Talk:Battle of Maritsa

message: There was no Bulgarian army involved.
:: The thing is that precisely in this battle on both sides mainly Bulgarians participate! The first janissaries were almost exclusively Bulgarians, and the "Macedonian army" was also mostly Bulgarians.
No one explores the social aspect of military conflict! Why? After the Black Death and the state in which the Balkan Peninsula is located as a result of the plague and the incessant feudal struggles at the expense of the increasingly impoverished and thinning population.
End result: The Ottoman Empire became the world's number one power after two centuries. Станислав Минков (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This battle has nothing to do with Bulgarians

message: :This is a very non-neutral, one-sided and biased article making little or no effort to look at the Ottoman Turkish references. Why is Encyclopædia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9050991) which is editted in 1910, is very good at a time when the Western sources that were totally biased against Ottomans in general, Turks in particular? By the say-so of a N.Jordan  or a Lysandros?? Many people reading this do not find it so!!!  The language and the tone of the language show clearly it is non-neutral and biased.  The other two references given are by authors writing in English and what they state are ignored. There is no Turkish reference!!
:The statements by the commentators N.Jordan and (to a lesser extent) Lysandros show the same non-neutrality. Especially the statement that Turkish sources are not reliable when they describe defeated enemies. and Ok but, are the Turkish sources reliable when they describe Ottoman defeats? Or not reliable for all  which clearly show not only the non-neutrality and very biased viewpoints, but it is an insult to Turks and Turkish historians. How could Lala Sahin Pasa, who may or may not have reported it, or for that matter the other Turkish historians (and by other references in English by Turnbull, Stavrianos, Nicolle, Shaw etc.) be set aside by a totally unsubstantiated statement of a N Jordan or Lysandros  whoever he/she may be?? I would have thought that this is a sort of insult to Turks and Turkish historians and should not be in Wikipedia. However N.Jordan or Lysandros can be self-righteous declaring nueutality by using English language sources, I propose that they should apologise; and the insulting contributions should be deleted!!
 
:This article contains no reference of Turkish origin, even though one side in this battle is Ottoman Turks. Turkish historians do not include a battle that is given the name of Maritsa Battle or Chernomen Battle that has taken place on 26 September 1371. In Turkish Ottoman history books there is a battle called Sırp Sındığı (Rout of the Serbs) which has taken place on 26 September 1364. At least Lysandros has stated that the English language references that put the date the battle took place on 1364. Other references in English that use these dates, not quoted in this article,  are  S.J.Shaw (1976) History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Vol.1 Empire of Gazis Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.18 and  D.Nicolle, (1983), Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774, Osprey Pub. London, p.28. Instead of generating many battles at different dates in the commentary pages or taking what non-neutral source written at or before 1910 as the only correct date, I was expecting  statements in the article that there are controversies about the date and the name of the battle. Noyder (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased non-neutral viewpoint

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

message: Sure Serbs are Christians but there is no reason why to put their religious affiliation before the national one, the battle was fought by Serbian lords Vukašin and Uglješa who were Christians by default, no need to epmhasise their confession.
As for  per Jirecek  tag made by one of the users I'll quote the Jirecek:
 
