[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Why didn't he just kill Mehmed with his vampiric power?
>>
File: 11664.png (188 KB, 894x894)
188 KB
188 KB PNG
>hey Mehmet you should visit some time, I know a really great shish kebab recipe
>>
>>12107318
He wasn't a vampire
>>12107330
Lol
>>
>>12107355
Lets say he was in some alternate timeline, what changes
>>
>>12107318
Count Dracula never existed.
>>
Because that would be too easy
>>
Because god works in mysterious ways :^)
>>
>>12107355
>>12107473
You aren't fooling anybody Drac
>>
>>12107318
He was betrayed 4 times.
By the west, by Hunyadi, by the pope by his neighbors.
It`s weird because Hunyadi helped him once
>>
>>12107318
He was close at one point, but the Ottoman sultan pussied out and fled.
>>
>>12107497
Not weird at all, Hunyadi also assisted Djuradj Brankovic during the Varna Crusade only to demand him to become Hungary's vassal, in the end, you can guess Djuradj's response.
>>
>>12107517
>He was close at one point, but the Ottoman sultan pussied out and fled.
Nope Mehmet didn't flee,instead he left after ceremonial capture of what was left of Wallachia. Who would expect him to go aorund hunting a rebel army in its own territory when he could put Radu on the throne to chip away Vlad's support which he did.
>>
>>12107606
Indeed, the Ottoman sultan just bravely ran away-way during the Wallachian night attack at Targoviste? The absolute state of Turkish historiography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V02oBy4-H8U
>>
>>12107614
>Indeed, the Ottoman sultan just bravely ran away-way during the Wallachian night attack at Targoviste? The absolute state of Turkish historiography.
I have read multiple versions of this attack
>Mehmet's unarmed guard swarmed the attackers and made them retreat
>Vlad attacked the wrong camp and retreated when the Ottoman soldiers got their shit together
>Mehmet "fled"
Idk what is true but I wasnt talking about the battle but the campaign because Vlachs have a stupid myth that Mehmet got shti scared of implements and ditched the campaign which wasn't the case.
>>
>>12107629
*Implements
>>
>>12107629
He ran from Targoviste, and valorizing one's defeat is an inherent trait of Ottoman and Ana. Turkish historiography, you've done the same with the Battle of Kosovo, where you've stated that the whole of Medieval Europe was present there and that the Serbs outnumbered you, even though in reality, you outnumbered the Serbs, while their army was comprised only of Serbs, the Albanian vassals of Brankovic and a 100 Hospitallers from Croatia, who arrived even after the Hungarian king refused to send aid.

Not gonna address how the restored Patriarchate of Pech (under Ottoman aegis) was instrumental in spreading the fluke story of how Obilic slew the sultan in his tent, even though primary reports unanimously state he was slain in battle, another Ottoman lie.
>>
>>12107318
Because Dracula might be a vampire but the Turk is the agent of Satan.
>>
>>12107646
>He ran from Targoviste
Even if he did then nothing wrong with it. Even Vlad retreated when shit went south. Mehmet and his guard wasn't even armed and probably locally outnumbered aorund the vicinity.Only think this proves is this Vlad was a competent commander.
>valorizing one's defeat is an inherent trait of Ottoman and Ana.
How is it even a defeat when Vlad failed to achieve his tactical objective and Ottoman army was standing in the field. It's Germ tier cope there.
>Turkish historiography, you've done the same with the Battle of Kosovo, where you've stated that the whole of Medieval Europe was present there and that the Serbs outnumbered you, even though in reality, you outnumbered the Serbs, while their army was comprised only of Serbs, the Albanian vassals of Brankovic and a 100 Hospitallers from Croatia, who arrived even after the Hungarian king refused to send aid.
Post neutral sourced because everyone claimed Bazzilion trillion enemies back then. So shocking that Turks did the same!
>Not gonna address how the restored Patriarchate of Pech (under Ottoman aegis) was instrumental in spreading the fluke story of how Obilic slew the sultan in his tent, even though primary reports unanimously state he was slain in battle, another Ottoman lie.
Do neutral sources state that? How do you even reason Ottoman emperor dying on the field?
>>
>>12107664
What's cope is claiming that the Ottoman sultan running away was all part of his plan of an orderly retreat?

>Post neutral sources
None of the reports are Serbian, you coping shitskin, but Italian, Ragusan, and Bosnian.

>How do you even reason Ottoman emperor dying on the field
By getting killed in battle, regardless of who is credited, all of the primary sources are that the sultan was killed in battle, not in the aftermath.

The sources: The event of the battle quickly became known in Europe. Not much attention was paid to the outcome in these early rumors which circulated, but they all focused on the fact that the Ottoman Sultan had been killed in the battle. Some of the earliest reports about the battle come from the court of Tvrtko of Bosnia who in separate letters to the senate of Trogir (August 1) and the council of Florence claimed that he had defeated the Ottomans in Kosovo.[33] The response of the Florentines to Tvrtko (20 October 1389) is an important historical document as it confirms that Murad was killed during the battle and that it took place on June 28 (St. Vitus day/Vidovdan). The killer is not named, but it was one of 12 Serbian noblemen who managed to break through the Ottoman lines:

Fortunate, most fortunate are those hands of the twelve loyal lords who, having opened their way with the sword and having penetrated the enemy lines and the circle of chained camels, heroically reached the tent of Murat himself. Fortunate above all is that one who so forcefully killed such a strong Voivode by stabbing him with a sword in the throat and belly. And blessed are all those who gave their lives and blood through the glorious manner of martyrdom as victims of the dead leader over his ugly corpse.[34]

Another Italian account, Mignanelli's work of 1416, asserted that it was Lazar who killed the Ottoman sultan.[35]

>So shocking that Turks did the same
Moral relativism, how genuinely roach-like.
>>
>>12107318
because he wasn't invited. vampires can’t kill unless invited into the house, remember?
mehmed preferred his brother over his vampiric ass.
>>
>>12107684
>What's cope is claiming that the Ottoman sultan running away was all part of his plan of an orderly retreat?
Vlad's plan to kill the Sultan didn't succeed and Ottoman army repulsed the attack.Serbian Tactical objective failed..FAILED. That's the point retard.
>None of the reports are Serbian, you coping shitskin, but Italian, Ragusan, and Bosnian.
Most of the information spread worked through rumours retard.
Ottomans being Muslims rule out full proof neutrality of any Christian sources especially considering the fact that Ottomans were threat to all them.
The fact that the alternate possibilities are considered by historians proves that things are ambiguous. Good job copy pasting from Wikipedia though.
Brings a smile to my face that Balkanshtis are this mentally buck-broken by Ottomans even after centuries kek
>>
>>12107760
So i read the Serbshit source form the Wiki and even the source doesn't buy the "primary source" at the face value. Anyone interested can read the source on Wiki. The Serbshits cherrypicked the source to push their narrative. It has a ton of info and the author concludes the outcome as "ambiguous".
>>
>>12107684
>muh skin
>>
>>12107760
The point is, you greasy, subhuman shitskin is that the sultan FLED as a result of Vlad's assail, not because he planned on fleeing.

