Talk:Battle of Ankara

message: There is a lot of room for expansion for this article. A historian should take a look.
This could be added: one of the reasons of the Ottoman defeat was that many "Bey's"(Turkish equivelant of Lord) that joined the battle on the Ottoman side defected because they sought independance from Ottoman rule. I read quite a few articles that said that the traditional idea that the Ottoman defeat was due to the use of Elephants by the forces of Timur is not very true, and that the Ottoman defeat could be accredited to political reasons.
::War elephants were there and in a sense they were effective but we can't forget the powerful and fast Turkish horsemen. In my opinion, Bayezid I lost the battle because of Timur's tactics. Timur made the Ottoman force tired before the start of the battle. With respect, Deliogul 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well its a combo of all of those. His army was tired, thirsty, forced onto the offensive against elephants, many of his soldiers defecting. There couldn't be a better disaster. Tourskin 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A historian, please take a look 

message: 'Forces' section contradicts the reference used for the strength of the armies; "The size of the two armies are reliably estimated at 140,000 on Timur's side and no more than 85,000 under Sultan Bayezid I." (David Nicolle, Armies of the Ottoman Turks, see notes), and the 'source' given in this section should be moved to the external links. Lysandros 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand why you marked he even counted a few Indian war elephants amongst his numbers as dubious? If you have some other sources denying it or explaining it better - please, add it to this section about forces of both sides. It is quite possible for Timur to have the elephants that time - due to his successful campain in India preceeding this battle.--BarryMar 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not see why my might be dubious if it disagrees to your reference?! What makes your reference more reliable? You are always welcome to point at another reference and, however, to show us why your reference is more reliable.--BarryMar 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which side do you mean by Turks? Both Ottomans and Timurids were Turks. Two armies that met were largely Turkic. After this foreword: Timur's army was indeed larger. All the reasons cited above are mere speculation and are only assumptions. The only source cited is a populist biography by Harold Lamb followed by speculations why it make sense. First of all Lamb wrote the Tamerlane's biography, so it's natural that he tried to emphasize his protagonist's achievements. Much more romantic to win being outnumbered than to win by numbers. Well, if we ever assume that Bayezid brought the bigger army, a very large part of his army which consisted of Anatolian troops defected to the other side when they saw their former lords, Anatolian Beys overthrown by Bayezid, beside Timur. So anyway at the battle Bayezid's forces were largely outnumbered by Timur's.79.173.120.214 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strength of the armies 

message: I have a reliable source; Battle, by R.G. Grant, which stated that Bayezid and Timur's army wearing marching towards each other, missed each other. Then, Bayezid was forced to turn back his army. When it found Timur's army, it was blocking the path to the nearest water source. Therefore, Bayezid's army was forced on to the offensive to reach the water source since his army was tired and thristy. He failed to break through and a Timur counter attack won the day for Timur. 86.136.28.42 23:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Me?

message: it's aba yazeed, meaning father of yazeed; not beyazid, what does that mean anyway? 213.42.21.156  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of turkish commander 

message: The numbers aimed to 'prove' the both armies strength are meaningless. No one knows for sure how many men had any of the two armies. When Tamerlaine invaded Turkey his a horsemen army allowed him to move fast through the Turkish Empire - destroying the Empire defense piece by piece. Later, before the main battle and during the battle, a number of Bayezid's allies and vassals joined to Tamerlaine. So, trying to figure out the armies strength makes no sense.
Moreover, if reading some older references, we'll get clear idea that the numbers were matter of the rule of thumb:
*Turkey, old and new; historical, geographical and statistical: historical, geographical and statistical by Sutherland Menzies, WM Hallen and Co London 1880  page 65: They amounted nearly one million men.
*Modern History: From the Coming of Christ and Change of the Roman Republic Into an Empire, to the Year of Our Lord 1888 by Peter Fredet, published by J. Murphy & co., 1893 page 373-374 (800 000 Tamerlane, 400 000 Bayezid)
*New historical atlas and general history by Robert Henlopen Labberton, published by T. MacCoun, 1888, Bayezid 120 000 Tamerlane 600 000
Accordingly - I've deleted the numbers and 'references' quoting the armies strength arbitrarily.--141.156.229.98 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote the section. In general, I would avoid using old scholarship when new, improved scholarship is readily available. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before arbitrarily removing reliable sources from this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: *"Battle of Angora" - 3370 hits
*"Battle of Ankara" - 1780 hits
cf. Talk:Siege of Plevna#Move request
Takabeg (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Angora 

