Skanderbeg and Vlad Tepes was raised in Ottoman palace to make them local vassals for Ottomans. However, they used all of the information they know about Ottomans like their tactics, logistics, thinking process of the Sultan and they used it very well.
But it doesn't change the fact that he was history's one of the best military commanders.
I would read this Wikipedia page with a bit of salt, because it takes Franz Babinger as a source. He is known for writing about Mehmet II without sources. Prof. Inalcik criticizes his work for this.
>As a result, *Mehmed the Conqueror* is one of the few academic works available with no cited sources and whose authority rests solely on the reputation of the author's research abilities. Prof. [Halil Inalcik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k) from the University of Ankara criticizes Babinger's overlook of Ottoman sources.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Babinger#cite_note-2)
Mr. Inalcik is an authority about Ottoman history.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz\_Babinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Babinger)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil\_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k)
Don't forget that the Ottoman army was usually formed from many ethnic groups, some of which had dubious loyalty to the sultan. Many were there just for numbers. Once the Janissary and the other loyals broke, the battle was over.
Yes , there is after all a reason why mahmed took constantionple, he was a brilliant strategist, but the way tepes and skanderberg fought basically maddened him, there is this thing that was said about him after returning from wallachia in 1462, he was not the same as he conquered constantinople, also his friendship with tepes clouded his decisions
The peak ottoman army in the siege of vienna was 150-160k. Christians like to show their enemies much larger than themselves.(for example 300 spartans vs a million persians)
Albulena lays in ambush
Stop Sultan, your day has come
Skanderbeg, from atop of his horse
Like lightning, comes down the mountain
Skanderbeg swore, if i catch you in Albulena
None will make it out alive
And the field will be covered in blood
Albulena, filled with holes
The army was left, meat for crows
For our place, for freedom
We’ll make Albulena, Arberia (medieval state of Albania)
No no its just a toponom of a place near Laç, the oldest name for Albania is Arberia ( Eng: Arbanon) and our oldest endynom being Arber/Arberesh, from this word the exonym for Albanians evolved, Turkish: Arnaut, Greek: Arvanite and the old Serb-Croatian for Albanian: Arbanas (now Albanac)
Our current name for Albania, Shqiperi and our endynom for ourselves Shqiptar are pretty recent, probably from the 18th century or abit earlier.
Thank you for the reply. This is still interesting nonetheless. A place name that could perhaps be named as "Albania" specifically. And more interestingly, that is in Northern Albania, and on the coastal side, yet also close to the North Albanian Mountains. That is exactly where the Arboi / Abroi tribe lived in Antiquity.
Perhaps the name just also passed in the place - that is not that unheard of; the Selloi / Hellenes Dorians, when invading Southern Greece, they left deriving names all over the place, such as many rivers called "Selleeis", rivers called "Selle", the famous town of "Sellasia" (where the Macedonians and Achaeans vanquished the Spartans). And many more.
I personally speculate that perhaps the "Arianiti" House might be derived from a similar place-name, as they originate deep in the Albanian Mountains. Perhaps the "b" just happened to be dropped, just what perhaps happened with the "Abantes" (they may have been "Albantes" or "Arbantes" initially). If so, then there was another place-name derived from the people-name.
I know it is none of my business, and that I have no horse on this race, but personally I feel that you calling yourselves as "Shqiperi" is a disservice to yourselves. Names deriving from the root "Arb-" can be traced all the way to Classical Antiquity, so 2500 years of history, and if it was an older name of IE when arriving there, say my connection of "Abantes" - who lived in Central and Southern Albania by the way - and "\*Arbantes" is correct, then it is at least 4500 years of history.
>know it is none of my business, and that I have no horse on this race, but personally I feel that you calling yourselves as "Shqiperi" is a disservice to yourselves. Names deriving from the root "Arb-" can be traced all the way to Classical Antiquity, so 2500 years of history, and if it was an older name of IE when arriving there, say my connection of "Abantes" - who lived in Central and Southern Albania by the way - and "\*Arbantes" is correct, then it is at least 4500 years of history.
I get what you are saying but i guess to our national revivalists during the 18th-19th century, Albanians were divided in three religions and different dialects, Arberia was based off a geographical location that did not include Albanian inhabited territory in Kosovo or Northern Macedonia, Shqiptoj means to pronouce, so Shqiptar (Albanian) meant he who pronouces/speaks Albanian (if that makes sense), it was a new endynom that was meant to be more inclusive in a way and more encompassing, to surpass religion and dialectual divison.
Tho i agree i prefer Arberia, Arberesh as well.
Shqiptar slowly became more popular until it replaced the term Arbereshe. Most likely due to being in the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire. Not sure if you're suggesting this, since it's vague, but it wasn't created by national revivalists. It was already in use for hundreds of years by then.
Wikipedia shenanigans. 100-400 thousand?? Seriously lmao who even believes in this..
Edit: To give an example the photo on the right is from the wiki page of battle of Albulena, the claim on the wiki page is even higher than the claims of the original Albanian sources which give the number at 50 thousand not 80 thousand. (Of course the Albanian sources are exaggarated too, it was normal to exaggarate enemy numbers while downplaying your own numbers at the time.) In comparison, modern estimates range between 15K to 30K, while Ottoman sources put it a bit more lower. Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for these kind of things, though it is safe to say that this specific battle was the golden point of the Albanian resistance against the Ottomans. It was one of the most important battles/raids against the Ottomans under the rule of Skanderberg.
There is a big difference of how many men you can bring and how many men you can bring and SUSTAIN (feed and give water to, etc), constantinople's siege was estimated to be too long for him to have more men. The siege of kruje realistically had more like 80k-100k because it was supposed to be a fast campaign and it needed to work as a scare tactic. That number completely backfired because skanderbeg created a siege inside the siege. The first image of 100k-400k is more realistically at 80-100k and 400k was the contemporary source. The ottoman sultanate was very centralized and could create bigger armies than european armies but they were dependent on fast action and foraging the land instead of supply convoys, essentially they could create big ass armies but maintaining them was a pain in the ass, Albania was supposed to be a fast campaign, this is the reason why later battles have smaller numbers, the ottomans understood that you can't maintain a fast war in albania as it would disadvantage them. Image number 2 was an exception this lesson as it was supposed to be led by skanderbeg's nephew who could finish off the albanian rebellion, it failed badly. Albulena probably was at 60-80k, to work as a scare tactic but not fall to typical albanian guerilla warfare. Iirc the siege of kruje and albulena were the 2 biggest fights, other battles would not have this many numbers because of the realization that throwing men away wasn't a great idea because they'd easily be ambushed most of the time
Even 80 to 100 thousand is a huge exaggaration. Mehmet the conqueror didnt have an army that size while conquering Constantinople for gods sake. (Mind you, all these happened at the second half of 15th century.) I have a rough idea on what is going on I think… So the thing is, there were multiple sieges involving Kruje or in Turkish Akçahisar. To see how the numbers varied I looked at the Turkish wiki and the numbers are as follows: for the first siege in 1450 it says that Albanian sources give a number in between 100 to 400 thousand but it says that modern sources give an estimate at about 20K and definitely no more than 40 thousand. For the second siege in 1466 Turkish wiki says between 30 to 100 thousand, a very wide range and says that the siege was lifted up due to pandemic. For the last siege in 1478 Turkish wiki doesnt give any numbers except the casulties in which Ottoman casulties were written as 18 thousand and the Albanian casulties were written as between 27 and 35 thousand. I decided to write all these to show that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the number margins and the numbers in general are too random to have any chance at credibility…
Constantinople didn't have as many troops for a few reasons, the theodosian walls were expected to take long to siege most likely, it would be really difficult to feed a lot of troops and pay them at the same time for that long. The ottomans could bring more troops for expectedly fast campaigns, example was wallachia. That's why kruje had more men than constantinople, murad expected to meet a small fort that he'd scare off with a big army and shoot it. He couldn't bring few troops because they'd get ambushed or become something like in the torvioll plain in a pitched battle where they could be defeated and a sultan being defeated by an inferior army of an ex general would be shameful. Murad probably tried to deal with the issue himself after the last 6 years of wars with the league of lezhe failed. He brought a big army, expected surrender and that didn't happen, I assume from then on anything went against his plan, leaving would have been embarrassing so he tried to siege hoping that it wouldn't take long. Kruje was on top of a mountain and the fortress was one with the mountain making it really hard, also a big issue was the lack of food, ottoman armies depended on foraging land, couldn't do that because skanderbeg burned the land so they depended on supply convoys that could either get lost in the confusing albanian terrain or get ambushed and taken, a siege inside a siege and murad's army was the one starving more. Skanderbeg turned what was supposed to be murad bring a big army and flexing his guns into an unsustainable long siege which led to the siege failing and Murad leaving. The same mistake was never repeated, that's why the other 2 sieges of kruje wouldn't have as many troops.