>Most of the information spread worked through rumors retard
>paragraph mentions multiple letters based on military reports of the battle, all unanimously state the Ottoman sultan was killed in battle
>written proof are rumors
The absolute state of Muslims, "the written proof isn't proof if doesn't suit my narrative", explains the selective adherence to the Quran. Remember, intellectual dishonesty is the residue of mental retardation, which is rampant in the Muslim world due to insane inbreeding rates.

>Ottomans even after centuries
The only time anyone here thinks of Ottomans is when they see a Syrian refugee (brown, short, and ugly), and asks "is that a Turk"? Aside from that, Ottomans were routinely annihilated throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries in SE Europe, whereas hundreds of millions of Mussies are trashed by a small Jewish state for the last 70 years.

>inbefore biased reports against Muslims
Shitskin deflection, which is what brings a smile to my face - knowing that you've no arguments, Mussie.
>>
>>12107318
Romanian here, we're not really into vampires. It's mostly soiboi foreigners who associate this region with vampires.
>>
File: (You) at (Cope).png (225 KB, 521x524)
225 KB
225 KB PNG
>>12107832
>read the source
>can't read
>Serbshit source
>none are Serb sources
The absolute state of the Mussie is in denial, you're not even Turkish, you're deff. a Paki rat-man who's high on Turanism thanks to ERTUGRUL Ghazi running on national Paki TV 24/7, disgusting.
>>
>>12107920
>The point is, you greasy, subhuman shitskin is that the sultan FLED as a result of Vlad's assail, not because he planned on fleeing.
No wonder Slavshits were the historical cumdrain of Europe. You can neither comprehend what I read nor what you posted.The fact we are still arguing abou this is either coping or delusion.
>>paragraph mentions multiple letters based on military reports of the battle, all unanimously state the Ottoman sultan was killed in battle
You think "military reports" can't be based on Rumours? Lmao. The wikipage you so confidently mentioned even states that there was no eyewitness to the battle. The first contemporary sources are claims from the Bosnian and Florentines agreeing with him who were definitely not biased. Hell,some of the Christian sources even claims Muslim victory and it is mentioned in wiki source itself! I wonder which one of us bothered reading anything.
>The only time anyone here thinks of Ottomans is when they see a Syrian refugee (brown, short, and ugly), and asks "is that a Turk"?
Slavshits have the reputation of Gypsies and even other Euros considered you subhumans worthy of annihilation like the little rats you are. Only thing you are good for is providing Slav women for Ottoman harems.
>Aside from that, Ottomans were routinely annihilated throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries in SE Europe
Nothing about this cope will change the fact that you will always be the butthurt belt of Europe insecure about centuries of Ottoman cocks up your ass. Your seethe is so obvious. Haha I wonder how many Slavshits were killed by their own kin for being Muslims and "Turks".
>Shitskin deflection, which is what brings a smile to my face - knowing that you've no arguments, Mussie.
Slavshit IQ
>I will use words out of context because my sources lack credibility
Lol. Most Turks only concern themselves with Greeks because they are somewhat human and worthy enemies. Trust me,the seethe isn't reciprocal.
>>
>>12107949
>Serboid reading comprehension
The page is clearly edited by Slav(e). I obviously meant the source posted by the Slavshits on wiki.
>>
>>12107949
>You are Paki
Already creating strawmans? Ottoman occupation trauma coming back to you? Cant even talk with a Turk without an anxiety attack? Lol
>>
File: TurksMogged.jpg (1.61 MB, 4236x2573)
1.61 MB
1.61 MB JPG
>>12107964
What you've said, you illiterate, coping, lying shitskin, is worth less than the shit I took half an hour ago. The fact is the following, you've no arguments, you're coping about and trying to poison the well and relativize the legitimacy of primary sources on the basis of suspicion which you cannot substantiate with proof. And yes, military reports cannot be based on rumors, because they require a rational assessment of losses and geopolitical realities.

>confidently mentioned even states that there was no eyewitness to the battle
The letter written by king Tvrtko was BASED on the military report of one of his generals, Vlatko Vukovic who commanded the left flank during the battle, and was the LAST to retreat from the battle, that is why they're definitely not biased, and the matter isn't about who won or lost, stop changing the subject, but on whether the Ottoman sultan was killed in battle or not, and all primary sources, regardless of whether they're letters or rumors, state that he was, unanimously, the claim that he was killed in his tent appears centuries later, and only AFTER the Ottomans subjugated all of Medieval Serbia.

>Trust me, the seethe isn't reciprocal.
There's no seethe on our side, so you're right on that matter, Turks have South Slavs in their heads 24/7, we've seen in media, we've seen in on the internet, and we both know why. While the Anatolian Turk was the abominable Esek-Turk, the Slav dominated the upper strata of the Ottoman Empire, and then, slaughtered a sea of Muslims during the period of liberation from Ottoman rule. What other "Euros", Muslims and Turkoids have in common is that all three had their aspirations towards this part of the world utterly reversed in but a span of years. Turkoids are even fully Russified, barring Ana. Turks.
>>
>>12107968
>>12107982
>Facts are revisionism
How the shitskins easily reveal their twisted subconscious when they instinctively perceive historiography through the lens of corruption, beyond amusing.

>even talk with a Turk without an anxiety attack
You're the one in denial here because your sultan got slit like a pig, never seen these many essays being dished out in short spans of time, while saying absolutely nothing, and no arguments, to boot.

