[380]According to the anonymousEin 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]armiratusoramiratus, thenamiralus, of which we have made admiral, originally had nothing whatever to do with the sea. It is a corruption ofemir.[386]‘Magnificus et potens dominus, dominus Moratibei, magnus armiratus et dominus armiratorum Turchie’: the whole text is reproduced from the Genoese archives by Belgrano, inAtti della Società Ligure di Storia, xiii. 146-9, and by Silvestre de Sacy, inNotices 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. 233n.[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 anonymousHist. Epirot., speak of these events occurring ‘in the springtime’.[413]Chron. of Abbey of Tronosha, section 54, p. 84, andChron. 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, inJugoslav. 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 inMon. 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, inNotices 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 inNotices et Extraits, vol. viii, 2epartie, and in Migne, 156, pp. 111-74. InNotices 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 passedseven times in one yearfrom 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 principautéfut 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 nouveaulevé 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’sHist. de la Moldavie, p. 367, inNotices 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 wordjazyksignifieslanguageas well asnation(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, inHist. générale, iii. 832n.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 AndronicusversusJohn 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. 25-49passim; 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 scholarlyNotes 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, writesIstanbul; Sherefeddin, iv. 37, is transcribed by Petits de la CroixIstanbol; Arabshah, p. 124, transcribed by VattierEstanbol. 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?Istambulis a natural contraction of Constantinople. As the Greeks pronounced this long word, the syllablesstanandpolbore the stress, and were naturally put together for a shortened form. As for the initialI, which has troubled the philologists, its explanation is easy to one who knows the Osmanlis. They cannot to this day pronounce an initialStwithout puttingIbefore 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 inColumna 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, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2esérie, 110efascic.; Molinier, MSS. de P. de Mézières, inArch. 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 inCommem., 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.
[380]According to the anonymousEin 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.
[380]According to the anonymousEin 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?
[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.
[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.
[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.
[384]Text in Sauli, ii. 260-8.
[385]armiratusoramiratus, thenamiralus, of which we have made admiral, originally had nothing whatever to do with the sea. It is a corruption ofemir.
[385]armiratusoramiratus, thenamiralus, of which we have made admiral, originally had nothing whatever to do with the sea. It is a corruption ofemir.
[386]‘Magnificus et potens dominus, dominus Moratibei, magnus armiratus et dominus armiratorum Turchie’: the whole text is reproduced from the Genoese archives by Belgrano, inAtti della Società Ligure di Storia, xiii. 146-9, and by Silvestre de Sacy, inNotices et Extraits, xi. 58-61. Cf. Canale, ii. 59.
[386]‘Magnificus et potens dominus, dominus Moratibei, magnus armiratus et dominus armiratorum Turchie’: the whole text is reproduced from the Genoese archives by Belgrano, inAtti della Società Ligure di Storia, xiii. 146-9, and by Silvestre de Sacy, inNotices 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.
[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.
[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.
[389]Cf. Delaville Leroulx, i. 159-60.
[390]Romanin, iii. 331.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[399]Up to 1383, in outlining the career of Tvrtko, I have followed Klaić, pp. 201-3.
[400]Schaffarik,Acta archivii Veneti, &c., CXLI.
[400]Schaffarik,Acta archivii Veneti, &c., CXLI.
[401]In a letter of April 1, published in Ljubić, iv. 185-6.
[401]In a letter of April 1, published in Ljubić, iv. 185-6.
[402]Misti, xxxix. 113.
[402]Misti, xxxix. 113.
[403]Klaić, p. 237; Jireček, p. 341. But von Kállay, i. 166, attributes this victory to George Kastriota of Albania.
[403]Klaić, p. 237; Jireček, p. 341. But von Kállay, i. 166, attributes this victory to George Kastriota of Albania.
[404]Orbini, p. 361.
[404]Orbini, p. 361.
[405]Hopf, in Ersch-Gruber,Allgemeine Encycl., lxxxvi. 49.
[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. 233n.
[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. 233n.
[407]Jireček,Die Heerstrasse, &c., p. 147.
[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.
[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.
[409]Mijatovitch, from Serbian sources, p. 13.
[410]Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[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.
[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 anonymousHist. Epirot., speak of these events occurring ‘in the springtime’.
[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 anonymousHist. Epirot., speak of these events occurring ‘in the springtime’.
