The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
While the Ottoman Empire had superior manpower from the late 14th century, for the magnitude of that superiority, contemporary reports of troop strength should be viewed critically.
On one hand, it was part of the Ottoman Empire's psychological warfare to spread rumours of the approach of an incredibly big army. As covered in the third part of my diary, the enemy could often be compelled to run. On the other hand, in Christian (or, on this subject more aptly: feudal) Europe, boosting the numbers of the enemy served both to heighten the valor of victors or to better excuse a defeat. Modern historians' estimates usually cut the standard figures for Ottoman invasion armies by 50% or more.
For Eger, I mentioned that the standard figure of 150,000 (spread between "80,000 soldiers and innumerable freeriders" and 250,000) was halved (with a spread of 40-80,000). For the 1456 Siege of Belgrade, figures were similart: 150,000 vs. the modern 70,000.
Figures were even more extreme for Suleiman's troops in the 1529 Siege of Vienna: from 200,000 upwards to 300,000. But modern estimates are around 90,000: it was surely Suleiman's biggest army, as he brought even Serbian and Moldovan vassal forces, but his entire regular army was less than 50,000, and the army that may have numbered 120,000 at the start had travelled for four and a half months (arriving very late on 26 September) and had a number of battles behind them (across Transylvania and Central Hungary for the vassal forces, Buda for the main force).
A second aspect of comparisons is the 'value' of soldiers. Up to half of Ottoman invasion armies were irregular forces, while most Hungarian, Austrian (and Wallachian, Serbian) armies were almost exclusively feudal and/or professional. The numbers of regular soldiers compared more evenly, though I contended in the diary that just the lack of commoner foot-soldiers was a critical factor. So I think the best direct matchup was in the 1456 Siege of Belgrade: regular units were 18,000 (castle crew+Hunyadi) against 40,000 (Mehmed II), while irregular units were 30,000 (John Capistran's crusaders) vs. 30-40,000 (Mehmed II) at the outset, with a more significant reduction in Mehmed's forces by the final battle.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Oui - Jan 23 20 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 19 17 comments
by Oui - Jan 17 7 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 17 25 comments
by Oui - Jan 10 112 comments
by Oui - Jan 13 4 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 6 8 comments
by Oui - Jan 28
by Oui - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 2412 comments
by Oui - Jan 2320 comments
by Oui - Jan 1917 comments
by Oui - Jan 177 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 1725 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1413 comments
by Oui - Jan 134 comments
by Oui - Jan 131 comment
by Oui - Jan 10112 comments
by Oui - Jan 931 comments
by Oui - Jan 812 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 68 comments
by Oui - Jan 6116 comments
by ARGeezer - Jan 541 comments
by Oui - Jan 493 comments
by Oui - Jan 386 comments
by Oui - Jan 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3118 comments