Talk:Battle of Kosovo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Feedback

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)

On the article's name

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)

I disagree, I disagree ;) I've just checked, the "Battle of Kosovo" is more frequently used in both English and Serbian. Nikola 08:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could we at least put something in the title to indicate that we are talking about the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, not any of the more recent ones? Also, my understanding is that what you have written is one of several plausable interpretations, but that the facts of the situation are lost to history. Can we put something on other tellings of this?2toise 06:08, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could we at least put something in the title to indicate that we are talking about the 1389 Battle of Kosovo, not any of the more recent ones?

You could putt alternate names in the title, but please don't change the name of the page - untill articles on these other battles are made. And even then, I think that this page should stay, and disambiguation should be at Battle of Kosovo (disambiguation).

Also, my understanding is that what you have written is one of several plausable interpretations, but that the facts of the situation are lost to history. Can we put something on other tellings of this?

I haven't wrote the article. I know that there are several interpretations for each paragraph of this page, and the maps of thebattle could be drawn as well, but I never get to to this. Nikola 07:36, 30 October 2003 (UTC)

Historical context

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 plan to add a lot to the article when I have the time. Nikola 15:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can see in Ottoman sources, they claim the Ottoman coalition's number was smaller than the Serbian coalition..

So the mean, both parties about equal should be fair --Kahraman 12:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't know that that's a great way to look at it, we're looking for historical truth, not trying to haggle. It's really very unlikely that the Serbs, which had already suffered a catastrophic defeat at Maritsa 18 years earlier, could have put together an army to equal the Ottoman one, even after adding the Bosnian troops under Vlatko Vukovic. I doubt anybody was around counting men, but any 14th century battle that featured the sovereigns of both adversaries had to be pretty damn significant, and had to feature the biggest force either of them could muster. --tracer_bullet 00:05, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

If you are looking for the truth you are in such a wrong place :-) I think it was pretty fair. Then again, everbybody has an opinion.--Kahraman 16:22, 25 December 2004 (UTC)

Results of the war

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)

Battle numbers

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's death

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)

Equal?

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)

actually the Turkish sources claim the reverse, so a 3 to 1 outnumbered Ottoman soldiers. I think this is closer to the hictory; there was an alliance of 5 kingdoms, the albanians, the serbian king,saxons, bosnians and hungarians against the alliance of kingdom of ottomans and the prince of serbia (5:2). Don't you think so?--Kahraman 11:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, it's not like each member of the coalition contributed exactly the same amount of soldiers. Let me walk you through this for the zillionth time: Serbia had lost the bulk of its adult male population at Maritsa; the Ottoman Empire was, to begin with, far more populous, and in any battle featuring its sovereign and both of his sons, was sure to have brought along as many troops as they could muster; Lazar had some mercenaries, but to say that Hungarians and Saxons (I don't know where to even begin to tell you what's wrong with using "Bosnians" in this context) fought is simply historically inaccurate - just like there were Swedes participating in WWII, but we still say that Sweden on the whole didn't; finally the point is to discern truth, and not give equal weighting to each disparate source with its wild claims - would you average the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust between all the different sources?

Most reliable historical records point to a heavily outnumbered Christian army. I'm willing to go without a 3:1 specification, but barring a cogent counterpoint, I am going to change the article to reflect the Ottoman army's numerical superiority at least in a qualitative way. --tracer_bullet 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Size of The Soldiers

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)

In nearly every historical battle, we face such a situation. The thing you say is very similar to the number of Persians(old sources claimed the Persian Army was 1,000,000) in the battle of Thermopylae. Actually the Persian army could contain a maximum 200,000 soldiers due to resources. In the period which the Battle of Kosovo took place both sides didn't have the power to gather forces like 70,000-140,000. The Ottoman Army became that powerful during and after the Fall of Constantinople. In my opinion, the numbers given in the article, in a sense, are true. With respect, the noble member of Kayı Tribe, Deliogul 10:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish army was Very small until they captured the Balkans. The military consisted mostly european and african slave warriors during the 13th century and forward to the 19th century. The Turks did not have Janissares or other slaves during the 12th century. Only Ottoman Turkish tribes fought during this period —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.78.122 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Assassination of Murad I

