[501]We must reject the statement of Morosini, MS. Wiener Bibl., fol. 135 rº, that Bayezid ‘entered in arms in the Strait of Romania with so many galleys that one could not navigate in the strait’, and doubt the opinion that Monicego, with his forty-four Venetian and Genoese galleys, had to force the Bosphorus, and contributed powerfully ‘a la destrucion del dito Turcho’.[502]Misti, xliii. 29.[503]Ibid., xliii. 5: ‘confidasse in Dio, confidasse nei provedimenti che saprebbero à fare i principi christiani, scrivesse al Papa e a questi promovendo una lega generale’.[504]Ibid., xliv. 108.[505]Ibid., xliv. 128.[506]Belgrano, pp. 152-3.[507]Lib. iurium, ann. 1392, fol. 474, in Turin archives, printed inBibl. de l’École des Chartes(1857), 4esérie, iii. 451-2.[508]Religieux de St.-Denis, ed. Bellaguet, i. 319-21.[509]Chronicorum Karoli Sexti, ed. Bellaguet, i. 709-11. The relations of the ambassadors of Sigismund with the Duke of Burgundy and with Charles VI are found inReligieux de Saint-Denis.[510]On September 13, 1395, in the presence of ambassadors from all parts of Christendom, and also ‘del gran Turco, del Rè de’ Tartari, del gran Soldano, del gran Tamerlano e di molti altri Principi infedeli e ribelli alla Fede christiana’, who were treated like Christians and lodged at the expense of ‘il Signore di Milano’, Galeazzo was solemnly raised to ducal rank and invested with the Duchy of Milan by Wenceslaus: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 820.[511]Mémoires de Madame de Lussan, iii. 5.[512]The references to Froissart which follow are given from vol. xv of Kervyn de Lettenhove’s edition, and the references to Schiltberger from the English translation in the Hakluyt Society series, vol. lviii, unless otherwise specified.[513]See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition ofReligieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these sections are very disappointing).[514]Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223.[515]Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers, compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86.[516]Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216), Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230), l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus, Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio,et al.). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘l’émir-pacha’. The fact that he uses the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’ is proof positive of this. His transcription of the titleemir, and that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis! Olivier de la Marche (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’ for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163,n.2.[517]Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242.[518]Donado da Lezze, p. 9.[519]Leunclavius,Hist. Musul. Turc., preface, p. 14, speaks of how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of Brandenburg.[520]Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, andVenetian State Papers(Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian reference is based on a misapprehension.[521]Lavisse,Histoire de France, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu à la bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliersteutoniques.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut expedition is another error.[522]Conclusive proof of the whereabouts of Henry in the summer of 1396 is found in the letter ‘escript ... le xxejour d’augst’. This letter is in Arch. Nat., Paris, J. 644: 3511. For the expeditions in which Henrydidtake part, when he was Henry of Derby, see vol. lii of the Camden Society, edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith, London, 1894, 4to.[523]Froissart, p. 244.[524]Phr., I. 14, p. 59; Bontinius, III. 2.[525]Engel,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 468. According to the authority who has made the most exhaustive study of the Nicopolis expedition, Sigismund disposed of 120,000 men in all, including the western allies: Kiss, inÀ Nikápolyi ülkozet, p. 266. Kiss’s estimate is corroborated by theCronica Dolfina, which says that Sigismund had one hundred thousand men under arms in 1394. Sanuto quotes this in Muratori, xxii, col. 762. Cf. also Hungarian Nat. Archives, Dipl. 8201, 8212, 8214, 8493, 8541.[526]Schiltberger, p. 2.[527]Bruun, in hisGeographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger(Sitz.-Ber. k. Bay. Akademie, 1869, ii. 271), tried to prove that the battle was fought, not at Nicopolis on the Danube, but near the ancient Nicopolis of Trajan’s foundation. But in his notes to the English translation of Schilt., Hakluyt, lviii. 108-9, he assents to the contention which Kanitz makes inDonau-Bulgarien, ii. 58-70, that the battle was near Nicopolis-on-the-Danube. An examination of the chronicles corroborates Kanitz’s hypothesis over against the ingenuous argument of Jireček. Some historians have been so unmindful of geographical considerations as to put the battle at the ancient Nicopolisad Haemum, of which Ortellius, p. 225, speaks.[528]Schiltberger, p. 2.[529]Froissart, pp. 251, 262-3, 310, 329. ‘Miscreant’, of course, in its original sense.[530]Ibid., p. 310.[531]Ibid., pp. 311-17;Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490-7. Schiltberger, p. 3, attributes this initiative to Jean de Nevers, whom, like many other writers on Nicopolis, he calls, by anticipation, Duke of Burgundy. Cf. Donado da Lezze, p. 9, who says: ‘Il signor Carlo,primaDuca di Borgogna.’ Also Morosini, p. 6. Sigismund is frequently spoken of as German emperor at the time of Nicopolis. Cf. Chalc., ed. Migne, col. 76: ἡγουμένου Σιγισυούνδου Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως τε καὶ αὐτοκράτορος.[532]Rabbi Joseph, i. 252.[533]Froissart, pp. 313-16;Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490 f.; Rabbi Joseph, p. 253; Schiltberger, p. 3; Seadeddin, i. 184; Neshri, inZDMG., xv. 345-8. Cf. authorities cited in Bibliography.[534]Froissart, p. 317. Hermann de Cilly and the Burgrave of Nürnberg are said by some authorities to have thrown themselves in front of Sigismund, and to have saved him and carried him off to the boat.[535]The bitterness against and contempt for the Hungarians is expressed in the following verses:‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champsAvec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,Sans assembler.’Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.[536]Schiltberger calls him ‘der hertzog auss der Sirifey, der genant despot’:Bibl. des Lit. Vereins(Tübingen), clxxii. 4.[537]Cf. Miller, in Story of Nations Series, pp. 290-1.[538]Belonging to the grand master of Rhodes: Froissart, p. 317. But Morosini, p. 15, and others, say that he went directly on board Monicego’s galley. It is a pity that Hammer, in his description of the battle of Nicopolis, relied so much on such an unreliable third-hand authority as Abbé Vertot. Skentkláráy,À dunai hajóhadak törtenéte, says that Jean de Vienne commanded the galleys.[539]Schiltberger, p. 6.[540]Bonfinius, one of the earliest Hungarian historians, recorded that Sigismund had boasted that he would not only turn the Osmanlis out of Europe, but also that with the army under his command, if the sky fell, it could be held up on their lances:Decades, ii. 403.