Here's you, crying like a bent woman, like your Fuad-bey, after we killed his cowardly son (pretended to be dead among actual Ottoman dead), while his entire army was annihilated.
>>
>>12107994
>And yes, military reports cannot be based on rumors, because they require a rational assessment of losses and geopolitical realities.
Dumb Slavnigger. Your own source disgarees with the "military reports" and claims the unreliability of them. Pretty sure that she doesn't even call them "miltary reports" and neither did she conclude anything. You want me to spoonfeed you like EU and quote the source like a wittle baby?
>The letter written by king Tvrtko was BASED on the military report of one of his generals, Vlatko Vukovic who commanded the left flank during the battle, and was the LAST to retreat from the battle
Your own source says that there wasn't any eyewitness brainlet. Even if that dude retreated last then why should I believe any Enemy source? Ottomans didn't bother pushing any narrative until centuries later as mentioned in the article and Christians were free to spread the facts however they please. All of this is mentioned in the article.
All the primary sources are Christians and anti-ottoman! I posted about "Ottoman victory" to lay emphasis on the fact the inconsistency but Slavshits aren't evolved enough to understand nuance.
>There's no seethe on our side, so you're right on that matter, Turks have South Slavs in their heads 24/7, we've seen in media, we've seen in on the internet, and we both know why.
Holy moly,you yourself are the evidence of that not being the case. You started sperging like a retard in a civil thread which was not unlike Slavmonkey behaviour.
>Turk was the abominable Esek-Turk, the Slav dominated the upper strata of the Ottoman Empire, and then, slaughtered a sea of Muslims during the period of liberation from Ottoman rule.
Good. More dead Slavshits and "Turks".
>Muh upper strata
Imagine bragging about furthering the ambitions and interests of your own Enemy for the most part. Truly a Slav(e) race.
>>
>>12108024
>Facts
>How the shitskins easily reveal their twisted subconscious when they instinctively perceive historiography through the lens of corruption, beyond amusing.
Never seen someone going Schizo from sheer butthurt before.
>You're the one in denial here because your sultan got slit like a pig, never seen these many essays being dished out in short spans of time, while saying absolutely nothing, and no arguments, to boot.
Holy mother of projection.
Anyways
>10 gazzilion Serbs cucked by Turks in their houses.jpg
>>
>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.
>Rumors of the battle were disseminated as far as Constantinople, Florence, Venice, Barcelona, and
Paris, but they appeared to emphasize just one particular bit of news: the death of the Ottoman sultan. While the
West had been slow to judge the seriousness of the Ottoman advance into Europe, by the late fourteenth century
>>
>>12108064
Absolute state of "military reports" and "contemporary sources".
>>
File: MENA-moment.png (200 KB, 634x939)
200 KB
200 KB PNG
>>12108029
Turkoid monkey in full cope-swing, trying to grasp at every imaginable straw but falls from each one because his hands are too slippery from all shit he waded through in hopes of finding even a single coherent point that can drag him away from this hill that he has to die on.

>All the primary sources are Christians and anti-Ottoman!
The absolute state of the most brainwashed CIVIC nationality in Eurasia.

>you yourself are the evidence of that not being the case
>Lies through his teeth, is exposed for it, starts coping and Muslimposting his ass off
>is surprised he's met with aggression
There's a solution to avoid all of that, stop being an illiterate, greasy Mussie who treats history as a set of lies because he's inherently used to lying.

>More dead Slavshits and "Turks"
The bulk of the killed were all kinds of Anatolian Turks settled in Bulgaria, MK, and Northern Greek territories, whereas those banished from Serbia were part Muslim Slavs, part Muslim Albanians, and part genuine Turks.

>for the most part
Just reminding you that you're taking pride in an empire that was governed by Slavs and other Janissary non-Turks, your forefathers were either farming turnips in Eastern Anatolia, or were sold into slavery for the better part of the Otto. Empire's tenure.

>>12108037
>Mussoid deflects facts with inversion of history yet again
Not much can be expected from 2-3 billion mutts buck-broken by several million Jews.
>>
File: (You)seethe.png (278 KB, 477x464)
278 KB
278 KB PNG
>>12108064
>>12108070
The "historian" in question is Emmert, who doesn't speak and read Medieval Serbian and is therefore not privy to primary wells of information and asserts the battle SOLELY from the POV of the Myth of the Kosovo Battle that evolved only AFTER the Ottoman-tenured restoration of the Patriarchate of Pech, it's hilarious how you're so mentally impaired that you cannot even grasp at straws properly, what a shitshow. In other words, no rebuttal to what I've said, and there'll never be any, you're more than welcome to provide even a single contemporary Ottoman report/source of the Kosovo battle (we both know you won't, so keep coping).
>>
>>12108086
>Turkoid monkey in full cope-swing, trying to grasp at every imaginable straw but falls from each one because his hands are too slippery from all shit he waded through in hopes of finding even a single coherent point that can drag him away from this hill that he has to die on.
Look a this glorious seethe.
>The absolute state of the most brainwashed CIVIC nationality in Eurasia.
It's literally in the article you cited!
>There's a solution to avoid all of that, stop being an illiterate, greasy Mussie who treats history as a set of lies because he's inherently used to lying.
>Lies
Which one? I have only posted shit from the article you mentioned.
>The bulk of the killed were all kinds of Anatolian Turks settled in Bulgaria, MK, and Northern Greek territories, whereas those banished from Serbia were part Muslim Slavs, part Muslim Albanians, and part genuine Turks.
Sure,all of these were "Turks" and not larpers. Even if they were then the total buck-breaking of centuries can't compensate for it.
>Just reminding you that you're taking pride in an empire that was governed by Slavs and other Janissary non-Turks
Good Slav(e) but most of the Viziers were Anatolian Turks and the next majority was Albanians. Yes,we had jannisary Slav(e)s too.
>your forefathers were either farming turnips in Eastern Anatolia, or were sold into slavery for the better part of the Otto. Empire's tenure.
Or maybe he was seeding Slavic pussy in Balkans? What about this?
>Not much can be expected from 2-3 billion mutts buck-broken by several million Jews.
I don't understand why do you think I care about Pisslamic unity or something but I bet you cry about Joooos on /pol/.
>>
>>12107614
and there was much rejoicing
>>
>>12108103
>The "historian" in question is Emmert, who doesn't speak and read Medieval Serbian and is therefore not privy to primary wells of information and asserts the battle SOLELY from the POV of the Myth of the Kosovo Battle that evolved only AFTER the Ottoman-tenured restoration of the Patriarchate of Pech, it's hilarious how you're so mentally impaired that you cannot even grasp at straws properly, what a shitshow
Hahahaa talk about grasping straws lmao. I value her interpretation more than of some butthurt Slav(e) who is trying to pass obviously biased source as credible.
>POV of the Myth of the Kosovo Battle that evolved only AFTER the Ottoman-tenured restoration of the Patriarchate of Pech
Where are you even getting this from you brain-dead worm? She considered every contemporary POV and solely discarded Ottoman one as others.
>provide even a single contemporary Ottoman report/source of the Kosovo battle (we both know you won't, so keep coping).
What will this prove lol? Anyways
"Essentially two versions of the assassination exist in the early Ottoman sources.In one version the
murder takes place after the battle is already over.[52] Murad was on the field of Kosovo awaiting the return of
his army, when suddenly one of the Christians, covered in blood and apparently hidden among the enemy dead,
got up, rushed to Murad, and stabbed him with a dagger. At that moment the sultan became a martyr for the
faith as well.[53] In the other version, the Christian forces were scattered and put. to flight after a countless
number of deaths on both sides.[54] As Murad's soldiers pursued the enemy army, the sultan found himself
completely alone on the field. Suddenly one of the Christian noblemen arose from among the corpses lying on
the battlefield. He had promised himself as a sacrifice and approached Murad, who was sitting on his horse.
Pretending that he wished to kiss the sultan's hand, he stabbed the sultan with a sharp dagger"
>>
File: BosnianSerbmogg.jpg (70 KB, 945x675)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>12108105
>look at this glorious seethe
t. seething Esek-Turk.

