Talk:Battle of Nicopolis

Army size and sources

Hi Göktuğ538538,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Nicopolis&diff=prev&oldid=1173343307

please provide reliable academic sources which are readable and checkable

A fan website I do not think is a proper academic source: http://www.theottomans.org/turkce/osmanli_ordu/savaslar2.asp OrionNimrod (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering the numerous English sources we have for this battle, I see no need to use non-English sources. Nicolle et. al., appear to low ball the number of crusaders. However, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, page 352-353, by Kenneth Meyer Setton, gives indepth discussion concerning the number of troops.

Also, I am less than impressed by user:Göktuğ538538's usage of The Crusade in the Later Middle Ages, by Aziz Suryal Atiya. On page 446 of this book, Atiya states the Ottomans to have numbered no more than 104,000. Oddly this seems to have been missed by Göktuğ538538. Also, Setton quotes Atiya's book, Crusade of Nicopolis, giving the Ottoman forces as 100,000.

It appears that Setton(quoting Kiss) place the Crusader army at around 120,000. Setton quotes Delbruck who gives 7500 for the Crusader army. These would appear to be the lowest and highest estimates, as such these should be placed in the article and infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI, Grant is not a reliable source, and we can find better sources than Tuchman and Britannica. OrionNimrod, do you have sources that would give a low estimate for Ottoman troops figures, since Atiya and Setton(quoting Atiya) give around 104,000. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, volume 3, page 58, gives Ottoman figures as 25,000-30,000 plus 5,000 Serbians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Setton(quoting Delbruck) states 10,000-12,000 Ottoman troops. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, thanks for checking! I will also check the Hungarian historians. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear,

Chronica Hungarorum write this when King Sigismund saw the huge army in Buda, he said: "Who would be so bold as to dare to resist us? If the enormous weight of the sky were to fall on us, with spears that we carry, we would also hold it up so that no harm would come to us"

this is from the biggest Hungarian military history book written by a historian-general, a very long text on many pages:

It says the French Burgundy army at Dijon was 10,000 (6000 combatant knights, 4000 other and servants), later on their way Teutons, Johannites joined. And more German, Polish, Italian, Czech knights - 2000 men joined at Vienna. 1000 English knights by prince of Lancester. And in June, the army in Buda was 30-40,000, meantime 70 ships organized. Meantime more Hungarian units joined. Around Vidin in Bulgaria more Hungarian army joined to the Crusaders, and a Wallachian army with some thousand men. The Hungarian historian write here about 80,000 men.

According to the Hungarian historian, regarding the strength of the Christian army that marched to the battle without a unified plan, the data of the chronicles are very different from each other: "The relevant data varies between 30,000 and 200,000 and perhaps the closest approximation to reality is to estimate its number at 80-100,000 people"

"The battlefield was reportedly covered with the corpses of 20,000 Christians.[19] French sources also put their losses at 20–30,000[21] others 30–40,000[22] and still others 60,000[23]"

This is a is a Hungarian historian source from 2022:

"Modern versions place the number of the entire Christian army between 15 and 20 thousand people, the Ottomans numbered around 30 thousand" OrionNimrod (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you agree to 7,500 - 120,000 Crusaders and 10,000 - 104,000 Ottomans? These seem to be the lowest and highest estimates found. I have not searched for casualties yet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The highest estimate for the Ottoman army is 104,000. Likewise, we can write a maximum of 120,000 for the Crusader army. So we can add it to the page as follows.

7.500-120.000 Crusader Army

10,000-104,000 Ottoman army

I think it would be correct to add it. I think these are the lowest and highest estimates Göktuğ538538 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Many historians think different, there is a separate section about this in the article: Battle of Nicopolis#Strength of forces OrionNimrod (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Figures from that section are not reflected in the infobox. Also, there are numerous unpaginated sources in that section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Large-scale

