Chapter XVII: Book I: contains political hist. of Constantinople from 1391 to 1578 (4)

[314] Fessler, _Geschichte von Ungarn_, ii. 152.

[315] Wadding, _Annales minorum_, ann. 1369, XI.

[316] _Epp. secr._, VI. 131, 136.

[317] Called Ishebol by the Ottoman historians.

[318] By the second division of the Ottoman army under Timurtash. Murad himself had captured Sozopolis. Cf. Jireček, p. 326.

[319] Seadeddin, i. 104. He does not give the name of the Serbian kral.

[320] The peasantry around Samakov will point out to you the ridge, south-east of the modern town, over which he vanished. They believe that Sisman haunts the foothills of the Rhodope mountains, and rides headless in the night down into the plain. This tradition, and the statement of Ducange, viii. 289, that Sisman died in 1373 in Naples, makes possible the theory that there were three successive Sismans connected with the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria.

[321] Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 38.

[322] von Kállay, _Geschichte der Serben_, i. 152.

[323] Ibid., i. 152-9; Jireček, op. cit., 319-20; Ljubić, _Monumenta spect. ad hist. Slav. merid._, iv. 189.

[324] Cant. IV., 50, pp. 360-2; Müller, _Chron. Byz._, under 1364.

[325] Miklositch, _Acta Serbica_, CLIII.

[326] Ibid., CLX.

[327] Sons of a poor Dalmatian nobleman: Ducange, _Familiae Byz._ viii. 294.

[328] At Ipek, with an independent patriarch: Engel, _Geschichte von Serbien_, p. 279.

[329] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta gr._, CLXII; MS. Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., No. 47, fol. 290.

[330] Ibid., CLX; ibid., fol. 286.

[331] Orbini, p. 275.

[332] Engel, op. cit., pp. 321 f. For documented details, Müller, ed. _Byz. Analekten_, pp. 359-64, 405-6, based on Vienna MS. referred to above.

[333] Now called Cermen or Tchirman.

[334] Svilengrad, now the frontier station of Bulgaria, was known from 1361 to 1913 as Mustapha Pasha. Before the recent Balkan war, it was the frontier railway station of Turkey.

[335] But there were certainly two distinct battles here, in 1363 and in 1371. See p. 124, _n._ 2, above.

[336] Ducange, op. cit., p. 294; Bialloblotszky’s translation of Rabbi Joseph, i. 240; Klaić, p. 199; Jireček, pp. 329-30. Zinkeisen, i. 224, confuses this battle with the one fought in 1363.

[337] In Miklositch, _Chrestomathia palaeoslav._, p. 77.

[338] Phr., I. 26, p. 80, gives the capture of these cities in the same campaign as that in which Monastir was acquired, with 1386 as date. But the Serbian chronicles are so explicit here that we can follow them without hesitation, especially as they are seconded by the Ottoman historians. Cf. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 229.

[339] Pope Gregory XI, writing to Louis of Hungary, May 14, 1372, informed him that the Osmanlis had conquered some parts of Greece, ‘subactis quibusdam magnatibus Rasciae, tum in eis dominantibus’. Rascia was Servia. Theiner, _Monumenta Hungarica_, ii. 115.

[340] Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ ii. 32-3.

[341] According to Amilhau and Jireček, who rely on Reynaldus, ann. 1364, XXVIII, this first invasion of the Greek peninsula took place in 1363. But the Turks referred to in that year, probably of the perennial corsair type, could not have been Osmanlis. They were from Aïdin or Sarukhan.

[342] Klaić, _Geschichte Bosniens_, p. 200.

[343] Hammer, i. 242, 409, places the first relations of Lazar with Murad after the fall of Nish, which he erroneously puts in 1376. See below, p. 161, _n._ 3.

[344] Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ iii. 42.

[345] June 15, 1373: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 176.

[346] Ducas, 12, pp. 43-4; Phr., I. 11, pp. 49-50.

[347] Chalc., I, pp. 42-3. But Murad, according to the Collection of Feridun, when he wrote to the Prince of Karamania, stated that Saoudji had been conquered in a pitched battle: MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 30.

[348] Letter just cited; Chalc., I, pp. 44-5; Phr., I. 12, p. 51. Saoudji is called Kontouz by Ducas, Mosis by Phrantzes, and Saouzis by Chalcocondylas. I cannot find the reading Siaous which Hammer, i. 412, and _n._ lix, attributes to Chalcocondylas.

[349] Chalc., I, p. 46; II, p. 69; Phr., I. 12, p. 51; Duc., 12, p. 44.

[350] Canale, ii. 16.

[351] Clavijo de Gonzáles, 15 vº and 16 rº.

[352] So Phrantzes thinks, I. 12, p. 51: ταύτην ὠμότητα καὶ ἀπανθρωπίαν ὁ ’Αμουράτης ἐποίησεν ἀεὶ εἰς τὰ πάντα καλῶς πολιτευόμενος.

[353] Chalc., I, pp. 46-7; Phr., I. 11, pp. 47-9.

[354] Romanin, iii. 255. This project, according to Cicogna, _Istoria di Venezia_, vi. 95, was first broached to John at the time of his visit to Venice in 1370.

[355] Raynaldus, ann. 1376, XXIII.

[356] _Epp. secr._, vi. 236.

[357] Ducas, 12, p. 45.

[358] Caresino, in Muratori, xii.

[359] Ducas, 12, p. 45; Chalc., II, p. 63; and Phr., I. 13, p. 54, say that Bayezid had given him 1,000 men, and had often advised him to have his father and brothers assassinated. Cf. Muralt, ii. 706.

[360] Sauli, ii. 57.

[361] Quirino, _Vita di Zeno_, cited by Muralt, ii. 707, Nos. 6-9.

[362] Ducas, 12, p. 45.

[363] The fortunes of Salonika at this period are obscure. See p. 231, below.

[364] Chalc., II, p. 63; Phr., I. 13, pp. 55-6.

[365] Chalc., II, p. 64. But Ducas, 4, p. 19, says that Bayezid captured this city.

[366] Bonlinius, II. 10; Sanudo, _Vite de’ Duchi_, in Muratori, xxii, col. 680.

[367] An excellent brief account of this war is found in Wiel’s _Story of Venice_, pp. 227-37.

[368] The Genoese forced John V to make peace with Andronicus in November 1382: Sauli, ii. 260.

[369] Cicogna, op. cit., vi. 97; Romanin, iii. 301.

[370] Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, fol. 1852; Evliya effendi, ii. 229.