>It's literally in the article you cited!
>Ottomans so ashamed of losing their sultan and prince in battle they didn't record it
>somehow the fault of Christians for being literate
The solution is to learn to read and grow a spine.

>Which one?
All of them.
>but most of the Viziers were Anatolian Turks
Most of the Grand Viziers were South Slavs, Albanians, and Georgians, not Anatolian Turks.

>Or maybe he was seeding Slavic pussy in Balkans
Funny, since South Slavs are predominately Slavic in terms of DNA, whereas Anatolian Turks score less than 12% in East Asian DNA, and boast over 90% of non-East Asian Y-DNA, the most cucked nation in Eurasia, a total inversion of its national founding myth of being Turkoids.

> Slav(e)s too.
"The ghilman were slave-soldiers taken as prisoners of war from conquered regions or frontier zones, especially from among the Turkic people of Central Asia and the Caucasian peoples (Turkish: Kölemen). They fought in bands and demanded high pay for their services.[6]" Ghilman (singular Arabic: غُلاَم ghulām,[note 1] plural غِلْمَان ghilmān)[note 2] were slave-soldiers and/or mercenaries in the armies throughout the Islamic world, such as the Safavid, Afsharid and Qajar empires. Islamic states from the early 9th century to the early 19th century consistently deployed slaves as soldiers, a phenomenon that was very rare outside of the Islamic world.[1]- Turkoids was the largest reservoir Eurasian reservoir of slaves for nearly the whole body of the Islamic world, for nearly a thousand years, you're the perpetual slave, not your Slavic superiors.
>>
>>12108086
> Unironically sourcing Wikipedia.
>>
>>12108134
>Most of the Grand Viziers were South Slavs, Albanians, and Georgians, not Anatolian Turks.
https://mobile.twitter.com/albanologyfacts/status/1174792241849782273
Slavshit delusion
>Funny, since South Slavs are predominately Slavic in terms of DNA, whereas Anatolian Turks score less than 12% in East Asian DNA, and boast over 90% of non-East Asian Y-DNA, the most cucked nation in Eurasia, a total inversion of its national founding myth of being Turkoids.
Most of you are native Balkanites assimilated by Slav(e)s from North who Mong'd you even further with their Y-dna. Dumb mutt.
>The ghilman were slave-soldiers taken as prisoners of war from conquered regions or frontier zones, especially from among the Turkic people of Central Asia and the Caucasian peoples (Turkish: Kölemen).
Decide already if we are Anatolians or Central Asians Turks you Slav(e) nigger.
>>
>>12108134
God, I am glad Madeline Albright had the wisdom to bomb the shit out of the Yugo and turn you into the broken and bitter meme state that you are.
Jews are truly based!
>>
>>12108132
>All primary sources are biased because my butthurt, seething Turkish ass says so
>here, here this no-name historian interprets it differently
Interpretation is meaningless if it is not supported by the majority of evidence, whereas in this case, the totality of primary sources is in opposition to what she asserts.

>What will this prove
That you've no way to substantiate your claims, which automatically renders your argument moot, and that you accusing Christian sources of bias when your own historiography doesn't offer any contemporary sources to compare them to is the ultimate example of having no argument, and seething at the fact that Christian Europe recorded it, while the Ottomans didn't is just proof of the Ottomans being aware of how detrimental the battle is for their reputation in the Christian and Muslim world alike. Incidentally, both of these Ottoman sources you've listed appear only a century after the battle, and a few decades after Serbia was finally subjugated by the Ottomans, and are in complete opposition to the reports that stem from the primary sources, as in, they're made-up.
>>
>>12108173
>Interpretation is meaningless if it is not supported by the majority of evidence, whereas in this case, the totality of primary sources is in opposition to what she asserts.
She clearly states her reasoning in article. Not her fault that yout reading comprehension is monkey tier. Name any major historian that beleives your narrative then? You dont even need to be a historian to doubt CHRISTIAN sources and inconsistencies.
>That you've no way to substantiate your claims, which automatically renders your argument moot, and that you accusing Christian sources of bias
Completely reasonable
>the fact that Christian Europe recorded it, while the Ottomans didn't is just proof of the Ottomans being aware of how detrimental the battle is for their reputation in the Christian and Muslim world alike.
Lol Ottomans had a very formal way of recording history. Not recording history immediately after the battle makes sense considering the succession chaos that ensued. Again,what was stopping Ottomans from making shit up? Nothing. You thinking that they did it out of embarrassment is childish.
>Incidentally, both of these Ottoman sources you've listed appear only a century after the battle
Nope,not exactly contemporary bu not late "centuries" late either.
>>
>>12108148
>source, a graph that is a total inversion of the Grand Vizier registry from "ALBANOLOGY" Mass media profile
You're not just mentally impaired, but desperate to boot.

