Top Medieval battle masacar when,where,who????

[Magister Pediyum]

“To escape is impossible, to surrender is unthinkable.
Let’s fight with bravery and honor our arms!”
Janos Hunyadi's proclamation before the Battle of Warna.

[lars573]

It's spelled massacre.

[Brutus]

I don't believe there are any statistics on this, but especially during the crusades many massacres occured (for example, the capture of Jerusalem in 1099). Other disastrous battles were those of Liegnitz (Legnica) in 1241, Nicopolis in 1396 and Agincourt in 1415.

[Afonso I of Portugal]

I don't believe there are any statistics on this, but especially during the crusades many massacres occured (for example, the capture of Jerusalem in 1099). Other disastrous battles were those of Liegnitz (Legnica) in 1241, Nicopolis in 1396 and Agincourt in 1415.

And Aljubarrota in 1385.

:duel:

[ShadesWolf]

100 years war.....

The battle of Agincourt - Killing the prisoners

[Steppe Merc]

I wouldn't say Agincourt was that bad. Sure it was bad, but it was against soldiers, and I believe they thought more French would be coming... Besides, I doubt many were happy at losing their bounty.

Not sure, will have to get back to you. Probably a Crusader massacre...

[edyzmedieval]

Fall of Constantinople 1453.

Those uneducated turks of Mehmed II(the bashibuzuks especially) destroyed the city and its splendor, raped women and killed the inhabitants. :embarassed:

:help:

[Krusader]

Fall of Constantinople 1453.

Those uneducated turks of Mehmed II(the bashibuzuks especially) destroyed the city and its splendor, raped women and killed the inhabitants. :embarassed:

:help:

The Fourth Crusade was worse.

---
Manzikert perhaps. The reliance on mercenaries skyrocketed after that, and it was after Manzikert Seljuk Turks first started to serve as mercenaries in the Byzantine armies.

[edyzmedieval]

Yeah...I know...Much worse!!!

Guillaume of Tyr wrote that even Saladin was much more merciful than the Crusaders!!! :dizzy2: ~:eek:

[Steppe Merc]

Talk about biased. The Turks were not uneducated, far from it. All armies tended to loot conquered cities.
And Sala Al Hadin was indeed far more lenient than the Crusaders. There is nothing odd about that, or strange, unless you are implying that all Muslims were monsters, as your views of the Turks tend to indicate...

[Brutus]

Talk about biased. The Turks were not uneducated, far from it. All armies tended to loot conquered cities.
And Sala Al Hadin was indeed far more lenient than the Crusaders. There is nothing odd about that, or strange, unless you are implying that all Muslims were monsters, as your views of the Turks tend to indicate...
Indeed, as is well known, the "crusaders" that conquered Constantinople in 1204 regarded all Greeks as schismatic heretics who deserved nothing then death. This has everything to do with the difference between Christian and Muslim doctrine: Medieval Catholic doctrine viewed every different religion and especially other christian sects as an outrage to God that should be wiped from the earth (on the other hand, the Greeks didn't actually love the Catholics either) whereas Muslim doctrine was far more tolerant. The Byzantine empire held far better relations with it's eastern Muslim neighbours then with the western Christians.
About Saladin, he was regarded as one of most chivalrous mostly by Christians, I always understood the Muslims themselves saw him far less favourable (not having achieved all that was possible). For example, when the crusaders captured Acre, Richard the Lionheart had the garrison executed outside the city because it was too much trouble to keep them. Saladin, however, had when he captured Jerusalem a few years before made it possible for all Latin chrisians to buy themselves free. For many of the poorest people, who couldn't pay for themselves and got nothing from their richer fellow-Christians, Saladin himself payed the ransom.

[The Wizard]

Fall of Constantinople 1453.

Those uneducated turks of Mehmed II(the bashibuzuks especially) destroyed the city and its splendor, raped women and killed the inhabitants. :embarassed:

:help:

What was their to destroy? The city's splendor had long since faded. Even the Church of Holy Wisdom was partially collapsed when Mehmed finally took the city.

Besides, Mehmed had a stop put to the looting after only a few hours, while normally Turkish irregulars were allowed three days' worth of looting.



