we should work to add a background to the battle (and maybe a more detailed 'Aftermath' section as well.
KarlXII
10:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I also think it would be nice to add a background Ati7 10:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Nikola (and anyone else who is interested, of course),
In light of the discussion above should the intro of the article really read:
"The battle started with Serbian noblemen and Lazar's son-in-law, noble Vuk Branković, on one wing, Lazar with heavy armor knight cavalary in the centre including German mercenaries, and Bosnian Duke Vlatko Vuković commanding the third wing of the Bosnian Serb army including Albanian (Gjergj II Balsha, Theodor II Muzaka), Hungarian, Polish knights and Knights Hospitallers."
Also, this text is not sourced, referenced or discussion in any way when there appears to be quite some uncertainty about this issue. KarlXII 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've looked through the various External links and feel that some pruning is in order, primarily to save readers having to go through numerous links with very little information. My suggestions for deletion are:
I also feel that the external link The Kosovo Battle, Excerpts from various Encyclopædiæ seems more like an entry into a political discussion about who was the victor of the battle than a valuable external source (some of the quoted encyclopedias are rather outdated and can't be seen as representative of current academic knowledge). If it is to be retained in the list, is would be as an example of previous beliefs on the topic. I'm not sure how interesting the link is. KarlXII 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why I find the inclusion of this link questionable other than as a historical record of what older encyclopedias said on the subject. Most recent research seems to be less clear cut about the outcome of the battle. KarlXII 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to look at the Encarta, Columbia and Highbeam links? KarlXII 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Lysandros, I don't agree but in a way you are right.
On one hand, most of these encyclopedias simply regurgitate the conventional wisdom, with seemingly littly effort put into trying to establish what the current view of academia is - thay take the easy route by simply updating what the previous version had. So, while their view may or may not be outdated, this really shouldn't matter in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia isn't about original research but about presenting the commonly held view (even it may be wrong, one could say). Thus, I think it best to say that there is no concensus as to the outome of the battle.
On the other hand, however, that still doesn't mean that the External links should be filled with 'useless' links with no text. Instead, they should provide more indepth material. KarlXII 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ati7, thank's for your reply.
I'm all for keeping Balkan sites neutral and free from the national POVs that so often seem to infiltrate them (my recent experience at the Srebrenica massacre article is a good example of these types of problems). Apparently the issue of the outcome of the battle has some type of ideological overtone which I'm proposing to overcome in the article by stating that the outcome is disputed and then listing the various positions. The External links shouldn't act as a covert continuation of the "who won" debate. I am alright with keeping the EB and Columbia if we get rid of the others.
Is that decided then? KarlXII 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Nikola, fine, my only comment was that the who-won discussion should not be allowed to affect the External links. As for the who-won debate, I'm proposing putting the discussion about this into a separate section in the article, as there ARE differing views and interpretations. KarlXII 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've understood that there is a bit of a controversy (at least Wikipedia) about who won the battle and from reading articles such as Emmert's article in the External lins. He writes:
He goes on to list what some other historians/experts believe:
As Wikipedia articles are not supposed to reflect original thought but what other sources say, it might be worthwhile to collect different arguments for/against, and summarize and reference them in a separate chapter (as I said earlier, I have no preference one way or another). How about that? KarlXII 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Emmert, who seems to favor the notion that at least the battle was not a defeat for the Serbs it is generally know as, continues to say that:
Emmert concludes by writing:
Your thoughts? KarlXII 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's fine, eventually it could be merged with "Aftermath". I am thinking of adding two more introductory section:
I'd also add some sidequotes to the article - I think I could find a nice one for each section but I will try not to overdue it ;) What do you think? Nikola 02:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The traditional number always repeated is 140,000 Turks and 70,000 Serbs. That's the figure mentioned, but all other are simple researches. Those numbers still today appear... even though they are criticized (and perhaps in truth overestimated). However, the current numbers are underestimated. For instance, Vlatko Vukovic led a Bosnian Army of 20,000 men alone, while Vuk Brankovic had a 10,000 strong force. -- PaxEquilibrium 11:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no map showing the location of the battle in relation to the Ottoman empire?? Starsky19 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As a historian, i do know that Bosnians helped Serbs, but do we have to use word balkan or serbian forces or a different word, remember at that time there was no bosnian muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.2.33 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this article and hope to make a contribution. One thing which strikes me when reading the article is that it is absolutely littered with references to the Vojna Encyklopedia (hope I got the spelling right). I have a couple of comments on this:
Roncevaux 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Start; "The battle started with Turkish archers shooting at Serbian cavalry which then moved into attack. They managed to break through Turkish left wing, but weren't as successful against center and right wing. Even the left wing wasn't as defeated as it was simply pushed back."