>Dumb mutt
>literal genetic sink and mutts calling pred. Slavic peoples mutts
In every South Slavic country, R1a, a sizable number of E1b SNPs, and I2a1b-Din, three Proto-Slavic lineages, constitute well over 70% of South Slavic Y-DNA lineages, while they also score predominately in Slavic aDNA, unlike Ana. Turks, who're perpetual mutts.

>Decide already if we
>that desperate attempt at twisting my words
MENA-mutt, the point is that your Turkoid nation, which is genetically 92% mystery meat in terms of Y-DNA, and 89% mystery-meat in terms of DNA is ironically LARPing as Turkoids when boasting minimal Turkoid DNA. If anyone needs to get a reality check, then it's Anatolian Aladdins who think they're Attila.
>>
>>12108197
>You're not just mentally impaired, but desperate to boot.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/95gij2/ottoman_grand_viziers_born_per_country_with/
Sourced in the comments.
>In every South Slavic country, R1a, a sizable number of E1b SNPs, and I2a1b-Din, three Proto-Slavic lineages, constitute well over 70% of South Slavic Y-DNA lineages, while they also score predominately in Slavic aDNA, unlike Ana. Turks, who're perpetual mutts.
Muh Slavic Y-dna!!!! That only proved how throughly Native Balkanites got cucked wheeze. Your autosomal dna is full of muttoid ancestry from your surroundings. Dumb Mutt.
>MENA-mutt, the point is that your Turkoid nation, which is genetically 92% mystery meat in terms of Y-DNA, and 89% mystery-meat in terms of DNA is ironically LARPing as Turkoids when boasting minimal Turkoid DNA. If anyone needs to get a reality check, then it's Anatolian Aladdins who think they're Attila.
Ironic because all of this is true for Slavshits. You larping as Slavs is as pathetic British larping as Anglos or French larping as Franks. Cringe
>>
>>12108197
Le 56% face. pure slavic ancestry straight from the swamps of Russia into Balkan pussy
>>
>>12108216
>You larping as Slavs is as pathetic British larping as Anglos or French larping as Franks.
The difference being both the British and French have enough of an impressive modern history to not be bothered about whether they're closer to ancient Anglos or Franks. Can't say the same for Turks.
>>
>>12108193
Her reasoning is substandard and in opposition to the historical reality of the whole totality of the claims made by contemporary sources. She claims the contemporary sources contain fabrication, yet they all, without a single exception, regardless of whether they're reports or rumors, state the same - that the sultan was killed in battle, not after. She also unironically said there were no eyewitnesses to the battle, even though Tvrtko's letter was written based on Vlatko Vukovic's report.

>even need to be a historian to doubt CHRISTIAN sources and inconsistencies.
Your "doubt" isn't even critical, but reactionary, since you're impotently raging at the fact that Ottomans routinely embellished their own history to alleviate with shameful displays of defeat and loss.

>Completely reasonable
Only to you, because you've no argument except for relativizing the legitimacy of contemporary sources (read, cope).

>Ottomans had a very formal way of recording history
In total opposition to non-Ottoman reports of the same events, therefore of disputed quality.

>Not recording history immediately after the battle makes sense
It doesn't, because the Ottomans have had a habit of not recording battles where they've lost, downplaying losses, or reporting in total inversion. Examples are Bileca, Plocnik, and all battles where Hunyadi and Brankovic mopped the floor with the Ottomans.

>Nothing
From "no, they did not lie" to "what's stopping them from lying", what a progression of intellectual dishonesty, one last argument at the time. Also, what should've stopped them is the fact that lying is a sin worse than murder and jealousy, t. Quran.

>ot exactly contemporary but not late "centuries" late either.
A century later is still a century later, and they're not contemporary, so what's your point?

>Name any major historian
Sima Cirkovic, Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Christian A. Nielsen, and Misha Glenny, from the top of the head.
>>
>>12108216
>copes by posting trash sources
Here's an actually veritable source, even with all the constant Anatolian Turkish users constantly editing the ethnicities of a myriad of Anatolian Viziers, Anatolian Turks still form a mere portion of the Grand Viziers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_Grand_Viziers

>Slavic Y-DNA!!!!
Yes, which constitutes over 70% of Y-DNA lineages in South Slavic countries, whereas East Asian/Turkic Y-DNA in Turkey is less than 10%.

>! That only proved how thoroughly Native Balkanites got cucked
This is irrelevant since we identify as Slavs, and ironically, they got cucked less than the Turkmen of Anatolia, since your nation is less than 10% East Asian paternally.

>Your autosomal DNA is full of muttoid ancestry from your surroundings
Irrelevant, we're still predominately Slavic in DNA while identifying as Slavs, whereas you're predominately mystery meat shitskin mutts while identifying as Turks, which means you're triple-cucked, by cultural identity LARPing, by Y-DNA (male replacement of Turkoids), and by aDNA (total DNA).

>Dumb Mutt
We're racially homogeneous populations, you're the Eurasian version of Brazil, a mixed shithole, get a grip.

> because all of this is true for Slavshits
No, because our DNA profile reflects our Slavic identity, you subhuman shitskinned mutt, here's how you look with Gypsy input, disgusting.
>>
File: TurkeyDNAbroke1.png (3.17 MB, 1623x1195)
3.17 MB
3.17 MB PNG
>>12108224
Even if it were as low as 56%, and it's not, it would still be predominately Slavic DNA, whereas your disgusting LARPing brown ass is barely 11% East Asian, while pretending to be pure sons of Attila.
>>
>>12107318
He fell in love with big TÜRKISH cock during his stay at the Ottoman court, he couldn't bring himself to do it or accept his feelings. Instead he ran away to hide in the Carpathians and kept impaling people, imagining it was himself getting buggered by the Sultan all the while.
>>
>>12108275
>Her reasoning is substandard and in opposition to the historical reality of the whole totality of the claims made by contemporary sources. She claims the contemporary sources contain fabrication, yet they all, without a single exception, regardless of whether they're reports or rumors, state the same - that the sultan was killed in battle, not after.
She explained inconsistencies. Anyways,why is it so hard for you to believe that the sources of the adversery often contain bias
>She also unironically said there were no eyewitnesses to the battle, even though Tvrtko's letter was written based on Vlatko Vukovic's report.
His "report" only vaguely reported the outcome and not the battle in detail. The words "eyewitness account" here clearly means the entirety of engagement along with the details of the armies. She explains this in the same paragraph.
You really think she was stupid enough to believe that no-one survived the battle lmao. You should the read the pdf,it's not that long
>It doesn't, because the Ottomans have had a habit of not recording battles where they've lost, downplaying losses, or reporting in total inversion. Examples are Bileca, Plocnik, and all battles where Hunyadi and Brankovic mopped the floor with the Ottomans.
Any evidence that any of these battles were not recorded? Downplayed sure but I'd ask for proof for earlier claim. Ottomans eventually recorded the battle as they liked and didn't give a shit. Nothing was stopping them from twisting the facts and what would they have gained out of leaving narrative in enemy hands lol. They just didn't because they were formally kept history and their empire was disturbed by immediate succession.