Най-после крал Вълкашин, деспотът Углеша и много сръбски боляри се вдигнали, та начело на 60 000-на отбор войска да изгонят турците от Европа. Тъй като султан Мурад тогава бил зает в Азия, те дошли почти до Одрин. Лалашахин, който бил там със слаб отряд, изпратил Хаджи Илбеки с 4000 души да разузнае неприятелската войска. Сърбите, разположени на лагер при Черномен (по турски с. Чирмен), пред моста на Марица, безгрижно пирували, напълно уверени в превъзходството си. В тъмна нощ Хаджи Илбеки ненадейно ги нападнал, макар войската му да била 15 пъти по-слаба. От всички страни турците се хвърлили в лагера. Настъпило страшно безредие и ужасно кръвопролитие, в което изчезнали братята на Вълкашин, Углеша и Гойко, а с тях заедно и много боляри. Мнозина намерили смъртта си във вълните на Марица. Когато на 26 септември 1371 г. [47] слънцето изгряло над кървавото поле на битката, гордата сръбска войска била унищожена; малцина от бойците видели пак отечеството си. Хаджи Илбеки, ликуващ и с богата плячка, се върнал в Одрин, но завистливият беглербег Лалашахин побързал да се отърве от победителя, като го отровил. И досега още това поле се нарича „Сърб синдюги”, т. е. гибел на сърбите. Още в XVII в. се е виждал каменният паметник върху гроба на деспот Углеша. [48]
If someone needs translation to English I'm happy to provide one. 
As for the adding the cats relating the Bulgaria, I don't see how that has any connection with the article, Serbian army fighting Turks in the area that is now in Greece really has nothing to do with Bulgaria.
--Clanedstino (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An exact reference was provided. And why are you constantly removing valid cats about a battle that took place on the frontier of the Bulgarian Kingdom/Empire? It's just like you have something against any mention of Bulgaria in here. This is one of the most important battles of the Serbs, but it's naive to think they fought such a battle alone, especially since they went through Bulgarian lands to get to Chernomen.--Laveol T 14:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Please, note that removal of sourced material that you do not like, is close to vandalism. And vandalis is often punishable around wikipedia. And since you do started this, how fluent are you in Bulgarian? --Laveol T 14:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Cause, all the time Jirechek refers to the Serb army, he only speaks of the leaders. Serb bolyars led it; Serbs (e.g. the Bolyars) got killed, the Serb led army was destroyed. Sorry, that won't suffice. Find a better reason to remove the things you do not like. --Laveol T 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is vandalism alright. Especially since you insist on edit-warring prior to discussing it. --Laveol T 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

text: I also share Clanedstino's surprise at seeing that Laveol first made his edit replacing "Serbian" with "mixed army" with an edit summary of "per Jirecek" , but failed to cite anything from him, and both Jirecek sources we actually have in the article fail to mention anything but a "Serbian army" in the context of this battle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

