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.

[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...

[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?

[Steppe Merc]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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