[541]‘Sigismund was cruel and sensual, perjured and frivolous, rapacious and dissolute, fierce and pusillanimous, a byword and object of horror to the Bohemians, hated and despised by the Germans, a warning to all rulers. His companion, John XXIII, lewd and murderous, a simonist and an infidel, was a true comrade for Sigismund in all evil deeds’: Dr. Flajshans, inMistr Jan Hus: quotation translated by Count Lützow,John Hus and his Times, pp. 137-8.[542]Froissart, pp. 330-1.[543]But not until he ‘regracioit les dieux et les déesses selon la loy où il creoit et que les paiens croient’: Froissart, p. 321. The ignorance among the western chroniclers of everything pertaining to the Osmanlis—or the wider circle of Mohammedan peoples—was appalling.[544]Schiltberger, p. 5. Cf. Froissart, pp. 322-8;Relig. de St.-Denis;Chronique de Boucicaut;Chronique des 4 premiers Valois, éd. Luce, p. 326; and the other chronicles and secondary authorities given in Bibliography.[545]Xénopol, inHist, générale, iii. 882, whose writings furnish the most reliable and most accessible data for Rumanian history, allows his patriotism to get the better of his judgement when he writes that this unimportant skirmish was a complete defeat inflicted upon Bayezid, and that ‘le Sultan court jusqu’à Adrinople’! Xénopol makes no attempt to explain the battle of Nicopolis, and Mircea’s action in and after the battle.[546]Schiltberger, p. 6. Chalc., II, pp. 76-80, who exaggerates the raid to the point of saying that Bayezid reached the environs of Buda.[547]Secr. Cons. Rog., iii. 134-5.Mém. d’Olivier de la Marche(éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 199-200, reads as if Bayezid had actually taken possession of Hungary.[548]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 61 f. (collection of Feridun). For wrong date, see Langlès, inAcad. des Inscriptions, iv. 673-4.[549]Schiltberger, p. 7, who would have been chosen himself for Egypt but for the fact that he had been wounded.[550]Froissart, p. 341; Rabbi Joseph, p. 254.[551]Froissart, p. 345. In xvi. 40, Froissart makes a mistake in saying that the body of the Comte d’Eu was ‘en ung sarcus rapporté en France et ensevely en l’eglise Saint-Laurent d’Eu, et là gist moult honnourablement’. The tomb in St. Laurent is merely a memorial. Philippe was buried in the chapel of a monastery in Galata, where, seven years later, Clavijo, fol. 17 vº, saw his burial-spot, but unmarked. His tomb is described by Bulladius, who saw it in 1647, in his notes to Bonn ed. of Ducas, p. 560. Cf. Mordtmann,Beiträge zur osmanischen Epigraphik, I, inZDMG.(1911), lxv. 103.[552]Froissart, xv. 329, 332, 342 f., 355-8; xvi. 16.[553]Godefroy,Hist. de Boucicaut(1620 ed.), i. 16; Ducas, p. 52.[554]Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet(ed. Douet d’Areq), i. 332-3; Froissart, xvi. 57-9.[555]Jean de Nevers, as Duc de Bourgogne and leader of the faction against the king’s brother, openly accepted the responsibility of the assassination of the Duc d’Orléans. This was the beginning of the Burgundy-Armagnac civil war, which delivered France to the English until Jeanne d’Arc appeared to awaken the French to a feeling of nationality.[556]Froissart, xvi. 47. For ransom, ibid., pp. 37-8, and Rabbi Joseph, i. 254; alsoLivre des faictsof Boucicaut,passim.[557]Raynaldus, ann. 1364, No. XXVIII. Jireček,Gesch. der Bulg., p. 323, says that at this time ‘Osmanen erschienen in Attika’. He has mistaken roving Turkish corsairs of Sarukhan or Aïdin for the Osmanlis. It must have been these Turks who attacked Thebes.[558]For the deliverance of the grand master of Rhodes, Jean Ferdinand d’Hérédia: Ducange, viii. 296.[559]Chron. Breveat end of Ducas, p. 516.[560]Ibid. According to Finlay, iv. 233, he captured Akova. Cf. Muralt, ii. 741, citing Guichenon MS., and Ducange, viii. 39, 296.[561]Phr., I. 16, p. 62; 26, p. 83; Chalc., II, pp. 67-9.[562]Muralt, under 1395 and 1397, gives the same expedition. From internal evidence of Byzantine historians, one might put the Morean expeditions in either or both of these years. But cf.Chron. Breve, p. 516, and the silence of the Ottoman historians on an expedition in 1395.[563]Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.[564]Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.[565]Chron. Breve, p. 516; Phr., I. 16, p. 62; Chalc., II, pp. 97-9.[566]Seadeddin, i. 193.[567]The Venetians seized Athens in 1395, and sent Antonio Contareno to act as governor.[568]Hammer describes the capture of Athens in 1397 in i. 350, and again in 1456 in iii. 51.[569]Gibbon and Hammer follow Chalcocondylas in this error. Cf. Berger de Xivrey, inMém. de l’Acad. des Inscr., vol. xix, partie 2, pp. 29-30.[570]Seadeddin, i. 180.[571]Ducas, 13, p. 50; Chalc., II, p. 59; Idris.[572]The land walls of Salonika, still standing, are eloquent proof of the difficulty which confronted their assailants before the days of cannon.[573]Phr., I. 17, p. 64.[574]See p. 199. There is serious difference of opinion as to just when these concessions were made.[575]Feridun collection, letter from Adrianople, ordering kadis to prepare for siege of Constantinople: Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 60.[576]Ducas, 14, p. 53; Canale, ii. 62. Leunclavius,Annales, p. 52, puts this in 1391/2.[577]Karamzin (Russian ed. of 1819), v. 164.[578]Miklositch-Müller,Acta Graeca, DCXXXVI.[579]Ibid., DXIV, DXV, DXVI.[580]Froissart, xvi. 132-3.[581]Religieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 559-62, 564.[582]Secreta Consilii Rogatorum, E iii. 138, 146, printed in Ljubić, iv. 404.[583]Ibid., p. 137.[584]Misti, xliv. 210, xlv. 443; Belgrano,Arch. Gen., 1396-1464, pp. 175 f.[585]Ducas, 14, p. 53; Chalc., II, p. 80; Sherefeddin, iv. 38.[586]‘El Cuirol castello de Grecia está despoblado y destruydo y el dela Turquia está poblado’: Seville ed., 1582, fol. 17 v°. Busbecq, i. 131, wrote: ‘stand two castles opposite each other, one in Europe and the other in Asia.... The former was held by the Turks a long time before the attack on Constantinople.’ Busbecq was, of course, misinformed, as Rumeli Hissar was built in 1452. It is still standing in excellent preservation. Anatoli Hissar, of which only one tower remains intact, was built between 1392 and 1397. There is no way of determining the exact date. But Saladin, inManuel de l’Art Musulman, i. 482, displays his usual inaccuracy concerning facts of Ottoman history, when he gives 1420 as the date for Anatoli Hissar.[587]Phr., I. 14, p. 60; Chalc., II, p. 83; Ducas, 14, p. 53.[588]Venice contemplated action against the Osmanlis with the aid of France, Hungary, and Genoa. Cf.Secr. Cons. Rog., E iii. 137-44.[589]Epp., v. 26, 99, 293-5.[590]Edition of Seville, 1582, fol. 16 v°-17 r°.[591]My account of this expedition is taken from MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds fr., No. 11432,Livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut. For printed editions, see Bibliography.[592]The chronicler makes the most astonishing assertions as to these raids, saying that the chevaliers reached Ak-Seraï! He evidently had no idea of local geography. I have been unable to identify several of the places mentioned.