Turkish counterattack; "The Balkans coalition initially gained advantage after their first charge, which heavily damaged the Turkish wing commanded by Jakub Celebi. In the center, the Christian fighters managed to push Ottoman forces back with only Bayezid's wing holding off the forces commanded by Vlatko Vuković."
As you can see, these sections repeat the same thing with some contradictions... The only sentence who speaks of a 'Turkish counterattack' is "The Ottomans in a counter attack pushed Balkans forces back and prevailed later in the day." and this is not sufficient. Lysandros 07:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the result to "Ottoman victory" based on Britannica, which treats the battle as an overwhelming Turkish triumph. UberCryxic 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to do with nationalism, both people lost lots of men, I was born here, but I am also a little bit croatian, i know the history and this should be more or less a draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.152 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There has been some editing on the outcome.There is not enough to go on here. Please stop vandalising page.It was a draw , Okay Buffadren 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I am aware that many people wanna see the result as Ottoman victory, however a victory is a victory if and only if both sides come to that conclusion. nobody objects our victory of the second battle of kosovo or battle of manzikert. however, in case of this one, different views are present. The wikipedia is a platform to share thoughts and come to consensus, it's not a battlefield:) Ati7 09:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Note, serbia lost in kosovo battle II, this one was draw, goodness, how many times to explain this, ottomans took kosovo in the long run, duh, i am talking about one battle here!
Battle of Kosovo was not lost by the Serbs. It was kind of a draw were both armies were massacred and both Kings/Prince dead. Being much larger Ottoman Empire easily reorganised an by the time took all of Kosovo and eventually Serbia, Monte Negro took centuries to go down. You are also right that there were other countries involved by sending a military help to a Serbian army (Croatia, Bosnia, Hugary) but that was under Serbian command directly and insignificant to an entire Serbian army that was involved. Difference between Montenegro and Serbia is that Montenegro was the only Serbian land that Turks couldn't fully occupy in five century of their Balkan domination. Many things on wikipedia are wrong so often.
Kimberley Golubovic, Edinburgh—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
125.243.251.195 (
talk •
contribs)
21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This article clearly contradicts itself about the result of the battle, see the 'Outcome', 'Aftermath' and infobox sections. A 'contradict' template will be added. Lysandros 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on many of the Turkish historical records, it is believed that the Sultan was killed by Miloš Obilić who was pretending to be dead, while the Sultan was walking in the battlefield after the battle. On the other hand, in one account in Serbian records he was assassinated by Miloš Obilić, who made his way into the Turkish camp on the pretext of being a deserter and knelt before the Sultan. He stabbed him in the stomach while kneeling before him.
In all Kosovo field in cirkel of 8km it was only on Kulla, an this Kulla hawe belongt to Milosh Kopili (serb. Milos Obilic). The region of (today it was neural place wor both armys, dont forget it was a beatel called from Sulltan, no body is stupied to call a battel inseid a anamy territory, even Bush dont wount the beathel in Irak, but in Afganistan) Kosovo Hi hase came in the Saray of Sulltan to help him as vasal (the east arm is knowit in history as muslim, it was rulet from muslims and ther was not only muslims, Millosh it was one of them). During all the time the turck has maked sucses, eery thing els is onl serbian propagander. But Milosh has kiled sulltan with jatagan. The west sayd (knowied in history as chritia sied) was thingin after the Sulltan is death they have wonte the beatel. The members of the Sulltans kabinet hase killed one son of the Sulltan and one of the sonse was deklareted as Sulltan. It was not a baetel but "a masaker" over west army.
For Ottomans army this was like a air for the peopel. Simpel joop. Tvrtkos vojvoda has taked his army a way, every army witch was came for help was a way. In thate time nationalty it was not discoveried. For the peopel natonalty it was his King or Church. The peopel who belewes more to Church today are called Serbs, the peopel who respect more the tradition and the King today are Montenegrin and Albanians.