~Wiz

[King Henry V]

Indeed, as is well known, the "crusaders" that conquered Constantinople in 1204 regarded all Greeks as schismatic heretics who deserved nothing then death. This has everything to do with the difference between Christian and Muslim doctrine: Medieval Catholic doctrine viewed every different religion and especially other christian sects as an outrage to God that should be wiped from the earth (on the other hand, the Greeks didn't actually love the Catholics either) whereas Muslim doctrine was far more tolerant. The Byzantine empire held far better relations with it's eastern Muslim neighbours then with the western Christians.
About Saladin, he was regarded as one of most chivalrous mostly by Christians, I always understood the Muslims themselves saw him far less favourable (not having achieved all that was possible). For example, when the crusaders captured Acre, Richard the Lionheart had the garrison executed outside the city because it was too much trouble to keep them. Saladin, however, had when he captured Jerusalem a few years before made it possible for all Latin chrisians to buy themselves free. For many of the poorest people, who couldn't pay for themselves and got nothing from their richer fellow-Christians, Saladin himself payed the ransom.
When the Germans held the garrison of Jerusalem in WWI, the commander decided to replace Saladin' s simple wooden tomb with a lavish marble one.

[Meneldil]

Errr, many of the tales about Saladin were written way after his death. Sure he might have been a cool guy and all that, but I'm fairly sure he wasn't that much better than the other warlords around him.

Some Muslim story tellers wrote that Richard Lionheart was a great guy and all, though he was not especially better than other kings.

Furthermore, the top medieval battle 'masacar' was probably involving the Timurids, the Mongols, the Seljuks or the Chinese.

[Kagemusha]

I cant point out a single great massacre.But for an invidual warlord, id say Timur Lenk or Tamerlan(different spellings).I think he really had an talent for massacre. :knight:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Yes Tamerlanes campaigns in India for example were senseless in there slaughter particularly when he apparently killed 100,000 captive Indian soldiers after he stormed Delhi.

[Kagemusha]

Yes Tamerlanes campaigns in India for example were senseless in there slaughter particularly when he apparently killed 100,000 captive Indian soldiers after he stormed Delhi.

Yes.I think he is very intresting historical character.Beated Indians,Mameluks and Ottomans.He just Campaigned all his life slaughtering people everywhere.And seems to me mostly without any purpose.

[Marquis of Roland]

hmmm....I thought we were only talking about medieval european battles....

The Chinese probably have the worst massacre; there are way too many old Chinese battles where hundreds of thousands of soldiers (and civilians) died in single battles but it wasn't really a big deal to them as China's population was so large.

As far as military significance, a 1,000-man army in Europe probably equaled the same significance as a 10,000-man army in the Far East. I believe the most-used military unit was a "legion" or "division" of 30,000 men. "Companies" of 1,000 men were commonly used too (this is from about 200A.D.). It was not uncommon for armies of a few hundred thousand strong to be marching around.

[Steppe Merc]

Probaly Timur Lenk, as was already mentioned. I don't think the other steppe people, including the Mongols ever came close to him. Many myths about Mongols are really about Timur Lenk: stacks of skulls, etc.

[Magister Pediyum]

The battle of Kosovo 15 June 1389 over 90% of units in the battle never left field of Blackbirds.Both rulers died most of Serbian mobles or knights died also,2/3 of gazes and spahis perished in the battle.If we carefully read text Both Ottoman and Latin or Serbian and if we analyze economic date of Both
kingdoms we can bee 80% shure that Serbs under Count Lazar took 25.000 best feudal based troops.
Ottomans under Murat I took somewhere from 25.000 to 30.000 best of the best from both parts of sultanate from Rumelia and Anatolia many christians fought under half moon of the Sultan Murat I.
All i all it is one of the most brutal battles in Middleages. :book:

[soda]

There was a battle between the Ottomans and Timur (clash of the titans ~;) ) but I can't remember what the numbers came out to be. It was going to be a massive conflict but I believe the Ottoman army crumbeled early.

[Duncan_Hardy]

I think it was the 1215 Mongol capture of Beijing. By the time they took the huge city, Hsi-Hia, Sung and a ton of other principalities had already fallen.... They say that the the mountains of skulls could be seen for miles around. I reckon massacres didn't take place on that scale again until the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18.