>A century later is still a century later, and they're not contemporary, so what's your point?
Lol. Serbian accounts of Murad dying are copied from Turkic ones.
>>
>>12108293
>Primarily Slavic DNA
>you're mutt and rape-baby
The daily tribulations of genuine mutts with access to G25.
>>
>>12108248
>Your "doubt" isn't even critical, but reactionary,
No, it's quite a reasonable doubt, since both sides back than and today engaged in constant lies, embellishment and distortion.
>>
>>12108275
>Wikipedia
Hahahaha
>Yes, which constitutes over 70% of Y-DNA lineages in South Slavic countries, whereas East Asian/Turkic Y-DNA in Turkey is less than 10%.
Yes,we know you got throughly cucked by Proto-ruskies.
>This is irrelevant since we identify as Slavs, and ironically, they got cucked less than the Turkmen of Anatolia, since your nation is less than 10% East Asian paternally.
Half your dna is from cucked Balkanshits. Muttoids yuck. By your logic Spics aren't cucked lol.
>Irrelevant, we're still predominately Slavic in DNA while identifying as Slavs, whereas you're predominately mystery meat shitskin mutts while identifying as Turks, which means you're triple-cucked, by cultural identity LARPing, by Y-DNA (male replacement of Turkoids), and by aDNA (total DNA).
Horrible muttoid logic. No cares what you identify with you stupid Slav(e). Imagine willingly identifying with a Slav(e)cuck. Yikes.
>We're racially homogeneous populations, you're the Eurasian version of Brazil, a mixed shithole, get a grip.
>WE WUZ ALL EUROS THE WHITE BLOOD
Amerimutt tier cope haha
>No, because our DNA profile reflects our Slavic identity, you subhuman shitskinned mutt, here's how you look with Gypsy input, disgusting.
Slavshits are literally mixed Gypsies.
>>
>>12108278
>>12108307
>Le 56 percent Slav face
Lol. This should be a new meme.
>>
>>12107949
Ertugrul ghazi can kill all your heroes
>>
>>12108306
Her explanation, just like her reasoning, is substandard.

>often contain bias
One must first prove that assertion, and you cannot prove that, since the Ottomans don't have primary sources on the battle, therefore a moot point.

> and not the battle in detail.
This is irrelevant to the matter, because the matter is whether the sultan died in battle or not, and all primary sources confirm he did, whereas the Ottoman sources quite literally state that Obilic went full stealth mode and killed him all Rikimaru-like, which is textbook cope, full of shit, and in contradiction to the aforementioned totality of primary sources.

>Any evidence that any of these battles were not recorded
Records of Bileca and Plocnik exist only in Christian sources, whereas the Varna Crusade battles are portrayed as mere skirmishes, and mention "Anatolian Turkish colonists" being killed in the thousands, even though there were no Turkish colonists at the time, I'm sure the Turkish Wikipedia is a mirror image of that.

>and their empire was disturbed by an immediate succession
Except there were relatively long periods of stability and peace during which they could've recorded it, not a century later, as they did.

>copied from Turkic ones
Firstly, Ottoman Turkish was 88% Arabo-Persian vocabulary-wise, there's nothing remotely Turkic about it, the Ottomans styled themselves as an Imperial Muslim Caliphate, not some random Khaganate, and Serbs were aware of the sultan's death thanks to the aforementioned primary sources, and their own oral tradition of the battle, which predates the restoration of the Patriarchate of Pech.
>>
File: Turkicpeoplemoment.png (213 KB, 426x430)
213 KB
213 KB PNG
>>12108331
The only chad conqueror here is the South Slavs since all non-Slavic DNA was the result of Slavs taking native women as spoils of war, thus the reason why we're primarily Slavic DNA-wise, whereas your mutt-ass is coping at that fact.

>>12108328
Much more fitting for Germanic peoples, since none, barring Swedes, the Frisians and the Norwegians don't score above 60% in Germanic input.

>>>12108322
>weaponizes the worst form of desperate cope this board has seen to date
Stating the opposite of what's true won't change the fact that you're a nation of subhuman mutts, whereas South Slavs are, even after more than 1000 years of shagging non-Slavic women, still predominately Slavic.

>Slavshits are literally mixed Gypsies.
Genetic studies beg to differ, It's Turks who got Gypsy input, in every region, to boot, naughty, naughty.