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)

Turkish sources are considered incorrect because after the battle the sultan would have no reason to enable Milos to approach him, while during the battle he would, as Milos might have carried important information. Nikola 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It writes he was assassinated by an injured Serbian soldier, while inspecting the battlefield after the battle. At least we agree this "Serbian forces crushing the Ottoman line and Miloš Obilić assassinating Murad in his tent" thing is a myth. Actually this whole article requires a rewrite if the author wants to be taken seriously.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:23, 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)

Thank you for providing all this information. Apperantly you have plenty of knowledge about the subject and I trust in your good faith. It would be great if you could rewrite this article. I really don't have the time to go through sources for this and educate myself on the subject, but I can provide you minor helps. What do you think?

As for Murad I's assassination, as I said Turkish history books suggest he was assassinated by a wounded Serbian soldier, while he was inspecting the battlefield after the battle. But I can e-mail some Turkish historians about this if you want, and if they reply, I get back to you.

Also Battle of Kosova has an important part in Turkish mythology as well since most Turks believe Turkish flag was inspired by this battle; it cost the lives of many and Beyazıd was inspired to use the moon and stars' reflection on the battlefield of pool of blood as the state flag, that is also modern Turkish flag.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing all this information. Apperantly you have plenty of knowledge about the subject and I trust in your good faith. It would be great if you could rewrite this article. I really don't have the time to go through sources for this and educate myself on the subject, but I can provide you minor helps. What do you think?

I am not historian myself, and I too can only trust or not trust others who are. I don't know if I would violate the copyright of the original author (Petar Tomac, a WW II Croat- and later Yugoslav- military officer and military historian) of the article linked above if I was to undertake the translation to english. I don't know what is the official stance on rewording and chopping original work. Just in case, here is what you could find: some bio or at least correct inscription for names of following Ottoman nobleman and historians mentioned in Tomac's work, former most probably taken from Neshri's original text:

Urudz ( Urudge? )a historian

Çandarlı Ali Pasha, Murad's Grandvezir,

Gazi Evrenos Bey, (we have got him in Wikipedia!)

Yahshi Bey,

Shahin Bey,

Issa Bey, (there is a Wikipedia article on Isa Beg Isakovic, but it seems to me that he would be either too young to command in battle in 1389. or too old to rule Bosnia in 1463.)

Sarudga(?)-Pasha

Eyne Bey Subasha,

Kara Mukhbil,

Indgendgik Balaban,

Tovudgah Balaban

"yaya" (infantryman?) Shir Merd

As for Murad I's assassination, as I said Turkish history books suggest he was assassinated by a wounded Serbian soldier, while he was inspecting the battlefield after the battle. But I can e-mail some Turkish historians about this if you want, and if they reply, I get back to you.

I have found some of that (and it's in english, too!) here: http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/emmert.htm There I found It seems that Neshri (who wrote about it in early 16th century) actually does confirm nobleman Milosh Kobila (Obilic) as assasin (apparently wounded Serbian warrior, who finged that he wants to kiss the foot of Sultan (which he allowed, comanding his guards to let the Serb) only to approach close, but then stabbed him), only not during the battle, but during the break, or after. However, this may be echo of a myth that was by that time well rooted among Serbs and westerners for almost a century and Neshri quite nicely assigned a higher meaning to the whole story (In Neshri's text, the Serbs' are already vassals, rebeling and due to be righteously punished and their army is at least twice or three times outnumbering the Ottoman army. Murad in his prayer to God offers his own life in exchange for miraculous victory. After the victory he is restless and wondering why he is still alive, but then it is all resolved, he dies a martyr by a hand of perfiduous assasin and his soul is given entrance to heaven), so since this detail has alegoric purpose of its own, it doesn't really have to be factual.

