Talk:Battle of Kosovo

Decisive Ottoman Victory

This article says: Result Inconclusive Are you joking? :) Yes, at the end of the battle Murad I was killed but the Turks already won the battle then. Please read this article The Battle of Ankara, the Serbs fought against Timur (the enemy of The Ottomans)... Why? Because The Turks defeated the Serbs in 1389, and Serbia became a vassal state of The Ottomans. The Serbs were under The Ottoman rule. Böri (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I answered at the battle of Marica talk since I didn't edit this article.

--Clanedstino (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine says that both sides were wiped, so it was inconclusive. Serbia became a vassal state later because Turkish brought more soldiers from the East, while Serbs had spent all their army. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Another reference states the Turkish victory... http://books.google.com/books?id=tYIxK0Mo1wwC&pg=PA23&dq=battle+of+kosovo&hl=en&ei=FGITTtfqFIKV8QOmkISbDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBThu#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20kosovo&f=false

Are you guys serious with this? Kosovo was one of the great decisive battles in history! It's of huge national importance to the Serbs because they lost, and with it, their nationhood. I really can't believe this point has to be defended. The Ottoman army was not wiped out. That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is becoming totally useless for historical information. What's next? Mohacs was a draw? Why not Lepanto, too? The Ottomans didn't "wipe out" Serbia because they had no intention of doing so. The whole point of the battle was to prevent a Christian league from forming against the Ottomans. They accomplished this, made Serbia a vassal, and left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpiccone (talk • contribs) 07:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Turkish victory

When two armies engage in a battlefield, and one army is totally annihilated and the other stands its ground no matter how much casualty it suufers, the one who stood its ground is victorious. No need to argue that. One can search for "biased" sources and actually find them, but this won't change the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Both armies were annihilated. It was the Serbs who stood their ground (Turks couldn't conquer Kosovo). Please provide a source saying that Turks won the battle, or stop removing the information. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Prof. John Van Antwerp Fine, who doesn't seem to be writing jokes, states the following (pp. 410-11):
[The battle of Kosovo] resulted in the bulk of both armies being wiped out... Thus since the Turks also withdrew, one can conclude the battle was a draw... Thus, though the Serbs did not lose the battle, in the long run, over the next two or three years, they lost the war because they were no longer able to resist the Turks effectively...
I suppose the result could be stated as: "Inconclusive, long-term strategic victory for the Ottomans".

IP 217.131.129.81 has repeatedly removed cited text from the article, and should be warned not to do that. Though judging from the IP's talk page, simple warnings may not work with that POV pusher. Vladimir (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 217.131.129.81, it is not a shame that you lose of the Ottoman army so don't be so nationalist! --Vinie007 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What a silly comment (to say the least). I only cited John V A Fine. Or are you implying that Prof. Fine is a Serb nationalist? Also, this is not a forum, with whom you agree or disagree means .... nothing. Vladimir (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Another source clearly stating that the battle was an Ottoman victory. http://books.google.com/books?id=Cmm4J2Ug4o8C&pg=PA1994&dq=battle+of+kosovo&hl=en&ei=iV8TTuOoB4Kl8QP4nZyzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20kosovo&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.129.81 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one: http://books.google.com/books?id=tYIxK0Mo1wwC&pg=PA23&dq=battle+of+kosovo&hl=en&ei=FGITTtfqFIKV8QOmkISbDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBThu#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20kosovo&f=false

78.191.170.42 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Since you kindly asked to be provided with a source claiming that Turks won the war, I found a nice and tidy source to enlighten you. It's from Dictionary of Wars,by George Childs Kohn, p. 95. "A Christian army of Serbs, Bulgars, Bosnians, Albanians, and others was decisively defeated by the Ottomans at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389." There you go, it is a pretty-well-known and unbiased book, feel free to use it. (http://ebookee.org/Dictionary-of-Wars_374476.html)

Political background

King Llazar troops were in alliance with Murad and participated in the Battle of Konya (1386). After that Llazar denounced his allegiance to Ottomans and tried to form a Balkan coalition. He tried to get help from Holy Roman Empire and declared himself a vassal of Sigismund. A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on Europe By Kenneth M. Setton, Harry W. Hazard, Norman P. Zacour p. 246-247