>>12108314
Name one example where Medieval Serbian reports lied and distorted military reports.
>>
>>12108355
>One must first prove that assertion, and you cannot prove that, since the Ottomans don't have primary sources on the battle, therefore a moot point.
Even if the Ottomans were silent then it doesnt mean that the Christians wouldn't have cooked up anything they want because why not. They were inconsistent even at that.
>This is irrelevant to the matter
It's not. It degrades the quality of credibility. The narrator could be cooking any kind of shit out of his ass if he didn't even bother with the basics.
>the Ottoman sources quite literally state that Obilic went full stealth mode and killed him all Rikimaru-
There are two early sources. The other one is similar to the later official Ottoman history.
>Records of Bileca and Plocnik exist only in Christian sources
Proof that they were omitted from Ottoman annals?
>whereas the Varna Crusade battles are portrayed as mere skirmishes,
Yes, Ottomans misrepresentated history liek everyone. Already told you that.Even then,a shit load of battles can be counted as skirmishes depending on interpretation.
Except there were relatively long periods of stability and peace during which they could've recorded it, not a century later, as they did.
Ottoman history projects were commissioned and granted to historians which were long term and occured occasionally. The early accounts of Ottoman narrative prove that they maintained records in an informal way similar way to early Christian sources.Where are you even getting "centuries" word from? It literally states in the article that the "assassin" narrative was borrowed. By Serbs from Ottomans. Again, "humiliation" has never stopped Ottomans from recording battles in favourable light especially when the battle had an outcome as vague as this one.The historians you mention were literal who Slavs and I have yet to read a historian that wholeheartedly agree with any of the narratives. Infact, encyclopaedia Britannica states the Ottoman version.
>>
>>12108373
>Much more fitting for Germanic peoples, since none, barring Swedes, the Frisians and the Norwegians don't score above 60% in Germanic input.
Neither do most South Slav(e)s kek
>Stating the opposite of what's true won't change the fact that you're a nation of subhuman mutts, whereas South Slavs are, even after more than 1000 years of shagging non-Slavic women, still predominately Slavic.
As pathetic as 56 percenter Pedro identifying with Spanish lol
>Genetic studies beg to differ, It's Turks who got Gypsy input, in every region, to boot, naughty, naughty.
Which one?
>>
"It has been suggested that this assassination theme may have found its way into the Serbian tradition
from Turkish sources. Before the appearance of Mehmed Nesri's detailed description of Kosovo in 1512, there
were a number of other Turkish writings in which some attention was given to the battle. Since the Turks were
profoundly affected by the death of their sultan in battle, it is understandable that all of the early sources would
report the circumstances of his death."
From the same article. You are only focusing on Nesri's version that was way more "official" than earlier.
>>
>>12108373
>South Slavs
You are not Slavic.
You have too much med (aka Turk DNA) to be counted as Slav.
>>
>>12108433
>Turks were
>profoundly affected by the death of their sultan in battle
If they were, they would have written about it. =)
>>
File: Afshar Community Meetup.png (1.76 MB, 998x1667)
1.76 MB
1.76 MB PNG
>>12108410
>They were inconsistent even at that
Except for all primary sources, including rumors and reports, unanimously state that the sultan was killed in battle if there were embellishment involved, some of those sources would differ in their reports, but that is not the case, a moot argument.

> It degrades the quality of credibility
No, it doesn't because the parameters of the report weren't to assess the strength, size, and armament of the armies, but the result of it, and not sure why would Vlatko Vukovic "cook something up", when the man had never lost a single battle against the Ottomans, at Bileca, he annihilated an army which was more than twice his size, and at Kosovo, his flank survived to see Bayezid retreat from the battle, and on top of that, his reports were integral for later ransoms of Serb nobility and Ottoman Sipahi who were taken prisoner.

>The historians you mention were literal who Slavs
Sima Cirkovic was the foremost authority on Serb history until his death, Stevan K. Pavlowitch was one of the foremost authorities on the history of SE Europe, and was a professor at a number of prestigious UK universities, Christian A. Nielsen and Misha Glenny are experts on matters of Southeastern Europe, you'd have known that if you've ever read more on the matter.

> Encyclopedia Britannica states the Ottoman version.
It states the following: "Murad is thought to have been killed by a Serbian knight, Miloš Obilić, in the immediate aftermath of the battle", that's not the Ottoman version, but the Kosovo Myth version and the keyword here is "thought", grasp at better straws if your entire argument is based on grasping at straws.

>There are two early sources
They're not "early", but primary, big difference, and they're the only written and preserved primary sources, the rest are rumors.

>The other one is similar to the later official Ottoman history.
No, it's not, because the Ottoman source invented the whole stealth-killing trope to cope.
>>
>>12108461
The para literally says they did.
>>
File: (Another You).png (200 KB, 1759x874)
200 KB
200 KB PNG
>>12108420
>>12108454
South Slavs, regardless of references, always score primarily in Slavic DNA, whereas virtually 0% in Anatolian Turkish, Turkic, and East Asian DNA, stop projecting your mutt status on your superiors.

>>12108410
>It literally states in the article that the "assassin" narrative was borrowed
The only way it could've entered Serb memory was during the tenure of the Ottoman-restored Patriarchate of Pech, which operated under the Ottoman aegis, thus the adoption of such an Ottomanesque narrative.

>Ottoman history projects were commissioned and granted to historians which were long-term and occurred occasionally.
This is irrelevant since it only proves that Ottoman literacy and historiography are of secondary value.

>The early accounts of Ottoman narrative prove that they maintained records in an informal way similar way to early Christian sources.
Yet again, casts doubt on the quality of Ottoman sources.

>>12108433
of course, I'm going to focus on Nesri's version, for Nesri's version was the official narrative for the whole duration of the Empire and the narrative that entered Serbian tradition via the aforementioned means.
>>
>>12108476
Where are these sources that predate Nesri and speak of how deeply the Ottomans were affected by the death of their sultan? If they're written, as it's claimed, they must exist in palpable form?
>>
>>12108470
>some of those sources would differ in their reports, but that is not the case, a moot argument.
They do though. Read the article.
>on top of that, his reports were integral for later ransoms of Serb nobility and Ottoman Sipahi who were taken prisoner.
Where did you read that? Everything in this para except this retarded. You are pulling shit out of your ass at this point. Thats why I said earlier that they werent "military reports". A half assed report loses credibility no matter the intent.It's utterly stupid we are even considering the credibility of Christian accounts.
>All those Serb/croat historians
That's kind of my point....even respected Turkish historians may believe the Ottoman account.
>t states the following: "Murad is thought to have been killed by a Serbian knight, Miloš Obilić, in the immediate aftermath of the battle", that's not the Ottoman version, but the Kosovo Myth version and the keyword here is "thought", grasp at better straws if your entire argument is based on grasping at straws.
Scroll down and read the page. It says "defector" at the bottom of Murad's life and presumes that he could be the supposed lord of Serbian tradition.
>They're not "early", but primary, big difference, and they're the only written and preserved primary sources, the rest are rumors.
Hilarious cope when a shitton of Euro account are inconsistent and almost legends.
>No, it's not, because the Ottoman source invented the whole stealth-killing trope to cope.
Read the fucking pdf
>>
>>12108507
>The only way it could've entered Serb memory was during the tenure of the Ottoman-restored Patriarchate of Pech, which operated under the Ottoman aegis, thus the adoption of such an Ottomanesque narrative.
Nope. Borrowed from 15th century narratives as stated in the articles.
>This is irrelevant since it only proves that Ottoman literacy and historiography are of secondary value.
>Yet again, casts doubt on the quality of Ottoman sources.
Ottoman sources were actually accepted by Christians over even the Serb ones
>of course, I'm going to focus on Nesri's version, for Nesri's version was the official narrative for the whole duration of the Empire and the narrative that entered Serbian tradition via the aforementioned means.
Good because it is similar to early narratives.
>>12108509
Cited from the book mentioned the pdf. Download it and find them yourself. I am tired of spoon-feeding you.
>>
Hard to believe that a trip-tranny can be this shameless. Atleast the rest of sub-humans don't tarnish their name by hiding behind anonymity. Good day retard,I am done.
>>
>>12107318
A Serb here, living in Istanbul
Eşek Türkler, kızlarınızı becerim sadece Sırp olduğumu için. Ne mutlu, Türk kızlarınızı sikerim ve bu konuda hiçbir şey yapamazsınız diyen.
>>
>>12108528
They don't, they all state that the Ottoman sultan was killed in battle, the Ottoman sources claim he was killed after the battle through assassination, which is not true.