[593]I have walked in one day from Riva to a point on the Bosphorus not many miles above Constantinople. When one reads the history of the Osmanlis in the country of their origin, the fact that from the very beginning of their history they were practically within sight of the imperial city is vividly impressed upon one.[594]The Byzantine historians give little attention to Boucicaut, and are in contradiction with his chronicler on this point. Phr., 15, p. 61, says that John, who had been in the court of Bayezid, fled to his uncle because he had been slandered to Bayezid, and was afraid for his life; and Chalc., II, p. 84, that it was John who commanded the 10,000 Osmanlis against the city, and that Manuel shared the throne with him in order to save the city. Muralt, ii. 762, is a year in advance of the actual date.[595]Chron. de Saint-Denisand Juvenal d’Ursins. But these are really the same source, according to Lacabane,Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, ii. 62.[596]Foglieta and Stella, in Muralt, ii. 778, No. 61.[597]Sanudo, in Muratori, xxii. pp. 794-8.[598]Chalc., II, pp. 83-4; Ducas, 14, pp. 54-6. For Rhodes and the Pope in the Morea, Phr., I. 16, p. 63; Bosio, ii. 154.[599]September 10, 1400, inMisti, xlv. 33.[600]Livre des faicts, fol. 53 r°-55 r°, and Wylie, pp. 159-65. Wylie has collated admirably the sources on Manuel’s visit.[601]Text is published in Theiner, ii. 170-2.[602]Epp., v. 300-2; vi. 92.[603]‘Cum Dom. summus Pontifex advertens quod perfidus ille Baysetus Princeps Turchorum, manu potenti et brachio extento in Christianum Populum maxima feritate extitit debachatus ad Exterminium Civitatis Constantinopolitanae et universitatis Populi Christianinisi eius nephanda propositio resistatur, omnes et singulos qui, pro Liberatione et Subsidione Manuelis Imp. Cpni et dictae Civitatis suae, Manus adiutrices porrexerint ...’ etc.: Rymer, vol. iii, part 4, pp. 195-6.[604]Clavijo, who visited Constantinople the following year, reports this, fol. 7 v°.[605]Miklositch-Müller,Acta, DCXXVI.[606]Strikingly shown in letter of April 20, 1402:Canc. Secr., i. 58.[607]Misti, xlv. 19-23, 25-6, 29-30, 35, 87; xlvi. 37. Several of these are published in Ljubić, iv. 579, 590.[608]Knoelle, inJournal R. A. S.(1822), xiv. 125; Nöldeke, inZDMG.(1859), xiii. 185,n.6.[609]‘Toutesfoiz il a la main senestre et pié senestre comme impotent et ne s’en puet aidier, car il a les nerfs coppez’: Dominican Friar, p. 463. ‘Infirmus, ut dicitur, a cingulo infra’: Stella, in Muratori, vol. xvii. col. 1194. Cf. Sherefeddin, i. 55, 381. The English corruption Tamerlane is from Timurlenk, the latter syllable signifying lameness.[610]Sherefeddin, ii. 222.[611]There is an excellent account of the dynasties of the Black and White Sheep, with list, following Mirkhand, in Teixera, ii. 24-39, 69-70. For the later activities of Kara-Yussuf, Teixera, ii. 355; de Guignes, iii. 302.[612]Langlès translation, p. 260.[613]Ibid., pp. 258-62; Sherefeddin, iii. 255-62; Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 25 r°-26 v°.[614]Chalcocondylas and Raynaldus are wrong in calling him Ertogrul, and in stating that he was killed in the subsequent siege. Sherefeddin, iii. 267, calls him Mustafa, and Schiltberger, p. 18, Mohammed. That it was Soleiman is proved by the agreement of the Ottoman historians with Arabshah, p. 124, and with Clavijo, fol. 26 r°, whose ‘Musulman Tchelebi’ is Soleiman.[615]Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, vol. ii, fol. 1776.[616]Clavijo, fol. 26 r°; Arabshah, p. 125.[617]Clavijo, fol. 26 v°-27 r°; Arabshah, p. 125; Sherefeddin, iii. 267-9; Dominican Friar, p. 264; Schiltberger, p. 18. Schiltberger says 21 days, and 5,000 horsemen buried, and 9,000 virgins carried off by the Tartars.[618]It is impossible to understand why Muralt, with all the authorities he had at hand, places the taking of Sivas in 1395:Chronographie Byzantine, ii. 753, No. 26. The contemporary authorities cited above establish the date. Cf. also letter from Crete, in Jorga,Notes à servir, &c., i. 106,n.3. There is a full discussion of the proper dating of the Ottoman aggression against Sivas, Caesarea, and Erzindjian, and the probability of two Ottoman campaigns, one before and one after Nicopolis, in Bruun’s note to the Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger, pp. 121-2.[619]The letters exchanged between Charles VI and Timur are preserved in the French archives. The Turkish text of these letters, with Latin translation, is published by Charrière, introd., i. 118-19.[620]Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1194.[621]‘En la qual batalla se acaescieron Payo de Soto Mayor e Hernan Sanchez de Palaçuelos Embaxadores’: Clavijo, fol. 1 r°, col. 2.
[501]We must reject the statement of Morosini, MS. Wiener Bibl., fol. 135 rº, that Bayezid ‘entered in arms in the Strait of Romania with so many galleys that one could not navigate in the strait’, and doubt the opinion that Monicego, with his forty-four Venetian and Genoese galleys, had to force the Bosphorus, and contributed powerfully ‘a la destrucion del dito Turcho’.
[501]We must reject the statement of Morosini, MS. Wiener Bibl., fol. 135 rº, that Bayezid ‘entered in arms in the Strait of Romania with so many galleys that one could not navigate in the strait’, and doubt the opinion that Monicego, with his forty-four Venetian and Genoese galleys, had to force the Bosphorus, and contributed powerfully ‘a la destrucion del dito Turcho’.
[502]Misti, xliii. 29.
[502]Misti, xliii. 29.
[503]Ibid., xliii. 5: ‘confidasse in Dio, confidasse nei provedimenti che saprebbero à fare i principi christiani, scrivesse al Papa e a questi promovendo una lega generale’.
[503]Ibid., xliii. 5: ‘confidasse in Dio, confidasse nei provedimenti che saprebbero à fare i principi christiani, scrivesse al Papa e a questi promovendo una lega generale’.
[504]Ibid., xliv. 108.
[504]Ibid., xliv. 108.
[505]Ibid., xliv. 128.
[505]Ibid., xliv. 128.
[506]Belgrano, pp. 152-3.
[506]Belgrano, pp. 152-3.
[507]Lib. iurium, ann. 1392, fol. 474, in Turin archives, printed inBibl. de l’École des Chartes(1857), 4esérie, iii. 451-2.
[507]Lib. iurium, ann. 1392, fol. 474, in Turin archives, printed inBibl. de l’École des Chartes(1857), 4esérie, iii. 451-2.
[508]Religieux de St.-Denis, ed. Bellaguet, i. 319-21.
[508]Religieux de St.-Denis, ed. Bellaguet, i. 319-21.
[509]Chronicorum Karoli Sexti, ed. Bellaguet, i. 709-11. The relations of the ambassadors of Sigismund with the Duke of Burgundy and with Charles VI are found inReligieux de Saint-Denis.
[509]Chronicorum Karoli Sexti, ed. Bellaguet, i. 709-11. The relations of the ambassadors of Sigismund with the Duke of Burgundy and with Charles VI are found inReligieux de Saint-Denis.
[510]On September 13, 1395, in the presence of ambassadors from all parts of Christendom, and also ‘del gran Turco, del Rè de’ Tartari, del gran Soldano, del gran Tamerlano e di molti altri Principi infedeli e ribelli alla Fede christiana’, who were treated like Christians and lodged at the expense of ‘il Signore di Milano’, Galeazzo was solemnly raised to ducal rank and invested with the Duchy of Milan by Wenceslaus: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 820.