Who is Etienne the person doesn't exist the son of Lazar is Stefan Lazaravic and his daughter is called Olivera

I got an notice that my changes on this page were not constructive?! Firstly, who are persons Etienne and Marie Despina. Did the you mean Stefan and Olivera? Secondly, Gjergj II Balsha is Đurađ II Stracimirović or Đurađ II. He was Serbian nobleman that controlled land called Zeta. He was not Albanian. There is no prof that he send any troupes to Kosovo no matter he was a Serbian nobleman. Thirdly who are Dhimiter Jonima and Teodor II Muzaka (who died in the battle together with 4000 of his men) is putting that constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.203.3 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are adding data without any reference to support it. Then, after many edits like this you started to manipulate some data, and all this without any explanation or edit summary. Please explain your data with references and try to use edit summaries to explain what are you doing, and why. For further help about Wikipeia don`t hesitate to contact me or ask for help from anybody. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Did person who added this data which I am referring add any references? If you are not interested in objective article than I see what is you stand about this disinformation. I have no need to argue and I will not change the article any more I only hope that my comment will be read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.203.3 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to respect the NPOV. If the article already has some data without a reference, if you are adding data to it, you should add references too. I am not arguing, I am just asking for some references since you added a lot of data, and I hoped that later you will add some reference, but you did`t. Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:AGF. You are more than welcome to contribute to any article but please try to use edit summaries and references. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

This part should be removed from the lead and elaborated in the body of the article, as it's controversial and minor. Especially the second sentence. According to some sources, contingents of Wallachians, Hungarians, Croatians, Poles, Albanians, Franks, Czechs, and Bulgarians were also part of this army. Claims about such a coalition, however, first appeared about eighty years after the battle in a book written by an Ottoman author, Oruç of Edirne, and were repeated by later Turkish historians. --Kebeta (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, these claims are controversial, but the existence of these claims is a fact, which is stated in the first sentence. Also, there's nothing controversial in the second sentence - that's a historical fact. It's another question whether the claims deserve to be mentioned in the lead or not. Maybe not.

Regarding your changes to the lead, "Christian" is a very broad term, and might not be very relevant in this case, like some other broad terms ("European", "Balkan", etc.). Thomas A. Emmert states the following: 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.

John Van Antwerp Fine: Thus the Serbian army was composed of three contingents under these three leaders [Lazar, Branković, and Vuković], none of whom was then a Turkish vassal... The Turks advanced into Serbia in June 1389 and the Serb forces marched to meet them. The two armies camped at Kosovo Polje. Lazar commanded the Serbs and Sultan Murad I commanded in person the Ottoman troops... Thus, though the Serbs did not lose the battle, in the long run, over the next two or three years, they lost the war.