>All those Serb/Croat historians
Glenny and Pawlowitch are British, Nielsen is also not a Serb, whereas only Sima Cirkovic is a Serb, not sure what you're trying to say.

>shitton of Euro account is inconsistent and almost legends
You'll have to specify them and provide proof for your claim, and we're not talking of them, but of the accounts of Kosovo, which are consistently unanimous about how and when the Ottoman sultan was killed - during battle. You've failed to refute their consistency, which is why you're diverging the topic.

>It says "defector" at the bottom of Murad's life and presumes that he could be the supposed lord of Serbian tradition.
That is impossible because Murad, like all other sultans, partook in the baffle and lead it from the front.

>even respected Turkish historians
No such thing, barring Inalcik.

>Hilarious cope
You've been coping from your first response, ironic statement.

>Read the fucking
Before the Restoration of the Pech Patriarchate, there's no stealth-killing involved in Serb oral tradition and written reports.
>>
>>12108549
Borrowed from 15th-century narratives as stated in the articles.
Provide them in a full paragraph, then.

>Ottoman sources were actually accepted by Christians over even the Serb ones
Name one that was.

>Good because it is similar to early narratives.
No, for earliest reports state he was killed in battle, not assassinated.

> I am tired of spoon-feeding you.
Provide a rebuttal, or don't bother responding.
>>
>>12107318
But he did
>>
>>12108549
He's right, the only reliable 15th-century narrative that emphasizes assassination over death in battle isn't a Serb, but a Greek source: "Since about the late 15th century, Greek sources also begin to record the event. The Athenian scholar Laonicus Chalcocondyles (d. c. 1490) claims to draw on Greek traditions when he refers to Murad's killer as Milos, "a man of noble birth [... who] voluntarily decided to accomplish the heroic act of assassination. He requested what he needed from Prince Lazar and then rode off to Murad's camp with the intention of presenting himself as a deserter. Murad, who was standing in the midst of his troops before the battle, was eager to receive the deserter. Milos reached the Sultan and his bodyguards, turned his spear against Murad, and killed him."[10] Writing in the second half of the same century, Michael Doukas regarded the story as worthy of inclusion in his Historia Byzantina. He relates how the young nobleman pretended to desert the battle, was captured by the Turks, and professing to know the key to victory, managed to gain access to Murad and kill him.[10]

In 1976, Miodrag Popović suggested that the narrative elements of secrecy and stratagem in the Serbian tradition were all introduced from Turkish sources, seeking to defame the capabilities of their Christian opponents by attributing the death of the Murat to "devious" methods.[20] Thomas A. Emmert agrees with him.[10]

Emmert says that Turkish sources mentioned the assassination several times, while Western and Serbian sources didn't mention it until much later. He thinks that Serbians knew about the assassination, but decided not to mention it in their first accounts for unknown reasons.[21] The man (not a woman) whose work and name you're quoting have confirmed that the Ottomans were the ones who invented the assassination trope. 1/2.
>>
>>12108549
>>12108690
"The loss of the Sultan also made an impression on the earliest Ottoman sources. They usually describe how Murad was unaccompanied on the battlefield and an anonymous Christian who had been lying among the corpses stabbed him to death. In the early 15th century, for instance, the poet Ahmedi writes that "[s]uddenly one of the Christians, who was covered in blood and apparently hidden among the enemy dead, got up, rushed to Murad and stabbed him with a dagger."[10][17]

Halil İnalcık explained that one of the most important contemporary Ottomans sources about the Battle of Kosovo is the 1465 work of Enveri (Turkish: Düstûrnâme). İnalcık argued that it was based on the testimony of a contemporary eyewitness of the battle, probably Hoca Omer, an envoy sent by the Sultan to Lazar before the battle.[18] In this work, Enveri explains that before he became a Serbian nobleman, Miloš (Miloš Ban is how İnalcık rendered the name in Enveri's text) was a Muslim at the Sultan's court who deserted Ottomans and abjured Islam. The Sultan allegedly called him to return to his service many times. Enveri explains that although Miloš always promised to return, he never did. According to this account, when Lazar was captured, Miloš approached the Sultan who was riding a black stallion and said: "I am Miloš Ban, I want to go back to my Islamic faith and kiss your hand." When Miloš came close to the Sultan, he struck him with the dagger hidden in his cuff. The Sultan's men cut Miloš into pieces with swords and axes.[18]

One historian from Edirne, Oruc Bey, explains the lack of protection by saying that the army was preoccupied with pursuing the enemy in rear flight and introduces an element of deception: the Christian "had promised himself as a sacrifice and approached Murad, who was sitting alone on his horse. Pretending he wished to kiss the Sultan's hand, he stabbed the Sultan with a sharp dagger."[10][14][19]"- The Ottomans lied. 2/2
>>
>>12107318
Mehmed used his rank 5 True Faith ability.
>>
File: 1614953837749.jpg (65 KB, 600x800)
65 KB
65 KB JPG
>>
>>12107330
>>
File: Matthias Corvinus.jpg (234 KB, 680x1024)
234 KB
234 KB JPG
>>12107318
Why did Matthias Corvinus keep him on house arrest for years but still brought him to diplomatic meetings with the Turks?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.