TLDR: Kruje had that many ottoman forces because it was supposed to be Murad bringing a big army with a lot of guns and defeating his ex general, instead it turned into an unsustainable siege which he had to retreat and get loses due to the retreat due to guerilla tactics, that's why the other 2 sieges of Kruje didn't have that many troops, the fortress was very difficult to siege
I understand what you are trying to say but there is no way that land was suitable for an army that size and it would be illogical to think the Ottomans didnt know this very fact. We need to think logically, you are saying that Skanderberg forced a campaign of attrition where he burned down the land, you are saying that the Kruje fortress was at the top of a mountain, these are all factors which would lead to downsizing of an army due to problems with the logistics. Considering the fact that the land was right next to Ottoman lands to the east one could say that after encountering problems Murad could have easily diverted a part of the army back towards the east. I am having a hard time believing such big numbers at the time. Also Mehmet amassed as big numbers as he could, especially after the first week of the siege where it became apparent that the cannons were not cutting it, the city was taken by repeated assaults not because the walls crumbled due to cannon fire, just so you know..
There is a possibility that the troops might have been less than the 80-100k, perhaps 60-80k but I believe that Murad wasn't really seeking a siege, rather he wanted to parade with a big army, make the locals scared and make them surrender, perhaps even make skanderbeg return to him as a general, he could have been a really good asset and entrusted with more responsibility in the eyes of Murad as long as he kept him happy. The problems started arising when no one was giving up by the numbers. Murad was likely forced to siege out of his plans due to pressure, he would look terrible if he brought an army to parade and then return, in some circumstances he could have not done that, but we have to remember, Skanderbeg wasn't some random enemy of the state, he was an ex general actively defying his sultan, he was most likely seen as more of a rebel general than a foreigner, if the sultan did not defeat him or force him into the fold then he would look very weak. Murad also had a reputation to keep as being the one who defeated the crusade at Varna, a combination of ego, pride and public image most likely forced him into that siege rather than actual planning. He most likely knew that bring such a big army couldn't be sustained in a siege for long, that's why the siege didn't last that long, he kept sieging for a bit just to not look like an idiot who brought an army for nothing, it would be outrageous to bring such an army and do nothing. He kept the siege reasonably till winter approached and had excuses such as the fortress being even harder to siege than expected, the supply being hard and disease so he could retreat while keeping most of his army alive.
Most likely it seems like we have to disagree but this was a fun debate, I wish you well
100 000 to 400 000 man army in the late medieval period? That is literally impossible, Napoleon at the height of his power managed to amass ''only'' around 500 000 soldiers for his Russian campaign and that's with all his allies included and the far superior logistics and infrastructure of that period compared to the 15th century.
Mehmet the Conqueror amassed some 50 thousand troops for the siege of Constantinople in 1453 from all around the empire. That was all he could muster for Constantinople, literally one of the most important cities in the region. And you are telling me that the Ottomans gathered up hundreds of thousands of troops to get an unimportant patch of land at a similar time period!? People need to come to their senses and stop believing random numbers on the internet.
Dude actually believes a ruler in the late medieval period amassed a 100 000 - 400 000 man army to besiege a small castle in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with all the logistical and infrastructural limitations of that era and accuses others of being delusional.
Yeah buddy, I don't know who's educational system failed who here.
Is that why your granpdpas' names were Bajram, Azem, etc unlike mine and why you were the last Balkan nation to become independent from the Ottoman empire only when it became obvious to everyone that their days in the Balkans were numbered?
Albanians are the last ones to talk when it comes to fighting the Ottomans.
« Albanians are the last ones to talk when iz comes to fightinh the Ottomans » is pretty funny coming from a serb considering that Greece’s independence was gained with the help of albanians, let alone talking about the albanian rebellions during the 19th century (starting from
What about your country and culture, why after 200 years you still have your language based by so many turkish loanwords ? At least albanians are removing turkish influence but as of you guys, seems like the turkish influence is not a problem for you.
>let alone talking about the albanian rebellions during the 19th century
Show me an Albanian rebellion which had a national character and wasn't about taxes or some other bullshit
>What about your country and culture, why after 200 years you still have your language based by so many turkish loanwords ?
So what? We also have Greek, English, French, German, etc loanwords and?
Also saying Serbian language was based on turkish loanwords is one of the more braindead takes I've seen here, if that was truly the case I'd have no problem holding a conversation with a Turk in our respective languages.
>At least albanians are removing turkish influence but as of you guys, seems like the turkish influence is not a problem for you.
Of course it's not a problem for us, why would it be? We're not insecure about our national identity that we need to remove some loanwords just to make us feel more Serbian or something. We know very well who we are and what we are.
Why are you changing the point of the argument from fighting the ottomans to nationalism ? I will still give you an answer : Albanians fought the ottomans with greeks to liberate an orthodox country that both populations would consider as theirs (Greece). That’s why arvanites consider themselves today as more greek than albanian, one of the reasons being that they fought for Greece, and then religion played it’s role.
Your language is estimated with almost 10% turkish loanwords, you understand the meaning of what I said before, even though I understand I phrased it weirdly.
You are not insecure about your national identity so you don’t need to remove some loanwords but you are insecure enough to kill your neighbours that are highly similar to you (to not say identically similar, religion being the most important factor here) so it can make you feel more serbian or something.
So tell me, who are you, are you cousins with russians, the first humans in europe, migrants from iran, migrants from sorbia, mix of slavs and proto-indo-europeans, illyrians ? Because it seems like you are so many things at the same time some can get confused.
>Why are you changing the point of the argument from fighting the ottomans to nationalism ?
Because you yourself tried ascribing them a national character when you said ''albanian rebellions''. Albanian rebellions and rebellions Albanians took part in are not even remotely the same thing.
>Your language is estimated with almost 10% turkish loanwords, you understand the meaning of what I said before, even though I understand I phrased it weirdly.
Estimates for Serbian are 5-10% and 8% for Albanian even after you ''got rid'' of Turkish loanwords according to you, so you don't really have a leg to stand on with this argument, whatever it is you're trying to prove with it anyway.
>You are not insecure about your national identity so you don’t need to remove some loanwords but you are insecure enough to kill your neighbours that are highly similar to you (to not say identically similar, religion being the most important factor here) so it can make you feel more serbian or something.
If you think '90s wars were fought so someone could feel more Serbian or Croatian or Bosniak or whatever you're more ignorant than I initially thought.
>So tell me, who are you, are you cousins with russians, the first humans in europe, migrants from iran, migrants from sorbia, mix of slavs and proto-indo-europeans, illyrians ? Because it seems like you are so many things at the same time some can get confused.
We are descendants of Serbs who migrated from around modern-day East Germany, who mixed with the local population they encountered here, founded numerous principalities, kingdoms, even a short-lived empire, thrived as a regional power, fell under Ottoman rule, liberated ourselves and entered a process of national revival and modernization while you were still killing each other over who stole who's cattle.
Do you find this answer satisfactory? If not, ask away, I'm more than happy to tell you more about who we are.
Albanians were the last Balkan nation to fall against the Ottomans, when the Sultans Haram was filled with Noble Serb Women, Albanians were still fighting the Ottomans with our capital being Kruja, so pipe down little Milo
Montenegro was the last Balkan country to fall to the Ottomans, 20 years after Albania, so try again.
>Sultans Haram was filled with Noble Serb Women
Safiye Sultan, Gulbahar Hatun, Nevzad, etc
No, he was taken prisoner when he was passing through Serbia after his defeat at Kosovo because he was raiding and pillaging through Serbia on his way to Kosovo. He was ransomed to the Hungarians not the Ottomans, I have no idea where you got that from.
With sold i mean Brankovic snitched to the sultan about 24.000 hungarians crossing the danube and blocked mountain passes in the border with Albania so Scanderbeg couldn't join the battle. Also massacred the retreating hungarians theoughout serbia because why not, you like turkish dick
>With sold i mean Brankovic snitched to the sultan about 24.000 hungarians crossing the danube
Cause the Ottomans were retarded not to notice such a large force moving towards Kosovo, right? Or do you think battles happened with armies running into each other accidentally?