@Keith-264, I assume you mean that large-scale is a cliché in the technical sense, i.e. an ossified idiom better avoided in every case in encyclopedic writing? I suppose my instinct is to disagree, as to me large-scale has particular connotations of high organizational complexity or project scope—as opposed to what a general magnitude descriptor like big has. Maybe I'm totally off the mark, though. Remsense ‥ 论 08:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Thank you for taking the trouble to ask. It might pass as a synonym but for me fails on lack of elegance. What does 'scale' add to 'large' and what does 'large' add to 'big'? I found this G scale but it is a technical term perhaps best left where it is. I find it better to avoid adjectives and adverbs under the brevity criterion and because few of us are prose stylists. I have a habit of auto-edding when I read an article and I startled a page-watcher once before, if that's what happened to you I apologise. It's a benign alteration to minor Wiki infelicities, not someone stamping all over an article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I won't object further: I also err towards parsimony in prose of course, though sometimes I find myself thinking particularly hard concerning individual instances like these. Only speaking about myself here to be clear—I suppose I worry sometimes about straying from being principled about this stuff into being dogmatic, so it's a good habit to interrogate my intuitions, e.g. "does this extra syllable truly damage anything, or does it happen to read nicely in this particular instance?" Remsense ‥ 论 09:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: I'm the same and being English am more used to BritEng than AmEng. I like the article I hasten to add. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Incase you guys are wondering

the changes i made were supported by multiple reliable sources and i sourced one from a reputable historian. RegisteredCorrcetor (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2025

Make a note on Serbian Moravia side that they were forced to send troops as vassals. Serbia was ottoman vassal since Battle of Kosovo 1389, and had to send about 1000-1500 each battle to support Ottoman Empire. 188.2.53.222 (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source for their participation in this particular battle? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, well if you look at Moravian Serbia page it will clearly state that they were vassals after Battle of Kosovo, also the note appears to be in Fall of Constantinopol but not here. Tho ill give you source Book: Istorija Srba by Vladimir Ćorović 2005 ISBN 86-7659-324-8 page 303 states "Srbija je primila na sebe vazalske obaveze prema turcima, obećavala mu davanje pomoćne vojske za slučaj ratovanja" and that translates to "Serbia has accepted to be a Turkish vassal state, it promised to give arms/soliders in case of war" (speaking about after battle of kosovo mearly) 188.2.53.222 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

same book page 312 says about this Crusade "Bulgaria, and in Bulgaria they were joined by the Wallachian duke Mircea. Bayezid went to meet this dangerous horde, accompanied by his vassals, among whom was Stevan Lazarević. A terrible battle took place near Nikopol, on September 25, 1396." (This one was transated using Google lens and translation is accurate) (ALSO I HAVE I HAVE PHYSICAL BOOK NOT PDF/ONLINE ONE) 188.2.53.222 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

https://postimg.cc/gallery/PJnfNFV

I took pictures of pages relevant to my request, since i dont know how to search for it in Google Books. Hope this is good enough 188.2.53.222 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This is already in the article, though? Specifically in this section:

The Ottoman force also included 1,500 Serbian heavy cavalry knights under the command of Prince Stefan Lazarević, who was Sultan Bayezid's brother-in-law and vassal since the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but i think it would be good if theres a note aswell, same as on Fall of Constantinopol page. Is it possible. If i didnt clarify my request good enough and it came to confusion between us i want: In this note to be put on Infobox. 188.2.53.222 (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe the circumstances here are different.

Not counting the footnote, Đurađ Branković is only mentioned once throughout Fall of Constantinople, and even that mention was brief. It's a pretty easy thing to miss in such a big article, hence why the footnote makes more sense. Meanwhile, in this article, Stefan Lazarević is mentioned four times in text, once in the infobox, and once in a navbox. His involvement and vassalage is made much more apparent compared to Branković.

If someone else disagrees with me and adds the note, I won't argue, but this note just wouldn't add enough to the article to warrant inclusion in my opinion.

ZionniThePeruser (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but you also gotta understand that majority of people who visit a page on Wikipedia reads infobox for summary who won who participated etc. Altho i agree hes mentioned many times in this article but as you said someone may miss it and just think that Serbia for no reason switched sides, forgot about Order of Dragon, forgot their religion, forgot their relation with Byzantine etc. Hope you understand my point 188.2.53.222 (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per ZionniThePeruser's response. Day Creature (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Well if someone thinks it would be good addition they can add it, thank you tho for not denying it immidetly and letting others decide aswell 188.2.53.222 (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath section infringes on Tuchmann copyright

Although it cites Tuchmann, it’s a verbatim direct lift and infringes on the copyright. ~2025-38346-53 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Casualties