Also Battle of Kosova has an important part in Turkish mythology as well since most Turks believe Turkish flag was inspired by this battle; it cost the lives of many and Beyazıd was inspired to use the moon and stars' reflection on the battlefield of pool of blood as the state flag, that is also modern Turkish flag.

Well, respect to you... I always considered this battle as significant only for us, major losers. It is central to our national identity which is why all this modern-day history concerning Kosovo is so heated (to put it mildly) and why it is more significant to us then earlier (also lost) teritories which were cradle of Serbian state and nation. If we would have to be forced to forget about Kosovo, we would lost a lot of elementary school history and literature curriculum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.43 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am currently reading the pages you provided. They are all very informative and deep, thank you. Too bad we have to be satisfied with this current Wiki article :/. Or maybe someone more informed or less lazy than us will come and rewrite it ;). Regards. --Kagan the Barbarian 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag

As it appears that the NPOV violations were fixed, I'm removing the tag. - Discombobulator^talk 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article is written by a serbian nationalist who is apparently 'not neutral'. When I read it for the first time, it was like as if I reading a battle telling how Serbs defeated Ottomans. I think this will misdirect people and it should be edited. So That's why I write it here first. All external links seems like serbian except one. First of all, The result is said to be "indecisive", well check this http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046112 . I want to learn how I can edit this article or who can do that, Thanks:). - Ati7 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is full of historical inaccuracies

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)

You are partly right in your claim. For example, look at this sentence, Interestingly, when Bayezid I attacked the forces of Timur at the Battle of Ankara, the Ottoman army consisted mainly of Serbians, since most of the Turks chose Timur's side. This part is wrong. Yes, Timur was a popular and powerful leader during his reign but this doesn't mean that Turkish troops didn't support Sultan Bayezid I. The reality was different. Some Turkish troops betrayed Bayezid I during the war. This doesn't mean that Bayezid I's army was gathered from foreigners. With respect, the noble member of Kayı Tribe, Deliogul 10:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, when Bayezid I attacked the forces of Timur at the Battle of Ankara, the Ottoman army consisted mainly of Serbians, since most of the Turks chose Timur's side This sentence is not important in this context because we talk about Battle of Kosovo, not Bayezid. The thing is that the last paragraph "The Ottomans in a counter attack pushed Serbian forces back. By late afternoon both armies were exhausted, with neither of them being able to gain significant strategic advantage. Lazar was taken prisoner and executed; the Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and promised to do military service in the Sultan's army." looks so wierd! if neither of them was able to gain significant strategic advantage, how come Lazar was taken prisoner and executed; the Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and promised to do military service! come on! all we need is the truth, not nationalism. I really believe Serbians fought bravely. However, that belongs to another article.. Ati7 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cosidered a draw?! Eventual Ottoman Victory?! "...The confusion that followed was quickly quelled by Bayezid, the Sultan's son, who succeeded in surrounding the Serbs and inflicting a crushing defeat on the army. Lazar was taken prisoner and executed; the Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and promised to do military service in the Sultan's army..."

Encyclopedia Britannica, Edition 1986, Vol.,page 969

Lysandros 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of the battle

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)

According to Wiki the Julian Calender was not invented until 1582. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.231.41 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Balkan coalition, not Serbs

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)

There was no one but Serbs in Bosnia at that time. It was ruled by Kotromanic family - their heraldic symbols are used even in todays Bosnia

At that time there was only Serbs living in Kosovo and Metohija. That's why most important churches are there, many enlisted as UNESCO World Heritage . (Ones that survived Albanian onslaught 1999-present day - more than 150 were burned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.166.250 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah?? I noticed "Albania" being mentioned...there was no "albanian" state till the 19 century.... so there were no "albanians"-proper there , at least not as a distinct ethnical group! AdrianCo (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert

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)

I guess you are the one who does the vandalism by changing the historical facts! you can look into any reputable history source (or other encyclopedia) and you will see that the battle was an Ottoman victory, either you like it or not. I can understand you, being a nationalist you don't wanna see the truth (we have nationalists here as well, claiming some defeats as victory and we laugh at them). However, wiki belongs to all humans in this world and shouldn't include imaginary comments. I wonder how you can talk about a draw, as 'sultan took Lazar's daughter, the Serbian princess Olivera Despina, as a wife. The Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and promised to do military service in the Sultan's army.' this is just funny, nothing but funny.. another point is that the Result section looks ugly, it is composed of 6 lines. check other battle results, mostly 2 words, not even 2 lines. this is because you want to enforce something unreal in that section and it simply doesn't fit there. the outcome should be short: defeat, draw, victory. that's all. any explanations can be made in the body. I really wonder if there is anybody in charge of this page; it needs attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.129.7 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 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 again wrong

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)

Hi, could I suggest you have a look at WP:OR. The discussion isn't about right and wrong, it's about accurately representing the consensus of mainstream historians and trying to avoid a novel interpretation of history. Addhoc 23:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

allright, finally you wrote dude:) last time I change the result to get a reply. The thing is that in the long run we are ok. However, in short term (at the very moment of the battle) I claim an ottoman victory. Even it is written in wiki's History of Serbia page. For the long term, they use the word 'turkish conquest' not victory or whatsoever. for short term it is written as 'Lazar suffered a defeat on kosovo polje'. Moreover, it seems the Britannica also claims as an ottoman victory. We are not historian but I believe Britannica must have done enough research to wrote such an article, am I wrong?

I guess you take the first few hours of the battle and ignore the rest. However, the battle is not over until both sides stop fighting which seems although Lazar made a good start, it seems Bayezid managed to prevailed later. there are lots of battles in history (by the way I take history as a great hobbie, I love reading esp. roman, greek and medieval europe) which started as a victory for one side and ended as a defeat however.

by the way, please stop adding those comments to the result section. it really looks ugly. if you think it is a draw, just write draw.. I don't wanna touch it anymore.

soo what do you think?

You are right Addhoc, we can do that actually WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.129.7 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 7 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)

allright then, the thing is that ottomans didn't proceed right after the battle since Bayezid had to go to the capital and proclaim himself as the new sultan. By the way, do you know when Serbs accepted to pay tribute and send soldier? is it right after the fight? because in case of a draw no tribute should be paid. moreover, we can do voting if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.129.16 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not agree with original research being wrong

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)

well, also nazis, soviets changed the history. They thought they could distort the truth. However, such regimes didn't live long, guess why:) That's why I believe we should refer to some neutral sources which are reputable as well. Kosovo Polje is a studied matter and I believe we can reach a consensus. What I see is that serious publications(some encyclopedia, historians like Noel Malcolm) consider it as a victory not draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.129.16 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian coalition? Balkan army?

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)

Dultz, you did the right thing above.

Do you have any comments regarding how the size and composition of the forces should be described (se below)? While I agree that it makes sense to describe the forces as Serbian and Turkish (or, maybe more correctly, Ottoman) it might still be worthwhile to comment on the composition of the forces. Especially since this is an issue of some contention.

Most seem to agree that the Serbian side also included 'Bosnian' forces. Some also argue that it also included Hungarian forces, while others oppose this. I have also seen comments that the Serbian side included Albanian forces, though not found any references for this. Is it possible that at the time people were not as concerned with the ethnicity (even less nationality) of soldiers :-)?