We know that Tvrtko I was the King of the Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands. The title can be shortened as "King of the Serbs and of Bosnia" (but you removed "the Serbs" from it). See also Fine (p.413): It should also be noted that Vuk was the last Serb prince (excluding the Serb nobles under Tvrtko) to accept Ottoman suzerainity. To be precise, Vlatko Vuković was from Zachlumia, which was ruled by Tvrtko, but was a territorial entity separate from Bosnia. Vladimir (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nobody dispute that the Serbs were a major party on the christian side, and that this battle is particularly important to Serbian history. However, you can't put Vlatko Vuković's participation under Serbian name (regerding Fine - Bosnia wasn't Turkish vassal either). The fact is that Battle of Maritsa was a main Serbian/Turkish battle (aldo less known).
• These others: "Wallachians, Hungarians, Croatians, Poles, Albanians, Franks, Czechs, and Bulgarians" should be removed from the lead, because such a detail description of the army is not suitable for the lead. Maybe "christian mercenaries/contingents" or something like that, to make it shorter and clearer. The other sentence "Claims about such a coalition, however, first appeared about eighty years after the battle in a book written by an Ottoman author, Oruç of Edirne, and were repeated by later Turkish historians." should be removed not only from the lead, but from entire article, as nonsense. (Do you have a report from the battle before Oruç of Edirne to confirm that others didn't participated, and that only army was a Serbian one?)
• As for Tvrtko I of Bosnia, he was a Bosnian king. Later he added King of Rascia and then King of Dalmatia and Croatia...Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor was by the grace of God elected Holy Roman Emperor, forever August, King in Germany, of Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Rama, Serbia, Galicia, Lodomeria, Cumania and Bulgaria, etc. Prince-Infante in Spain, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Margrave of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburg, the Upper and Lower Silesia, Württemberg and Teck, Prince of Swabia, Princely Count of Habsburg, Tyrol, Ferrette, Kyburg, Gorizia, Landgrave of Alsace, Margrave of the Holy Roman Empire, Enns, Burgau, the Upper and Lower Lusatia, Lord of the Wendish March, Pordenone and Salins, etc. etc. So by your logic when Ferdinand went to battle, that was a Serbian army? And BTW, Vlatko Vuković was as much Croatian as Serbian (read Bosnian). Stjepan Vukčić Kosača who was born after Vlatko died, was the first of Kosača's who distinguish himself as Herzog of Saint Sava (because of internal Bosnian dispute). Kebeta (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Following the nomenclature used in the cited sources (Fine, Emmert), the army can be called Serbian. However, I'll reword the sentence to include Tvrtko and his Bosnian contingent along with Lazar right from the start.
• As I said, the mention of these troops can be removed from the lead. They are mentioned and explained in the main text. They should remain enumerated as they are, and not replaced by some vague phrase, like "christian mercenaries/contingents". Oruç's book appeared in c. 1467, and there are reports about the battle that appeared before it, including a text by an Ottoman author, Ahmedi. None of these earlier reports mentioned or implied a "Christian coalition" of all those nations. So, Oruç of Edirne is the first author who suggested such a coalition, and that sentence states it quite clearly. Your comment on it is a nonsense.
• You wrote that Tvrtko was first a Bosnian king, and later added King of Rascia and then King of Dalmatia and Croatia. First he was ban of Bosnia. On the day when he was crowned king, he took the title Kralj Srbljem, Bosni, Pomorju, Humskoj zemlji, Donjim Krajem, Zapadnim Stranam, Usori i Podrinju. No mention of Dalmatia and Croatia (though this is maybe how you interpret it). In his title he first refers to Serbs, then to Bosnia. So, if we want to shorten his long title, it's quite legitimate to say "King of the Serbs and (of) Bosnia". He regarded himself as the continuation of the House of Nemanjić. Your comparison with Ferdinand I is ridiculous in this case, as is ridiculous your interpretation of "my logic". And to repeat once more the fact that Vlatko Vuković was from Zachlumia, which was ruled by Tvrtko, but was a territorial entity separate from Bosnia. By this I did not assert that he was either bosnian or croatian or serbian. Stick to the facts, your interpretations are of no interest. Vladimir (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Tvrtko's title, you were probably referring to the one he accepted after the Battle of Kosovo. But in 1389 his title was still King of the Serbs, of Bosnia, etc... OK, I've removed those two sentences from the lead. Vladimir (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pleased that you have improved the article by your latest edits, However I do not agree with anything that you have said while explaining your edits, but this is not a place for that (I think). I can't resist not to write one thing do, above you have stated "It should also be noted that Vuk was the last Serb prince (excluding the Serb nobles under Tvrtko) to accept Ottoman suzerainity. To be precise, Vlatko Vuković was from Zachlumia, which was ruled by Tvrtko, but was a territorial entity separate from Bosnia.", and after that you have stated "And to repeat once more the fact that Vlatko Vuković was from Zachlumia, which was ruled by Tvrtko, but was a territorial entity separate from Bosnia. By this I did not assert that he was either bosnian or croatian or serbian." What are the facts here, and what are my interpretations? BTW, if you think that it's quite legitimate to say that Tvrtko was "King of the Serbs and (of) Bosnia", you should try to rename the title of that article...:-) BTW, Kebeta (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I did not intend to get into a discussion here, on Vuković's "ethnicity" or "nationality". The sentences that you cite were not ordered in that sequence with the intention to suggest what you concluded from them (i.e. how you interpreted their meaning). Yes, it's quite legitimate to say that Tvrtko was "King of the Serbs and of Bosnia" (see his full title in that time), but I don't say that it is obligatory to use that form. And really, I don't care about that article's title :) Vladimir (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Victory

i changed it. it is clear that most of the things here was writen by a serbian nationalist.i dont know what you guys are reading in serbian text books but international sources are clear ,it is an Ottoman victory . after this victory ottomans took over much of the areas at balkans. please do not write here bias comments .this is wikipedia not a fictional storyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.203.241 (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That was the effect in the long-term conflict, not the actual result of the battle. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Facts deleted hidden from this article