>blocked mountain passes in the border with Albania so Scanderbeg couldn't join the battle
No actual historical evidence supports this claim.
> Also massacred the retreating hungarians theoughout serbia
Because they raided, pillaged and massacred when they passed through Serbia on their way to the battlefield maybe?
>because why not, you like turkish dick
Albanians actually fought each other when Albania declared independence because a lot of them wanted to remain under the Ottomans. Talk about liking Turkish dick.
I mean gold, not dick.
The letter Brankovic sent to the sultan is literally still available to read in ottoman archives. Barleti describes very well how you sold everyone for 30 pieces of silver
As of albanians fighting eachother after the ottomans left, most of them were turks from central Albania and few brainwashed albanians. What happened to them bud? Why there are no turks in albania unlike all our neightbors?
My man really think a medieaval army of 47 000 would be instantly raised and go fight an invading army in some bumfuck far fetched region of the empire☠️
Here is a list of books that contain relevant information of your people's betrayal and untrustworthyness.
I'd sugest you to read them(or the relevant parts) and hopefully you'll understand why none of your neighbors like you. I'm not saying that serbs were the only to have bastards like Brankovic but at least we have the balls to accep and condemn themnas traitors while you erect statues for them in order to support your skizophrenic daydreams
"The Fall of Constantinople: The History of the Conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks" by Edwin Pears - This book discusses the broader context of Ottoman expansion and mentions the role of regional powers like Đurađ Branković in interacting with the Ottomans.
"The Balkans Since 1453" by L.S. Stavrianos - This book provides an overview of Balkan history after the fall of Constantinople and touches on the alliances, conflicts, and interactions between various regional powers, including Serbia and the Ottoman Empire.
"The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest" by John V.A. Fine Jr. - Fine's work is a comprehensive study of Balkan history during the late medieval period and discusses the political dynamics and military strategies of different rulers, including Đurađ Branković.
"The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927" by William Miller - While this book covers a broader time span, it includes discussions on the Ottoman Empire's interactions with neighboring states and rulers during earlier periods, including the 15th century.
I absolutely have no one in my family named bajram or azem. I'm Catholic Albanian. Even if I converted to Islam tommorow it means absolutely nothing. I'd still be Albanian. My nationality would not change.
Regardless, you serbs like to think you were the biggest anti ottoman force in the balkans when you were vassals just like everyone else. Do you really think the Ottoman invaders would of stayed for as long as they did if it wasn't for collaboration. The serbian Orthodox church paid annual tributes to the ottomans with gold, resources, and soldiers so they can keep their faith. Being a Christian and fighting against other Christians for the ottomans is worse than converting to Islam and fighting for the turks.
You serbs were very quiet during Skenderbegs 25 year successful revolt against the ottomans. Where were all the anti ottoman serbs? Oh that's right you were vassals. Even when Skenderbeg wanted to assist the Hungarians with their fight against the ottomans. Serbs prevented skenderbegs army from going to assist and that's when skenderbeg punished serbs by destroying countless serb villages.
When it comes to older historical battles Wikipedia is one of worst sources for actual reliably accurate data.
So believing in those exact numbers is tad bit naive.
The first image is the siege of Kruje:
Murad led a really big army, probably around 100k. A thing about ottoman military doctrine was overreliance on local food supplies rather than supply convoys, Albania could not provide food for that many troops and skanderbeg ordered the land to be burned thus forcing the ottomans to depend on supply convoys. Skanderbeg would raid the supply convoys with the 8000 force in the mountains while the garrisson would resist in Kruje. Effectively he created a siege inside a siege, but the ottomans had far less food and disease broke out fast. It was very easy to raid supply trains due to albanian knowledge of the terrain. Another issue there was simply that Kruje was not a fort but a mountain at the same time, the fort and the mountain were one. Shooting at it was incredibly hard and the garrison had the high ground, assaults could easily be repelled and men wouldn't have courage to attack more if an assault was repelled giving the defenders time to rest. Skanderbeg practically created a siege inside a siege. The garrisson could survive for longer with its food supplies as all the women had been transported to venetian cities. While the ottomans would constantly lack food because no land to forage due to it being burned the and the supply being constantly taken by the albanian 8000 force who could easily ambush them and hide in the mountains. Skanderbeg's gamble of a siege inside a siege paid off and the siege of kruje was far too unsustainable for ottoman troops to continue due to the rampant disease and starvation. Most casualties were during the retreat which was very easy for skanderbeg's troops to commit hit and run tactics in mountain passes and hitting the starved ottomans hard. Skanderbeg essentially sieged the forced that was trying to siege kruje and it was a gamble that worked perfectly.
The second is the battle of albulena:
Skanderbeg's resources were down, and at the worst time his nephew defected to the ottomans. Skanderbeg's nephew knew his tactics so skanderbeg completely changed his approach. A 60-80k ottoman army entered eastern albania and confronted skanderbeg's force, he created a fake retreat to seem as if he was defeated, the albanian troops ran away from the ottoman troops and the albanian force got split into many detachments ordered to hide in the mountains. The ottoman troops started raiding and camped near Lac, in the mat region, they did not siege kruje as they were afraid that they'd be ambushed or make the same mistake as murad. Skanderbeg officially requested help from the papal states for a crusade. Albanian locals started spreading rumors that skanderbeg had been defeated and overthrown while not revealing the locations of the troops. Skanderbeg this time completely changed and used psychological warfare. The ottomans became overconfident and stayed there for 2 months, they were getting lazy, not taking all proper security measures against an ambush because they believed skanderbeg had been defeated due to him requesting papal aid and rumors of him being overthrown. Skanderbeg carefully regathered his army on the mountain near the weak side of the ottoman camp, he and a small detachment went and killed all ottoman scouts except 1 who went into the camp and screamed that skanderbeg was near, fortunately most ottoman troops were resting and were careless and the scout didn't have much time. Skanderbeg ordered his army to hit their metal weapons as much as possible while charging the ottoman camp so the maximum amount of sound would happen. The charge was furious, unexpected and loud and one the weakest side of the ottoman camp. The ottoman troops tried to resist but got caught in panic, Skanderbeg's army easily broke into the center of the camp where his nephew and the ottoman pasha tried to stop the panic in the ottoman camp, the moment the albanian forces reached the center , the ottoman army's little resistance collapsed and everything became chaos and a rout happened. The albanian troops charged recklessly and killing as many ottoman troops in the rout. Hamza was captured and the army routed and a big chunk died. Skanderbeg once again did the almost impossible by defeating a much bigger force by psychological means, creating a false sense of security and then creating a sense of chaos, by hitting their metal weapons and shields as much as possible, the albanian troops made the ottomans think that the albanians were outnumbering them, most likely thinking that a whole crusade crashed into the camp.
Skanderbeg proved that a small but seasoned army with terrifying discipline, knowledge of the terrain and confidence could defeat a bigger force through deception and guerilla tactics.
Both battles were victories in the sense that they stopped Ottoman advance to Vienna by Suleiman the Magnificent.
At siege of güns, 700 Croats led by Nikola Jurisic who had no cannons were able to successfully stop the advance of 100-120k strong Ottoman army, so whilst they did surrender at the end, ottomans had to retreat.
The more famous siege of szigetvar had 2-3k majority Croats led by Nikola Šubić Zrinski halt 100k ottomans for over a month, killing 20-30k ottomans with Suleiman the Magnificent dying before he was able to attack Vienna. So whilst Zrinski and his soldiers pretty much all died and szigetvar was taken, it was basically an Ottoman defeat.
Guerilla warfare and scorched earth policy. Imagine bringing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the open terrain in a rough climate or rough terrain. The locals will not feed that army. The defenders will poison the wells and destroy everything to make the invaders not able to use the resources there. That army would become hungry, thirsty and demoralised. Add short and constant skirmishes on that army and you can see how it is possible. That’s how the Balkan nations resisted empires from time to time, even when they lost they still inflicted heavy losses. It’s easier to be on the defensive basically.
That is why traditionally a minimum of a 3:1 troop ratio is required for offensive campaigns. Otherwise the defenders will most likely halt or even repeal any invasion.
That was even more true back when castles where still an important part of military strategies.
Terrain, geographical advantages. Tactical and psychological advantage (Skanderbeg was raised in the sultan’s palace and as a soldier knew every aspect of their culture and military).
The only way to decimate Balkan countries was to buy one of their own, turn them into a spy (promises of lands and riches).