As for the most disastrous battle, as far as European Medieval history is concerned I'd say the battle of Tannenburg/Grunwald (1410) is a prime candidate. The Teutonic Knights had ammassed an enormous army with which to attack Poland and Lithuania, and by the end of the battle there were about three of them left.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Soda, the battle was Ankara in 1402 and the Ottomans lost due desertion in their armies and were grossly outnumbered. Not taking away anything from Timur but its the truth.

[Kagemusha]

Soda, the battle was Ankara in 1402 and the Ottomans lost due desertion in their armies and were grossly outnumbered. Not taking away anything from Timur but its the truth.

Yes i agree.I think that the reasons why Ottomans lost was both desertion, because they had lost confidence to Sultan Bajasid and their troops were exhausted from speedmarching to the field.Im not sure but was there any other Ottoman Sultan but Bajasid that was captured in battle in Ottoman history? :bow:

[Steppe Merc]

I believe the Turkoman soldiers of the Ottomans switched to the Mongols side, in addition to desertion.

[Fragony]

Well my favorite has to be uncle Vlad the Impaler, that was just cruel ~D

[King Henry V]

I reckon massacres didn't take place on that scale again until the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18.
I hope LeftEye9 doesn't catch you saying that if not we'll go in to that topic all over again.

[Byzantine Prince]

Well my favorite has to be uncle Vlad the Impaler, that was just cruel ~D
He was responsible for 200,000 deaths if I'm not mistaken. 20,000 Turks at that. He was the berserker voivode of Wallachia. Long live the heirs of the Dragon!

[edyzmedieval]

Are you Canadian or Romanian???(just joking, please no conversation about nationalities again!!)

He was a great person(although he killed many people, including his own staff!!!!).

But I personally like more Mircea the Old(Vlad's predecesor) or Stephen The Great(Voievode of Moldavia)...I like them as Kings because they only killed on the battlefield :duel: ...Noble people worthy of great respect.. ~:) :bow:

[soda]

I believe the Turkoman soldiers of the Ottomans switched to the Mongols side, in addition to desertion.
Timur convinced the Ottoman nobles to switch sides. Ofcourse in the end the Ottomans do come out on top and create a great empire and Timur is no more.

[GoreBag]

The massacre at Glencoe had pretty great implications, but wasn't huge on the scale of Tamerlane or anything like that.

[Steppe Merc]

Vlad is being considered great while Turks are barbarians... :help:

[Meneldil]

Glencoe did not really happend during middle age, no ?

[Idomeneas]

Vlad is being considered great while Turks are barbarians... :help:

Vlad used a horrific by todays standards tactic but then it was just a good shock to the enemie's pcychology. His army was no match for the turkish one and he knew it. Therefore he had to really scare them cause surely they wouldnt take defeat that easy they would come back as they eventually did.
This may be dreadfull deed but one can consider it as tactic. Slaying the population of a city or brutally oppress every aspect of conquered people's life im afraid cant be seen as even extreme military tactic.

[The Wizard]

I think it was the 1215 Mongol capture of Beijing. By the time they took the huge city, Hsi-Hia, Sung and a ton of other principalities had already fallen.... They say that the the mountains of skulls could be seen for miles around. I reckon massacres didn't take place on that scale again until the Armenian Genocide of 1915-18.

Please note that Beijing did not rise into prominence until under the Yuan, when it became the capital of Qubilai and was named Ta-Tu by the Mongols. And, as Steppe Merc has noted before, mountains of skulls are not a Mongol fear tactic, but a Timurid fear tactic.

It's interesting to compare the campaigns of fear launched by the Mongols under Chingis, Batu, Jebe, Subedei and Holagu to those of Timur-i-Lenk. Timur's were more brutal, more terrible, more cruel and carried out with an even more chilling cold precision than those of the Mongols when one remembers that most of those he killed were fellow Muslims (massacres of Georgian towns are an exception). To top it all off, literally one might say, Timur also had a great amount of signs erected to make sure people remembered what the price of resistance was: towers made of skulls were the most common, but there is also a notable event where he cemented live captives into another tower-like construction.