It seems that this article has been hijacked by people who want to lead the article towards the results they like. It is a fact which is found in every major western academic book, and also in most Yugoslav history books, that many Albanian princes and Albanian fighters participated in the Battle of Kosovo, fighting alongside Lazar and against the Ottomans. I added just few of the sources you can find on this fact, but they were immediately deleted. It seems that someone doesn't like facts and history, but wants to go on with myths and legends. I cited the book, "The history of Serbia", and the Encyclopedia of World Conflicts. This article is too much WP:POV and WP:PSCI. (Edvin (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please add a primary source. See Battle_of_Kosovo#Notes where it is described: The participation of Teodor Muzaka and other Albanians is suggested by a family history of the Muzaka (Musachi) family,[25] written in Naples in c. 1515 by John Musachi, who stated the following: "Lazar, the Despot of Serbia, [...] and Theodore Musachi, (Theodore Musachi is the younger brother of John Musachi's father, Gjin. According to the chronicle, Theodore died in the Battle of Kosovo, about 125 years before his nephew wrote the chronicle.) and the other Lords of Albania united and set off for battle, which the Christians lost." --Zoupan (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't label the participation of Romanians/Albanians etc. as mythological nor has it been dismissed by any of them i.e source misrepresentation. Btw in post-Milosevic era historiography even Serb historians aren't using such labels, but they consider it overemphasized--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Elsie is misrepresented. He says Musachi's source is of no great scholarship; this does not mean that it is not true.
• The note says: Claims about such a coalition of Christian rulers first appeared about eighty years after the battle in a book written by an Ottoman author, Oruç of Edirne, and were repeated by later Turkish historians. Noel Malcolm, in his book Kosovo: A Short History says this: The earliest Ottoman accounts written in the fifteenth century, do refer to Albanians in Lazar's army; they also list many other ethnic components. One refers to mercenaries from Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Hungary; another adds to that list soldiers from Wallachia (part of Romania), and Bulgarians, Czechs, and Franks (western Europeans); Neşri, synthesizing several earlier versions, includes all fo the above. [1]
• As for Musachi, Malcolm says: There is one valuable piece of evidence that Albanians did take part: an early-sixteenth-century family history of an Albanian noble family, the Muzaka (or "Musachi"), records that Teodor Muzaka brought "a large band of Albanians" to join Lazar's army, together with "other Albanian lords", and that he was killed in the battle. Many other details in this memoir are verifiably accurate so this may be trustworthy too. [2]
• Malcolm is a reliable historian with a fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford and received a DPhil from Trinity College, Cambridge. His interpretation should be sound and, from what I can tell, it is not accurately represented in the article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• No sources mention Teodor Muzaka, or any Albanian lords, as having participated in the battle, only Musachi, who also calls Prince Marko the King of Bulgaria. Elsie does say that Musachi's source is of no great scholarship.
• Noel Malcolm, on the beginning of the page: "There is widespread disagreement about the composition of the armies. Serbian historians, for example, make little or no mention of Albanian forces in Lazar's army, while Albanian historians give them a prominent place" - he never says that Lazar's army had Albanians in it, only about the Albanian claim/theory, and watch his wording. // He then continues, with saying (Croatian-English translation): "on the other hand, Albanian historical books claim that Serb-Albanian Đerđ Balšić, whom they treat as a pure Albanian person, also participated, which is fully and surely untrue. The only foundation to such a claim is the record of the early Ottoman historiographer Nešri, who, seeking to justify Murat's conquest in 1389, gives a wide elaborate tale of broken promises and trust between the Balšići, Lazar and Tvrtko. As we have seen, this tale is suspicious in the case of Lazar, and the known animosity between Tvrtko and Balšići make it even less possible. In any case, it was proven for nearly hundred years that Balšić most likely was at Ulcinj, on the Montenegrin coast, at the time of the battle."
• Noel Malcolm, after Gaius' "Neşri, synthesizing several earlier versions, includes all fo the above"; "On the other hand, Turkish authors hoped to increase the number and significance of Lazar's army, which, according to them, was far more stronger than Murat's, as to display the Turkish victory even more shining: the earliest of these statements simply say that Lazar composed his army "of all those who lived in the west". According to Nešri, Lazar gathered that great of an army, three times bigger than the Ottoman, so that his people were completely convinced in a victory and so they spent the night prior to the battle drinking themselves into ~coma. These Ottoman claims cannot be trusted. Of course, there may have been people of various countries in Lazar's army; Serbian rulers were always dependent on mercenaries in their military capaigns (The fact of Dušan's numerous personal groups composed of Germans). The participation of Hungarians is the most likely, considering that Lazar had long near relationship with his northern neighbours and that one of his daughters married a Hungarian nobleman. However, the major part of his army was most likely composed of his soldiers, Vuk Branković's and Bosnian military commander Vlatko Vuković's people."
• Željko Fajfrić 1: "Lazar could not count on Wallachian voivode Mirčeta as he was in war with the Hungarians in Poland, nor on Bulgarian Emperor Šišman. Even more ungrounded is the claim that Albanians aided Lazar. All the later mentions, particularly the Turkish, where it is claimed that Lazar managed to gather the Bulgarians, Albanians, Wallachians, and even Germans and Czechs, are the commonest of fabrications which have the intention to exaggerate the size of Lazar's forces."
• Željko Fajfrić 2; quoting from a 15th-century Serbian chronicle Koporinski letopis: "Emperor Murat, took all of Greece and Bulgaria, and crossed [those lands], bringing countless mass with him: sons of Hagarenes (?) with Tatars, Carmeans (?) and Sarchanites (?), Greeks and Bulgars and Albanians". - Albanians in the Ottoman army.