Vuk Branković, Lazar's son-in-law, controlled Kopaonik mountain, Kosovo Polje and lands toward south, including his capital Prizren and together with Andrijaš Mrnjavčević the dangerously exposed sailent of Skopje with Skopska Crna Gora mountain; he was forced to withdraw from Priština, under the Ottoman treat, who occupied the mountains east of Priština,
Betwen Prishtina and Kosovo Field is no plans and centrum of Prishtina is not more thane 8 Km from Kosovo Field. When a army like the ottomans in thate time take a plane over east side then you have taket Kosovo Polje but not Prishtina.
When you wount to make a propagander about the baettel go down there, look how it looks, wher are this "east Prishtina plans" and talk with the peopel, liesend some folks music from both sides serbian and albanian they sing the same lied in differend langueges.
Lazar and soe zadruga vojvoda was thinking thate they are going in Ottoman Banket and have taked many singers with thay too watch the Beatel and sing about the "hero", Lazar ect...
It is Vuk and not Buk, if today is Vuk than in thate time must bee BUK (Bizant- Vizant, Servia - Serbia} somthing is not clear, Lazar is bay both, albanians and serbs ho demed knows what the hell he was serb or albanian or perheps Vllah (alb. brothers). Dont tale her pallavra.
Perhaps you dont know that is Ulkiana (lat/gri Ulpiana old centrum of Justian) and Vuk hase somthink together. To finde out go and learn Albanian langueg.
If you mean he belong to servian church then he was byzantin and not a serb. And stop maken serbian nation a same with Serbian Church. We are in year 2007 not in darknis from miedel age. Balsha was member of the Serbian Church (as part of Byzantin Church) but he was albanian.
The first vasals of the Sulltans in Balkan are the members of the population from wher today is commen bom-bom for the christianity, not from Montenegro, not from Albania. In north albania and south montenegro is a same democraty like in Hommer time (see Molosen, Epir, Dardanen, Taulanten ect). They diden wountit to cooperet with Sulltan and they have pay about thate, they hase lose they citys for more thane 500 years, but not there spirit they was free from turkish cultur, Belgrade was not, it was Malsia, Calabria (italien). The paps was from this area not from Belgrade, they was maken bisnis with Sulltan. (See: Skanderbeg during this time Belgrade was dealing with Sulltan, later the Serbian Church came independent from Costatinopol and wth help of the Rusian Church they have taked the Church of Manastir (near Ohrid), Knin (Croatien, it was under Rumun Church))
Today they the members of the Serbian Church dont know to witch nationalty they belong, to witch folk . How himself Vuk Stefan Karagjiq, (Black-vitch from turkish-serbitch) the serbian writter tale as "grcki zakon" (the grece rit also east church) he dont talk about "serbian zakon".
Stop laing the peopel, and let they disede what they are they have a colektiv memory, dont trai to redirect thate with propagander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.215.72 ( talk · contribs)- 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that Murad was the only sultan who died in battle. In 1566 Suleiman I (the Magnificent) died during the siege of Szigetvár (Hungary), but not in fight, since then he was 72. Vamos ( talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Dragolub Todoroviq në veprën e tij ‘’Libri mbi Qosiqin’’ – ‘’Në mitin e Kosovës asgjë nuk është e vërtetë... Pas disfatës në Kosovë (më 1389) serbët nuk bien në robërinë turke, sepse u bënë vasalë më besnikë të turqve’’.... ‘’Serbët bashkëkohorë nuk e njohin historinë e vërtetë, ata janë vetëm nën ndikimin e historisë mitologjike, e cila ndër serbët është jashtëzakonisht e zhvilluar...
IN English:
Dragolub Todorovic in his work "The book over Cosic" - In miting in Kosovo is nothing truth ... After After losing the beathel (Aftermath} (in 1389) they was not under the turkish presion, beacose they became the best turkish vasals .... The erbs of today they dont know the real history, they are only under the nfluenc of the mitologie history, witch by the serb is extrem developen....
The articl is identic with the Sllobodan Milosheviq fim over this beatel and summeried with the mitologie created during the metng in Kosovo (befor the last War)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.6.205 ( talk · contribs)- 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
A.F. Gilferding, the russian konsil in Bosnia (19 centery) in his boock : Putovanje po Hercegovini, Bosni i Staroj Srbiji, Sarajevo, 1972, s.241-245
’Serbët e vjetër nuk kanë pasur mjaft talent dhe kanë pasur pak aftësi për ta kuptuar e shkruar historinë... Beteja e Kosovës (1389) për njerëzit e arsimuar ka shërbyer si temë pallavrash gjoja shkencore të divoçme.