And then one compares the effectivity of these measures. Chingis and his successors executed calmly, almost regretting the act, and only doing so after a city had resisted them. Timur seemed to take pleasure out of killing and torturing. He was also less reliable than the Mongols: there is more than one episode where he first pledges to spare a town which had not resisted, and then massacres the inhabitants anyways.

Perhaps in the latter episode we can find an explanation as to why Timur's fear tactics never worked. However much he killed, pillaged and burned (he sacked Baghdad twice, ending forever whatever greatness the city had regained after Holagu), whenever Timur moved on to the next region the revolt just seemed to start all over again. The Mongols never had to do so.

Perhaps a sign that the Mongols were actually interested in long-term development? Considering that Timur's campaigns were all essentially for the enrichment of Samarqand and Transoxania, and the Mongol shamanistic philosophy that all people belonged to the same tribe, that is not so strange an assumption.



~Wiz

[GoreBag]

Glencoe did not really happend during middle age, no ?

Nah, suppose not. It's the only real, singular massacre that sticks out in my mind, though.

[Meneldil]

Vlad used a horrific by todays standards tactic but then it was just a good shock to the enemie's pcychology. His army was no match for the turkish one and he knew it. Therefore he had to really scare them cause surely they wouldnt take defeat that easy they would come back as they eventually did.
This may be dreadfull deed but one can consider it as tactic. Slaying the population of a city or brutally oppress every aspect of conquered people's life im afraid cant be seen as even extreme military tactic.

Even by his days standards, he used horrific tactic, because that's precisly why he's well known : his bloody mass executions, that led to the vampyr tale.


there is also a notable event where he cemented live captives into another tower-like construction.

Totally out of topic, but in the video game "Eternal Darkness : Sanity's Requiem", there's a conqueror (who's in fact working for some dark bad bad gods) in the middle east who's doing something like that, and he might very well be Timur. I'll have to check that.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Wizard is the event you are refering to about cemented captives the city of Smyrna? I thought he buried them alive but i could be wrong though

[The Wizard]

Weren't the Armenian Christians defending Sivas for the Ottomans buried alive?

Anyways, the cementing happened at Sabazwar in Iran. The sicko wanted to create minarets that way...



~Wiz

[edyzmedieval]

You're near to the truth....

The history tells us that in his reign Vlad Dracula or Vlad the Impaler built a castle on the top of a mountain(to get to it today you have to climb more than 500 stairs!!!!)but, instead of using normal people(workers), he used his own staff and boyars!!!!!!! :help: Many of them died because of exhaustion and he cemented them in the tower of the castle...

The castle is called Cetatea Poenari ( Poenari Citadel )

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Yes it must have been sivas, sorry my mistake ~D

The St John Fleet while escaping was bombarded with captured Knights heads by Tamerlanes force's. I knew he did something sick at Smyrna ~:eek:

[Idomeneas]

Even by his days standards, he used horrific tactic, because that's precisly why he's well known : his bloody mass executions, that led to the vampyr tale.



Totally out of topic, but in the video game "Eternal Darkness : Sanity's Requiem", there's a conqueror (who's in fact working for some dark bad bad gods) in the middle east who's doing something like that, and he might very well be Timur. I'll have to check that.

AS far as i read in the development of his evil profile great role played the germanic traders who saw their interests damaged. They even ecouraged the production of famous wood prints where Vlad dinners amongst dismembered corpses and propably drinks blood! Absolute splatter man!!!

[edyzmedieval]

Exagerated!!!!!

[Colovion]

The entire and complete destruction of the Persian and Middle East quadrant of the Mongol conquests.


Next, Chingis marched towards Samarkand, capital of the Kwarazmian Empire. The magnificent city was heavily fortified and had a garrison of 110,000 men, which vastly outnumbered Chingis' besieging army. The city was expected to be able to hold out for months, but on March 19, 1220 its walls were breached in just ten days. After the fall of Samarkand, the Mongols overran much of the Empire. The destruction was profound. Cities were leveled and populations were massacred. At the city of Merv, accounts described an execution of 700,000. At Samarkand, women were raped and sold into slavery. Devastation was so great that the Kwarazmian Empire itself was nearly wiped away from history.