KarlXII 10:10, 14 November 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)

Serbian treachery

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)

Dude, this article is factual, not emotional. Put yourself together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.166.250 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

STOP

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)

Composition of forces and some other comments

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)

1. I think not. If anything is clear about the battle, it's the date.

2. and 3. I am quoting this from Vojna enciklopedija, which is the authoritative military encyclopedia for the former Yugoslavia:

On Kosovo Murad could take around 40,000, of which around 5,000 Yanichars, 2,500 his cavalry guard, 6,000 spahias, around 20,000 azaps and akindzis and 8,000 his vassals. Lazar could gather at most 25,000, of which 15,000 of his men, 5,000 of Vuk's men, and as much of Bosnians. The data about the strengths are approximate, more likely higher than lower[...]

Yes, both armies included some non-national troops. No, the bulk of the force was clearly Turkish/Serbian.

4. Certainly. I always wanted to add that, but never found the time. For example, Vojna enciklopedija gives quite compelling overview of pre-battle movement of forces and reason why the battle had to take place on Kosovo. Nikola 00:16, 12 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.

Vojna enciklopedija was created by the Yugoslav National Army. It is by far the most autoritative military encyclopedia in the former Yugoslavia. No other work approaches it in size (11 volumes) or quality (written mostly by senior officers of the YNA). Given that it is published on paper and still under copyright, it is no wonder that it is not online. Given that it is in Serbo-Croatian, it is no wonder that there are few English references to it.

Of course, it is ideologically painted, but it could be used having that in mind. Estimates given by it fit into estimates given by other references, so I don't see a problem there. Nikola 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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 also have access to a book which details all of it, and will try to summarise relevant parts here in a couple of days. Nikola 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't detail exactly what we need. It could be used for various parts of the article, but doesn't mention army composition. Regarding Albanian, Hungarian, Polish etc. knights, I never heard of them nor does Vojna enciklopedija mentions them at all (there were a few Croatian however). Nikola 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pruning External links

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:

• Battle of Kosovo The Encarta Online Encyclopedia contains very little info about the battle
• Kosovo Field The Columbia Encyclopedia this really doesn't contain a lot of text about the battle
• Kosovo Field The HighBeam Encyclopedia very little info about the Battle of Kosovo
• The Battle of Kosovo The Encyclopedia Britannica Concise contains very little information about the battle, mainly about Kosovo as a province

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)

All these links claim Ottoman victory contrary to this article, interesting... Lysandros 12:31, 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)

Britannica concise is useless (the main Britannica is enough), we can delete it. Lysandros 14:02, 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)

Yes, and they contain little information that is right. But they support another point of view (Ottoman victory) and add something to this article, which is too one sided. Personaly, i think that any serious article should cite the main sources instead of external links. If this article becomes more balanced with time, we can delete all the links. Lysandros 16:08, 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)

Hi Karl, those links were added by me. If you check previous links, you can see that almost all of them were from some Serbian web sites and non-neutral as a result. Therefore I put those links from other Encyclopedia since they are neutral and have a higher reputation than other sources. I think we should keep at least Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. Tough they are short, they provide a good summary.Ati7 07:41, 15 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)

Decided and deleted. Lysandros 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed:) Ati7 09:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the links should be pruned.

There's actually little debate about who won. Technically, it was a draw because both armies retreated and both commanders were killed. Practically, it was Turkish victory because Serbian rulers became Turkish vassals right after the battle. Nikola 09:55, 16 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)

Suggesting a separate "Who won?" section of the article

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:

"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... 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."

He goes on to list what some other historians/experts believe:

"Radojicic believed so three decades ago and argued that the earliest texts clearly suggest a Serbian victory.[35] Djordje Trifunovic, on the other hand, argues that the attribute "shining" or "glorious" with which the author describes Lazar's victory is an obvious reference to the spiritual character of that victory.[36] Certainly many of the cult references to victory are expressions of Christian martyrdom. But in the Prolosko zitije kneza Lazara cited above and in other eulogistic works it would appear that the author addresses two kinds of victory. Lazar defeats Murad and wins a victory before he himself is killed. His death secures for him the martyr's wreath, which is a personal reward for his sacrifice. The wreath symbolizes the ultimate victory-eternal life. Patriarch Danilo III, on the other hand, in his Slovo o knezu Lazaru appears to make no conclusion as to the final outcome of the battle"