[510]On September 13, 1395, in the presence of ambassadors from all parts of Christendom, and also ‘del gran Turco, del Rè de’ Tartari, del gran Soldano, del gran Tamerlano e di molti altri Principi infedeli e ribelli alla Fede christiana’, who were treated like Christians and lodged at the expense of ‘il Signore di Milano’, Galeazzo was solemnly raised to ducal rank and invested with the Duchy of Milan by Wenceslaus: Andrea Gataro, in Muratori, xvii, col. 820.
[511]Mémoires de Madame de Lussan, iii. 5.
[511]Mémoires de Madame de Lussan, iii. 5.
[512]The references to Froissart which follow are given from vol. xv of Kervyn de Lettenhove’s edition, and the references to Schiltberger from the English translation in the Hakluyt Society series, vol. lviii, unless otherwise specified.
[512]The references to Froissart which follow are given from vol. xv of Kervyn de Lettenhove’s edition, and the references to Schiltberger from the English translation in the Hakluyt Society series, vol. lviii, unless otherwise specified.
[513]See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition ofReligieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these sections are very disappointing).
[513]See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition ofReligieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these sections are very disappointing).
[514]Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223.
[514]Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223.
[515]Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers, compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86.
[515]Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers, compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86.
[516]Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216), Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230), l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus, Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio,et al.). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘l’émir-pacha’. The fact that he uses the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’ is proof positive of this. His transcription of the titleemir, and that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis! Olivier de la Marche (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’ for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163,n.2.
[516]Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216), Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230), l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus, Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio,et al.). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘l’émir-pacha’. The fact that he uses the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’ is proof positive of this. His transcription of the titleemir, and that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis! Olivier de la Marche (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’ for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163,n.2.
[517]Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242.
[517]Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242.
[518]Donado da Lezze, p. 9.
[518]Donado da Lezze, p. 9.
[519]Leunclavius,Hist. Musul. Turc., preface, p. 14, speaks of how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of Brandenburg.
[519]Leunclavius,Hist. Musul. Turc., preface, p. 14, speaks of how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of Brandenburg.
[520]Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, andVenetian State Papers(Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian reference is based on a misapprehension.
[520]Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, andVenetian State Papers(Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian reference is based on a misapprehension.
[521]Lavisse,Histoire de France, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu à la bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliersteutoniques.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut expedition is another error.
[521]Lavisse,Histoire de France, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu à la bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliersteutoniques.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut expedition is another error.
[522]Conclusive proof of the whereabouts of Henry in the summer of 1396 is found in the letter ‘escript ... le xxejour d’augst’. This letter is in Arch. Nat., Paris, J. 644: 3511. For the expeditions in which Henrydidtake part, when he was Henry of Derby, see vol. lii of the Camden Society, edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith, London, 1894, 4to.
[522]Conclusive proof of the whereabouts of Henry in the summer of 1396 is found in the letter ‘escript ... le xxejour d’augst’. This letter is in Arch. Nat., Paris, J. 644: 3511. For the expeditions in which Henrydidtake part, when he was Henry of Derby, see vol. lii of the Camden Society, edited by Lucy Toulmin Smith, London, 1894, 4to.
[523]Froissart, p. 244.
[523]Froissart, p. 244.
[524]Phr., I. 14, p. 59; Bontinius, III. 2.
[524]Phr., I. 14, p. 59; Bontinius, III. 2.
[525]Engel,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 468. According to the authority who has made the most exhaustive study of the Nicopolis expedition, Sigismund disposed of 120,000 men in all, including the western allies: Kiss, inÀ Nikápolyi ülkozet, p. 266. Kiss’s estimate is corroborated by theCronica Dolfina, which says that Sigismund had one hundred thousand men under arms in 1394. Sanuto quotes this in Muratori, xxii, col. 762. Cf. also Hungarian Nat. Archives, Dipl. 8201, 8212, 8214, 8493, 8541.
[525]Engel,Geschichte der Bulgaren, p. 468. According to the authority who has made the most exhaustive study of the Nicopolis expedition, Sigismund disposed of 120,000 men in all, including the western allies: Kiss, inÀ Nikápolyi ülkozet, p. 266. Kiss’s estimate is corroborated by theCronica Dolfina, which says that Sigismund had one hundred thousand men under arms in 1394. Sanuto quotes this in Muratori, xxii, col. 762. Cf. also Hungarian Nat. Archives, Dipl. 8201, 8212, 8214, 8493, 8541.
[526]Schiltberger, p. 2.
[526]Schiltberger, p. 2.
[527]Bruun, in hisGeographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger(Sitz.-Ber. k. Bay. Akademie, 1869, ii. 271), tried to prove that the battle was fought, not at Nicopolis on the Danube, but near the ancient Nicopolis of Trajan’s foundation. But in his notes to the English translation of Schilt., Hakluyt, lviii. 108-9, he assents to the contention which Kanitz makes inDonau-Bulgarien, ii. 58-70, that the battle was near Nicopolis-on-the-Danube. An examination of the chronicles corroborates Kanitz’s hypothesis over against the ingenuous argument of Jireček. Some historians have been so unmindful of geographical considerations as to put the battle at the ancient Nicopolisad Haemum, of which Ortellius, p. 225, speaks.
[527]Bruun, in hisGeographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger(Sitz.-Ber. k. Bay. Akademie, 1869, ii. 271), tried to prove that the battle was fought, not at Nicopolis on the Danube, but near the ancient Nicopolis of Trajan’s foundation. But in his notes to the English translation of Schilt., Hakluyt, lviii. 108-9, he assents to the contention which Kanitz makes inDonau-Bulgarien, ii. 58-70, that the battle was near Nicopolis-on-the-Danube. An examination of the chronicles corroborates Kanitz’s hypothesis over against the ingenuous argument of Jireček. Some historians have been so unmindful of geographical considerations as to put the battle at the ancient Nicopolisad Haemum, of which Ortellius, p. 225, speaks.
[528]Schiltberger, p. 2.
[528]Schiltberger, p. 2.
[529]Froissart, pp. 251, 262-3, 310, 329. ‘Miscreant’, of course, in its original sense.
[529]Froissart, pp. 251, 262-3, 310, 329. ‘Miscreant’, of course, in its original sense.
[530]Ibid., p. 310.
[530]Ibid., p. 310.
[531]Ibid., pp. 311-17;Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490-7. Schiltberger, p. 3, attributes this initiative to Jean de Nevers, whom, like many other writers on Nicopolis, he calls, by anticipation, Duke of Burgundy. Cf. Donado da Lezze, p. 9, who says: ‘Il signor Carlo,primaDuca di Borgogna.’ Also Morosini, p. 6. Sigismund is frequently spoken of as German emperor at the time of Nicopolis. Cf. Chalc., ed. Migne, col. 76: ἡγουμένου Σιγισυούνδου Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως τε καὶ αὐτοκράτορος.
[531]Ibid., pp. 311-17;Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490-7. Schiltberger, p. 3, attributes this initiative to Jean de Nevers, whom, like many other writers on Nicopolis, he calls, by anticipation, Duke of Burgundy. Cf. Donado da Lezze, p. 9, who says: ‘Il signor Carlo,primaDuca di Borgogna.’ Also Morosini, p. 6. Sigismund is frequently spoken of as German emperor at the time of Nicopolis. Cf. Chalc., ed. Migne, col. 76: ἡγουμένου Σιγισυούνδου Ῥωμαίων βασιλέως τε καὶ αὐτοκράτορος.
[532]Rabbi Joseph, i. 252.
[532]Rabbi Joseph, i. 252.