The Mongols would herd the remaining populace up and, if there was another city close enough, press the citizend from one city against the walls of the besieged settlement as a human-shield for their own soldiers.

Essentially the entire Middle East and Persia were destroyed. At the time that area was the most advanced in the world; Europe was still rather uncouth. Most Easterners saw them as petty fiefdoms squabaling over the scraps on the small European Penninsula. With the Mongol devastation of Persia and Mesopotamia - in places they completed slaughtered everyone and decimated the landscape to give a semblance of the steppes they heralded from. This was no simply one city or one town or one year of destruction - it was a whole campaign of slaughter and destruction. It took the Khan's Chinese advisor to argue him into leaving the populace of the following conquests alive because more profit could be gathered by people working the land than none.

Slaughtering the inhabitants of one city is nothing - destroying entire nations and regions in a few scant years is incredible. It would be similar, in this time, to destroying everything West of Poland; people, buildings and the landscape.

~:eek:

[Steppe Merc]

I doubt very much the numbers put forth by any ancient and medieval historians whether it be those that died or armies, especially when considering people of the steppe, as almost all of our information is from their enemies.

And I believe that Chingiss himself wasn't alive during the Middle Eastern conquests, though I may be wrong...

[The Wizard]

The entire and complete destruction of the Persian and Middle East quadrant of the Mongol conquests.



The Mongols would herd the remaining populace up and, if there was another city close enough, press the citizend from one city against the walls of the besieged settlement as a human-shield for their own soldiers.

Essentially the entire Middle East and Persia were destroyed. At the time that area was the most advanced in the world; Europe was still rather uncouth. Most Easterners saw them as petty fiefdoms squabaling over the scraps on the small European Penninsula. With the Mongol devastation of Persia and Mesopotamia - in places they completed slaughtered everyone and decimated the landscape to give a semblance of the steppes they heralded from. This was no simply one city or one town or one year of destruction - it was a whole campaign of slaughter and destruction. It took the Khan's Chinese advisor to argue him into leaving the populace of the following conquests alive because more profit could be gathered by people working the land than none.

Slaughtering the inhabitants of one city is nothing - destroying entire nations and regions in a few scant years is incredible. It would be similar, in this time, to destroying everything West of Poland; people, buildings and the landscape.

~:eek:

Please read my post. The accounts given by any Muslim source is biased. Most, also, were written long after the Khwarezmian empire was crushed, and were rather written after Holagu sacked Baghdad. Indeed -- in the Il-Khanate (although some were written in Mamluk Egypt)

I doubt your assumption that Iran was destroyed in the extreme. Your source mentions that the Khwarezmian empire was wiped off the face of the earth. That is true. But, as with so many empires in the East, the name of the nation is the same as that of the family ruling it, and that is what this source mixes up.

I have this doubt because of the prosperity that Iran had less than a century after Chingis attacked the Khwarezmian empire. The Il-Khanate turned vey profitable after it got its act together, and the different dynasties that followed in the wake of its collapse started cultural activity on a large scale anew. Only when the Black Death came did people revert to their ancient nomadic ways to escape from its grip. Meanwhile, Samarqand itself became very prosperous in the 14th century and this was only augmented by its greatest son, Timur.

And even Timur's assault upon the peoples of the East was unable to prevent Iran from becoming great and powerful once again under the Safavids.

The East was not destroyed. Its former lords were completely wiped out and the Mongols were able to start with a clean slate. Destruction at the scale you imagine it is only possible with the weapons of mass destruction that we possess now. Besides, trying to draw any lines between the Mongol conquests and the relative backwardness of the East is completely senseless and impossible.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

Agreed. And it isn't just Muslims. It's Greeks, Romans, English, Italian, whatever. They are all biased, mainly becuase none of them were actually there, or if they were, they weren't warriors.