[413]Chron. of Abbey of Tronosha, section 54, p. 84, andChron. of Pek, p. 53: cited by Mijatovitch, p. 12 n.
[413]Chron. of Abbey of Tronosha, section 54, p. 84, andChron. 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.
[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.
‘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.
‘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.
[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.
[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, inJugoslav. Akademie, iii. 92 f.
[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, inJugoslav. Akademie, iii. 92 f.
[418]Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 27 rº.
[418]Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 27 rº.
[419]Annales, ii. 186.
[419]Annales, ii. 186.
[420]This speech, from the chronicle of Monk Pahomye, is given in Mijatovitch, p. 17.
[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.
[421]Busbecq, English ed., i. 153; cf. Ricaut, ed. of 1682, p. 159.
[422]Const. Porphyr., i. 394, 396, 405.
[422]Const. Porphyr., i. 394, 396, 405.
[423]Howorth, ii. 796, commenting on Stoddard’s audience with the Emir of Bukhara.
[423]Howorth, ii. 796, commenting on Stoddard’s audience with the Emir of Bukhara.
[424]Text inMon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid., i. 528-9.
[424]Text inMon. spect. hist. Slav. Merid., i. 528-9.
[425]Chronique du Religieux de St.-Denis(ed. Bellaguet), ii. 391.
[425]Chronique du Religieux de St.-Denis(ed. Bellaguet), ii. 391.
[426]MS., Wiener Bibl., Gesch. gr., 48.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[429]Sura IV, verse 94 (Sale trans., p. 64).
[430]Sura V, verse 53 (ibid., p. 77).
[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.
[431]Hammer, iii. 302-4. Rambaud,Histoire générale, iii. 831, is mistaken in attributing this law to Bayezid.
[432]Ruled 1350 to 1369.
[432]Ruled 1350 to 1369.
[433]In 1330. Panaretos, p. 7.
[433]In 1330. Panaretos, p. 7.
[434]In 1320 at Salonika: Greg., VII. 13, p. 271.
[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, inNotices et Extraits, v. 672.
[435]Month of Shaban, a.h. 791: MS. turc, Bibl. Nat., Paris, No. 79, pp. 35, 40. Cf. Langlès, inNotices 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[439]Ducas, 4, p. 6.
[440]Kantitz,Serbien, pp. 254 f.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.’
[444]Old Servian chronicle, quoted by Klaić, p. 271: ‘quasi totaliter destruxerunt Bosniam et populum abduxerunt.’
[445]Klaić, pp. 324-5.
[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.
[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.
[447]Bosio, ii. 143.
[448]Ibid., ii. 148.
[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.
[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.
[450]Ducas, 13, p. 47.
[451]Dialogi XXVI cum Persa quodam de Christianae religionis veritate, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253: partly printed inNotices et Extraits, vol. viii, 2epartie, and in Migne, 156, pp. 111-74. InNotices et Extraits, loc. cit., C. B. Hase has given an interesting critical account of the dialogues, and the circumstances under which they were written.
[451]Dialogi XXVI cum Persa quodam de Christianae religionis veritate, Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253: partly printed inNotices et Extraits, vol. viii, 2epartie, and in Migne, 156, pp. 111-74. InNotices 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?
[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 passedseven times in one yearfrom Anatolia to Wallachia.
[453]Evliya effendi, ii. 21, tells how Bayezid passedseven times in one yearfrom 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.
[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 principautéfut 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 nouveaulevé 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.
[455]‘La principautéfut 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 nouveaulevé 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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’sHist. de la Moldavie, p. 367, inNotices et Extraits, vol. xi.
[461]‘Pierre Aron fut le premier des hospodars qui paya un tribut aux Turcs’: Costin’sHist. de la Moldavie, p. 367, inNotices 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.
[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.
[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.
[464]Russian source cited by Muralt, vol. ii, No. 10 n.
[465]Cf. Baedeker,Konst. und Kleinasien, 2. Aufl., p. 46.
[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.
[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 wordjazyksignifieslanguageas well asnation(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.
[467]In Czech, the wordjazyksignifieslanguageas well asnation(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, inHist. générale, iii. 832n.Also p. 143 of this book and accompanying foot-note.
[468]Schiltberger, Neumann ed., p. 65. On this question cf. Jireček, op. cit., pp. 350-2; Miller, p. 189; and illuminating note of Rambaud, inHist. générale, iii. 832n.Also p. 143 of this book and accompanying foot-note.