[533]Froissart, pp. 313-16;Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490 f.; Rabbi Joseph, p. 253; Schiltberger, p. 3; Seadeddin, i. 184; Neshri, inZDMG., xv. 345-8. Cf. authorities cited in Bibliography.
[533]Froissart, pp. 313-16;Relig. de St.-Denis, pp. 490 f.; Rabbi Joseph, p. 253; Schiltberger, p. 3; Seadeddin, i. 184; Neshri, inZDMG., xv. 345-8. Cf. authorities cited in Bibliography.
[534]Froissart, p. 317. Hermann de Cilly and the Burgrave of Nürnberg are said by some authorities to have thrown themselves in front of Sigismund, and to have saved him and carried him off to the boat.
[534]Froissart, p. 317. Hermann de Cilly and the Burgrave of Nürnberg are said by some authorities to have thrown themselves in front of Sigismund, and to have saved him and carried him off to the boat.
[535]The bitterness against and contempt for the Hungarians is expressed in the following verses:‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champsAvec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,Sans assembler.’Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.
[535]The bitterness against and contempt for the Hungarians is expressed in the following verses:
‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champsAvec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,Sans assembler.’Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.
‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champsAvec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,Sans assembler.’Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.
‘Nichopoly, cité de payennie,Au temps là où li sièges fut grans,Fut delaissés par orgueil et folie;Car les Hongres qui furent sur les champsAvec leur roy, fuitis et récréans,Leur roy meisme enmainent par puissance,Sans assembler.’Œuvres inédites d’Eustache des Champs, ed. Tarbé, 1849, i. 166.
[536]Schiltberger calls him ‘der hertzog auss der Sirifey, der genant despot’:Bibl. des Lit. Vereins(Tübingen), clxxii. 4.
[536]Schiltberger calls him ‘der hertzog auss der Sirifey, der genant despot’:Bibl. des Lit. Vereins(Tübingen), clxxii. 4.
[537]Cf. Miller, in Story of Nations Series, pp. 290-1.
[537]Cf. Miller, in Story of Nations Series, pp. 290-1.
[538]Belonging to the grand master of Rhodes: Froissart, p. 317. But Morosini, p. 15, and others, say that he went directly on board Monicego’s galley. It is a pity that Hammer, in his description of the battle of Nicopolis, relied so much on such an unreliable third-hand authority as Abbé Vertot. Skentkláráy,À dunai hajóhadak törtenéte, says that Jean de Vienne commanded the galleys.
[538]Belonging to the grand master of Rhodes: Froissart, p. 317. But Morosini, p. 15, and others, say that he went directly on board Monicego’s galley. It is a pity that Hammer, in his description of the battle of Nicopolis, relied so much on such an unreliable third-hand authority as Abbé Vertot. Skentkláráy,À dunai hajóhadak törtenéte, says that Jean de Vienne commanded the galleys.
[539]Schiltberger, p. 6.
[539]Schiltberger, p. 6.
[540]Bonfinius, one of the earliest Hungarian historians, recorded that Sigismund had boasted that he would not only turn the Osmanlis out of Europe, but also that with the army under his command, if the sky fell, it could be held up on their lances:Decades, ii. 403.
[540]Bonfinius, one of the earliest Hungarian historians, recorded that Sigismund had boasted that he would not only turn the Osmanlis out of Europe, but also that with the army under his command, if the sky fell, it could be held up on their lances:Decades, ii. 403.
[541]‘Sigismund was cruel and sensual, perjured and frivolous, rapacious and dissolute, fierce and pusillanimous, a byword and object of horror to the Bohemians, hated and despised by the Germans, a warning to all rulers. His companion, John XXIII, lewd and murderous, a simonist and an infidel, was a true comrade for Sigismund in all evil deeds’: Dr. Flajshans, inMistr Jan Hus: quotation translated by Count Lützow,John Hus and his Times, pp. 137-8.
[541]‘Sigismund was cruel and sensual, perjured and frivolous, rapacious and dissolute, fierce and pusillanimous, a byword and object of horror to the Bohemians, hated and despised by the Germans, a warning to all rulers. His companion, John XXIII, lewd and murderous, a simonist and an infidel, was a true comrade for Sigismund in all evil deeds’: Dr. Flajshans, inMistr Jan Hus: quotation translated by Count Lützow,John Hus and his Times, pp. 137-8.
[542]Froissart, pp. 330-1.
[542]Froissart, pp. 330-1.
[543]But not until he ‘regracioit les dieux et les déesses selon la loy où il creoit et que les paiens croient’: Froissart, p. 321. The ignorance among the western chroniclers of everything pertaining to the Osmanlis—or the wider circle of Mohammedan peoples—was appalling.
[543]But not until he ‘regracioit les dieux et les déesses selon la loy où il creoit et que les paiens croient’: Froissart, p. 321. The ignorance among the western chroniclers of everything pertaining to the Osmanlis—or the wider circle of Mohammedan peoples—was appalling.
[544]Schiltberger, p. 5. Cf. Froissart, pp. 322-8;Relig. de St.-Denis;Chronique de Boucicaut;Chronique des 4 premiers Valois, éd. Luce, p. 326; and the other chronicles and secondary authorities given in Bibliography.
[544]Schiltberger, p. 5. Cf. Froissart, pp. 322-8;Relig. de St.-Denis;Chronique de Boucicaut;Chronique des 4 premiers Valois, éd. Luce, p. 326; and the other chronicles and secondary authorities given in Bibliography.
[545]Xénopol, inHist, générale, iii. 882, whose writings furnish the most reliable and most accessible data for Rumanian history, allows his patriotism to get the better of his judgement when he writes that this unimportant skirmish was a complete defeat inflicted upon Bayezid, and that ‘le Sultan court jusqu’à Adrinople’! Xénopol makes no attempt to explain the battle of Nicopolis, and Mircea’s action in and after the battle.
[545]Xénopol, inHist, générale, iii. 882, whose writings furnish the most reliable and most accessible data for Rumanian history, allows his patriotism to get the better of his judgement when he writes that this unimportant skirmish was a complete defeat inflicted upon Bayezid, and that ‘le Sultan court jusqu’à Adrinople’! Xénopol makes no attempt to explain the battle of Nicopolis, and Mircea’s action in and after the battle.
[546]Schiltberger, p. 6. Chalc., II, pp. 76-80, who exaggerates the raid to the point of saying that Bayezid reached the environs of Buda.
[546]Schiltberger, p. 6. Chalc., II, pp. 76-80, who exaggerates the raid to the point of saying that Bayezid reached the environs of Buda.
[547]Secr. Cons. Rog., iii. 134-5.Mém. d’Olivier de la Marche(éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 199-200, reads as if Bayezid had actually taken possession of Hungary.
[547]Secr. Cons. Rog., iii. 134-5.Mém. d’Olivier de la Marche(éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 199-200, reads as if Bayezid had actually taken possession of Hungary.
[548]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 61 f. (collection of Feridun). For wrong date, see Langlès, inAcad. des Inscriptions, iv. 673-4.
[548]MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, pp. 61 f. (collection of Feridun). For wrong date, see Langlès, inAcad. des Inscriptions, iv. 673-4.
[549]Schiltberger, p. 7, who would have been chosen himself for Egypt but for the fact that he had been wounded.
[549]Schiltberger, p. 7, who would have been chosen himself for Egypt but for the fact that he had been wounded.
[550]Froissart, p. 341; Rabbi Joseph, p. 254.