[Colovion]

Regardless of how complete it was done - it was still utter devastation - and to such an extent which has never been or will ever be done again. It was not merely just the Khwarezmian empire or a few cities but the entire region changed to suit the steppe forces. Largely he stronger forces were pressed West and were not completely destoryed to the man - but it shifted the entire balance of power from strongly Eastern to giving the Europeans some kind of fighting chance - albeit still geographical but reduced the eastern powers enough to negate their interest in advancing West militarily into Europe.

ps, I'll check what the sources were for these facts - probably those chronicles of the Cathayan advisor to the Khan in his conquests, but I'll make sure

[DukeofSerbia]

Battle of Angora was real massacre. I have original text from Samarkand and latter today I wil translate from Serbian.
Serbian ruler despot Stephan Lazarevic was on Bayazid side as vassal, but he survived and Serbian army survived.
And Tamerlane won because Anatolian Mongols swiched side to him (they betreyed Bayazid in crucial moment of battle). Without their help he would never won. And massacre came after battle...

[Colovion]

Battle of Angora was real massacre. I have original text from Samarkand and latter today I wil translate from Serbian.
Serbian ruler despot Stephan Lazarevic was on Bayazid side as vassal, but he survived and Serbian army survived.
And Tamerlane won because Anatolian Mongols swiched side to him (they betreyed Bayazid in crucial moment of battle). Without their help he would never won. And massacre came after battle...

I like to think that the victory for Timur occured because of his excellent generalship in terms of completely out maneuvering Bayazid even in his own country. Imagine Bayazid waiting at Angora with plenty of supplies and plenty of water - he's set himself up so perfectly for Timur that all he has to do is wait for him. Then he gets reports that Timur's army is just to the East and moving through lush farmland. Some say Bayazid was a little too eager for battle, some say he was afraid of losing the crops to Timur and giving him time to rest. Regardless of the reason, he advanced from his position at Angora to attack Timur who was advancing from the East. As he advanced Timur craftily and incredibly totally avoided detection as he slipped around the South flank of Bayazid's army, giving him an open lane to Angora. Now Timur was in possession of the territory already setup by Bayazid to withstand an assault. He had all the water he needed now, and filled or defiled the remaining wells or rivers in the area to further demoralize the Turks once they came around. Then Bayazid realized his folly and hastened back to Angora to view the worst sight he could have conjured up - Timur waiting for him to attack his own base-camp, furnished with supplies and water while his own wearied army cried out for water and supplies after force-marching through Anatolia.

The battle was essentially over before it had begun. :charge:

[Steppe Merc]

Timur was indeed a good general. However, many of his enemies presented him with opportunties that he took. For example, the Khan of the Golden (Kipchaq) Horde actually met Timur in open battle as opposed to allowing the steppe to wear down Timur's army, which despite it's heavily nomadic influence, couldn't have survived out in the open steppe indefinetly.
And it seems that unlike the Mongols, he never really took long enough to consolidate his conquests, causing him come back and fight in the same spot multiple times.

[The Wizard]

What defines a good general is his ability to adapt to the battlefield situation. In other words, taking opportunities when they present themselves. ~;)

BTW, when Timur invaded Ottoman Anatolia, he was essentially taking a gamble that Holagu had not dared take a century and a half ago. He was surrounded on all sides -- the Ottomans to his front, the Mamluks and the Georgians on his flanks, and the Iraqis to his rear. Had he lost, all would have been over. His gamble easily matches any Alexander ever took.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I just meant that his enemies made stupid mistakes, and he was smart enough to take advatange of them.

[Orda Khan]

And I believe that Chingiss himself wasn't alive during the Middle Eastern conquests, though I may be wrong...

Chingis Khan was very much alive indeed, he died some years later during the seige of the Tangut capital.

The massacres that took place in Khwarazm were essentially out of necessity due to the precarious position the Mongol armies found themselves in. I have doubts about the numbers quoted as being slain, however they were substantial I am sure.

But we stray off topic here as the thread states 'battle massacres', so I think it would be more army v army as opposed to massacre of the populace.

My own particular favourite and candidate for a considerable, if not 'Top' massacre would be Kalka. Not many returned from that one

......Orda

[Orda Khan]

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I just meant that his enemies made stupid mistakes, and he was smart enough to take advatange of them.

Not to mention the fact that his army usually outnumbered that of his opponents

......Orda

[Steppe Merc]

I was refering to not the Khawarzim Empire and Persia, but the rest of the Middle East such as Syria. I should have been more specific.