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:

"It is only in 1512 that a highly detailed description of the Battle of Kosovo appeared among the Turks. This account by Mehmed Nesri, however, would become the major resource for subsequent descriptions of the battle, not only in the Ottoman world but in Western Europe as well. Nesri has been described as a doctrinaire writer whose primary purpose in his writing was to arouse his readers' religious fervor and military virtue.[55] He clearly intended to describe a significant Ottoman victory at Kosovo and thus exaggerated much of his narrative in order to magnify the success of the Turks. By eliminating most of the colorful embellishment, we can easily summarize its content"

Emmert concludes by writing:

"Certainly the later sources, especially Nesri, describe a stunning Serbian defeat. As we have seen, however, that most crucial element in our understanding of the Battle of Kosovo cannot be supported by the handful of extant contemporary sources. And certainly the legacy of the seventy years which separate the battle from the final collapse of Serbia in 1459 confirms that the Battle of Kosovo was far more important in legend than it was in reality"

Your thoughts?KarlXII 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there could well be a separate section about the views on the battle's outcome, or perhaps a subsection of the "Aftermath" section. I don't like the "Who won?" title because of the question mark, perhaps "Views of the result" or even simply "Result" should be the title. I wrote in detail about the preparations for the battle, so you could write that ;)

Should the article be reclassified to B-class? Nikola 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "Result" will be a better choice, guys. by the way, prelude section is nice:) I believe we can reclassify it as B-class. Ati7 09:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, the article doesn't mention this; "...the Serbs were forced to pay tribute to the Turks and promised to do military service in the sultan's army". I realy wonder why... Lysandros 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the section should actually be called "Who won?". I think "Outcome of the battle" or, if we want to cover a wider area, "Aftermath" or similar would be good titles. Your pick.KarlXII 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, I got it:) we can also use "Outcome of the battle", or 'outcome' only. I start a draft, you are welcomed to contribute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ati7 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, eventually it could be merged with "Aftermath". I am thinking of adding two more introductory section:

• Background, where I'd describe reasons for the battle,
• Sources, where Id' describe available primary sources about the battle - this is a bit unusual.

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)

Nikola, I think it sound like a good idea. Looking forward to your draft. KarlXII 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikola, sidequotes are very nice:) Guys, finally this article looks like really a good one; thanks for your work Ati7 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Figures

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)

Do you have any reliable reference which supports this? Nikola 09:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, we need a reputable source about that.. it is quite often that numbers are exaggerated in middle agesAti7 09:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Map

Why is there no map showing the location of the battle in relation to the Ottoman empire?? Starsky19 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No one made one (and, BTW, I would like to know what was the extent of the Ottoman empire back then). If you can make it, please do. Nikola 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can make a map using Photoshop but I need to work out what to put it in. The closest I found to 1389 is 1359

http://m3mary.com/Empires/ottoman_empire.jpg

I don't know how much it changed in the next thirty years, but this map suggests there was a lot of non-Ottoman territory to cross before reaching the battlefield. Some explanation of this would be good - how did Murad's troops come to be in Philippoupolis? Starsky19 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Ottomans started their incursion in Europe in this period, but what was extent of the empire in 1388 - I can't really help. Nikola 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Balkan Forces

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)

I'm not sure what you're aiming for. However, I think for the sake of simplicity it is easier to say "Serbian", "Ottoman" and "Bosnian". The latter doesn't necessarily mean Bosnian muslim.KarlXII 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

actually, Karl is right. Bosnian refers to Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats living in Bosnia. Ati7 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

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:

• it feel like an exaggeration to referene every other sentence to the same work when one ref at the end of the paragraph would suffice
• since most readers will not speak Serbo-Croatian and will not have access to the Vojna Encyklopedia (eg it is not available at Amazon, and is probably out of print) it would make a lot of sense to find a more up to date (the VE is from 1972) source in English. Prefereably one that is online.
• as the article already refers to a couple of very well written texts which include most of the info which is currently referenced to the VE I suggest using these instead. I am thinking especially of the two articles by Thomas Emmert.