[550]Froissart, p. 341; Rabbi Joseph, p. 254.
[551]Froissart, p. 345. In xvi. 40, Froissart makes a mistake in saying that the body of the Comte d’Eu was ‘en ung sarcus rapporté en France et ensevely en l’eglise Saint-Laurent d’Eu, et là gist moult honnourablement’. The tomb in St. Laurent is merely a memorial. Philippe was buried in the chapel of a monastery in Galata, where, seven years later, Clavijo, fol. 17 vº, saw his burial-spot, but unmarked. His tomb is described by Bulladius, who saw it in 1647, in his notes to Bonn ed. of Ducas, p. 560. Cf. Mordtmann,Beiträge zur osmanischen Epigraphik, I, inZDMG.(1911), lxv. 103.
[551]Froissart, p. 345. In xvi. 40, Froissart makes a mistake in saying that the body of the Comte d’Eu was ‘en ung sarcus rapporté en France et ensevely en l’eglise Saint-Laurent d’Eu, et là gist moult honnourablement’. The tomb in St. Laurent is merely a memorial. Philippe was buried in the chapel of a monastery in Galata, where, seven years later, Clavijo, fol. 17 vº, saw his burial-spot, but unmarked. His tomb is described by Bulladius, who saw it in 1647, in his notes to Bonn ed. of Ducas, p. 560. Cf. Mordtmann,Beiträge zur osmanischen Epigraphik, I, inZDMG.(1911), lxv. 103.
[552]Froissart, xv. 329, 332, 342 f., 355-8; xvi. 16.
[552]Froissart, xv. 329, 332, 342 f., 355-8; xvi. 16.
[553]Godefroy,Hist. de Boucicaut(1620 ed.), i. 16; Ducas, p. 52.
[553]Godefroy,Hist. de Boucicaut(1620 ed.), i. 16; Ducas, p. 52.
[554]Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet(ed. Douet d’Areq), i. 332-3; Froissart, xvi. 57-9.
[554]Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet(ed. Douet d’Areq), i. 332-3; Froissart, xvi. 57-9.
[555]Jean de Nevers, as Duc de Bourgogne and leader of the faction against the king’s brother, openly accepted the responsibility of the assassination of the Duc d’Orléans. This was the beginning of the Burgundy-Armagnac civil war, which delivered France to the English until Jeanne d’Arc appeared to awaken the French to a feeling of nationality.
[555]Jean de Nevers, as Duc de Bourgogne and leader of the faction against the king’s brother, openly accepted the responsibility of the assassination of the Duc d’Orléans. This was the beginning of the Burgundy-Armagnac civil war, which delivered France to the English until Jeanne d’Arc appeared to awaken the French to a feeling of nationality.
[556]Froissart, xvi. 47. For ransom, ibid., pp. 37-8, and Rabbi Joseph, i. 254; alsoLivre des faictsof Boucicaut,passim.
[556]Froissart, xvi. 47. For ransom, ibid., pp. 37-8, and Rabbi Joseph, i. 254; alsoLivre des faictsof Boucicaut,passim.
[557]Raynaldus, ann. 1364, No. XXVIII. Jireček,Gesch. der Bulg., p. 323, says that at this time ‘Osmanen erschienen in Attika’. He has mistaken roving Turkish corsairs of Sarukhan or Aïdin for the Osmanlis. It must have been these Turks who attacked Thebes.
[557]Raynaldus, ann. 1364, No. XXVIII. Jireček,Gesch. der Bulg., p. 323, says that at this time ‘Osmanen erschienen in Attika’. He has mistaken roving Turkish corsairs of Sarukhan or Aïdin for the Osmanlis. It must have been these Turks who attacked Thebes.
[558]For the deliverance of the grand master of Rhodes, Jean Ferdinand d’Hérédia: Ducange, viii. 296.
[558]For the deliverance of the grand master of Rhodes, Jean Ferdinand d’Hérédia: Ducange, viii. 296.
[559]Chron. Breveat end of Ducas, p. 516.
[559]Chron. Breveat end of Ducas, p. 516.
[560]Ibid. According to Finlay, iv. 233, he captured Akova. Cf. Muralt, ii. 741, citing Guichenon MS., and Ducange, viii. 39, 296.
[560]Ibid. According to Finlay, iv. 233, he captured Akova. Cf. Muralt, ii. 741, citing Guichenon MS., and Ducange, viii. 39, 296.
[561]Phr., I. 16, p. 62; 26, p. 83; Chalc., II, pp. 67-9.
[561]Phr., I. 16, p. 62; 26, p. 83; Chalc., II, pp. 67-9.
[562]Muralt, under 1395 and 1397, gives the same expedition. From internal evidence of Byzantine historians, one might put the Morean expeditions in either or both of these years. But cf.Chron. Breve, p. 516, and the silence of the Ottoman historians on an expedition in 1395.
[562]Muralt, under 1395 and 1397, gives the same expedition. From internal evidence of Byzantine historians, one might put the Morean expeditions in either or both of these years. But cf.Chron. Breve, p. 516, and the silence of the Ottoman historians on an expedition in 1395.
[563]Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.
[563]Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.
[564]Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.
[564]Chalc., II, p. 67; Seadeddin, i. 192.
[565]Chron. Breve, p. 516; Phr., I. 16, p. 62; Chalc., II, pp. 97-9.
[565]Chron. Breve, p. 516; Phr., I. 16, p. 62; Chalc., II, pp. 97-9.
[566]Seadeddin, i. 193.
[566]Seadeddin, i. 193.
[567]The Venetians seized Athens in 1395, and sent Antonio Contareno to act as governor.
[567]The Venetians seized Athens in 1395, and sent Antonio Contareno to act as governor.
[568]Hammer describes the capture of Athens in 1397 in i. 350, and again in 1456 in iii. 51.
[568]Hammer describes the capture of Athens in 1397 in i. 350, and again in 1456 in iii. 51.
[569]Gibbon and Hammer follow Chalcocondylas in this error. Cf. Berger de Xivrey, inMém. de l’Acad. des Inscr., vol. xix, partie 2, pp. 29-30.
[569]Gibbon and Hammer follow Chalcocondylas in this error. Cf. Berger de Xivrey, inMém. de l’Acad. des Inscr., vol. xix, partie 2, pp. 29-30.
[570]Seadeddin, i. 180.
[570]Seadeddin, i. 180.
[571]Ducas, 13, p. 50; Chalc., II, p. 59; Idris.
[571]Ducas, 13, p. 50; Chalc., II, p. 59; Idris.
[572]The land walls of Salonika, still standing, are eloquent proof of the difficulty which confronted their assailants before the days of cannon.
[572]The land walls of Salonika, still standing, are eloquent proof of the difficulty which confronted their assailants before the days of cannon.
[573]Phr., I. 17, p. 64.
[573]Phr., I. 17, p. 64.
[574]See p. 199. There is serious difference of opinion as to just when these concessions were made.
[574]See p. 199. There is serious difference of opinion as to just when these concessions were made.
[575]Feridun collection, letter from Adrianople, ordering kadis to prepare for siege of Constantinople: Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 60.
[575]Feridun collection, letter from Adrianople, ordering kadis to prepare for siege of Constantinople: Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds turc, No. 79, p. 60.
[576]Ducas, 14, p. 53; Canale, ii. 62. Leunclavius,Annales, p. 52, puts this in 1391/2.