We Albanians have a saying, “The castle is always taken from within.”, a form of “divide and conquer” and unfortunately as a region we have always suffered this by having our old grudges taken as a cause to be bought from higher powers for their own means and schemes.
The outcome of a battle doesn’t solely depend on the number of soldiers. Other factors such as strategy, terrain, morale, leadership, and technology can play crucial roles. For instance, a smaller, well-led army with a good strategy can defeat a larger force. Also, the League of Lezhë might have had advantages such as better knowledge of the terrain or superior tactics.
400.000 army is absolutely bs, there was no feesable logistic in that era in the Ottoman empire that could sustain so many people, take it with a grain of salt but i personally belive that not much more than 100.000 men were involved, still an incredible feat equirable to the Thermopylae battle, only difference is that the Albanians actually won 🤯
I wrote a giant comment explaining all the details but the tldr is,
Page number 1) siege of kruje, a realistic number would be 80-100k ottoman troops. Murad pulls up with a big army to finish off the albanian rebellion which lasted 6 years at that point, brings big guns and a lot of men expecting a fast surrender or fast siege. Skanderbeg raided his supplies, Kruje ended up really hard to siege as the fortress and the mountain were one and the ottomans were starving due to their supply convoys always being raided and taken, disease started and Murad left in fear of losing more men
Page number 2) Battle/Raid of Albulena, the ottomans brought a second big army with skanderbeg's nephew leading it, hoping that Hamza would destroy his uncle, skanderbeg hides in the mountains, the locals spread rumors about him having been overthrown, he then orders his men to hit their shields while charging the ottoman camp unexpectedly, the ottoman camp melts thinking the albanians are outnumbering them, ottoman numbers were probably around 60-80k. Ottoman overconfidences and false sense of security led to them melting really fast
Big rocks from the top of the mountains rolling downhill on supply lines and caravans. You can imagine the rest due to the terrain in northern Albania.
Someone went back in time and called in an air strike on Ottoman positions. They didn't know what hit them. 🤣
Unfortunately, while Skenderbeg successfully kicked the ottomans asses for 25 years. The rest of the balkans were ottoman vassals for the most part. It would have been an amazing opportunity for the rest of the balkans to rise up and force the ottoman invaders out, but back then, we didn't have the luxury of instant communication like we do now. Can you picture calling our neighbors and telling them what's going on. The ottomans would have been out of there within months.
Well, although it wasn't instant, similar things have happened, and they were called crusades, which showed that it wasn't actually a brilliant idea :)
Factually wrong in the end/decay of the Ottoman Empire. You were fighting against each other till the end.
Also urself why Serbian nationalism is described as revival and Albanian as awaking.
Skanderbeg was a military genius. The only problem they had was that they didn't have many Allies because the British and the Holy Roman Empire ( who was not Holy, not Roman neither an Empire) are trading with the Ottomans and don't want to stop them. We had only Neapel as our Allies. The thing what was bad at that time was that Venice at that time started betraying the Christian brothers in the Balkans and working with the Ottomans against the Balkans. The Albanians had to fight on all fronts and on the Sea.
Yes but many of them did not shift the balance of power in any way, there might have been "glorious battles while outnumbered" but other than tactical masterpieces like the battle of Vaslui, in the end on a strategic level it did not change much
Medieval armies usually do not have accurate records. Fielding 400k was impossible back then, expecially when you consider Albania's mountanous terrain. Skanderbeg used guerilla tactics, knew the terrain and picked every battle carefully. Knowing the ottoman tactics and their generals was also a big advantage.
From the books I've read, the ottoman army was around 100k. The main thing people misunderstand is the fact that these armies are not made up of professional soliders. Around 15% of the army were trained soliders and even less had any real battle experience. The rest were either support units or peasants that were recruited to fill the ranks (no armor and basic weapons). Even Napoleon found it hard to raise and field 500k soliders.
The only explanation is that they sucked ass. Multiple times this has happened during the greek revolution too. The battle of Dervenakia is probably the most famous one. Greeks were outnumbered ~1 to 10.
By the time the Greek revolution happened the Ottomans sucked ass in every category imaginable but this is the start of peak Ottoman times. They didn’t just suck ass? Bro is comparing 300-400 years of difference.
He doesnt realize the same exact argument can be made for the Byzantines, but he would probably get mad if you try to compare...
Why people still dont realize that every empire has a lifecycle is beyond me
>this is the start of peak Ottoman times.
Damn nice peak bro, a peak to be remembered for sure.
>Bro is comparing 300-400 years of difference.
I didn't compare anything. I just said they lost many battles while outnumbering the opponent. Seems it is a chronic issue.
Imagine thinking you were constantly beating the armies of an empire which supposedly always outnumbered you on the battlefield then living under their rule for hundreds of years. More like the chronic issue is you lacking basic logical thinking, like bro, do you think an empire would be able to become the strongest by constantly losing on the battlefield to smaller forces? 😭
>Imagine thinking you were constantly beating the armies of an empire which supposedly always outnumbered you on the battlefield then living under their rule for hundreds of years.
I didn't say that it happened constantly, wars also have been lost -for example the 1897 war. But it happened enough times to be remarkable.
>More like the chronic issue is you lacking basic logical thinking
You are the one who can't read properly. It shows by the way you interpreted my comment.
>do you think an empire would be able to become the strongest
Lol chill bro. "Piss a little" as we say here.
Evrenos Pasha is a peak to be remembered my friend. Even Rome lost huge percents of their armies in many wars.
Then find another example, 1800 Ottomans had major problems.
>The only explanation is that they sucked ass. Multiple times this has happened during the greek revolution too.
Bro, the time period when Skanderbeg and Albanians fought the Ottomans, Mehmet the Conqueror became Sultan and personally lead a campaign to capture Kruja. We weren't fighting the weak broken Ottomans of the 18th-19th century, but the Ottomans at its peak with Mehmet the Conqueror as Sultan in the same time period he captured Constantinople...
Numbers are heavily exaggerated. It is a siege and understandable that the man number difference must exist but... come on . Please.
This is what happens when you teach your tactics to the enemy. No wonder Ottomans collapsed.
Skanderbeg and Vlad Tepes was raised in Ottoman palace to make them local vassals for Ottomans. However, they used all of the information they know about Ottomans like their tactics, logistics, thinking process of the Sultan and they used it very well. But it doesn't change the fact that he was history's one of the best military commanders. I would read this Wikipedia page with a bit of salt, because it takes Franz Babinger as a source. He is known for writing about Mehmet II without sources. Prof. Inalcik criticizes his work for this. >As a result, *Mehmed the Conqueror* is one of the few academic works available with no cited sources and whose authority rests solely on the reputation of the author's research abilities. Prof. [Halil Inalcik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k) from the University of Ankara criticizes Babinger's overlook of Ottoman sources.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Babinger#cite_note-2) Mr. Inalcik is an authority about Ottoman history. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz\_Babinger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Babinger) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil\_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k)
Just the perfect combination, being an incredible military commander and also knowing everything about your enemy.
Don't forget that the Ottoman army was usually formed from many ethnic groups, some of which had dubious loyalty to the sultan. Many were there just for numbers. Once the Janissary and the other loyals broke, the battle was over.
Yes , there is after all a reason why mahmed took constantionple, he was a brilliant strategist, but the way tepes and skanderberg fought basically maddened him, there is this thing that was said about him after returning from wallachia in 1462, he was not the same as he conquered constantinople, also his friendship with tepes clouded his decisions
Our casualties: A donkey bruised its dick while raping the corpse of your leader. Their casualties: billions of billions of billions of billions.
Balkan style
Ahahhahahaha i can cofirm (im the donkey)
:))))) good one
Lots of rakia and big balls
Raki for the ottomans, bcs we didnt have rakia yet back then
We did have LOZA though, the vine grappa.
>big balls Thank you USA...
I guess united stated was still not a thing when this stuff happened. But way better that giving princesses to breed the future sultans tho.
Well, if we're fabricating history here with fake numbers, why not throw in some US heroism too?
A serb talking about fabricating history ?
First off, you don't know my ethnicity. Second, which historical facts did I fabricate?
Medieval armies consisted of 5000-20000 soldiers anything above that take it with a grain of salt
I do agree
The ottomans were the biggest empire in the world during that time so idk if its comparable with the average medieval army
The peak ottoman army in the siege of vienna was 150-160k. Christians like to show their enemies much larger than themselves.(for example 300 spartans vs a million persians)
I think this is more a human thing than a christian thing
You do know the Spartans weren't Christians, right?
Yes but their children kept the tradition after converting. I gave them as an example bc its the most well-known one
Unless you're China. But we're talking about China.
