Re: КОФТИ / Общества / Непрофесионални / Цивилизации и исторически възстановки

Скъпи приятели !
Интересно ми е , защо безусловно се приема , че уж българите след битката са изравяли труповете на кръстоносците за да им пробиват сърцата , като на вампири (от къде ли я взеха тази информация , опоненти на присъствието на българите в кръстоносен поход), но ВИГОРОЗНО се оспорява или умаловажава
участието на българите в самия поход.
Кардинал Юлиян Чезарини , иначе познат от друг кръстоносен поход , този
който завърши с тотален провал при Домажлице (против хуситите) , е загинал
по време на битката и нема описанието на битката лично от него. Но все пак,
статията , към която ви дадох линка не е единствената която изброява българите пак , така че то требва да има и други източници , като некоя от хрониките. Освен това ВИЕ ( не аз ) , често забравяте , че унгарските крале ,
са се титулирали - крале на България , и то не само формално а заради това , че са владели северозападните български земи ,Белградско и Браничевско ,
със техното българско (само много покъсно сърбско население) население ,
и че точно от там , пък също от българи отседнали в други региони на унгарското кралство е могъл да бъде вспоменавания контингент на българите
западняци. Самите български велможи (ето , българската аристокрация си я имало и след падането под турско) , не са взели участието може би заради това , че са знаели за постъпката на Гоше Бранковича , който , типично за
сърбската политика е май дал инфото за похода на султана. Тъй като имало и
българи спахии и близки до портата , не бих се чудил да са предупредили
своите близки , да невзимат участието още повече , ако им е било ясно , че
италиянски флот транспортира огромен брой на войници от анатола .
Но ето , пак за англофоните :
GOD THE COMPASSIONATE THE MERCIFUL

*THIS DAY IN HISTORY
*The 10th of November 1444
*The Battle of Varna
*Elapsed Time: 563 years.

The Battle of Varna took place on November the 10th of the year
1444 near Varna in eastern Bulgaria, in this battle the Ottoman Empire under
Sultan Murad II defeated the Polish and Hungarian armies under Wladislaus III of
Poland (W³adys³aw III Warneñczyk in Polish) and Janos Hunyadi; therefore, after
a failed expedition in 1441/1442 against Belgrade, the Ottoman Sultan Murad II
signed a ten-year truce with Hungary , after having made a peace with the
Karaman Emirate in Anatolia in August 1444, he resigned the throne to his
12-year-old son Mohamed II or Mehmet II.
Despite the signing of this peace treaty, Hungary in a blatantly
treacherous act went on to co-operate with Venice and the pope Eugenius IV to
organize a new crusader army, therefore breaking the truce that was signed with
Murad II on this news Murad was recalled to the throne by his son ,although
Murad initially refused this summoning persistently on the grounds that he was
not the sultan anymore, he was outwitted by his son who on the news of his
refusal wrote to him: “If you are the sultan, lead your armies; but if I am the
sultan, I hereby order you to come and lead my armies.”

It is worth recalling that Murad then had no choice but to reclaim
the throne, the Sultan (1403-1451) who was the son and successor of Muhammad I
to the throne of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, in a war with Venice he seized
(1430) Salonica, thus proving Ottoman naval power, and invaded Greece, and in
the north Murad fought the resistance led by John Hunyadi. Murad sought to
retire from public life on several occasions, but each time was recalled by the
pressure of events.

A mixed Christian coalition army consisting mainly of Hungarian
and of Polish forces, but with detachments of Czechs, papal knights, Bosnians,
Croatians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Ruthenians, met with a strong and
well-disciplined force of Ottoman Turks. The Hungarians were ill-equipped, and
promised support from Walachia, Albania and Constantinople did not arrive, they
had also promises from Venetians that their fleet would not allow Turkish army
to cross the Bosphorus.

On the 10th of November 1444, the two armies faced off on a plain
bordered on one side by a lake and the other by hills occupied by the Ottomans.
The Ottomans attacked first, sending Ottoman light cavalry against the
Hungarians and Croats, who initially buckled before being rescued by
neighbouring Christian units who drove the attacking Ottoman forces off, the
Hungarians pursued the retreating Ottomans but were suddenly swallowed up by the
Ottoman infantry, though again they were rescued by neighbouring Christian
forces.

At that precise time, the Ottoman cavalry struck the exposed line
of the Christians which was left open by those fighting in the Ottoman line on
its right flank and the Christian army began to waver, Italian mercenaries broke
and ran for the lake where they were cut down by the pursuing Ottoman forces
during which the papal legate Cesarini is believed to have perished.

The Christian left flank repulsed several attacks from Ottoman
forces in the meantime, and with these successive victories the Christian forces
began to recover their confidence, at this crucial point the Christians realized
that the Ottoman Sultan, by his proximity, was suddenly left fairly exposed with
only some untrained peasant standing between him and his enemies. Hunyadi led an
attack against the Ottoman centre which broke, putting many Ottoman forces to
flight and he pursued them for some kilometres away from the main battlefield.