[371] The testimony of Ibn Batutah, who travelled extensively among the Turks in Anatolia, southern Russia, and elsewhere between 1325 and 1340, is conclusive on this point. ‘Whenever we stopped in a house of this country (Anatolia), our neighbours of both sexes took care of us: _the women were not veiled_ ...’: ii. 256. ‘I was witness of a remarkable thing, that is, of the consideration which the women enjoy among the Turks: they hold, in fact, a rank more elevated than that of the men.... As for the women of the lower classes, I have seen them also. One of them will be, for example, in a cart drawn by horses. Near her will be three or four young girls.... The windows of the cart will be open and you can see the women’s faces: _for the women of the Turks are not veiled_.... Often the woman is accompanied by her husband, whom whoever sees him takes for one of her servants’: ii. 377-9. No student can have any doubt whatever upon the position of Turkish women during the fourteenth century. As among all vigorous peoples, the women of the Osmanlis held a high place, and were never secluded. It was not until Murad II that even the sovereign had a harem. The Moslem conception of the inferiority of women was not prevalent among the Osmanlis until after the reign of Soleiman the Magnificent. Immediately it became prevalent, the race began its decline.

So universal did veiling become in the seventeenth century that it was adopted by Christian and Jewish women in Turkey as well. See Père Febre, _Théâtre de la Turquie_ (1682), pp. 164-5. Père Febre spoke from personal experience ‘dans la plupart des lieux de la Turquie’.

[372] Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 96.

[373] _Historia epirotica_, Bonn ed., p. 228.

[374] Ibid., pp. 230-1.

[375] Ducange, viii. 292.

[376] Jireček, op. cit., 340.

[377] _Misti_, XL. 154.

[378] See below, p. 203.

[379] Silvestre de Sacy, in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscript._, vii. 327-34. But the commandant could hardly have been carried by his falconer in such a fashion as far as Philippopolis. The Ottoman historians probably forgot that Ishtiman, at the mouth of the pass, on the road to Philippopolis from Sofia, contained an Ottoman garrison.

[380] According to the anonymous _Ein gantz neu Reysebuch von Prag auss biss gen Constantinopel_, Nürnberg, 1622, p. 33, Sofia was captured in 1362. Hadji Khalfa, _Rumeli_, p. 51, with whom Schéfer, ed. Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 202 n., seems to agree by citing, says Sofia capitulated in 780 (1378). Seadeddin, i. 125, is followed by Hammer, i. 250, Klaić, p. 237, and others in fixing the date as 1382. But these same authorities give 1375 and 1376 for Nish, which is altogether impossible. Phr., I. 26, p. 80, seems to place the capture of Sofia for 1385. This is the most reasonable date. It is consistent both with the topography of the places in question and with Murad’s methods of campaigning, as exemplified by all his conquests, to place the taking of Sofia close to the end of his reign, and within a year or two before the capture of Nish. To corroborate this date, letters in the collection of Feridun can be cited. Indje Balaban’s letter to Murad, announcing the acquisition of Sofia, is not dated. But immediately after it is the response of Murad, in which he gives to Indje Balaban for life the government of the new province, and states that he is sending him a fine horse and robes of honour because of his success. This letter is dated from Adrianople in the middle of the month of Redjeb, 788, which corresponds to 1386 in our era. These letters are in MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 31-2.

[381] Nish, from its geographical position, could not have fallen in 1375, as Chalcocondylas says. Hammer, i. 241, and Zinkeisen, i. 230, show an amazing nonchalance in transporting the Osmanlis from Kavalla, Drama, and Serres in the course of this one year, 1375. Engel, _Geschichte von Serbien_, p. 341, who, according to Hammer, ‘deceives himself by thirteen years in placing the capture of Nish in 1388’, is eleven years nearer the truth than Hammer! Strumnitza, from a diploma delivered in the name of the Serbian empress Eudoxia (Müller, _Acta Serbica_, CXXXI), was independent in 1379. Sofia did not fall before 1382. How, then, could Nish have been an Ottoman fortress from 1375?

[382] Von Kállay, i. 166.

[383] For distances between cities in the Balkan peninsula, see Jireček’s important and interesting work, _Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel und die Balkanpässe_, p. 122. Jireček, for time of transit, depends upon Hadji Khalfa.

[384] Text in Sauli, ii. 260-8.

[385] _armiratus_ or _amiratus_, then _amiralus_, of which we have made admiral, originally had nothing whatever to do with the sea. It is a corruption of _emir_.

[386] ‘Magnificus et potens dominus, dominus Moratibei, magnus armiratus et dominus armiratorum Turchie’: the whole text is reproduced from the Genoese archives by Belgrano, in _Atti della Società Ligure di Storia_, xiii. 146-9, and by Silvestre de Sacy, in _Notices et Extraits_, xi. 58-61. Cf. Canale, ii. 59.

[387] ‘Contra illum Turcum filium iniquitatis et nequiciae, ac Sancte Crucis inimicum, Moratum bey et eius sectam, cristianum genus sic graviter invadere conantes.’ The text of this treaty is also in Belgrano, ibid., xiii. 953-65.

[388] Text in Romanin, iii. 386-9. There was an earlier law of similar nature enacted in 1334.

[389] Cf. Delaville Leroulx, i. 159-60.

[390] Romanin, iii. 331.

[391] _Bullarum_, III, part 2, pp. 4, 92, 338; Urban V, _Epp. secr._ iii. 25, iv. 256; Gregory XI, _Epp. secr._ ii. 32-3, v. 88-9, 311; Philippe de Mézeray, p. 19; Raynaldus, ann. 1372, XXIX. In 1425 Martin V repeated the anathema against those who sold Christian slaves to the Turks: _Bullarum_, III, part 2, p. 454.

[392] MS., Bibl. de Bâle, A 1, 28, fols. 232-54, cited by Delaville Leroulx, i. 70, n. 2. Adam’s project was a revival of Sanudo’s attempt to ruin Moslem trading.

[393] _Monumenta historiae patriae_, i. 320; iii. 336, 371.

[394] In 1432 Bertrandon de la Broquière met at Damascus one of these Genoese of Kaffa, who sold slaves to the Sultan of Egypt: _Voyage_, Schéfer ed., p. 68.

[395] Chalc., I, p. 53; Phr., I. 26, p. 81. Cf. Hertzberg, p. 503.

[396] Seadeddin, i. 130-2, draws here upon Idris and Neshri, and has been followed by all the Ottoman historians down to the present day.

[397] Col. Djevad, pp. 62-3. He speaks of Alaeddin bey ‘ayant levé l’étendard de la révolte’, and calls the punishment of the Serbians in this campaign the chief cause of Kossova.

[398] Chalc., I, p. 53; Phr., I. 26, p. 81.

[399] Up to 1383, in outlining the career of Tvrtko, I have followed Klaić, pp. 201-3.

[400] Schaffarik, _Acta archivii Veneti_, &c., CXLI.

[401] In a letter of April 1, published in Ljubić, iv. 185-6.

[402] _Misti_, xxxix. 113.

[403] Klaić, p. 237; Jireček, p. 341. But von Kállay, i. 166, attributes this victory to George Kastriota of Albania.