[Colovion]

Timur was indeed a good general. However, many of his enemies presented him with opportunties that he took. For example, the Khan of the Golden (Kipchaq) Horde actually met Timur in open battle as opposed to allowing the steppe to wear down Timur's army, which despite it's heavily nomadic influence, couldn't have survived out in the open steppe indefinetly.
And it seems that unlike the Mongols, he never really took long enough to consolidate his conquests, causing him come back and fight in the same spot multiple times.

Actually, Timur chased the Golden Horde through the steppes for an incredible amount of time. His army was nearing exhaustion and was probably even more of a gamble than his invasion of Asia-minor; no one had gone after the Horde in their own turf before I prevailed. It wasn't as if Toktamish was eager for battle - you are quite correct that he tried as best as he could to tire Timur's forces on his blind chase through the steppes. In the end Timur just ended up catching his army and forcing a battle. I'm guessing that had Toktamish taken the initiative of turning to attack before he was caught that Timur may not have been able to pull a victory out of the invasion of the Russian steppes. I'll get more precise numbers of time and geographical distance that it took for him to catch Toktamish's army.

[Steppe Merc]

Thanks. Yeah, it isn't smart to try and fight any steppe army in the steppe, mainly because they can just run away, and are faster and less attached to the land as civilized armies are. For some reason, I had thought that Toktamish (thanks for the name too...) choose to fight him, guess I was wrong.

[Orda Khan]

Toqtamish gave a pretty good account for himself for a time, he managed to rout Timur's flank but eventually was destroyed. I would hasten to add at this point that Toqtamish had a fairly chequered history as a commander. He was not brilliant and had relied upon Timur to help him overcome Urus and his side of the family to establish himself as the head of the White Horde. To his credit, he did overcome Mamai of the Golden Horde but this was after Mamai had suffered a defeat at Kulikovo. He then reversed the defeat of Kulikovo and enjoyed a period of success, which is possibly the reason he became too confident. Whatever the case, the Golden Horde that Timur defeated was a shadow of its former self.

Colovion is correct when he says that Toqtamish was using the steppe to evade Timur. A straggler was captured by Timur's scouts and therefore the Horde's location was discovered in time

.......Orda

[Orda Khan]

Thanks. Yeah, it isn't smart to try and fight any steppe army in the steppe, mainly because they can just run away, and are faster and less attached to the land as civilized armies are. For some reason, I had thought that Toktamish (thanks for the name too...) choose to fight him, guess I was wrong.

You are not entirely wrong, this was not the first altercation. Toqtamish mobilised earlier against Timur but decided upon withdrawal when he discovered the size of the army that was gathering to meet him

......Orda

[Colovion]

Toqtamish gave a pretty good account for himself for a time, he managed to rout Timur's flank but eventually was destroyed. I would hasten to add at this point that Toqtamish had a fairly chequered history as a commander. He was not brilliant and had relied upon Timur to help him overcome Urus and his side of the family to establish himself as the head of the White Horde. To his credit, he did overcome Mamai of the Golden Horde but this was after Mamai had suffered a defeat at Kulikovo. He then reversed the defeat of Kulikovo and enjoyed a period of success, which is possibly the reason he became too confident. Whatever the case, the Golden Horde that Timur defeated was a shadow of its former self.

Colovion is correct when he says that Toqtamish was using the steppe to evade Timur. A straggler was captured by Timur's scouts and therefore the Horde's location was discovered in time

.......Orda

Yes, Timur knew of Toqtamish's cowardice - or at least his uncanny ability to flee from the battle before it was complete. When Toqtamish fled the battle and his standard went down it was a huge blow to the Mongol's moral. I can't find the book right now but I believe Timur's strong right wing was the cause of Toqtamish fleeing - what with it swinging around to flank him at the same time that Timur at the center pressed forward. I believe that Timur's plan was essentially to flank Toqtamish as he moved his center up so frighten the man who had a record of leaving an undecided battle. It worked.

You are correct that the Horde was a shadow of its former self by this time. Timur built on their tactics and strategy but never gained their ability to conquer and develop a region. It might be my romantic side, but I feel this was due to the Mongols having a wider array of personalities to choose from which drove the army, wheras Timur's army was essentially the same as Alexanders army: theirs alone and they alone drove it.