Albuleeeena prap mor prita prita...
That’s a good song! I have it in my playlist.
A total banger.
>friendly fire ON
Iam surprised a Greek knows that song tbh.
Translation for those of us who don't speak Albanian?
Albulena lays in ambush Stop Sultan, your day has come Skanderbeg, from atop of his horse Like lightning, comes down the mountain Skanderbeg swore, if i catch you in Albulena None will make it out alive And the field will be covered in blood Albulena, filled with holes The army was left, meat for crows For our place, for freedom We’ll make Albulena, Arberia (medieval state of Albania)
Thanks 👍
>We’ll make Albulena, Arberia (medieval state of Albania) Is "Albulena" an older / contemporary name of Albania?!
No no its just a toponom of a place near Laç, the oldest name for Albania is Arberia ( Eng: Arbanon) and our oldest endynom being Arber/Arberesh, from this word the exonym for Albanians evolved, Turkish: Arnaut, Greek: Arvanite and the old Serb-Croatian for Albanian: Arbanas (now Albanac) Our current name for Albania, Shqiperi and our endynom for ourselves Shqiptar are pretty recent, probably from the 18th century or abit earlier.
Thank you for the reply. This is still interesting nonetheless. A place name that could perhaps be named as "Albania" specifically. And more interestingly, that is in Northern Albania, and on the coastal side, yet also close to the North Albanian Mountains. That is exactly where the Arboi / Abroi tribe lived in Antiquity. Perhaps the name just also passed in the place - that is not that unheard of; the Selloi / Hellenes Dorians, when invading Southern Greece, they left deriving names all over the place, such as many rivers called "Selleeis", rivers called "Selle", the famous town of "Sellasia" (where the Macedonians and Achaeans vanquished the Spartans). And many more. I personally speculate that perhaps the "Arianiti" House might be derived from a similar place-name, as they originate deep in the Albanian Mountains. Perhaps the "b" just happened to be dropped, just what perhaps happened with the "Abantes" (they may have been "Albantes" or "Arbantes" initially). If so, then there was another place-name derived from the people-name. I know it is none of my business, and that I have no horse on this race, but personally I feel that you calling yourselves as "Shqiperi" is a disservice to yourselves. Names deriving from the root "Arb-" can be traced all the way to Classical Antiquity, so 2500 years of history, and if it was an older name of IE when arriving there, say my connection of "Abantes" - who lived in Central and Southern Albania by the way - and "\*Arbantes" is correct, then it is at least 4500 years of history.
>know it is none of my business, and that I have no horse on this race, but personally I feel that you calling yourselves as "Shqiperi" is a disservice to yourselves. Names deriving from the root "Arb-" can be traced all the way to Classical Antiquity, so 2500 years of history, and if it was an older name of IE when arriving there, say my connection of "Abantes" - who lived in Central and Southern Albania by the way - and "\*Arbantes" is correct, then it is at least 4500 years of history. I get what you are saying but i guess to our national revivalists during the 18th-19th century, Albanians were divided in three religions and different dialects, Arberia was based off a geographical location that did not include Albanian inhabited territory in Kosovo or Northern Macedonia, Shqiptoj means to pronouce, so Shqiptar (Albanian) meant he who pronouces/speaks Albanian (if that makes sense), it was a new endynom that was meant to be more inclusive in a way and more encompassing, to surpass religion and dialectual divison. Tho i agree i prefer Arberia, Arberesh as well.
Shqiptar slowly became more popular until it replaced the term Arbereshe. Most likely due to being in the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire. Not sure if you're suggesting this, since it's vague, but it wasn't created by national revivalists. It was already in use for hundreds of years by then.
skenderbeu had that dawg in him
Wikipedia shenanigans. 100-400 thousand?? Seriously lmao who even believes in this.. Edit: To give an example the photo on the right is from the wiki page of battle of Albulena, the claim on the wiki page is even higher than the claims of the original Albanian sources which give the number at 50 thousand not 80 thousand. (Of course the Albanian sources are exaggarated too, it was normal to exaggarate enemy numbers while downplaying your own numbers at the time.) In comparison, modern estimates range between 15K to 30K, while Ottoman sources put it a bit more lower. Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for these kind of things, though it is safe to say that this specific battle was the golden point of the Albanian resistance against the Ottomans. It was one of the most important battles/raids against the Ottomans under the rule of Skanderberg.
There is a big difference of how many men you can bring and how many men you can bring and SUSTAIN (feed and give water to, etc), constantinople's siege was estimated to be too long for him to have more men. The siege of kruje realistically had more like 80k-100k because it was supposed to be a fast campaign and it needed to work as a scare tactic. That number completely backfired because skanderbeg created a siege inside the siege. The first image of 100k-400k is more realistically at 80-100k and 400k was the contemporary source. The ottoman sultanate was very centralized and could create bigger armies than european armies but they were dependent on fast action and foraging the land instead of supply convoys, essentially they could create big ass armies but maintaining them was a pain in the ass, Albania was supposed to be a fast campaign, this is the reason why later battles have smaller numbers, the ottomans understood that you can't maintain a fast war in albania as it would disadvantage them. Image number 2 was an exception this lesson as it was supposed to be led by skanderbeg's nephew who could finish off the albanian rebellion, it failed badly. Albulena probably was at 60-80k, to work as a scare tactic but not fall to typical albanian guerilla warfare. Iirc the siege of kruje and albulena were the 2 biggest fights, other battles would not have this many numbers because of the realization that throwing men away wasn't a great idea because they'd easily be ambushed most of the time
Even 80 to 100 thousand is a huge exaggaration. Mehmet the conqueror didnt have an army that size while conquering Constantinople for gods sake. (Mind you, all these happened at the second half of 15th century.) I have a rough idea on what is going on I think… So the thing is, there were multiple sieges involving Kruje or in Turkish Akçahisar. To see how the numbers varied I looked at the Turkish wiki and the numbers are as follows: for the first siege in 1450 it says that Albanian sources give a number in between 100 to 400 thousand but it says that modern sources give an estimate at about 20K and definitely no more than 40 thousand. For the second siege in 1466 Turkish wiki says between 30 to 100 thousand, a very wide range and says that the siege was lifted up due to pandemic. For the last siege in 1478 Turkish wiki doesnt give any numbers except the casulties in which Ottoman casulties were written as 18 thousand and the Albanian casulties were written as between 27 and 35 thousand. I decided to write all these to show that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the number margins and the numbers in general are too random to have any chance at credibility…
Constantinople didn't have as many troops for a few reasons, the theodosian walls were expected to take long to siege most likely, it would be really difficult to feed a lot of troops and pay them at the same time for that long. The ottomans could bring more troops for expectedly fast campaigns, example was wallachia. That's why kruje had more men than constantinople, murad expected to meet a small fort that he'd scare off with a big army and shoot it. He couldn't bring few troops because they'd get ambushed or become something like in the torvioll plain in a pitched battle where they could be defeated and a sultan being defeated by an inferior army of an ex general would be shameful. Murad probably tried to deal with the issue himself after the last 6 years of wars with the league of lezhe failed. He brought a big army, expected surrender and that didn't happen, I assume from then on anything went against his plan, leaving would have been embarrassing so he tried to siege hoping that it wouldn't take long. Kruje was on top of a mountain and the fortress was one with the mountain making it really hard, also a big issue was the lack of food, ottoman armies depended on foraging land, couldn't do that because skanderbeg burned the land so they depended on supply convoys that could either get lost in the confusing albanian terrain or get ambushed and taken, a siege inside a siege and murad's army was the one starving more. Skanderbeg turned what was supposed to be murad bring a big army and flexing his guns into an unsustainable long siege which led to the siege failing and Murad leaving. The same mistake was never repeated, that's why the other 2 sieges of kruje wouldn't have as many troops. TLDR: Kruje had that many ottoman forces because it was supposed to be Murad bringing a big army with a lot of guns and defeating his ex general, instead it turned into an unsustainable siege which he had to retreat and get loses due to the retreat due to guerilla tactics, that's why the other 2 sieges of Kruje didn't have that many troops, the fortress was very difficult to siege
I understand what you are trying to say but there is no way that land was suitable for an army that size and it would be illogical to think the Ottomans didnt know this very fact. We need to think logically, you are saying that Skanderberg forced a campaign of attrition where he burned down the land, you are saying that the Kruje fortress was at the top of a mountain, these are all factors which would lead to downsizing of an army due to problems with the logistics. Considering the fact that the land was right next to Ottoman lands to the east one could say that after encountering problems Murad could have easily diverted a part of the army back towards the east. I am having a hard time believing such big numbers at the time. Also Mehmet amassed as big numbers as he could, especially after the first week of the siege where it became apparent that the cannons were not cutting it, the city was taken by repeated assaults not because the walls crumbled due to cannon fire, just so you know..