[404] Orbini, p. 361.

[405] Hopf, in Ersch-Gruber, _Allgemeine Encycl._, lxxxvi. 49.

[406] _Chronique de Morée_, p. 516. Evrenos is called Branezis. This is not the Evrenos heretofore mentioned, but another Christian renegade, of Macedonia. Cf. Finlay, iv. 233 _n._

[407] Jireček, _Die Heerstrasse_, &c., p. 147.

[408] Leunclavius (1611 Frankfort ed.), pp. 268-76. Jireček, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, pp. 341-2, points out that Seadeddin and Leunclavius, whom Zinkeisen, i. 252-5, follows, are in error in representing the Bulgarians as wholly subdued in 1388.

[409] Mijatovitch, from Serbian sources, p. 13.

[410] Ibid., pp. 16-17.

[411] The railway between Mitrovitza and Skoplje (before the Balkan War Uskub) passes through the plain of Kossova. When this railway is connected through the former Sandjak of Novi Bazar with the Austrian (?) railways in Bosnia, Kossovapol will be on one of the great transcontinental routes.

[412] The date June 15 is fixed by the Serbian chronicles and songs and by unbroken tradition. Also by Tvrtko’s letter to Florence. But Tvrtko, in another letter to the inhabitants of Trau in Dalmatia, gives June 20 (Pray, _Annales_, ii. 90). Seadeddin stands alone in placing the death of Murad on the 4th Ramazan (August 27). The other Ottoman historians, as well as Chalcocondylas, Ducas, and the anonymous _Hist. Epirot._, speak of these events occurring ‘in the springtime’.

[413] _Chron. of Abbey of Tronosha_, section 54, p. 84, and _Chron. of Pek_, p. 53: cited by Mijatovitch, p. 12 n.

[414]

‘Sans arrêter, pendant quinze jours pleins,
J’ai cheminé le long des hordes turques,
Sans en trouver ni la fin ni le nombre.’--A. d’Avril, p. 36.

[415] Orbini, pp. 314-15. See also the Serbian songs about Kossova, which are accessible in the form of a continuous narrative in French by Adolphe d’Avril, and in English by Mme Mijatovitch, based on the composite poems of Stoyan Novakovich and A. Pavich.

[416] Solakzadé, cited by Col. Djevad bey, p. 196. The bow was used as an offensive arm by the Osmanlis until the middle of Murad II’s reign.

[417] Seadeddin, i. 147-52; Chalc., I, p. 53; Ducas, 3, pp. 15-16; _Hist. Epir._, p. 234; the Serbian chants; Bonincontrius, col. 52; and the modern writers, Hertzberg, pp. 503-7; Jireček, pp. 342-4; Fessler, ii. 254; von Kállay, i. 166; Klaić, pp. 236-40. Most illuminating of all is Rački, in Croatian, in _Jugoslav. Akademie_, iii. 92 f.

[418] Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 27 rº.

[419] _Annales_, ii. 186.

[420] This speech, from the chronicle of Monk Pahomye, is given in Mijatovitch, p. 17.

[421] Busbecq, English ed., i. 153; cf. Ricaut, ed. of 1682, p. 159.

[422] Const. Porphyr., i. 394, 396, 405.

[423] Howorth, ii. 796, commenting on Stoddard’s audience with the Emir of Bukhara.

[424] Text in _Mon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid._, i. 528-9.

[425] _Chronique du Religieux de St.-Denis_ (ed. Bellaguet), ii. 391.

[426] MS., Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., 48.

[427] As far as such records are accessible in the great collection of Miklositch and Müller. The statement of Ducas, 23, p. 137, about the persecutions of Christians by Murad, is without any foundation.

[428] Phr., I. 26, p. 82; Chalc., I, p. 59; Duc., 3, p. 16; also the Ottoman historians.

[429] Sura IV, verse 94 (Sale trans., p. 64).

[430] Sura V, verse 53 (ibid., p. 77).

[431] Hammer, iii. 302-4. Rambaud, _Histoire générale_, iii. 831, is mistaken in attributing this law to Bayezid.

[432] Ruled 1350 to 1369.

[433] In 1330. Panaretos, p. 7.

[434] In 1320 at Salonika: Greg., VII. 13, p. 271.

[435] Month of Shaban, a.h. 791: MS. turc, Bibl. Nat., Paris, No. 79, pp. 35, 40. Cf. Langlès, in _Notices et Extraits_, v. 672.

[436] Froissart, IV. c. 47, in Kervyn ed., xv. 216-17. Froissart calls Bayezid ‘Amoruth-Baquin’, confusing him with Murad. See below, p. 213, _n._ 2.

[437] Abul Yussif ibn Taghry, _Elmanhal Essafy_, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds arabe, No. 748, ii, fol. 70.

[438] Vuk Brankovitch, as the reward of his treason, received half of Lazar’s inheritance, however, with Pristina as capital. His family continued as Ottoman vassals, with varying fortunes, for a hundred years.

[439] Ducas, 4, p. 6.

[440] Kantitz, _Serbien_, pp. 254 f.

[441] Busbequius was informed at Constantinople that marriage had been abolished in the Ottoman royal family because Bayezid took to heart the disgrace of Despina by Timur. But Ricaut, p. 296, thinks that it was because of dowry expense and the desire of the Ottoman sovereigns to keep free from family alliances. Naturally, the difference of religion in time prevented the Osmanlis from finding brides for their sovereigns among the European royal families. If they married among their subjects, there was always fear of intrigues in the wife’s family. At a time when family alliances meant so much in Europe, the Ottoman Empire suffered greatly from this disability.

[442] Seadeddin, i. 158.

[443] Klaić, p. 248. I think Romanin, iii. 331, has confused Stephen Bulcovitch with Stephen Tvrtko. For it is difficult to understand what he means by the ‘pace vergognosa’ with Venice.

[444] Old Servian chronicle, quoted by Klaić, p. 271: ‘quasi totaliter destruxerunt Bosniam et populum abduxerunt.’

[445] Klaić, pp. 324-5.

[446] Accounts differ as to the place. There is some doubt as to whether the independence of Aïdin was totally destroyed before the restoration of Isa’s sons by Timur. Cf. Schlumberger, p. 484; Mas-Latrie, _Trésor de Chronologie_, col. 1800. Hammer, i. 300, cites no authorities for his statements about this usurpation.

[447] Bosio, ii. 143.

[448] Ibid., ii. 148.

[449] There is the same dearth of information about the details of the destruction of the power of the emirs of Sarukhan and Menteshe as there is about Aïdin. Hammer says simply, ‘Les principautés de S. et M. furent incorporées à l’empire ottoman,’ i. 300. He gives no authorities.

[450] Ducas, 13, p. 47.