[469]Schiltberger, op. et loc. cit.
[469]Schiltberger, op. et loc. cit.
[470]These cities, or rather, their fortresses, were captured and evacuated several times by the Osmanlis, especially Widin.
[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 AndronicusversusJohn and Manuel struggles just before the Chioggia war. At any rate, Andronicus died ten years before the date Hammer gives to these events!
[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 AndronicusversusJohn 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.
[472]Poem cited by Muralt, ii. 738, No. 1.
[473]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds grec, No. 1253, fol. 198 vº.
[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’.
[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. 25-49passim; Chalc., II, pp. 66, 81-2.
[475]Ducas, 13, pp. 25-49passim; 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 scholarlyNotes 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.
[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 scholarlyNotes 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, writesIstanbul; Sherefeddin, iv. 37, is transcribed by Petits de la CroixIstanbol; Arabshah, p. 124, transcribed by VattierEstanbol. 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?Istambulis a natural contraction of Constantinople. As the Greeks pronounced this long word, the syllablesstanandpolbore the stress, and were naturally put together for a shortened form. As for the initialI, which has troubled the philologists, its explanation is easy to one who knows the Osmanlis. They cannot to this day pronounce an initialStwithout puttingIbefore it.
[477]Shehabeddin, fol. 72 rº, writesIstanbul; Sherefeddin, iv. 37, is transcribed by Petits de la CroixIstanbol; Arabshah, p. 124, transcribed by VattierEstanbol. 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?Istambulis a natural contraction of Constantinople. As the Greeks pronounced this long word, the syllablesstanandpolbore the stress, and were naturally put together for a shortened form. As for the initialI, which has troubled the philologists, its explanation is easy to one who knows the Osmanlis. They cannot to this day pronounce an initialStwithout puttingIbefore it.
[478]Neshri, trans. Nöldeke,ZDMG., xv. 345; Seadeddin, i. 189; Saguntinus, p. 187; Drechsler, p. 228, says: ‘octo annos vexatur et obsidetur.’
[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.
[479]Duc., 13, p. 50.
[480]Muralt, ii. 753, No. 29.
[480]Muralt, ii. 753, No. 29.
[481]Secr. Cons. Rog., III, E 84.
[481]Secr. Cons. Rog., III, E 84.
[482]Chalc., II, pp. 80-1; Phr., I. 13, pp. 57-8; 26, p. 82.
[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.
[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 inColumna lui Traianu, new ser., Jan.-Feb. 1883, p. 64 f.
[484]Ibid., CCXXIII. For the later kings of the dynasty which Vuk founded, see Picot’s careful article inColumna lui Traianu, new ser., Jan.-Feb. 1883, p. 64 f.
[485]Epp. cur., ii. 64.
[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.
[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.
[487]Secr. Cons. Rog., iii, E 74.
[488]Miklositch-Müller,Acta Graeca, CCCCXXXV.
[488]Miklositch-Müller,Acta Graeca, CCCCXXXV.
[489]Chalc., II, p. 75; Duc., 13, p. 73.
[489]Chalc., II, p. 75; Duc., 13, p. 73.
[490]Chalc., loc. cit.;Epp. cur., ii. 300-1, 311; iii. 261.
[490]Chalc., loc. cit.;Epp. cur., ii. 300-1, 311; iii. 261.
[491]Cf. Jorga, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2esérie, 110efascic.; Molinier, MSS. de P. de Mézières, inArch. de l’Orient Latin, i. 335-64; Del. Leroulx, i. 201-8.
[491]Cf. Jorga, inBibl. de l’École des Chartes, 2esérie, 110efascic.; Molinier, MSS. de P. de Mézières, inArch. 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.
[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 inCommem., viii. 150. Cf. Romanin, iii. 330.
[493]Ibid., xlii. 58-9; the treaty is inCommem., 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.
[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.
[495]Misti, xlii. 55.
[496]Ibid., xliii. 156.
[496]Ibid., xliii. 156.
[497]Secr. Cons. Rog., iii. E 81.
[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.
[498]‘Ire contra dictos Turchos ad damnum et destructionem suam’: ibid., p. 94, cited in Ljubić, iv. 335-6.
[499]Misti, lxiv. 140.
[499]Misti, lxiv. 140.
[500]Ibid., lxiv. 156.
[500]Ibid., lxiv. 156.