message: and this was "Sırp Sındığı Muharebesi" (Battle of Sırpsındığı)... Stephen Uroš V of Serbia, Louis I of Hungary (Lajos) and Tvrtko I of Bosnia wanted to attack Edirne... Murad I was in Bursa at that time... Hacı İlbeyi attacked the Serbs at night and beat them... Böri (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No there wasn't, Louis of Hungary never went out of Hungary in 1364 ( see his itinerary I posted earlier ), same goes for Uroš and Tvrtko and any other Serbian ruler, if there was a battle in 1364. called Sirpsindigi I don't know which Serbs fought there. There is absolutely no mention of any battle at Martica in 1364 in Serbian historiography and as far as I know in Hungarian as well. Also John VA Fine (  ) clearly states that battle was fought in 1371. while Jireček ( )not only puts battle in 1371. but expressively calls it Sirpsindigi. It's not necessary to say that both of them have absolutely no knowledge on battle of 1364. So shell I put my trust to several dozens of prominent Serbian, Hungarian, Austrian etc historians or to you? 
--Clanedstino (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The Battle of Sırpsındığı in Ottoman Turkish:  ...nâgâh haber geldi,  Sırf leşkeri hücûm itdi didiler. Kasdı Edrene’ye gelmekdür. Kırk Elli Bin mikdârı leşkeri vardur... Sırf leşkeri Edrene’ye yakın gelmiş idi... şimdi ana Sırf Sınduğu dirler...gâziler bir gece tabl-bâz kakup dün basgunı itdi. Sırf leşkeri mağrur olup sarhoş yaturken nâgâh tabl âvâzın ve gâziler ünin işitdiler. “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine dokındılar. Atları ürkdi ve boşandı, bunları çiğnedi. Kâfirler dahı kılıç çeküp birbirin kırmağa başladı. Âhir sınup münhezim olup kaçdılar. Ba’zı râvîler rivâyet ederler kim Sırf leşkerin Hacı İlbeği sıdı dirler... Hacı İlbeğü aydur: “Yoldaşlar nice idelüm” dedi, Yoldaşlar aydur: “Tedbîr sizindir. Siz nice idersenüz eyle idelüm dediler. Andan Hacı İlbeği her yoldaşını bir depeye kodı. Andan bulara ısmarladı. Her kaçan ben tabl-bâz urup haykıram, herbirinüz dahı eyle idün didi. Kendüsi kâfirlerün bir yanına geçüp heman tabl-bâz urup tekbir getürüp bire gaziler koman diyü çağırdı. Çün kâfir leşkeri ol  âvâzları işitdi, gördiler kim dört yanların Türk almış, kendüler ara yirde kalmışlar. Hemendem “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine tokuşup, ol orman arasına tağılup birbirine kılıç urdılar. Karanu gice içinde birbirin fark itmeyüp, eyle kırdılar kim vasf olunmaz. Hemandem münhezim olup kaçdılar gitdiler... Lala Şâhin dahı, İlbeği’nün dilâverliğini görüp, ol zaman beğlerine hoş gelmeyüp adâvet bağladılar. Âkıbet hîle ile Hacı İlbeği’yi helâk ettiler.
= my translation: Suddenly a news came (to Bursa*) that the Serbs were coming... Their target was Edirne. They had 40-50 000 men... They have come close to Edirne. Today, this place is called Sırp Sındığı.  A small group of Turks (10 000 men*) attacked at night (with mehter!) The Serbian soldiers were drunk! The Serbs shouted: “The Turk came!” (they thought that Murad I was there!*) The horses of the Serbs ran away and killed the Serbian soldiers... In the darkness of night the Serbs didn’t see anything 
and they began to kill their own soldiers! (thinking that they were the Turks!*) At the end, the Serbs escaped from the battle... Hacı İlbeği defeated the Serbs. Hacı İlbeği said “What will we do, my soldiers!” His soldiers said: “We will do whatever you want” They attacked the Serbs from four directions... The Serbs lost the battle... Most of them ran away to the forest and killed each other there! Lala Şahin Paşa (Beylerbeyi) saw that Hacı İlbeği was a crazy man! [because Hacı İlbeği fought against the Serbs... and at that time Lala Şahin Paşa didn’t fight against the Serbs, he was waiting the army of Murad I. Lala Şahin Paşa became the enemy of Hacı İlbeği (The hero of this battle)...]* Hacı İlbeği was killed! (by poison*) Böri (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

text: Where does it says that it was 1364? One more question, does this source ( although since it's written more then 100 years after battle it's hardly a source ) mention one or two battles on Maritsa river? If it only mentions one battle then it has to be the one from 1371 cause that's the battle where Vukašin and Uglješa got killed fighting against the Turks. There are a lot of Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Papal sources , all of them written shortly after 1371, that clearly put the battle in 1371 and report the death of Vukašin and Uglješa in the battle.
--Clanedstino (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

text: Again, does Turkish history knows about two battles or one? I read Mehemd Neshri's Miror of the world and he knows only about one battle with Lala Sahin as Turkish leader. On the other places I found that Haci Ilbegi was poisoned in 1371. by Lala Sahin after he won the battle  at Marica: , , . There are dozens of sources that state the same, battle was at 1371, Haci Ilbegi was killed after it, not in 1364. but in 1371. 
--Clanedstino (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