[451] _Dialogi XXVI cum Persa quodam de Christianae religionis veritate_, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253: partly printed in _Notices et Extraits_, vol. viii, 2e partie, and in Migne, 156, pp. 111-74. In _Notices et Extraits_, loc. cit., C. B. Hase has given an interesting critical account of the dialogues, and the circumstances under which they were written.

[452] Seadeddin, i. 163. In Hammer, i. 301, in the sentence ‘quoique, depuis la paix renouvelée avec lui par Orkhan, les deux nations eussent continuellement vécu dans des relations de sincère amitié’, is not Murad meant instead of Orkhan?

[453] Evliya effendi, ii. 21, tells how Bayezid passed _seven times in one year_ from Anatolia to Wallachia.

[454] In matters relating to the progress of Ottoman conquest in Asia Minor, French, German, and British writers have been content to repeat, without critical comment, what they have culled from Leunclavius or the translations of Seadeddin. In many cases, they have gone back no farther than Hammer, and have transcribed, often literally, Hammer’s words. Hammer himself, in this early period of Ottoman history, in spite of his attainments as an orientalist, has relied mainly on Leunclavius, and on Bratutti’s Italian translation of Seadeddin.

[455] ‘La principauté _fut pour toujours réunie à l’empire_,’ Hammer, i. 308. In speaking of this second campaign, Hammer starts by saying, ‘Le prince de Karamanie avait de nouveau _levé l’étendard de la révolte_’. This is hardly the expression to use for the action of an independent prince. Alaeddin had never made himself the vassal of the Ottoman emirs.

[456] Striking testimony to the later power of the Karamanlis is given by Bertrandon de la Broquière, who visited the court of Ibrahim with the Cypriote ambassador in 1443: cf. Schéfer’s edition of his voyage, pp. 108-20. See Appendix B below, where the relations of the Osmanlis with the emirates of Asia Minor during the fourteenth century are discussed in detail, with fuller citation of authorities.

[457] Howorth, iii. 749.

[458] Sherefeddin, iii. 256, who is the only contemporary authority, says that Bayezid put him to death. This was one of the charges made by Timur against Bayezid.

[459] The earliest possible date could be 1393. Perhaps the Osmanlis first appeared near Sivas at this time. But Bayezid would hardly have undertaken so long and perilous an expedition before his position was secure in Karamania. Sherefeddin gives the more likely date 1395, while Ibn-Hedjir places the death of Burhaneddin in 1396.

[460] So d’Ohsson fils, vii. 442, says, but gives date 1390. Hammer more correctly puts it in 1391. Xénopol, in his authoritative and carefully documented history, gives a little different account of Mircea’s early relations with Bayezid, and attributes to Mircea a larger influence in the calculations of Murad than he deserves. But the exposition of Mircea’s policy in relation to Poland, Hungary, and the Osmanlis, as given by Xénopol, cannot be overlooked or disregarded by the student of this period.

[461] ‘Pierre Aron fut le premier des hospodars qui paya un tribut aux Turcs’: Costin’s _Hist. de la Moldavie_, p. 367, in _Notices et Extraits_, vol. xi.

[462] Phr., I. 13-14, pp. 58-9, and 26, p. 82; Bonfinius, iii. 2; _Chron. Anon. de St.-Denis_; Chron. of Drechsler; Campana, fol. 8 (but gives date 1393). Leuncl., _Annales_, p. 51, following Ottoman sources, speaks only of Sigismund’s defeat. This earlier victory and the disastrous retreat are mentioned also in several of the French chronicles which relate the expedition of 1396.

[463] Engel, _Gesch. von Ungarn_, ii. 368, who draws on all the earlier Hungarian authorities.

[464] Russian source cited by Muralt, vol. ii, No. 10 n.

[465] Cf. Baedeker, _Konst. und Kleinasien_, 2. Aufl., p. 46.

[466] Jireček, _Gesch. der Bulgaren_, pp. 347-9, gives Slavic sources for this date, and quotes Camblak’s graphic description of the terrible sacking of the city, the massacre, and the destruction of the churches.

[467] In Czech, the word _jazyk_ signifies _language_ as well as _nation_ (cf. Lützow, _Life and Times of Master John Hus_, p. 239). This illustrates the Slavic conception of nationality, and explains in a nutshell the Austro-Hungarian and Balkan problems. To the Slav, there can be no other test of nationality. The Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia, carried on through the church and the schools, has been the resurrection of the nation through the language. The Greeks have used the Orthodox Church to combat and stifle this movement. They claim as Greeks all members of the Orthodox Church, while the Bulgarians claim that Bulgarophones, even if not attached to the exarchate, belong to the Bulgarian nation.

[468] Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 65. On this question cf. Jireček, op. cit., pp. 350-2; Miller, p. 189; and illuminating note of Rambaud, in _Hist. générale_, iii. 832 _n._ Also p. 143 of this book and accompanying foot-note.

[469] Schiltberger, op. et loc. cit.

[470] These cities, or rather, their fortresses, were captured and evacuated several times by the Osmanlis, especially Widin.

[471] Hammer, at the beginning of the reign of Bayezid, i. 295-7, relates the history of the quarrel between Andronicus and his father and Manuel, the rescue from the Tower of Anemas, &c., as if these events happened in 1389 and 1390, and gives the capture of Philadelphia for 1391. He has been led astray here by the story of Ducas, and by the fact that the Byzantine historians speak of Bayezid instead of Murad in connexion with the negotiations for restoration. By the internal evidence in the Byzantine historians themselves, the chronology of this period cannot be decided. But, by reading Phrantzes and Chalcocondylas in the light of Quirino, the continuation of Dandolo, and the archives of the colony of Pera, and also by piecing out the length of time of these events and matching them with Bayezid’s occupations during the first two years of his reign, it is not difficult to decide to place the Andronicus _versus_ John and Manuel struggles just before the Chioggia war. At any rate, Andronicus died ten years before the date Hammer gives to these events!

[472] Poem cited by Muralt, ii. 738, No. 1.

[473] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253, fol. 198 vº.

[474] John V Palaeologos was of those who, in the words of Bernino (p. 9), ‘consumavasi vanamente il tempo più in dolersi delle calamità che in repararle’.

[475] Ducas, 13, pp. 25-49 _passim_; Chalc., II, pp. 66, 81-2.

[476] Evliya effendi, i. 29-30; ii. 21, who repeats the persistent Ottoman tradition of his day, that is also found in Hadji Khalfa and Nazmi Zadé. Cf. the Genoese accounts of Pera in Jorga’s scholarly _Notes à servir_, &c. i. 42. According to Schéfer, in his edition of Bertrandon de la Broquière, p. 165, there was a provision that slaves escaping to Constantinople should be given back, but we cannot be sure that this stipulation was made under Bayezid I. The date of the installation of the cadi, &c., is open to question. Some authorities place it after Nicopolis.