Roncevaux 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I would then suggest to move the reference to the end of paragraph, and to replace it with <!-- comments --> in the paragraph where the references currently are.
• I couldn't find any book about the Battle of Kosovo (save the collection of poems) in the Library of Congress' or the British Library's online catalogs. So we're stuck with Serbo-Croatian.
• IIRC, Emmert's articles deal more with depictions of the battle in culture than with the battle itself. But, perhaps this could be done: if Emmert's articles support an assertion already referenced by Vojna Enciklopedija, we could add it as a reference; and if it doesn't, we could discuss it here. Nikola 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

'Start' and 'Turkish counterattack' sections...

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)

Result

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)

Hi UberCryxic, I also think it was an Ottoman victory however, we couldn't reach a consensus about that. that's why we left it as Draw. Those encyclopedia links are added by me to support this idea. On the other hand, some other historians view this as a controversial battle since reliable sources are very scarce(please see other links). we may write Indecisive instead of Draw. However the outcome was very costly to Serbia therefore it is not really indecisive.. any other suggestions? Ati7 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sociologically, Serbian nationalism and historiography has had a lot to say about this battle, but almost none of it has been relevant. Most relevant, reliable, and non-Turkish, non-Serbian sources regard this battle as a Turkish victory, so I propose we defer to them in light of the (obvious) conceptual conflicts between the two involved sides.UberCryxic 21:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't say. Non-Turkish and non-Serbian sources are practically non-existing and mutually conflicting at that. Nikola 18:41, 24 February 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)

result 2

There has been some editing on the outcome.There is not enough to go on here. Please stop vandalising page.It was a draw , OkayBuffadren 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

English language history books before 1950 all called it a Turkish victory. Traditionally, the party controlling the field after the battle was the winner, even if they had significant losses. --Bejnar 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What a romantic logic. hahahah. The best romatica in Wiki (even thate the west "serbs" dont forget in east side was "serbs" to hase never dominatied the beattel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 172.158.215.72 (talk · contribs)- 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting article

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)

Sources and references been cited for Ottoman victory. I don't think there is anything more to discuss about this.--Doktor Gonzo 09:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC

Draw in military terms

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)

Contradiction

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)

Murad's death

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)

Wow, what is the language this is written in? Seems a while before Chaucer. Lantonov (talk) 08:33, 21 December 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)

Aftermath

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)

And one more effect on turkish side, After the battle before Murat I was assasinated, he saw a relection on a blood pit on the battle field, which had the crescend moon and the star(in fact was calculated to be Jupiter recently) and declared this as the flag of his empire, the very flag used by Turkey (and some other post-ottoman states today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.205.249 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleksandër Gilferding

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)

74.105.37.191

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)

Pyrrhic victory

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)

In the name of God, Turks retreated, not Serbs. How can you say it is a Ottoman victory. This is a Serbian Pyrrhic victory. Remember Serbia became Turkish vasal dozens of years after this battle. Serbs had no more soldiers but they forced Ottoman empire to fall back. It is Serb Pyrrhic victory. Rodoljub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.239.80 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To Veljko Stevanovich:

You are right, Ottomans achieved their immediate offensive goal but loss of a monarch does not turn it into a Phyrric victory. I think subsequent unrest did not slow their advance much.

Lord Nelson (not a monarch but a great commander) died in the Battle of Trafalgar, was it a Phyrric victory?