text: Serbian sources about battle of Marica? We have one from the year of the battle, 1371, commentary of the monk Isaiah from Athos mountain who wrote that in the year of 1371, on 26th September Serbian lords Vukašin and Uglješa started campaign against the Turks but were defeated, then there is Bulgarian chronicle from 1418. which gives same date and story, then reports of several Serbian chronicles from early 15teen century then a report of several Byzantine chroniclers from 15teen century etc. All of the sources written between 1371. and 1450, right after the battle. Monk Isaiah is exceptionally important, he wrote immediately after the battle and was quite close to the place of the event, pretty well informed person.
About battle of Kosovo I can quote two American scholars ( both of them great experts on history of medieval southeastern Europe ):
1. John VA Fine, The late medieval Balkans, p.410-411
...Thus, though the Serbs did not loose the battle, in the long run, over next 2 to 3 years, they lost the war because they were no longer able to resist the Turks effectively; and the loses they had suffered at Kosovo were, of course, the major reason they had so few people to defend Serbia. Thus one can say that immediate result of Kosovo was draw, but the long-term result was a Serbian loss...
2. Thomas Emmert, Kosovo: Legacy of a Medieval Battle, p19-41.
The historian is faced with a difficult problem when he attempts to discover what occurred in the Battle of Kosovo. There are no eyewitness accounts of the battle, and rather significant differences exist among those contemporary sources which do mention the event. There is little doubt that the confrontation occurred on the field of Kosovo on 28 (15) June 1389 between Christian forces led by Prince Lazar of Serbia and Ottoman forces led by Sultan Murad I. When it was over, both leaders were dead and Murad's son, Bayezid, returned to Edirne to secure his succession. The picture becomes very cloudy beyond these meager details. The early documents are not particularly concerned with armaments, tactics, size of forces, and the general course of the battle. Surprisingly enough, it is not even possible to know with certainty from the extant contemporary material whether one or the other side was victorious on the field. There is certainly little to indicate that it was a great Serbian defeat; and the earliest reports of the conflict suggest, on the contrary, that the Christian forces had won.
To summarize: Serbian and Turkish army had same losses at the battle of Kosovo and the outcome of the battle was draw, however Serbian loses were irreplaceable while Turks could always bring reinforcements from Anatolia. In the next few years after the battle of Kosovo Turks continued to raid Serbia which didn't had army to defend it self while in the same time Hungary also attacked Serbia ( from the north ). In that situation Serbia had to become Ottoman vassal, although it didn't lost the battle of Kosovo. 
I remind you, these are American scholars, both of them highly regarded in scientific circles, certainly not some Serbian propagandists. 
--Clanedstino (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Stanford J.Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume I    Please read it! 
http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=E9-YfgVZDBkC&pg=PA18&dq=Battle+of+Maritsa+1364&hl=tr&ei=c8bUTNK4KIG2vwPC7PDQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Maritsa%201364&f=false Böri (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There was a battle in 1364! 

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

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

message: There was no "Serbian Empire" at that time (1371). There was "Kingdom of Volkashin" with a capital in Prilep - Macedonia.
Why do you convert names to look like todays countries (republics), former kingdoms from 1800s?
Do you have ANY ORIGINAL manuscript where king Volkashin calls his kingdom "Serbian Empire"???
Please post a link where we may see ORIGINAL text about the name of the Kingdom which (unsuccesfully :( ) tried to save Europe with soldiers MOSTLY FROM MACEDONIA. And please analyze, IF IT WAS "Serbian Empire", why other parts of the "empire" didn't participated? But they left people from Macedonia to die first, then in 1389 they died in Kosovo... Not so strong "Serbian empire:, but separate Kingdoms of local people.
For the sake of humanity, please stop spreading gossip from 18th and 19th century, invented to make weak the Ottoman Empire, by strengthening Kingdoms of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria (all founded for the FIRST TIME in 1800s).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.223.216 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like to say? That Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs didn’t have their kingdoms until the 19th century? All Medieval states were states of individual rulers, and we can’t talk about them in terms of modern nations. However, they all had their states well before Ottoman Turks invaded the Balkans. Re Serbian Empire, the official title of the ruler was βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Σερβίας καὶ Ῥωμανίας (basileus and autokrator of Serbia and Romania), that is a title similar to the title of Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperors. Vukasin was a co-ruler of emperor Uros since 1365, and he was crowned as a king.  --N Jordan (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you use "Serbian Empire"? 