[477] Shehabeddin, fol. 72 rº, writes _Istanbul_; Sherefeddin, iv. 37, is transcribed by Petits de la Croix _Istanbol_; Arabshah, p. 124, transcribed by Vattier _Estanbol_. Wylie, i. 156, _n._ 2, gives the time-worn popular derivation from εἰς τὴν πόλιν; also Telfer, in his edition of Schiltberger, p. 119. Why go so far afield? _Istambul_ is a natural contraction of Constantinople. As the Greeks pronounced this long word, the syllables _stan_ and _pol_ bore the stress, and were naturally put together for a shortened form. As for the initial _I_, which has troubled the philologists, its explanation is easy to one who knows the Osmanlis. They cannot to this day pronounce an initial _St_ without putting _I_ before it.

[478] Neshri, trans. Nöldeke, _ZDMG._, xv. 345; Seadeddin, i. 189; Saguntinus, p. 187; Drechsler, p. 228, says: ‘octo annos vexatur et obsidetur.’

[479] Duc., 13, p. 50.

[480] Muralt, ii. 753, No. 29.

[481] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, III, E 84.

[482] Chalc., II, pp. 80-1; Phr., I. 13, pp. 57-8; 26, p. 82.

[483] Miklositch, _Acta Serbica_, CCIV. Hammer, i. 341, calls this Constantine ‘fils de Twarko’, meaning Stephen Tvrtko, I suppose. But I cannot find that the Bosnian king had such a son, or any reason, if he had, why this son should have been at Serres.

[484] Ibid., CCXXIII. For the later kings of the dynasty which Vuk founded, see Picot’s careful article in _Columna lui Traianu_, new ser., Jan.-Feb. 1883, p. 64 f.

[485] _Epp. cur._, ii. 64.

[486] _Epp. cur._, ii. 103-4. Urban VI in 1387 had written a letter from Lucca inciting the Frankish princes to a war against ‘schismatics’ in Achaia.

[487] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, iii, E 74.

[488] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta Graeca_, CCCCXXXV.

[489] Chalc., II, p. 75; Duc., 13, p. 73.

[490] Chalc., loc. cit.; _Epp. cur._, ii. 300-1, 311; iii. 261.

[491] Cf. Jorga, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, 2e série, 110e fascic.; Molinier, MSS. de P. de Mézières, in _Arch. de l’Orient Latin_, i. 335-64; Del. Leroulx, i. 201-8.

[492] ‘Nostra dominatio audiverat de morte ipsius dom. Morati, de qua maximam displicentiam habuerat, quia semper eum habuimus in singularissimum amicum, et dileximus eum et statum suum. Similiter audivimus de felici creatione sua ad imperium et dominium ipsius patris sui, de quo nos fuerimus valde letati, quia sicut sincere dileximus patrem, ita diligimus et diligere dispositi sumus filium et suum dominium et habere ipsum in singularem amicum’ ... &c.: _Misti_, xli. 24, reprinted in full in Ljubić, iv. 269-70.

[493] Ibid., xlii. 58-9; the treaty is in _Commem._, viii. 150. Cf. Romanin, iii. 330.

[494] Euboea is called Negropont, the Peloponnesus Morea, Lesbos Mytilene, while Crete is frequently called Candia and Chios Scio, in mediaeval and modern times.

[495] _Misti_, xlii. 55.

[496] Ibid., xliii. 156.

[497] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, iii. E 81.

[498] ‘Ire contra dictos Turchos ad damnum et destructionem suam’: ibid., p. 94, cited in Ljubić, iv. 335-6.

[499] _Misti_, lxiv. 140.

[500] Ibid., lxiv. 156.

[501] We must reject the statement of Morosini, MS. Wiener Bibl., fol. 135 rº, that Bayezid ‘entered in arms in the Strait of Romania with so many galleys that one could not navigate in the strait’, and doubt the opinion that Monicego, with his forty-four Venetian and Genoese galleys, had to force the Bosphorus, and contributed powerfully ‘a la destrucion del dito Turcho’.

[502] _Misti_, xliii. 29.

[503] Ibid., xliii. 5: ‘confidasse in Dio, confidasse nei provedimenti che saprebbero à fare i principi christiani, scrivesse al Papa e a questi promovendo una lega generale’.

[504] Ibid., xliv. 108.

[505] Ibid., xliv. 128.

[506] Belgrano, pp. 152-3.

[507] _Lib. iurium_, ann. 1392, fol. 474, in Turin archives, printed in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_ (1857), 4e série, iii. 451-2.

[508] _Religieux de St.-Denis_, ed. Bellaguet, i. 319-21.

[509] _Chronicorum Karoli Sexti_, ed. Bellaguet, i. 709-11. The relations of the ambassadors of Sigismund with the Duke of Burgundy and with Charles VI are found in _Religieux de Saint-Denis_.

[510] On September 13, 1395, in the presence of ambassadors from all parts of Christendom, and also ‘del gran Turco, del Rè de’ Tartari, del gran Soldano, del gran Tamerlano e di molti altri Principi infedeli e ribelli alla Fede christiana’, who were treated like Christians and lodged at the expense of ‘il Signore di Milano’, Galeazzo was solemnly raised to ducal rank and invested with the Duchy of Milan by Wenceslaus: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 820.

[511] _Mémoires de Madame de Lussan_, iii. 5.

[512] The references to Froissart which follow are given from vol. xv of Kervyn de Lettenhove’s edition, and the references to Schiltberger from the English translation in the Hakluyt Society series, vol. lviii, unless otherwise specified.

[513] See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition of _Religieux de Saint-Denis_, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these sections are very disappointing).

[514] Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223.

[515] Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers, compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86.

[516] Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216), Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230), l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus, Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio, _et al._). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘_l’émir-pacha_’. The fact that he uses the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’ is proof positive of this. His transcription of the title _emir_, and that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis! Olivier de la Marche (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’ for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163, _n._ 2.

[517] Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242.

[518] Donado da Lezze, p. 9.

[519] Leunclavius, _Hist. Musul. Turc._, preface, p. 14, speaks of how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of Brandenburg.

[520] Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, and _Venetian State Papers_ (Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian reference is based on a misapprehension.

[521] Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu à la bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliers _teutoniques_.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut expedition is another error.

[522] Conclusive proof of the whereabouts of Henry in the summer of 1396 is found in the letter ‘escript ... le xxe jour d’augst’. This letter is in Arch. Nat., Paris, J. 644: 35^{11}. For the expeditions in which Henry _did_ take part, when he was Henry of Derby, see vol. lii of the Camden Society, edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith, London, 1894, 4to.

[523] Froissart, p. 244.

[524] Phr., I. 14, p. 59; Bontinius, III. 2.