The source used on the infobox (from Britannica) is very vague and almost looks unfinished. Its says ‘’most dead or captured of 12,000–15,000.’’, for the Crusaders army, and ‘’considerable of 25,000;’’ for the Ottomans. With those numbers, it likely tries to say the number of the total troops that participated in the Battle, not that the Ottomans lost 25,000 troops, which would be pretty much impossible as that would mean that the entire Ottoman army was destroyed (so the Ottomans lost considerable losses from its 25,000 men strong army, and the Crusaders lost heavy to near complete destruction of its 15,000 strong army). If not, this source from Britannica should be completely removed from the casualties section and replaced with more reliable, logical and clearer sources as this one makes almost zero sense. Also, 25,000 Ottoman casualties would not be considered as ‘’considerable’’. It would be literally a complete destruction of the Ottoman army (and yet they won?). Turkish/Ottoman sources (from the Turkish Wikipedia page) claims that the Ottomans lost between 2,000 and 3,000 men, which would indeed be considered as ‘’considerable’’, if we take into account that their total number of troops numbered around 20,000 or 25,000. They also mention even more losses on the side of the Crusaders, as sources conflict with others. This page needs some serious work and additional sources for the casualties section of the infobox. Just using Britannica for that is not right. Woxic1589 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: I just removed the numbers for the Ottoman casualties from

the infobox. Considering it makes zero sense nor is it possible that the Ottomans lost their entire army, its better that new sources get added for this. So for now it should remain as unknown for the Ottomans. The casualties for the crusaders should also be replaced with a new source, as the source from Britannica is very vague and unrealistic. Woxic1589 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There are Turkish sources for the Ottoman casualties (as well as for the Crusaders, but those are way higher than the western sources) but that would be a direct copy paste from the Turkish Wikipedia version (2,000 to 3,000 losses). If I’m allowed to add those in a proper way, I would be open to do so. : https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C4%9Fbolu_Muharebesi_(1396) Woxic1589 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead, just attribute in the edit summary. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 17:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The source from the Turkish Wikipedia is a primary source (Aşıkpaşazade) written decades after the event, so it might be not better than the "considerable" losses from Britannica... --Phso2 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that Britannica doesn’t just mention ‘’considerable’’ losses, but losses of around 25,000, which doesn’t make any sense at all (see earlier comment). Its a very vague source from them, or just a error as they meant to say ‘’considerable losses out of the 25,000 strong Ottoman Army’’. But there are no such details mentioned anywhere in that source. If we add that to the infobox, then the number of troops would also have to change. Or else its gonna look like as if the entire army of the winning side was lost in the battle. But on the Turkish Wikipedia they also claim more losses on the Crusaders side. But again, numbers vary drastically from western to middle eastern sources.Woxic1589 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it mentions ‘’considerable’’ losses from a around 25,000 strong army. The Britannica article is a derivative of a printed work by its author, where the formulation is unequivocal, I will try to retrieve it. Phso2 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, now I’m confused. Thats what I initially thought as well, but then Magyarosember (talk · contribs) claimed it was not and thus added the numbers back again. After I took another look at that source, it seemed to be that they tried to tell that they did lose that many. But if it indeed is ‘’considerable’’, then I guess that both can be added (?) Woxic1589 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The Britannica article is signed by Tony Bunting , whose "work appears in Encyclopaedia Britannica as part of a joint publishing agreement with the publisher of 1001 Battles That Changed the Course of History, where the work originally appeared"; in "Battles That Changed the Course of History" you can find mny occurence with this formulation "xxx losses of zzz" where zzz is the size of the army as clearly stated in the notice (for example here where "Glyndwr's army consisted of no more than 500 men" in the text, and "unknown of 500" as its losses at the end)--Phso2 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it. If thats the case, then I assume that it can be re-added like that then. Woxic1589 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

(PS: because it would be too simple, and military history loves to cite numbers based on unexplained calculations or uncited primary sources, the size of the ottoman army is given in the book as 15000 instead of 25000, either because of a misprint somewhere or because Tony Bunting changed his mind...)

Is this about Christian FP story or the history of battle of nicopolise?

background and Most of what is written about it is who was in the war and why were they fighting for Christian Nations. Nothing about beyazid 1. This might be the only time where winners has just a mention and every other MF is getting an introduction like some hot shit ~2026-15375-01 (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue of flags

@Shadow4ya Hello, I think this article needs flags. They make the article more understandable and better. If you have a reason for removing the flags, I would be happy if you could explain it to me. Thank you. Buminkhagan (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Check MOS:FLAG and in this case especially #Historical considerations section Shadow4ya (razgovor) 08:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I understand. Buminkhagan (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)