message: The statement "between Ottoman forces commanded by Lala Şahin Pasha and Evrenos, and Serbian forces commanded by King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješa, who also wanted to get revenge after the First Battle of Maritsa." has 4 references, and I checked them:
* Jirecek, Konstantin. History of the Bulgarians, p. 382 (http://www.promacedonia.org/ki/ki_22.htm) - It doesn't mention revenge.
* Jirecek, Konstantin. Geschichte der Serben, pp. 437-438 (https://archive.org/stream/geschichtederser00jire#page/437/mode/1up) - it doesn't mention revenge.
* Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans since 1453, p. 44 (https://archive.org/details/balkanssince145300lsst/page/44/mode/2up) - On page 43 Stavrianos is talking about a crusade in 1364, but on page 44 he doesn't describe this battle as a revange for the battle in 1364. According to him, this battlefield (1371) is the one called "the Serbs' destruction".
* Fine, J. V. A. The Late Mediaeval Balkans, p. 379 (https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472082605-ch7.pdf) - It doesn't mention battle in 1364.
So, why we make any connection between this battle and the battle of 1364 (I don't want to discuss here if that battle ever happened)? Why we make false references? I'm removing that statement about the revenge. --N Jordan (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a joke (false references) 

message: There is a long tradition of presenting bias, nationalistic sympathies and misinterpretations, ahistorical notes and additions by later authors,  and outright nonsense when referring to this battle. This Wikipedia article complies well with this tradition. Most of the references are by authors who never visited the area and have very distorted information about the battle’s whereabouts.   Let me address (some of) the issues point by point.
The goal of the Serbian army. The article has it’s “make a surprise attack on the Ottomans in their capital city, Edirne, while Murad I was in Asia Minor.” This is at odds with the size of the army. Surprise attacks are carried on with small mobile armies. Moreover, the fact that the Ottomans themselves surprised the Serbian army suggests that they had prior knowledge of the army’s movements, which rules out the ‘’surprise’’ factor. If the intention was to capture Edrine, as the location of the battle highly suggests, this is again at odds with the size of the army and the date of the events. You do not need 50000-70000 men for a siege of a city. Late September is probably the strategically worst time to begin sieges, as crops are already harvested, the supplies are presumed to be already collected, and there are no issues with drought and heat. Simultaneously you bind much manpower, which is critically needed during field activities in a very active agricultural season.   If the intention was to get rid of the Ottomans from the Balkan peninsula then it is more logical to wait until Murad returns to perform a decisive blow against the whole Ottoman power, rather than look for temporary goals, which are likely to be avenged later on. It seems that the most likely goal was a preemptive blow, and some sources claim that Murad was planning a war either with Serbia or with Bulgaria at the time. 
The route of the Serbian army. Contrary to what the map in the article (original unsourced work with purely speculative authenticity)  and John Fine claims, the domains of King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješa and the territories controlled by the Ottomans were not immediate neighbors. They were divided by the Rhodope mountains and the latter were never Serbian territories. Large armies are unlikely to pass through mountainous areas, especially if there was no rationale to do so.   This leaves essentially two routes that the Serbian army may have taken. The northern one, which is more likely, follows the ancient Via Militaris. It passes through Bulgarian territory and leaves open the problem of the Bulgarian involvement in the campaign. It is known that after their victory at Chernomen, the Turks immediately turned on Bulgaria. This is strange if the Bulgarians stayed uninvolved and the main Ottoman forces stayed in Asia Minor, but at least supports the ’’northern route’’. The southern one follows the ancient Via Egnatia. This route requires passing through Byzantine territories, and at the time the relations between Byzantium and Serbia were hostile because of the Serbian schism.  Also, then it would have been strategically far more clever to pass the Marica river at a convenient downstream location.
The date of the battle. I do not know of a reliable contemporary source fixing the date on 26 September. It is notable that exactly 25 years later, on the same date, the massacre of the POWs at Nicopolis happened. There are more common traits with the Nicopolis battle (both battles happened near a river, in both cases the Turks appeared unexpectedly, both battles involved large Christian armies which were annihilated, and in both cases, the Christian army had a long passage before the events) which leaves open the problem of a possible bias. 
     