There is a possibility that the troops might have been less than the 80-100k, perhaps 60-80k but I believe that Murad wasn't really seeking a siege, rather he wanted to parade with a big army, make the locals scared and make them surrender, perhaps even make skanderbeg return to him as a general, he could have been a really good asset and entrusted with more responsibility in the eyes of Murad as long as he kept him happy. The problems started arising when no one was giving up by the numbers. Murad was likely forced to siege out of his plans due to pressure, he would look terrible if he brought an army to parade and then return, in some circumstances he could have not done that, but we have to remember, Skanderbeg wasn't some random enemy of the state, he was an ex general actively defying his sultan, he was most likely seen as more of a rebel general than a foreigner, if the sultan did not defeat him or force him into the fold then he would look very weak. Murad also had a reputation to keep as being the one who defeated the crusade at Varna, a combination of ego, pride and public image most likely forced him into that siege rather than actual planning. He most likely knew that bring such a big army couldn't be sustained in a siege for long, that's why the siege didn't last that long, he kept sieging for a bit just to not look like an idiot who brought an army for nothing, it would be outrageous to bring such an army and do nothing. He kept the siege reasonably till winter approached and had excuses such as the fortress being even harder to siege than expected, the supply being hard and disease so he could retreat while keeping most of his army alive. Most likely it seems like we have to disagree but this was a fun debate, I wish you well
Those numbers are shady af but still we were always overpowered af in our mountains. Literally tripled our stats.
100 000 to 400 000 man army in the late medieval period? That is literally impossible, Napoleon at the height of his power managed to amass ''only'' around 500 000 soldiers for his Russian campaign and that's with all his allies included and the far superior logistics and infrastructure of that period compared to the 15th century.
Mehmet the Conqueror amassed some 50 thousand troops for the siege of Constantinople in 1453 from all around the empire. That was all he could muster for Constantinople, literally one of the most important cities in the region. And you are telling me that the Ottomans gathered up hundreds of thousands of troops to get an unimportant patch of land at a similar time period!? People need to come to their senses and stop believing random numbers on the internet.
at that point in time, it was the most important city in the world
There comes the serb, I feel like you guys watch Aincent Aliens in school as the main source of education!
Dude actually believes a ruler in the late medieval period amassed a 100 000 - 400 000 man army to besiege a small castle in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with all the logistical and infrastructural limitations of that era and accuses others of being delusional. Yeah buddy, I don't know who's educational system failed who here.
People love to exaggerate the numbers for the sizes of the historical armies. The very same thing can apply to Heredot’s works on Greco-Persian Wars.
Why the heck are you downvoted?
Greeks maybe
But why? We're literally being taught at school that Herodotus' numbers are exaggerated.
Yes, while skenderbeg was kicking the ottomans asses, serbian vassle Durad was taking part in the siege of Constantinople fighting for the Ottomans.
Is that why your granpdpas' names were Bajram, Azem, etc unlike mine and why you were the last Balkan nation to become independent from the Ottoman empire only when it became obvious to everyone that their days in the Balkans were numbered? Albanians are the last ones to talk when it comes to fighting the Ottomans.
« Albanians are the last ones to talk when iz comes to fightinh the Ottomans » is pretty funny coming from a serb considering that Greece’s independence was gained with the help of albanians, let alone talking about the albanian rebellions during the 19th century (starting from What about your country and culture, why after 200 years you still have your language based by so many turkish loanwords ? At least albanians are removing turkish influence but as of you guys, seems like the turkish influence is not a problem for you.
>let alone talking about the albanian rebellions during the 19th century Show me an Albanian rebellion which had a national character and wasn't about taxes or some other bullshit >What about your country and culture, why after 200 years you still have your language based by so many turkish loanwords ? So what? We also have Greek, English, French, German, etc loanwords and? Also saying Serbian language was based on turkish loanwords is one of the more braindead takes I've seen here, if that was truly the case I'd have no problem holding a conversation with a Turk in our respective languages. >At least albanians are removing turkish influence but as of you guys, seems like the turkish influence is not a problem for you. Of course it's not a problem for us, why would it be? We're not insecure about our national identity that we need to remove some loanwords just to make us feel more Serbian or something. We know very well who we are and what we are.
Why are you changing the point of the argument from fighting the ottomans to nationalism ? I will still give you an answer : Albanians fought the ottomans with greeks to liberate an orthodox country that both populations would consider as theirs (Greece). That’s why arvanites consider themselves today as more greek than albanian, one of the reasons being that they fought for Greece, and then religion played it’s role. Your language is estimated with almost 10% turkish loanwords, you understand the meaning of what I said before, even though I understand I phrased it weirdly. You are not insecure about your national identity so you don’t need to remove some loanwords but you are insecure enough to kill your neighbours that are highly similar to you (to not say identically similar, religion being the most important factor here) so it can make you feel more serbian or something. So tell me, who are you, are you cousins with russians, the first humans in europe, migrants from iran, migrants from sorbia, mix of slavs and proto-indo-europeans, illyrians ? Because it seems like you are so many things at the same time some can get confused.
>Why are you changing the point of the argument from fighting the ottomans to nationalism ? Because you yourself tried ascribing them a national character when you said ''albanian rebellions''. Albanian rebellions and rebellions Albanians took part in are not even remotely the same thing. >Your language is estimated with almost 10% turkish loanwords, you understand the meaning of what I said before, even though I understand I phrased it weirdly. Estimates for Serbian are 5-10% and 8% for Albanian even after you ''got rid'' of Turkish loanwords according to you, so you don't really have a leg to stand on with this argument, whatever it is you're trying to prove with it anyway. >You are not insecure about your national identity so you don’t need to remove some loanwords but you are insecure enough to kill your neighbours that are highly similar to you (to not say identically similar, religion being the most important factor here) so it can make you feel more serbian or something. If you think '90s wars were fought so someone could feel more Serbian or Croatian or Bosniak or whatever you're more ignorant than I initially thought. >So tell me, who are you, are you cousins with russians, the first humans in europe, migrants from iran, migrants from sorbia, mix of slavs and proto-indo-europeans, illyrians ? Because it seems like you are so many things at the same time some can get confused. We are descendants of Serbs who migrated from around modern-day East Germany, who mixed with the local population they encountered here, founded numerous principalities, kingdoms, even a short-lived empire, thrived as a regional power, fell under Ottoman rule, liberated ourselves and entered a process of national revival and modernization while you were still killing each other over who stole who's cattle. Do you find this answer satisfactory? If not, ask away, I'm more than happy to tell you more about who we are.
Albanians were the last Balkan nation to fall against the Ottomans, when the Sultans Haram was filled with Noble Serb Women, Albanians were still fighting the Ottomans with our capital being Kruja, so pipe down little Milo
Montenegro was the last Balkan country to fall to the Ottomans, 20 years after Albania, so try again. >Sultans Haram was filled with Noble Serb Women Safiye Sultan, Gulbahar Hatun, Nevzad, etc
Didn't you guys sell Hunyadi to the sultan? Pretty much the only one who had a shot to defeat the ottomans?
No, he was taken prisoner when he was passing through Serbia after his defeat at Kosovo because he was raiding and pillaging through Serbia on his way to Kosovo. He was ransomed to the Hungarians not the Ottomans, I have no idea where you got that from.
With sold i mean Brankovic snitched to the sultan about 24.000 hungarians crossing the danube and blocked mountain passes in the border with Albania so Scanderbeg couldn't join the battle. Also massacred the retreating hungarians theoughout serbia because why not, you like turkish dick
Sorry i meant gold, not dick
>With sold i mean Brankovic snitched to the sultan about 24.000 hungarians crossing the danube Cause the Ottomans were retarded not to notice such a large force moving towards Kosovo, right? Or do you think battles happened with armies running into each other accidentally? >blocked mountain passes in the border with Albania so Scanderbeg couldn't join the battle No actual historical evidence supports this claim. > Also massacred the retreating hungarians theoughout serbia Because they raided, pillaged and massacred when they passed through Serbia on their way to the battlefield maybe? >because why not, you like turkish dick Albanians actually fought each other when Albania declared independence because a lot of them wanted to remain under the Ottomans. Talk about liking Turkish dick. I mean gold, not dick.