[525] Engel, _Geschichte der Bulgaren_, p. 468. According to the authority who has made the most exhaustive study of the Nicopolis expedition, Sigismund disposed of 120,000 men in all, including the western allies: Kiss, in _À Nikápolyi ülkozet_, p. 266. Kiss’s estimate is corroborated by the _Cronica Dolfina_, which says that Sigismund had one hundred thousand men under arms in 1394. Sanuto quotes this in Muratori, xxii, col. 762. Cf. also Hungarian Nat. Archives, Dipl. 8201, 8212, 8214, 8493, 8541.

[526] Schiltberger, p. 2.

[527] Bruun, in his _Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger_ (_Sitz.-Ber. k. Bay. Akademie_, 1869, ii. 271), tried to prove that the battle was fought, not at Nicopolis on the Danube, but near the ancient Nicopolis of Trajan’s foundation. But in his notes to the English translation of Schilt., Hakluyt, lviii. 108-9, he assents to the contention which Kanitz makes in _Donau-Bulgarien_, ii. 58-70, that the battle was near Nicopolis-on-the-Danube. An examination of the chronicles corroborates Kanitz’s hypothesis over against the ingenuous argument of Jireček. Some historians have been so unmindful of geographical considerations as to put the battle at the ancient Nicopolis _ad Haemum_, of which Ortellius, p. 225, speaks.

[528] Schiltberger, p. 2.

[529] Froissart, pp. 251, 262-3, 310, 329. ‘Miscreant’, of course, in its original sense.

[530] Ibid., p. 310.

[531] Ibid., pp. 311-17; _Relig. de St.-Denis_, pp. 490-7. Schiltberger, p. 3, attributes this initiative to Jean de Nevers, whom, like many other writers on Nicopolis, he calls, by anticipation, Duke of Burgundy. Cf. Donado da Lezze, p. 9, who says: ‘Il signor Carlo, _prima_ Duca di Borgogna.’ Also Morosini, p. 6. Sigismund is frequently spoken of as German emperor at the time of Nicopolis. Cf. Chalc., ed. Migne, col. 76: ἡγουμένου Σιγισυούνδου Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως τε καὶ αὐτοκράτορος.

[532] Rabbi Joseph, i. 252.

[533] Froissart, pp. 313-16; _Relig. de St.-Denis_, pp. 490 f.; Rabbi Joseph, p. 253; Schiltberger, p. 3; Seadeddin, i. 184; Neshri, in _ZDMG._, xv. 345-8. Cf. authorities cited in Bibliography.

[534] Froissart, p. 317. Hermann de Cilly and the Burgrave of Nürnberg are said by some authorities to have thrown themselves in front of Sigismund, and to have saved him and carried him off to the boat.

[535] The bitterness against and contempt for the Hungarians is expressed in the following verses:

‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,
Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,
Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;
Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champs
Avec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,
Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,
Sans assembler.’
_Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs_, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.

[536] Schiltberger calls him ‘der hertzog auss der Sirifey, der genant despot’: _Bibl. des Lit. Vereins_ (Tübingen), clxxii. 4.

[537] Cf. Miller, in Story of Nations Series, pp. 290-1.

[538] Belonging to the grand master of Rhodes: Froissart, p. 317. But Morosini, p. 15, and others, say that he went directly on board Monicego’s galley. It is a pity that Hammer, in his description of the battle of Nicopolis, relied so much on such an unreliable third-hand authority as Abbé Vertot. Skentkláráy, _À dunai hajóhadak törtenéte_, says that Jean de Vienne commanded the galleys.

[539] Schiltberger, p. 6.

[540] Bonfinius, one of the earliest Hungarian historians, recorded that Sigismund had boasted that he would not only turn the Osmanlis out of Europe, but also that with the army under his command, if the sky fell, it could be held up on their lances: _Decades_, ii. 403.

[541] ‘Sigismund was cruel and sensual, perjured and frivolous, rapacious and dissolute, fierce and pusillanimous, a byword and object of horror to the Bohemians, hated and despised by the Germans, a warning to all rulers. His companion, John XXIII, lewd and murderous, a simonist and an infidel, was a true comrade for Sigismund in all evil deeds’: Dr. Flajshans, in _Mistr Jan Hus_: quotation translated by Count Lützow, _John Hus and his Times_, pp. 137-8.

[542] Froissart, pp. 330-1.

[543] But not until he ‘regracioit les dieux et les déesses selon la loy où il creoit et que les paiens croient’: Froissart, p. 321. The ignorance among the western chroniclers of everything pertaining to the Osmanlis--or the wider circle of Mohammedan peoples--was appalling.

[544] Schiltberger, p. 5. Cf. Froissart, pp. 322-8; _Relig. de St.-Denis_; _Chronique de Boucicaut_; _Chronique des 4 premiers Valois_, éd. Luce, p. 326; and the other chronicles and secondary authorities given in Bibliography.

[545] Xénopol, in _Hist, générale_, iii. 882, whose writings furnish the most reliable and most accessible data for Rumanian history, allows his patriotism to get the better of his judgement when he writes that this unimportant skirmish was a complete defeat inflicted upon Bayezid, and that ‘le Sultan court jusqu’à Adrinople’! Xénopol makes no attempt to explain the battle of Nicopolis, and Mircea’s action in and after the battle.

[546] Schiltberger, p. 6. Chalc., II, pp. 76-80, who exaggerates the raid to the point of saying that Bayezid reached the environs of Buda.

[547] _Secr. Cons. Rog._, iii. 134-5. _Mém. d’Olivier de la Marche_ (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 199-200, reads as if Bayezid had actually taken possession of Hungary.

[548] MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 61 f. (collection of Feridun). For wrong date, see Langlès, in _Acad. des Inscriptions_, iv. 673-4.

[549] Schiltberger, p. 7, who would have been chosen himself for Egypt but for the fact that he had been wounded.

[550] Froissart, p. 341; Rabbi Joseph, p. 254.

[551] Froissart, p. 345. In xvi. 40, Froissart makes a mistake in saying that the body of the Comte d’Eu was ‘en ung sarcus rapporté en France et ensevely en l’eglise Saint-Laurent d’Eu, et là gist moult honnourablement’. The tomb in St. Laurent is merely a memorial. Philippe was buried in the chapel of a monastery in Galata, where, seven years later, Clavijo, fol. 17 vº, saw his burial-spot, but unmarked. His tomb is described by Bulladius, who saw it in 1647, in his notes to Bonn ed. of Ducas, p. 560. Cf. Mordtmann, _Beiträge zur osmanischen Epigraphik_, I, in _ZDMG._ (1911), lxv. 103.

[552] Froissart, xv. 329, 332, 342 f., 355-8; xvi. 16.

[553] Godefroy, _Hist. de Boucicaut_ (1620 ed.), i. 16; Ducas, p. 52.

[554] _Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet_ (ed. Douet d’Areq), i. 332-3; Froissart, xvi. 57-9.