The Old Serbains the dident have a talent (intelegenc) and they diden know to understand and write hiytory ... The Beattel of Kosovo (1389) for the edeuketid (non-alphabetisem) was a "pallavra" teme like a argument for the bravery history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi ( talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.176.6.205 ( talk · contribs)- 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a notice, anon's additions are completely out of whack, and I do intend to remove them when he leaves the article. Nikola 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Serbia was forced to become an Ottoman vassal so the Ottomans can claim victory since they pretty-much achieved their immediate offensive goal, however the loss of their monarch and subsequent internal unrests that significantly slowed their advance into Europe are also consequences of this battle and qualify it as a Pyrrhic victory.
Veljko Stevanovich 17. 4. 2007. 18:30 UTC+1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.120.29 ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And don't just describe them as Christian armies led by the Serbs. There were significant Albanian-Kosovar, Hungarian, Romanian-Wallachian... numbers that fought in this battle. They have to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.23.196 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the obvious Albanian, Serbian and Turkish languages (the nations involved), how is this important? Why would anybody be interested in what this war is called in German, Estonian or Swedish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.45.242 ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Grb Hrebeljanovica.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The correct name of this battle would be "Battle of Kosovo Field" (battle of the field of blackbirds), not "Battle of Kosovo" (strictly, "battle of the blackbirds") -- this isn't a battle surrounding the Kosovo region (like Battle of Britain), the battle is just named after the field where it took place, " Kosovo Field". This may be splitting hairs, but I do think we would be more accurate in moving this to the longer title. dab (𒁳) 17:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP REVERTING HISTORY !!!!!!!!!! BALKAN LORDS COALITION ARMY !!!????? WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS !? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK.that's no problem
The Battle of Kosovo: Early Reports of Victory and Defeat
by Thomas A. Emmert
from Kosovo: Legacy of a Medieval Battle
...On 28 June 1389 the combined Serbian forces from the territories governed by Prince Lazar and Vuk Brankovic together with auxiliary troops sent by King Tvrtko of Bosnia faced Sultan Murad and his army on the field of Kosovo. It had been eighteen years since King Vukasin and Despot Ugljesa failed in their attempt to drive the Turks out of the Balkan Peninsula, and now the Serbian forces were definitely on the defensive. Given the divisiveness among Serbian lords which generally characterized the decades following Dusan's death, the fact that Lazar, Vuk, and Tvrtko were able to conclude an alliance against the Turks was reason for at least some optimism. No one, however, could have known that the struggle was to become a pivotal moment in the history of the Serbian people.
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....
Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1986, Vol. , page 969
Entry: KOSOVO, Battle of:
Quote:
Kosovo also spelled Kossovo (June 28 [June 15, old style], 1389), BATTLE fought at Kosovo Polje [polje = field in Serbo-Croatian] (Field of Blackbirds), Serbia (now in Yugoslavia), between the armies of the Serbian Prince Lazar and the Turkish forces of the Ottoman Sultan Murad I (reigned (1360-89). ...
Thomas Emmert
The Kosovo Legacy
On 28 June, 1389 an alliance of Serbian and Bosnian forces engaged a large Ottoman army on the plain of Kosovo in southern Serbia. When the battle was over, Prince Lazar, the commander of the Christian army, and Murad, the ruler of the Ottomans, lay dead. In the years and centuries that followed, the battle and the martyred Prince Lazar became the subjects of a rich literature of popular legend and epic poetry that has profoundly influenced Serbian historical consciousness. The bard, the storyteller, and, eventually, the traditionalist historian depicted the Battle of Kosovo as the catastrophic turning point in the life of Serbia; it marked the end of an independent, united Serbia and the beginning of 500 years of oppressive Ottoman rule. The legend of the battle became the core of what we may call the Kosovo ethic, and the poetry that developed around the defeat contained themes that were to sustain the Serbian people during the long centuries of foreign rule....
Ok in this source we can see the word alliance...but not BALKAN LORDS COALITION ARMY (hungarians,albanians,etc)...note that king Tvrtko of Bosnia was Serbian king or "King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside"...you can see that in article Tvrtko I of Bosnia on this site...
Stephen Tvrtko I (Serbian: Стефан, Croatian and Bosnian: Stjepan) (1338 – March 10, 1391), was a ruler of medieval Bosnia. He ruled in 1353–1366 and again in 1367–1377 as Ban and in 1377–1391 as the first Bosnian King. He also took the Serbian crown. Tvrtko was a member of the House of Kotromanić.