message: An IP editor wrote on the talk page for the file Battle of Angora1402.jpg, which is used only in this article, expressing doubts about its accuracy. I happened upon this comment and thought I would reproduce it below so that it would have a better chance of being noticed, in case anyone more knowledgeable about the subject can fix the problem. The comment is rather vague. A. Parrot (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a serious problem. The source used here is far from the reliable one and, God knows, how it was interpreted here.--71.178.108.23 (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. There were many ottoman military leaders who were not sultan's sons and Turks, like Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, Murat-beg Tardić, Jusuf Mašković, Omar Pasha, Zagan Pasha, Ahmed Izzet Pasha, Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed, Sinan Pasha ... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

text: They were not Turks nor sultan's sons.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Slavs are most assuredly NOT Turks.  Citizenship - such as it was - is not the point. Ethnicity/Nationality is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.23 (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the battle 

message: Here is a constant, stubborn move to use some numbers that are just generated by rule of thumbs. There is no any counting of the armies numbers of that time, neither on Mongol nor Turkish side. Serb Lazarevic, as Bayezid's vassal, was a military leader of third rank, no more than auxiliary Bayezid's force which was kept a a bay by Tamerlan during this battle. The Tamerlan's move was to destroy Turkish army and not to waste time and force on insignificant Christian auxiliary troops.
As to the battle formation, if it existed at the beginning, it was completely destroyed by Tatars and Anatolian Muslims who joined to Tamerlan. From the beginning, there was complete disorder in Turkish army which was destroyed just within several hours of fighting.
What was already pointed out in discussion, Tamerlan destroyed Turkey military might before the battle, by slaughtering Turkish conscripts (in tens of thousand) before Bayezid was able to enlist them and arm them and taking away best Turkish horses. Tamelan also, as a wise and educated military leader, attacked Turkey when Turks were campaigning in Europe trying to conquer Hungary. He entered Turkey from the east, moving toward Bosphorus. When Bayezid expected to meet him on the west of Turkey, Tamerlan took u-turn destroying Anatolia and moving toward Angora. His army was completely  mounted (i.e. cavalry) which Bayezid was not able to catch for having a lot of infantry. Tamerlan stopped at Angora forcing Angora defense to entrench and stay out of battle.
All above is the reason why I am removing nonsensic numbers and irrelevant military commanders.
--71.178.108.23 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in Wikipedia states anything of the type(usage of primary sources). Your opinion here, which is not supported by anything viable, means nothing. You have presented no reason to removed Lazarevic or the references from the Infobox. This statement, "...based on references with no valid primary sources.", has NOT been proven at all. You have reverted 3 other editors and are edit warring. --Defensor Ursa 21:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, I have tagged the paragraph you have added since the sources do not support your opinion, which is original research. --Defensor Ursa 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Four secondry sources (I believe it was that before it was removed from the infobox) to support the presence of Lazarevic certainly is enough. Whether those four sources need to be supported or not (IP's argument) should be decided by Wikipedia guidelines, although, as I have said, I'm quite sure there is no problem with four secondry sources. Also, infobox space really doesn't seem to be a problem with this article, even with the addition of Lazarevic. Uhlan talk  06:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with primary sources. Constantine of Kostenets described details about Lazarevic's participation in this battle. The text on Serbian language can be seen here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lazarevic and primary sources 

message: Serbia fought on this battle as Belligerents and their flag should be next to the ottoman..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The serbs 

message: I read I. Djuric's book Sumrak Vizantije (Twilight of Byzant). It was stated there that Ottoman Empire size was three times of the Timur's empire, Turkish army was at least three times larger than Timur's army. The Timur's army big advantage was in being completely cavalry. Morever, Timur's envoys met and persuaded many Turkish vassals to switch the sides. I am not sure that the Turkish army was outnumbered. Turks had a lot of infantry which makes them a slow-moving army which was a big strategical disadvantage of Turks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The same book says that Timur did not fight Lazarevic's armored unit for not finding it useful. The same way, Lazarevic did not actively fought Timur. The statements about Lazarevic breaking Timur's ranks three times sounds as an urban legend.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Ankara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820064456/http://www.altarmaket.com.tr:80/ankara1402.html to http://www.altarmaket.com.tr/ankara1402.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps Mircea I of Wallachia didn't participate himself in the battle but he sent troops under Serbian commander. 79.115.204.175 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction: "vassals that did not participate were Wallachian Mircea" vs "knights together with Wallachian forces" 

message: There's not source for the date 20 july. Many sources give 28 july.--Jolle (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of the Battle