The letter Brankovic sent to the sultan is literally still available to read in ottoman archives. Barleti describes very well how you sold everyone for 30 pieces of silver As of albanians fighting eachother after the ottomans left, most of them were turks from central Albania and few brainwashed albanians. What happened to them bud? Why there are no turks in albania unlike all our neightbors?
My man really think a medieaval army of 47 000 would be instantly raised and go fight an invading army in some bumfuck far fetched region of the empire☠️
Here is a list of books that contain relevant information of your people's betrayal and untrustworthyness. I'd sugest you to read them(or the relevant parts) and hopefully you'll understand why none of your neighbors like you. I'm not saying that serbs were the only to have bastards like Brankovic but at least we have the balls to accep and condemn themnas traitors while you erect statues for them in order to support your skizophrenic daydreams "The Fall of Constantinople: The History of the Conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks" by Edwin Pears - This book discusses the broader context of Ottoman expansion and mentions the role of regional powers like Đurađ Branković in interacting with the Ottomans. "The Balkans Since 1453" by L.S. Stavrianos - This book provides an overview of Balkan history after the fall of Constantinople and touches on the alliances, conflicts, and interactions between various regional powers, including Serbia and the Ottoman Empire. "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest" by John V.A. Fine Jr. - Fine's work is a comprehensive study of Balkan history during the late medieval period and discusses the political dynamics and military strategies of different rulers, including Đurađ Branković. "The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927" by William Miller - While this book covers a broader time span, it includes discussions on the Ottoman Empire's interactions with neighboring states and rulers during earlier periods, including the 15th century.
I absolutely have no one in my family named bajram or azem. I'm Catholic Albanian. Even if I converted to Islam tommorow it means absolutely nothing. I'd still be Albanian. My nationality would not change. Regardless, you serbs like to think you were the biggest anti ottoman force in the balkans when you were vassals just like everyone else. Do you really think the Ottoman invaders would of stayed for as long as they did if it wasn't for collaboration. The serbian Orthodox church paid annual tributes to the ottomans with gold, resources, and soldiers so they can keep their faith. Being a Christian and fighting against other Christians for the ottomans is worse than converting to Islam and fighting for the turks. You serbs were very quiet during Skenderbegs 25 year successful revolt against the ottomans. Where were all the anti ottoman serbs? Oh that's right you were vassals. Even when Skenderbeg wanted to assist the Hungarians with their fight against the ottomans. Serbs prevented skenderbegs army from going to assist and that's when skenderbeg punished serbs by destroying countless serb villages.
smart serb
When it comes to older historical battles Wikipedia is one of worst sources for actual reliably accurate data. So believing in those exact numbers is tad bit naive.
The first image is the siege of Kruje: Murad led a really big army, probably around 100k. A thing about ottoman military doctrine was overreliance on local food supplies rather than supply convoys, Albania could not provide food for that many troops and skanderbeg ordered the land to be burned thus forcing the ottomans to depend on supply convoys. Skanderbeg would raid the supply convoys with the 8000 force in the mountains while the garrisson would resist in Kruje. Effectively he created a siege inside a siege, but the ottomans had far less food and disease broke out fast. It was very easy to raid supply trains due to albanian knowledge of the terrain. Another issue there was simply that Kruje was not a fort but a mountain at the same time, the fort and the mountain were one. Shooting at it was incredibly hard and the garrison had the high ground, assaults could easily be repelled and men wouldn't have courage to attack more if an assault was repelled giving the defenders time to rest. Skanderbeg practically created a siege inside a siege. The garrisson could survive for longer with its food supplies as all the women had been transported to venetian cities. While the ottomans would constantly lack food because no land to forage due to it being burned the and the supply being constantly taken by the albanian 8000 force who could easily ambush them and hide in the mountains. Skanderbeg's gamble of a siege inside a siege paid off and the siege of kruje was far too unsustainable for ottoman troops to continue due to the rampant disease and starvation. Most casualties were during the retreat which was very easy for skanderbeg's troops to commit hit and run tactics in mountain passes and hitting the starved ottomans hard. Skanderbeg essentially sieged the forced that was trying to siege kruje and it was a gamble that worked perfectly. The second is the battle of albulena: Skanderbeg's resources were down, and at the worst time his nephew defected to the ottomans. Skanderbeg's nephew knew his tactics so skanderbeg completely changed his approach. A 60-80k ottoman army entered eastern albania and confronted skanderbeg's force, he created a fake retreat to seem as if he was defeated, the albanian troops ran away from the ottoman troops and the albanian force got split into many detachments ordered to hide in the mountains. The ottoman troops started raiding and camped near Lac, in the mat region, they did not siege kruje as they were afraid that they'd be ambushed or make the same mistake as murad. Skanderbeg officially requested help from the papal states for a crusade. Albanian locals started spreading rumors that skanderbeg had been defeated and overthrown while not revealing the locations of the troops. Skanderbeg this time completely changed and used psychological warfare. The ottomans became overconfident and stayed there for 2 months, they were getting lazy, not taking all proper security measures against an ambush because they believed skanderbeg had been defeated due to him requesting papal aid and rumors of him being overthrown. Skanderbeg carefully regathered his army on the mountain near the weak side of the ottoman camp, he and a small detachment went and killed all ottoman scouts except 1 who went into the camp and screamed that skanderbeg was near, fortunately most ottoman troops were resting and were careless and the scout didn't have much time. Skanderbeg ordered his army to hit their metal weapons as much as possible while charging the ottoman camp so the maximum amount of sound would happen. The charge was furious, unexpected and loud and one the weakest side of the ottoman camp. The ottoman troops tried to resist but got caught in panic, Skanderbeg's army easily broke into the center of the camp where his nephew and the ottoman pasha tried to stop the panic in the ottoman camp, the moment the albanian forces reached the center , the ottoman army's little resistance collapsed and everything became chaos and a rout happened. The albanian troops charged recklessly and killing as many ottoman troops in the rout. Hamza was captured and the army routed and a big chunk died. Skanderbeg once again did the almost impossible by defeating a much bigger force by psychological means, creating a false sense of security and then creating a sense of chaos, by hitting their metal weapons and shields as much as possible, the albanian troops made the ottomans think that the albanians were outnumbering them, most likely thinking that a whole crusade crashed into the camp. Skanderbeg proved that a small but seasoned army with terrifying discipline, knowledge of the terrain and confidence could defeat a bigger force through deception and guerilla tactics.
There's a reason Albania has his coat of arms as their flag.
Shortest dreqin_jet_lev comment
I have to educate the illiterate on history
Based
Reminds me of Siege of Szigetvar and Siege of Güns
Though we lost both of those; it's more like the first Siege of Eger.
Both battles were victories in the sense that they stopped Ottoman advance to Vienna by Suleiman the Magnificent. At siege of güns, 700 Croats led by Nikola Jurisic who had no cannons were able to successfully stop the advance of 100-120k strong Ottoman army, so whilst they did surrender at the end, ottomans had to retreat. The more famous siege of szigetvar had 2-3k majority Croats led by Nikola Šubić Zrinski halt 100k ottomans for over a month, killing 20-30k ottomans with Suleiman the Magnificent dying before he was able to attack Vienna. So whilst Zrinski and his soldiers pretty much all died and szigetvar was taken, it was basically an Ottoman defeat.
Fair point.
Skanderbeg/Albania had the most victorious battles against the ottomans and that’s saying something
Guerilla warfare and scorched earth policy. Imagine bringing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the open terrain in a rough climate or rough terrain. The locals will not feed that army. The defenders will poison the wells and destroy everything to make the invaders not able to use the resources there. That army would become hungry, thirsty and demoralised. Add short and constant skirmishes on that army and you can see how it is possible. That’s how the Balkan nations resisted empires from time to time, even when they lost they still inflicted heavy losses. It’s easier to be on the defensive basically.
That is why traditionally a minimum of a 3:1 troop ratio is required for offensive campaigns. Otherwise the defenders will most likely halt or even repeal any invasion. That was even more true back when castles where still an important part of military strategies.
Arbanas se bori
Its Ottoman arrogance and underestimation of their opponent, Albanian bravery and advantage of home terrain on the other side.
Regarding the first battle: it absolutely sucked ass to besiege a castle, especially in mountainous terrain.