[555] Jean de Nevers, as Duc de Bourgogne and leader of the faction against the king’s brother, openly accepted the responsibility of the assassination of the Duc d’Orléans. This was the beginning of the Burgundy-Armagnac civil war, which delivered France to the English until Jeanne d’Arc appeared to awaken the French to a feeling of nationality.

[556] Froissart, xvi. 47. For ransom, ibid., pp. 37-8, and Rabbi Joseph, i. 254; also _Livre des faicts_ of Boucicaut, _passim_.

[557] Raynaldus, ann. 1364, No. XXVIII. Jireček, _Gesch. der Bulg._, p. 323, says that at this time ‘Osmanen erschienen in Attika’. He has mistaken roving Turkish corsairs of Sarukhan or Aïdin for the Osmanlis. It must have been these Turks who attacked Thebes.

[558] For the deliverance of the grand master of Rhodes, Jean Ferdinand d’Hérédia: Ducange, viii. 296.

[559] _Chron. Breve_ at end of Ducas, p. 516.

[560] Ibid. According to Finlay, iv. 233, he captured Akova. Cf. Muralt, ii. 741, citing Guichenon MS., and Ducange, viii. 39, 296.

[561] Phr., I. 16, p. 62; 26, p. 83; Chalc., II, pp. 67-9.

[562] Muralt, under 1395 and 1397, gives the same expedition. From internal evidence of Byzantine historians, one might put the Morean expeditions in either or both of these years. But cf. _Chron. Breve_, p. 516, and the silence of the Ottoman historians on an expedition in 1395.

[563] Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.

[564] Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.

[565] _Chron. Breve_, p. 516; Phr., I. 16, p. 62; Chalc., II, pp. 97-9.

[566] Seadeddin, i. 193.

[567] The Venetians seized Athens in 1395, and sent Antonio Contareno to act as governor.

[568] Hammer describes the capture of Athens in 1397 in i. 350, and again in 1456 in iii. 51.

[569] Gibbon and Hammer follow Chalcocondylas in this error. Cf. Berger de Xivrey, in _Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscr._, vol. xix, partie 2, pp. 29-30.

[570] Seadeddin, i. 180.

[571] Ducas, 13, p. 50; Chalc., II, p. 59; Idris.

[572] The land walls of Salonika, still standing, are eloquent proof of the difficulty which confronted their assailants before the days of cannon.

[573] Phr., I. 17, p. 64.

[574] See p. 199. There is serious difference of opinion as to just when these concessions were made.

[575] Feridun collection, letter from Adrianople, ordering kadis to prepare for siege of Constantinople: Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 60.

[576] Ducas, 14, p. 53; Canale, ii. 62. Leunclavius, _Annales_, p. 52, puts this in 1391/2.

[577] Karamzin (Russian ed. of 1819), v. 164.

[578] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta Graeca_, DCXXXVI.

[579] Ibid., DXIV, DXV, DXVI.

[580] Froissart, xvi. 132-3.

[581] _Religieux de Saint-Denis_, ii. 559-62, 564.

[582] _Secreta Consilii Rogatorum_, E iii. 138, 146, printed in Ljubić, iv. 404.

[583] Ibid., p. 137.

[584] _Misti_, xliv. 210, xlv. 443; Belgrano, _Arch. Gen._, 1396-1464, pp. 175 f.

[585] Ducas, 14, p. 53; Chalc., II, p. 80; Sherefeddin, iv. 38.

[586] ‘El Cuirol castello de Grecia está despoblado y destruydo y el dela Turquia está poblado’: Seville ed., 1582, fol. 17 v°. Busbecq, i. 131, wrote: ‘stand two castles opposite each other, one in Europe and the other in Asia.... The former was held by the Turks a long time before the attack on Constantinople.’ Busbecq was, of course, misinformed, as Rumeli Hissar was built in 1452. It is still standing in excellent preservation. Anatoli Hissar, of which only one tower remains intact, was built between 1392 and 1397. There is no way of determining the exact date. But Saladin, in _Manuel de l’Art Musulman_, i. 482, displays his usual inaccuracy concerning facts of Ottoman history, when he gives 1420 as the date for Anatoli Hissar.

[587] Phr., I. 14, p. 60; Chalc., II, p. 83; Ducas, 14, p. 53.

[588] Venice contemplated action against the Osmanlis with the aid of France, Hungary, and Genoa. Cf. _Secr. Cons. Rog._, E iii. 137-44.

[589] _Epp._, v. 26, 99, 293-5.

[590] Edition of Seville, 1582, fol. 16 v°-17 r°.

[591] My account of this expedition is taken from MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds fr., No. 11432, _Livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut_. For printed editions, see Bibliography.

[592] The chronicler makes the most astonishing assertions as to these raids, saying that the chevaliers reached Ak-Seraï! He evidently had no idea of local geography. I have been unable to identify several of the places mentioned.

[593] I have walked in one day from Riva to a point on the Bosphorus not many miles above Constantinople. When one reads the history of the Osmanlis in the country of their origin, the fact that from the very beginning of their history they were practically within sight of the imperial city is vividly impressed upon one.

[594] The Byzantine historians give little attention to Boucicaut, and are in contradiction with his chronicler on this point. Phr., 15, p. 61, says that John, who had been in the court of Bayezid, fled to his uncle because he had been slandered to Bayezid, and was afraid for his life; and Chalc., II, p. 84, that it was John who commanded the 10,000 Osmanlis against the city, and that Manuel shared the throne with him in order to save the city. Muralt, ii. 762, is a year in advance of the actual date.

[595] _Chron. de Saint-Denis_ and Juvenal d’Ursins. But these are really the same source, according to Lacabane, _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, ii. 62.

[596] Foglieta and Stella, in Muralt, ii. 778, No. 61.

[597] Sanudo, in Muratori, xxii. pp. 794-8.

[598] Chalc., II, pp. 83-4; Ducas, 14, pp. 54-6. For Rhodes and the Pope in the Morea, Phr., I. 16, p. 63; Bosio, ii. 154.

[599] September 10, 1400, in _Misti_, xlv. 33.

[600] _Livre des faicts_, fol. 53 r°-55 r°, and Wylie, pp. 159-65. Wylie has collated admirably the sources on Manuel’s visit.

[601] Text is published in Theiner, ii. 170-2.

[602] _Epp._, v. 300-2; vi. 92.

[603] ‘Cum Dom. summus Pontifex advertens quod perfidus ille Baysetus Princeps Turchorum, manu potenti et brachio extento in Christianum Populum maxima feritate extitit debachatus ad Exterminium Civitatis Constantinopolitanae et universitatis Populi Christiani _nisi eius nephanda propositio resistatur_, omnes et singulos qui, pro Liberatione et Subsidione Manuelis Imp. Cpni et dictae Civitatis suae, Manus adiutrices porrexerint ...’ etc.: Rymer, vol. iii, part 4, pp. 195-6.