[576]Ducas, 14, p. 53; Canale, ii. 62. Leunclavius,Annales, p. 52, puts this in 1391/2.
[577]Karamzin (Russian ed. of 1819), v. 164.
[577]Karamzin (Russian ed. of 1819), v. 164.
[578]Miklositch-Müller,Acta Graeca, DCXXXVI.
[578]Miklositch-Müller,Acta Graeca, DCXXXVI.
[579]Ibid., DXIV, DXV, DXVI.
[579]Ibid., DXIV, DXV, DXVI.
[580]Froissart, xvi. 132-3.
[580]Froissart, xvi. 132-3.
[581]Religieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 559-62, 564.
[581]Religieux de Saint-Denis, ii. 559-62, 564.
[582]Secreta Consilii Rogatorum, E iii. 138, 146, printed in Ljubić, iv. 404.
[582]Secreta Consilii Rogatorum, E iii. 138, 146, printed in Ljubić, iv. 404.
[583]Ibid., p. 137.
[583]Ibid., p. 137.
[584]Misti, xliv. 210, xlv. 443; Belgrano,Arch. Gen., 1396-1464, pp. 175 f.
[584]Misti, xliv. 210, xlv. 443; Belgrano,Arch. Gen., 1396-1464, pp. 175 f.
[585]Ducas, 14, p. 53; Chalc., II, p. 80; Sherefeddin, iv. 38.
[585]Ducas, 14, p. 53; Chalc., II, p. 80; Sherefeddin, iv. 38.
[586]‘El Cuirol castello de Grecia está despoblado y destruydo y el dela Turquia está poblado’: Seville ed., 1582, fol. 17 v°. Busbecq, i. 131, wrote: ‘stand two castles opposite each other, one in Europe and the other in Asia.... The former was held by the Turks a long time before the attack on Constantinople.’ Busbecq was, of course, misinformed, as Rumeli Hissar was built in 1452. It is still standing in excellent preservation. Anatoli Hissar, of which only one tower remains intact, was built between 1392 and 1397. There is no way of determining the exact date. But Saladin, inManuel de l’Art Musulman, i. 482, displays his usual inaccuracy concerning facts of Ottoman history, when he gives 1420 as the date for Anatoli Hissar.
[586]‘El Cuirol castello de Grecia está despoblado y destruydo y el dela Turquia está poblado’: Seville ed., 1582, fol. 17 v°. Busbecq, i. 131, wrote: ‘stand two castles opposite each other, one in Europe and the other in Asia.... The former was held by the Turks a long time before the attack on Constantinople.’ Busbecq was, of course, misinformed, as Rumeli Hissar was built in 1452. It is still standing in excellent preservation. Anatoli Hissar, of which only one tower remains intact, was built between 1392 and 1397. There is no way of determining the exact date. But Saladin, inManuel de l’Art Musulman, i. 482, displays his usual inaccuracy concerning facts of Ottoman history, when he gives 1420 as the date for Anatoli Hissar.
[587]Phr., I. 14, p. 60; Chalc., II, p. 83; Ducas, 14, p. 53.
[587]Phr., I. 14, p. 60; Chalc., II, p. 83; Ducas, 14, p. 53.
[588]Venice contemplated action against the Osmanlis with the aid of France, Hungary, and Genoa. Cf.Secr. Cons. Rog., E iii. 137-44.
[588]Venice contemplated action against the Osmanlis with the aid of France, Hungary, and Genoa. Cf.Secr. Cons. Rog., E iii. 137-44.
[589]Epp., v. 26, 99, 293-5.
[589]Epp., v. 26, 99, 293-5.
[590]Edition of Seville, 1582, fol. 16 v°-17 r°.
[590]Edition of Seville, 1582, fol. 16 v°-17 r°.
[591]My account of this expedition is taken from MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds fr., No. 11432,Livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut. For printed editions, see Bibliography.
[591]My account of this expedition is taken from MS. Bibl. Nat., Paris, fonds fr., No. 11432,Livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Bouciquaut. For printed editions, see Bibliography.
[592]The chronicler makes the most astonishing assertions as to these raids, saying that the chevaliers reached Ak-Seraï! He evidently had no idea of local geography. I have been unable to identify several of the places mentioned.
[592]The chronicler makes the most astonishing assertions as to these raids, saying that the chevaliers reached Ak-Seraï! He evidently had no idea of local geography. I have been unable to identify several of the places mentioned.
[593]I have walked in one day from Riva to a point on the Bosphorus not many miles above Constantinople. When one reads the history of the Osmanlis in the country of their origin, the fact that from the very beginning of their history they were practically within sight of the imperial city is vividly impressed upon one.
[593]I have walked in one day from Riva to a point on the Bosphorus not many miles above Constantinople. When one reads the history of the Osmanlis in the country of their origin, the fact that from the very beginning of their history they were practically within sight of the imperial city is vividly impressed upon one.
[594]The Byzantine historians give little attention to Boucicaut, and are in contradiction with his chronicler on this point. Phr., 15, p. 61, says that John, who had been in the court of Bayezid, fled to his uncle because he had been slandered to Bayezid, and was afraid for his life; and Chalc., II, p. 84, that it was John who commanded the 10,000 Osmanlis against the city, and that Manuel shared the throne with him in order to save the city. Muralt, ii. 762, is a year in advance of the actual date.
[594]The Byzantine historians give little attention to Boucicaut, and are in contradiction with his chronicler on this point. Phr., 15, p. 61, says that John, who had been in the court of Bayezid, fled to his uncle because he had been slandered to Bayezid, and was afraid for his life; and Chalc., II, p. 84, that it was John who commanded the 10,000 Osmanlis against the city, and that Manuel shared the throne with him in order to save the city. Muralt, ii. 762, is a year in advance of the actual date.
[595]Chron. de Saint-Denisand Juvenal d’Ursins. But these are really the same source, according to Lacabane,Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, ii. 62.
[595]Chron. de Saint-Denisand Juvenal d’Ursins. But these are really the same source, according to Lacabane,Bibl. de l’École des Chartes, ii. 62.
[596]Foglieta and Stella, in Muralt, ii. 778, No. 61.
[596]Foglieta and Stella, in Muralt, ii. 778, No. 61.
[597]Sanudo, in Muratori, xxii. pp. 794-8.
[597]Sanudo, in Muratori, xxii. pp. 794-8.
[598]Chalc., II, pp. 83-4; Ducas, 14, pp. 54-6. For Rhodes and the Pope in the Morea, Phr., I. 16, p. 63; Bosio, ii. 154.
[598]Chalc., II, pp. 83-4; Ducas, 14, pp. 54-6. For Rhodes and the Pope in the Morea, Phr., I. 16, p. 63; Bosio, ii. 154.
[599]September 10, 1400, inMisti, xlv. 33.
[599]September 10, 1400, inMisti, xlv. 33.
[600]Livre des faicts, fol. 53 r°-55 r°, and Wylie, pp. 159-65. Wylie has collated admirably the sources on Manuel’s visit.
[600]Livre des faicts, fol. 53 r°-55 r°, and Wylie, pp. 159-65. Wylie has collated admirably the sources on Manuel’s visit.
[601]Text is published in Theiner, ii. 170-2.
[601]Text is published in Theiner, ii. 170-2.
[602]Epp., v. 300-2; vi. 92.
[602]Epp., v. 300-2; vi. 92.