Tvrtko I was an able ruler and his state included most of Bosnia as well as the neighbouring territories. He transformed the country from an autonomous banate into an independent and prosperous kingdom. After he became the King, he added the title Stephanos (Stefan, the crowned one), and Miroslav or Mircea[citation needed].
The title of King Tvrtko was "King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seacoast".
...
Tvrtko had, parallel with Prince Lazar, plans to rebuild the Serbian Realm. He fulfilled three key conditions to become the Serbian ruler:
Tvrtko crowned himself on 26 October 1377 as Stefan Tvrtko I by the mercy of God King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands. Today, some historians consider that he was crowned in Monastery of Mileševa, even there is no evidence of that [1]. Another possibility, supported by archaeological evidences, is that he was crowned in Mile near Visoko in the church which was built in time of Stephen II Kotromanić's reign, where he was also buried alongside his uncle Stjepan II.[2][3] Stefan was the standard title of the rulers from the House of Nemanjić. In 1375–1377 Tvrtko created a unique genealogy that explicitly stated his descendency from the House of Nemanjić.
And Stefan the King, brother of Milutin the King, Uroš II, that held Srem, with his wife Katalina, daughter of the Hungarian King Ladislaus, birthed Urošica and Jelisaveta. And Jelisaveta had three sons: Stefan the Bosnian Ban, Ninoslav and Vladislav. And Vladislav had Tvrtko the Ban and Vuk.
Tvrtko assessed the Double crown (Sugubi vijenac) as King of Bosnia, his native God-given land and King of Serbia, the land of his Serbian forefathers. Logothet Vladoje abandoned the Serbian throne and went to work for Tvrtko, for whom he modelled his ruling ideology identical to the Serbian. King Stephen Tvrtko took the titles from the Serbian throne and gave them to the Bosnian nobility. His crowning was recognized by the most powerful noblemen in Serbia, Princes Lazar Hrebeljanović and Vuk Branković. Although the Hungarian King recognized his crowning, he continued to call him Ban until his death in 1382. By this, Tvrtko officially declared the independence of the Kingdom of Bosnia and Serbia..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've
been asked to look into the recent edit warring on this page. Here are a few thoughts. Regarding
this edit. Zakipfc has made it 13 times in the last 18 days. It has been reverted by
User:Moncrief,
User:DeadEyeArrow, and
User:Cradel. On top of that has been the intervention of
User:66.99.2.244,
User:69.149.164.249 and others on various sides. It seems to me that the removal of special characters is an accidental product of some sort of technical limitation on Zakipfc's end. His edits are not vandalism. Rather there are two disputed points: was the battle a victory or a draw? was it fought by Serbian forces or a Batltic Balkan (sorry, typo) coalition? I certainly can't answer either question, but rather than continuing to revert Zakipfc, I suggest that anyone who disagrees with him prove him wrong using reliable sources. Zakipfc, I suggest that rather than continuing to edit war, you prove everyone else wrong, using reliable sources. The discussion in the above section is a great start. Just my 2 cents.
Canderson7 (
talk)
17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Kosovo was battle between Ottomans and '''SERBS'''.PERIOD.Somebody is trying to revert clear historical facts.In the same time as this article is changed (serbian forces changed to Balkan Coalition Army) on You-Tube I saw Albanian video about Battle of Kosovo where their key point that battle wasn't fought only by Serbians was "albanian flag" under Serbian soldier Pavle Orlovic on the Uros Predic's picture Kosovo Maiden.Well,for their information,Albanian flag- Skenderbeg's eagle is from 15th century and Kosovo Battle was fought in 1389.Also somebody said that Hungarians also were involved into the battle of Kosovo.For their information few days after the battle Hungary invaded and occupied Belgrade.They held it for short time.
About battle's outcome we can discuss.Serbian and international History says that Battle of Kosovo was long-term defeat for Serbia because country couldn't recover from suffering heavy loses.But one,five,ten days or even a year or more after the battle I don't think that anybody in Ottoman Empire thought that they won the battle.Both sides suffered heavy losses,both sides have lost their leaders in combat.How anybody can say that battle was "Clear Ottoman victory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know what it means but that was definitely not Pyrrhic victory..Years Later Ottomans achieved their goals because of Kosovo Battle so we can not say that it was Pyrrhic victory.I am OK with draw in military terms but long-term defeat for Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK.I think that article is now close to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakipfc ( talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)