Can we conclude that these statements cannot be seen as true, but at the same time be worthy of adding to annotations-section?--Zoupan (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

References

• I can agree that those multinational forces (ie. Bulgarians, Wallachians, etc.) did not participate but treating them as mythological is not the proper way to deal with them. The fact is that Ottoman historians said that they participated and that should be taken with a grain of salt.
• I have never disputed that Gjergj Balsha (Malcolm's spelling in the English version) did not participate and you are correct to point out that Malcolm does not agree with his participation.
• Malcolm, however, says that Musachi's work is to be trusted (Many of the other details in this memoir are verifiably accurate, so this claim may well be trustworthy too). Elsie never says that Musachi was wrong, but that his work is of no great scholarship. The same could be said of many primary sources which are still used by modern historians. Also, Ottoman historians say that Albanians participated and gives his source as Selami Pulaha's Lufta Shqiptaro-Turke në shekullin XV; burime Osmane. I do not have access to this book so I hope that someone could find this. The fact that Albanians participated is not unlikely considering that Albanians lived in Kosovo and some Albanian nobles had possessions in western Kosovo.
• You also pointed out that Malcolm sees it as especially likely that Hungarians participated (and even conjectures that Milosh Kobilic was an Hungarian knight) but Hungarians are only mentioned once for an event that happened in 1459 in the article.
• Kristo Frashëri in his book on Skanderbeg gives several Ottoman chronicler who mentions participation from Albanian forces or nobles (he also cites Pulaha). Here they are (in Albanian spelling):

1. Shukrullauh (15th century) mentions that Albanian forces participated in the battle.
2. Enver (15th century) mentions that the Serbs fought alongside Albanians, Bosnians, and Romanians along with others.
3. Idris Bitlisi mentions that Balsha had 50,000 soldiers on the field and Neshriu says 90,000. Frashëri of course considers these numbers inflated.
4. In a Turkish chronicle about Dhimitër Jonima (Yund-oglu Dimitriye), he was described as a Herculean figure in the battle.
5. Jorgji says that Balsha played a key role in Lazar's council.

• Frashëri also makes mention of a Greek chronicle written from the Patriarchate of Constantinople by Jeraks (Albanian spelling). In the chronicle, it mentions leaders from Arvanitia (Arbëria), Dardania (Kosovo), Misia, Akrocerauni (Himara), Epirus (including southern Albania) and the Adriatic coast, which Frashëri says is the Balsha. He sources Bibliotheca græca Medii Ævi which seems to compile primary sources.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is a consensus that Jonima did take part in the battle.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Where?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources saying that he did:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)