[603]‘Cum Dom. summus Pontifex advertens quod perfidus ille Baysetus Princeps Turchorum, manu potenti et brachio extento in Christianum Populum maxima feritate extitit debachatus ad Exterminium Civitatis Constantinopolitanae et universitatis Populi Christianinisi eius nephanda propositio resistatur, omnes et singulos qui, pro Liberatione et Subsidione Manuelis Imp. Cpni et dictae Civitatis suae, Manus adiutrices porrexerint ...’ etc.: Rymer, vol. iii, part 4, pp. 195-6.
[603]‘Cum Dom. summus Pontifex advertens quod perfidus ille Baysetus Princeps Turchorum, manu potenti et brachio extento in Christianum Populum maxima feritate extitit debachatus ad Exterminium Civitatis Constantinopolitanae et universitatis Populi Christianinisi eius nephanda propositio resistatur, omnes et singulos qui, pro Liberatione et Subsidione Manuelis Imp. Cpni et dictae Civitatis suae, Manus adiutrices porrexerint ...’ etc.: Rymer, vol. iii, part 4, pp. 195-6.
[604]Clavijo, who visited Constantinople the following year, reports this, fol. 7 v°.
[604]Clavijo, who visited Constantinople the following year, reports this, fol. 7 v°.
[605]Miklositch-Müller,Acta, DCXXVI.
[605]Miklositch-Müller,Acta, DCXXVI.
[606]Strikingly shown in letter of April 20, 1402:Canc. Secr., i. 58.
[606]Strikingly shown in letter of April 20, 1402:Canc. Secr., i. 58.
[607]Misti, xlv. 19-23, 25-6, 29-30, 35, 87; xlvi. 37. Several of these are published in Ljubić, iv. 579, 590.
[607]Misti, xlv. 19-23, 25-6, 29-30, 35, 87; xlvi. 37. Several of these are published in Ljubić, iv. 579, 590.
[608]Knoelle, inJournal R. A. S.(1822), xiv. 125; Nöldeke, inZDMG.(1859), xiii. 185,n.6.
[608]Knoelle, inJournal R. A. S.(1822), xiv. 125; Nöldeke, inZDMG.(1859), xiii. 185,n.6.
[609]‘Toutesfoiz il a la main senestre et pié senestre comme impotent et ne s’en puet aidier, car il a les nerfs coppez’: Dominican Friar, p. 463. ‘Infirmus, ut dicitur, a cingulo infra’: Stella, in Muratori, vol. xvii. col. 1194. Cf. Sherefeddin, i. 55, 381. The English corruption Tamerlane is from Timurlenk, the latter syllable signifying lameness.
[609]‘Toutesfoiz il a la main senestre et pié senestre comme impotent et ne s’en puet aidier, car il a les nerfs coppez’: Dominican Friar, p. 463. ‘Infirmus, ut dicitur, a cingulo infra’: Stella, in Muratori, vol. xvii. col. 1194. Cf. Sherefeddin, i. 55, 381. The English corruption Tamerlane is from Timurlenk, the latter syllable signifying lameness.
[610]Sherefeddin, ii. 222.
[610]Sherefeddin, ii. 222.
[611]There is an excellent account of the dynasties of the Black and White Sheep, with list, following Mirkhand, in Teixera, ii. 24-39, 69-70. For the later activities of Kara-Yussuf, Teixera, ii. 355; de Guignes, iii. 302.
[611]There is an excellent account of the dynasties of the Black and White Sheep, with list, following Mirkhand, in Teixera, ii. 24-39, 69-70. For the later activities of Kara-Yussuf, Teixera, ii. 355; de Guignes, iii. 302.
[612]Langlès translation, p. 260.
[612]Langlès translation, p. 260.
[613]Ibid., pp. 258-62; Sherefeddin, iii. 255-62; Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 25 r°-26 v°.
[613]Ibid., pp. 258-62; Sherefeddin, iii. 255-62; Clavijo de Gonzáles, fol. 25 r°-26 v°.
[614]Chalcocondylas and Raynaldus are wrong in calling him Ertogrul, and in stating that he was killed in the subsequent siege. Sherefeddin, iii. 267, calls him Mustafa, and Schiltberger, p. 18, Mohammed. That it was Soleiman is proved by the agreement of the Ottoman historians with Arabshah, p. 124, and with Clavijo, fol. 26 r°, whose ‘Musulman Tchelebi’ is Soleiman.
[614]Chalcocondylas and Raynaldus are wrong in calling him Ertogrul, and in stating that he was killed in the subsequent siege. Sherefeddin, iii. 267, calls him Mustafa, and Schiltberger, p. 18, Mohammed. That it was Soleiman is proved by the agreement of the Ottoman historians with Arabshah, p. 124, and with Clavijo, fol. 26 r°, whose ‘Musulman Tchelebi’ is Soleiman.
[615]Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, vol. ii, fol. 1776.
[615]Hadji Khalfa,Djihannuma, vol. ii, fol. 1776.
[616]Clavijo, fol. 26 r°; Arabshah, p. 125.
[616]Clavijo, fol. 26 r°; Arabshah, p. 125.
[617]Clavijo, fol. 26 v°-27 r°; Arabshah, p. 125; Sherefeddin, iii. 267-9; Dominican Friar, p. 264; Schiltberger, p. 18. Schiltberger says 21 days, and 5,000 horsemen buried, and 9,000 virgins carried off by the Tartars.
[617]Clavijo, fol. 26 v°-27 r°; Arabshah, p. 125; Sherefeddin, iii. 267-9; Dominican Friar, p. 264; Schiltberger, p. 18. Schiltberger says 21 days, and 5,000 horsemen buried, and 9,000 virgins carried off by the Tartars.
[618]It is impossible to understand why Muralt, with all the authorities he had at hand, places the taking of Sivas in 1395:Chronographie Byzantine, ii. 753, No. 26. The contemporary authorities cited above establish the date. Cf. also letter from Crete, in Jorga,Notes à servir, &c., i. 106,n.3. There is a full discussion of the proper dating of the Ottoman aggression against Sivas, Caesarea, and Erzindjian, and the probability of two Ottoman campaigns, one before and one after Nicopolis, in Bruun’s note to the Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger, pp. 121-2.
[618]It is impossible to understand why Muralt, with all the authorities he had at hand, places the taking of Sivas in 1395:Chronographie Byzantine, ii. 753, No. 26. The contemporary authorities cited above establish the date. Cf. also letter from Crete, in Jorga,Notes à servir, &c., i. 106,n.3. There is a full discussion of the proper dating of the Ottoman aggression against Sivas, Caesarea, and Erzindjian, and the probability of two Ottoman campaigns, one before and one after Nicopolis, in Bruun’s note to the Hakluyt edition of Schiltberger, pp. 121-2.
[619]The letters exchanged between Charles VI and Timur are preserved in the French archives. The Turkish text of these letters, with Latin translation, is published by Charrière, introd., i. 118-19.
[619]The letters exchanged between Charles VI and Timur are preserved in the French archives. The Turkish text of these letters, with Latin translation, is published by Charrière, introd., i. 118-19.
[620]Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1194.
[620]Stella, in Muratori, xvii. 1194.
[621]‘En la qual batalla se acaescieron Payo de Soto Mayor e Hernan Sanchez de Palaçuelos Embaxadores’: Clavijo, fol. 1 r°, col. 2.
[621]‘En la qual batalla se acaescieron Payo de Soto Mayor e Hernan Sanchez de Palaçuelos Embaxadores’: Clavijo, fol. 1 r°, col. 2.