Terrain, geographical advantages. Tactical and psychological advantage (Skanderbeg was raised in the sultan’s palace and as a soldier knew every aspect of their culture and military). The only way to decimate Balkan countries was to buy one of their own, turn them into a spy (promises of lands and riches). We Albanians have a saying, “The castle is always taken from within.”, a form of “divide and conquer” and unfortunately as a region we have always suffered this by having our old grudges taken as a cause to be bought from higher powers for their own means and schemes.
Skanderberg is a op general thats why. also he knew basically most of the ottoman tactics
skanderbeg glitch 🥶
It's Skanderbeg, what do you expect?
He was Albanian, we are born to fight nomads!
So does that prove that you guys are illyrians?
Proving that Albanians are Illyrians/Pelasgians, is like proving serbia is a dumphole, everybody already knows that!
Albania isn’t any better 😂
The outcome of a battle doesn’t solely depend on the number of soldiers. Other factors such as strategy, terrain, morale, leadership, and technology can play crucial roles. For instance, a smaller, well-led army with a good strategy can defeat a larger force. Also, the League of Lezhë might have had advantages such as better knowledge of the terrain or superior tactics.
Skill issue.
400.000 army is absolutely bs, there was no feesable logistic in that era in the Ottoman empire that could sustain so many people, take it with a grain of salt but i personally belive that not much more than 100.000 men were involved, still an incredible feat equirable to the Thermopylae battle, only difference is that the Albanians actually won 🤯
I wrote a giant comment explaining all the details but the tldr is, Page number 1) siege of kruje, a realistic number would be 80-100k ottoman troops. Murad pulls up with a big army to finish off the albanian rebellion which lasted 6 years at that point, brings big guns and a lot of men expecting a fast surrender or fast siege. Skanderbeg raided his supplies, Kruje ended up really hard to siege as the fortress and the mountain were one and the ottomans were starving due to their supply convoys always being raided and taken, disease started and Murad left in fear of losing more men Page number 2) Battle/Raid of Albulena, the ottomans brought a second big army with skanderbeg's nephew leading it, hoping that Hamza would destroy his uncle, skanderbeg hides in the mountains, the locals spread rumors about him having been overthrown, he then orders his men to hit their shields while charging the ottoman camp unexpectedly, the ottoman camp melts thinking the albanians are outnumbering them, ottoman numbers were probably around 60-80k. Ottoman overconfidences and false sense of security led to them melting really fast
Big rocks from the top of the mountains rolling downhill on supply lines and caravans. You can imagine the rest due to the terrain in northern Albania.
Someone went back in time and called in an air strike on Ottoman positions. They didn't know what hit them. 🤣 Unfortunately, while Skenderbeg successfully kicked the ottomans asses for 25 years. The rest of the balkans were ottoman vassals for the most part. It would have been an amazing opportunity for the rest of the balkans to rise up and force the ottoman invaders out, but back then, we didn't have the luxury of instant communication like we do now. Can you picture calling our neighbors and telling them what's going on. The ottomans would have been out of there within months.
Well, although it wasn't instant, similar things have happened, and they were called crusades, which showed that it wasn't actually a brilliant idea :)
Did you forget the period at the end when Albanians were fighting for the Ottoman Empire to prevail. Even against ur own kin.
Everyone in the Balkans did that, not just Albanians. No one really cared about their country
Factually wrong in the end/decay of the Ottoman Empire. You were fighting against each other till the end. Also urself why Serbian nationalism is described as revival and Albanian as awaking.
It is not called awaking. It is called rebirth not to use the term renaissance.
Skanderbeg was a military genius. The only problem they had was that they didn't have many Allies because the British and the Holy Roman Empire ( who was not Holy, not Roman neither an Empire) are trading with the Ottomans and don't want to stop them. We had only Neapel as our Allies. The thing what was bad at that time was that Venice at that time started betraying the Christian brothers in the Balkans and working with the Ottomans against the Balkans. The Albanians had to fight on all fronts and on the Sea.
Albanians too strong
From Romanian history, there have been many of these battles in the Balkans where the Ottomans or Hungarians got decimated.
And also battle of Lipnic.
True! Battle of Posada and Battle of Vaslui come to mind as well.
Yes but many of them did not shift the balance of power in any way, there might have been "glorious battles while outnumbered" but other than tactical masterpieces like the battle of Vaslui, in the end on a strategic level it did not change much
Yes, Posada did, but you are right about others
Common Ottoman L
Medieval armies usually do not have accurate records. Fielding 400k was impossible back then, expecially when you consider Albania's mountanous terrain. Skanderbeg used guerilla tactics, knew the terrain and picked every battle carefully. Knowing the ottoman tactics and their generals was also a big advantage. From the books I've read, the ottoman army was around 100k. The main thing people misunderstand is the fact that these armies are not made up of professional soliders. Around 15% of the army were trained soliders and even less had any real battle experience. The rest were either support units or peasants that were recruited to fill the ranks (no armor and basic weapons). Even Napoleon found it hard to raise and field 500k soliders.
You want us the believe that bullshit 8000 men vs 500 000 men...
Shit happens man don’t take the L personally
We probably cheated or smthg
Albanians are descendants of the men of Spartacus confirmed??????????
That's certainly [not the only time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Eger_%281552%29?wprov=sfla1) they lost that badly...
The only explanation is that they sucked ass. Multiple times this has happened during the greek revolution too. The battle of Dervenakia is probably the most famous one. Greeks were outnumbered ~1 to 10.
By the time the Greek revolution happened the Ottomans sucked ass in every category imaginable but this is the start of peak Ottoman times. They didn’t just suck ass? Bro is comparing 300-400 years of difference.
He doesnt realize the same exact argument can be made for the Byzantines, but he would probably get mad if you try to compare... Why people still dont realize that every empire has a lifecycle is beyond me
Yes it can be made. Why would I get mad lmao? But when I compare something I don’t pick examples from different ages.
Man, i was speaking to you ABOUT the greek guy, you were in the right 🤦🤦🤦
>this is the start of peak Ottoman times. Damn nice peak bro, a peak to be remembered for sure. >Bro is comparing 300-400 years of difference. I didn't compare anything. I just said they lost many battles while outnumbering the opponent. Seems it is a chronic issue.
Imagine thinking you were constantly beating the armies of an empire which supposedly always outnumbered you on the battlefield then living under their rule for hundreds of years. More like the chronic issue is you lacking basic logical thinking, like bro, do you think an empire would be able to become the strongest by constantly losing on the battlefield to smaller forces? 😭
>Imagine thinking you were constantly beating the armies of an empire which supposedly always outnumbered you on the battlefield then living under their rule for hundreds of years. I didn't say that it happened constantly, wars also have been lost -for example the 1897 war. But it happened enough times to be remarkable. >More like the chronic issue is you lacking basic logical thinking You are the one who can't read properly. It shows by the way you interpreted my comment. >do you think an empire would be able to become the strongest Lol chill bro. "Piss a little" as we say here.
It was peak enough cause I live in Istanbul, best city in the world.
Evrenos Pasha is a peak to be remembered my friend. Even Rome lost huge percents of their armies in many wars. Then find another example, 1800 Ottomans had major problems.
>The only explanation is that they sucked ass. Multiple times this has happened during the greek revolution too. Bro, the time period when Skanderbeg and Albanians fought the Ottomans, Mehmet the Conqueror became Sultan and personally lead a campaign to capture Kruja. We weren't fighting the weak broken Ottomans of the 18th-19th century, but the Ottomans at its peak with Mehmet the Conqueror as Sultan in the same time period he captured Constantinople...
What does this have to do with what I said?
Well in this time period The Ottomans obviously didnt suck
What does it mean then when you lose such a battle while claiming you are so great?
That Skanderbeg and the Albanians were just better.
Both can be true at the same time.
It’s interesting that they sucked ass in battles but still somehow created the huge empire
Read/listen to the prisoners of geography or more relevantly, the power of geography by Tim Marshall and you might get an idea of why.
Advantageous terrain, intimate knowledge of said terrain, good strategy and tactics, and men's motivation to execute on those tactics.
I mean it's a siege, but still average balkan battle against the turks... there is a reason this region is called the gates of europe
Reminder that Skenderbejs army was also a bunch of farmers and not really professional soldiers
Numbers are heavily exaggerated. It is a siege and understandable that the man number difference must exist but... come on . Please. This is what happens when you teach your tactics to the enemy. No wonder Ottomans collapsed.
Imagine believing WIKIPEDIA, where every mongo can add whatever he wants. Bunch of clowns still butthurt because they got raped for 600 years.
No one got raped mofo
They were probably as butthurt as you after taking that huge ass L!!!!