To Rodoljub: Please go and read more about this battle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.193.30 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources given as a citation to the "Pyrrhic victory" label in the caption supports the thesis that the outcome of the battle was even close. The loss of the monarch by itself does not make this a Pyrrhic victory at all. As a result, I am deleting the "Pyrrhic victory" description and replacing it with "Ottoman Victory". 64.72.137.241 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is Pyrrhic because...none of the sides accept the loss today, Turks in fact stopped a coalition army, marked their beylik(princehood) as a state (and just few days after the battle an Empire though not recognised by calypth till battle of Nicopolis) as annexing serbia as a vassal state. Serbian monarcs didnt lose their throne also instead of becoming a vassal, they became the second dynasty after ottomans, only that explains later Serbian loyality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.205.249 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More details are needed about the composition of the Armies

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)

Arent they christian, hey none san clain that was a crusader campaign, also it is very probable that turksih side had many christian soldiers and mercenaries, Religion was far less important by Ottomans, than the project... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.205.249 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Name in different languages

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)

I totally agree, this section is useless. Lysandros 10:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of Arms Obilic 1386.gif

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grb Hrebeljanovica.jpg

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)

move?

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)

Serbian army or Balkan coalition ?

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)

I dont know if you know this or not but the battle wasn't fought only by serbia but a by a coalition of Balkans , do you have any sources saying it was fought only by serbia? if so then please provide them and then you may discuss the change--Cradel 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK.that's no problem

[1]

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 was the remaining heir of the sacronist House of Nemanjić
• part of Tvrtko's subjects were Serbs (expecialy in southeastern part of its domains)
• Tvrtko ruled numerous lands which included parts of Nemanjić domains

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)

Zakipfc's edits

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)

As for the outcome of the battle, pretty much every online source and online encyclopedia lists it as a Ottomanic victory. I don't know anything about a "Balkan coalition", I was taught in school that the forces were Serbian (under Serbian leadership on most levels, regardless of the actual ethnicity. I support Cradel and others. Discombobulator (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it isn't vandalism to remove a heavily-cited, well-stated cutline and replace it with this: "Draw in military terms,but Serbia never recovered from suffering heavy losses.Few years after the battle Serbia became Ottoman vasal state." for example, it's spelled "vassal" not "vasal," there should be spaces after the periods, and both sentences are ungrammatical. A number of other contribs by Zakipfc are likewise inferior to what he replaced. No one has edit warred with Zakipfc, but several editors have tried to keep him from turning Battle of Kosovo into his own personal Wikipedia:Sandbox. 01:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)69.148.162.7 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We can only discuss about battle's outcome

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)

Where does, or where did the article say "Clear Ottoman victory"? It says "Pyrrhic Ottoman victory," do you know what a Pyrrhic victory is? 69.148.162.7 (talk) 01:56, 31 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)

Your view is substantiated by others, I'd always assumed the Serbs traditionally regarded the Battle of Kosovo as a tragic defeat because their leader was killed, etc. Scroll down this [2] page for a citation which states:

The Battle of Kosovo was a draw -- both the Serbian emperor and the Turkish sultan were killed (in fact, sultan Murad I who was killed by the Serbian knight Milos Obilic in the Battle of Kosovo, was the only Ottoman ruler who was killed in a battle, during some 700 years of Osman Empire), so neither the Serbs, nor the Ottomans could claim victory on the battlefield. But the death toll for the small Serbian nation was tremendous, the loss of the emperor, along with the most exalted noblemen, the best warriors, the entire army and every third male in the country was too harsh a blow from which Serbian Kingdom could not easily recover. Soon after, Serbia was annexed to the Ottoman Empire and the five centuries of sheer misery ensued.

Currently the body of the article states that it was a draw, and a pyrrhic victory is arguably comparable to a draw or even defeat, so personally, I think reference to pyrrhic victory should remain in the factbox, especially since it is heavily cited. I'll go ahead and add that cite to the article, and correct the spelling of 'vasal' to vassal. 69.148.162.7 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 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)