The exact location of the battle. I do not know of a reliable contemporary source fixing the location at Chernomen. I am not aware of any archeological studies confirming the location. Turkish sources place the battle at Sirp Sindigi, on the left bank of Marica. The left bank seems far more probable for a series of reasons. Most notably, the Serbian army tried to flee through the river. Had they been on the right bank near Chernomen, it is not logical for them to look for refuge on the right (Turkish) bank through a wide river such as Marica. Unless you are pushed to or encircled (the Turks lacked the manpower to do so), you do not tend to jump at night into an unknown wide and possibly deep river: https://www.google.pl/maps/@41.7730265,26.1921474,3a,75y,163.25h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYKXTdqXWrZnzqnQxSRpOiA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
 The existence of a ford must have been known to the Serbs, who probably used it the previous day. 
The sequence of events. According to http://astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases1301.html
On 26 September 1371 it was almost full moon. Unless it was raining, it would have been a very bright night with very good visibility. The terrain is very flat. See yourself: https://www.google.pl/maps/@41.7072647,26.2424501,3a,75y,27.41h,86.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svGi5Ev4iej9nYvuJoHUsTA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DvGi5Ev4iej9nYvuJoHUsTA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D203.55655%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
 Although I do not know anything about the forestation of the area, it seems that in such circumstances it is unlikely that significant forces would approach unnoticed.  It is unlikely that the Serbians did not set guards or reconnaissance, as the distance to Edrine is just 20-30 kilometers, so they were literally almost on the spot, well inside the Enemy territory. In my opinion, the only two possible explanations are an exhaustive passage through the river (there was no bridge at the location in the middle ages) earlier in the day, which supports the ‘’left bank’’ conjecture above, or a betrayal inside the Serbian camp.  The latter is probable, as the Turkish sources claim that the Serbians killed each other in the mess. 
,,After the battle, the Maritsa ran scarlet with blood’’. This does not happen as a result of drowning, stampede or killings that are not located immediately by the river bank. The only two possible explanations of the phenomenon (if it is not just literary fiction) are that either the Serbians fought each other for the limited places in boats or rafts, or there were massive executions of POWs at the river bank. Both suggest a possible bias with the battle of Nicopolis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.220.23 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some contradictions 

message: More than 17 years since the creation of the article, the same is practically a little one with content like from a children's fairy tale.
Sitz im Leben! This battle is not so important with and because of the number of soldiers who participated in it, but with another — the fulfillment of Osman's Dream! Why the dream came true:
* The social discontent after the Black Death among the Bulgarian population, exhausted to the limit by the internecine feudal wars on the peninsula, led to nothing but more and more feudal fragmentation and new wars! The price is paid by this population, from which the main military contingent is recruited!
: Result: Rockado with change of flag ie. the soldiers abandon their leaders who drown in the waters of Maritsa and join the new janissary corps as warriors. Otherwise, there is no way the bill will come out!
* The Ottomans have nothing to brag about or pay attention to "this battle" because its result was not achieved through bravery. And the opposite: complete silence in the Christian sources about the shame!
* At that time there was no "national historiography with its own school". On one side are mostly akinjis and the replaced yayas — renegades of Köse Mihal. On the other side are not Serbian and Greek troops, but troops serving against the Serbian and Greek borders from the time of Stefan Dušan. The title of the latter "Emperor of the Serbs and Romans" is a similar mockery from INRI.
p.s. How else to explain the decisive involvement of Stefan Lazarević's cavalry in the Battle of Nicopolis only 25 years later?Станислав Минков (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the case of this battle, it is simply about Punica fides.Станислав Минков (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort of a summary 

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

message: I wanted to ask a link on the first battle. Then I read here the long discussion about it. I suggest to add a footnote stating that the first battle never happened. pietro 151.29.149.29 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  first battle 

message: Above I have read  a claim the battle occurred at Sirp ... My Century Cyclopedia of 1911 (among other dubious info, e.g. that the battle occurred in 1364) says that the place was nicknamed "Sirf Sindughi" i.e. "serb's rout". 151.29.149.29 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirp qualcosa