[604] Clavijo, who visited Constantinople the following year, reports this, fol. 7 v°.

[605] Miklositch-Müller, _Acta_, DCXXVI.

[606] Strikingly shown in letter of April 20, 1402: _Canc. Secr._, i. 58.

[607] _Misti_, xlv. 19-23, 25-6, 29-30, 35, 87; xlvi. 37. Several of these are published in Ljubić, iv. 579, 590.

[608] Knoelle, in _Journal R. A. S._ (1822), xiv. 125; Nöldeke, in _ZDMG._ (1859), xiii. 185, _n._ 6.

[609] ‘Toutesfoiz il a la main senestre et pié senestre comme impotent et ne s’en puet aidier, car il a les nerfs coppez’: Dominican Friar, p. 463. ‘Infirmus, ut dicitur, a cingulo infra’: Stella, in Muratori, vol. xvii. col. 1194. Cf. Sherefeddin, i. 55, 381. The English corruption Tamerlane is from Timurlenk, the latter syllable signifying lameness.

[610] Sherefeddin, ii. 222.

[611] There is an excellent account of the dynasties of the Black and White Sheep, with list, following Mirkhand, in Teixera, ii. 24-39, 69-70. For the later activities of Kara-Yussuf, Teixera, ii. 355; de Guignes, iii. 302.

[612] Langlès translation, p. 260.

[613] Ibid., pp. 258-62; Sherefeddin, iii. 255-62; Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 25 r°-26 v°.

[614] Chalcocondylas and Raynaldus are wrong in calling him Ertogrul, and in stating that he was killed in the subsequent siege. Sherefeddin, iii. 267, calls him Mustafa, and Schiltberger, p. 18, Mohammed. That it was Soleiman is proved by the agreement of the Ottoman historians with Arabshah, p. 124, and with Clavijo, fol. 26 r°, whose ‘Musulman Tchelebi’ is Soleiman.

[615] Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, vol. ii, fol. 1776.

[616] Clavijo, fol. 26 r°; Arabshah, p. 125.

[617] Clavijo, fol. 26 v°-27 r°; Arabshah, p. 125; Sherefeddin, iii. 267-9; Dominican Friar, p. 264; Schiltberger, p. 18. Schiltberger says 21 days, and 5,000 horsemen buried, and 9,000 virgins carried off by the Tartars.

[618] It is impossible to understand why Muralt, with all the authorities he had at hand, places the taking of Sivas in 1395: _Chronographie Byzantine_, ii. 753, No. 26. The contemporary authorities cited above establish the date. Cf. also letter from Crete, in Jorga, _Notes à servir_, &c., i. 106, _n._ 3. There is a full discussion of the proper dating of the Ottoman aggression against Sivas, Caesarea, and Erzindjian, and the probability of two Ottoman campaigns, one before and one after Nicopolis, in Bruun’s note to the Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger, pp. 121-2.

[619] The letters exchanged between Charles VI and Timur are preserved in the French archives. The Turkish text of these letters, with Latin translation, is published by Charrière, introd., i. 118-19.

[620] Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1194.

[621] ‘En la qual batalla se acaescieron Payo de Soto Mayor e Hernan Sanchez de Palaçuelos Embaxadores’: Clavijo, fol. 1 r°, col. 2.

[622] Letters of Timur and Bayezid in Arabic and Persian in Feridun collection, MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, ancien fonds turc, pp. 65-91. Cf. Langlès, in _Notices et Extraits_, iv. 674, for list and dates of these. Sherefeddin, iii. 396-416.

[623] Sherefeddin, iv. 1-6. For description of route from Sivas to Angora, Hadji Khalfa, _Djihannuma_, ii. fols. 1803-4. Timur’s own account of his march and the battle of Angora is very brief: ‘Je pris moi-même le chemin d’Ancouriah. Bayezid, suivi de 400,000 hommes, tant cavaliers que fantassins, vint à ma rencontre; on livra la bataille, et je la gagnai. Ce Prince vaincu fut pris par mes troupes, et amené en ma présence. Enfin ... je retournai victorieux à Samarcande’: Langlès trans., p. 264.

[624] A great deal has been written about the date of Angora, but all authorities agree in putting it between July 20 and July 28, 1402. Cf. _Art de vérifier les Dates_, i. 193; Silvestre de Sacy, in _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, vi. 488-95; Moranvillé, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, lv. 437-8. A few early western writers have given 1397 and 1403, while Petits de la Croix, in his French translation of Sherefeddin, is a decade too late in all his dates. The latter part of July 1402 is fixed by all contemporary authorities on this battle. Abu’l-Mahasin, in his history of the reign of the Egyptian sultan Barkok, states that the greater part of Bayezid’s army perished by thirst before his capture.

[625] On the nationality of the Tartars who betrayed Bayezid at Angora, see the latter part of the note of Bruun on the ‘White Tartars’ in the Hakluyt ed. of Schiltberger, pp. 114-17.

[626] From the account of the Dominican Friar, pp. 458-9, it seems clear that Bayezid was the aggressor until after Soleiman’s command had been cut to pieces.

[627] Sherefeddin, iv. 8-12; Dominican Friar, p. 458.

[628] Afterwards Mohammed I. Many western writers have confused him with his nickname of Kiritchelebi (Girigilibi in Rabbi Joseph, i. 257, and a variety of spellings in other early writers), and made him thus his own father, to account for the later Sultan Mohammed.

[629] In this battle I have used Sherefeddin, Arabshah, Dominican Friar, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, lv. 437-68, Schiltberger, Clavijo, and the invaluable letters in Marino Sanuto, Muratori, xxii. 794-7. The authorities for Angora and Timur are classified in the bibliography below.

[630] Sherefeddin, iv. 15, says the carnage in this battle was seven times greater than in any of Timur’s previous victories. The Dominican Friar, p. 459, puts the Ottoman losses at 40,000.

[631] Schiltberger, p. 21, says that he retreated to this hill with 1,000 horsemen. Hammer is in error in saying that Bayezid ‘resisted like a hero at the head of his _ten thousand_ janissaries with whom he had occupied the slope of a hill’: ii. 91. There were never as many as ten thousand janissaries enrolled in the Ottoman army until a century after Bayezid’s death. See above, p. 119. In oriental historians numbers are almost invariably exaggerated at least tenfold.

[632] Solak-zadé, p. 63. Sherefeddin and Arabshah bear witness to Bayezid’s personal courage.

[633] The Ottoman historians explain the capture of Bayezid by the fact that he was unhorsed. Some say that he was mounted on an inexperienced horse. A great deal was written about the battle of Angora at a much later date, but, as in describing the battles of Kossova and Nicopolis, I have limited myself to contemporary sources.

[634] Mustafa’s fate was never cleared up. Mohammed and Isa fled naked, according to the Dominican Friar, p. 450.