Talk:Battle of Nicopolis

Army size and sources

Hi Göktuğ538538,

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

please provide reliable academic sources which are readable and checkable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Kansas Bear,

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

this is from the biggest Hungarian military history book written by a historian-general, a very long text on many pages: [1][2][3][4]

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

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

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

This is a is a Hungarian historian source from 2022: [5]

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

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

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

7.500-120.000 Crusader Army

10,000-104,000 Ottoman army

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

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

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

Large-scale

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

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

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

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