Realizing the danger, the Sultan’s Janissaries rallied around
their ruler and when the two forces met and clashed again, it looked initially
as if the weight of the Christian assault would win the day but the Ottoman’s
forces fought so bravely to save their Sultan, soon, to the universal horror of
all the Christian forces, the King, Wladyslaw, was surrounded by Janissaries and
instead of taking the Sultan as his prisoner he himself was cut down. By this
point Hunyadi had arrived back on the battlefield and he led several charges
against the group of Janissaries but to no avail.

King Wladyslaw of Poland, Bohemia and Hungary was dead, at 20
years of age Seeing their sovereign cut down, the Christian forces broke and
fled the battlefield in disarray, though the Ottoman forces who had received
quite a tough beating that day and suffered according to some sources between
20-30,000 deaths in the battle , did not pursue the fleeing Christian forces, as
such the battle of Varna was over , upon an overwhelming victory of the Muslim
Ottoman Forces against the Christian coalition.

Thorough and inspiring history lessons are to be in full
manifestation within the records of the famous letter written to the Pope as a
brief description of the Battle of Varna in 1444 , excerpts from it read as
follows : “ For there perished at Varna the king, our most illustrious prince
and leader, and the venerable father, the Lord-Legate, Julian, whose character
was virtuous and solid , our defeat was not caused by our weakness, or the
superior bravery of the Turks, but it was divine justice which administered the
defeat to us for we were ill equipped and almost unarmed; the barbarians won the
day because of our sins. Therefore, recognising rather the weight of our guilt
than that of our wounds, we have a firm hope that the One who administered the
defeat as revenge for our sins will give a remedy to those who hope, and will
move the mind of Your Holiness to strengthen the unbroken but bent power of the
Christian people”.

[Source: Densusianu, Nic, ed. Documente Privitóre La Istoria Romanilor
Bucharest: Socecu and Teclu, 1890. Volume I, Part 2, 715-717. Cited in Alfred J.
Bannan and Achilles Edelenyi. Documentary History of Europe Eastern. New York:
Twayne Publishers, 1970. 71-74].

The brilliant Ottoman victory at Varna in 1444 had guaranteed a
continued Ottoman presence in the Balkans, which gave them a springboard into
the heart of Central Europe, as Constantinople was to be conquered nine years
later and to be re-named Istanbul by Murad II ‘son Mohamed Al Fatih the then 21
years old on the 29th of May 1453.

The conquest of Istanbul that took place nine years later from the
date of this battle had indeed a great impact on the Ottoman Empire as well as
on the Muslim World to the degree that some Historians demarcate the end of the
Middle Ages with the City’s Conquest, and surely it has enabled the Ottoman
Muslims to take dynamic and efficient roles in shaping International politics
much to the European Christendom’s chagrin.

Писмото на Янош Хуняди до папата , или каквото некои хора са чели-недочели.
С други дими , забелязах колко хора без да се чели първоизточниците имат
много "ясен" поглед върху нещата.Че уж българските велможи са обещали помощ на Хуняди , която обаче той не е получил от тех !
1. Хуняди вспоменава в писмото си НЕ САМО обещанията на Българските велможи а говори за князе на Албания , България (евидентно не всички български властелини са били под пълен османски диктат и след смъртта на
последния ни засега познат българси владетел Константин в Белград 1422 г.),
Валахия и Цариград ( то Асеневци Матей и Зое се вспоменават още по време на превземането на Цариград 1453 г.
2.Никаде в писмото не се посочва , че точно , или само българите не са си
изпълнили обещанието към кръстоносците . Писмото мълчи за неизпълнените
обещания от страна на италиянските републики , които носят отговорноста
за транспорта на турските войски от анадола. Вината е сигурно и на страната
на сърбския Бранкович , който просто е саботирал целия поход от самото начало.
3. От къде идва тази силно антикатолическата позиция на некои хора , които
днес аргументират с това , че ако Хуняди станал крал на България , бихме били под робството ( хората просто плескат робството лево и десно).Кво
робство ? Бихме били просто една феудална държава от западноевропейски тип. А зашто хората неаргументират също , че имало вече не само доста българи католици , но и унияти , на които найпознатия представител е бил
покъсния униятски метрополит на Киев Григори Цамблак ? Но за българокатолицизма би требвало отделна тема.
Но сега самото писмо , пак на английски , и требва да ви кажа , че аз чета много внимателно :
1444
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This brief description of the Battle of Varna in 1410 is part of a letter written to the pope. The failure of Hungary's allies to come to her assistance is also bitterly condemned.

Most Holy Father.

Although I did not have the opportunity to report personally to your Holiness, I now confidently do so by letter. And I send you news of the late conflict, in which it was not so much our strength, but our misfortune that was betrayed. Having had wide experience in warfare since my early years, I easily admit that the wheel of military fortune is such that, according to the slightest movement of the Supreme Spectator, it rolls to favourable or calamitous conclusions. God may be the judge of those who were the cause of such distress for the Christian people. Many neighbouring princes, of Wallachia, of Bulgaria, of Albania as well as Constantinople, promised ample military aid, and told us to fly to their aid with feathered feet, because everything had been provided there for us. We answered their call after such great encouragement, marched with our army, crossing into the territory of the Turks. And since all that we needed was the promised help, we confidently penetrated farther each day into enemy territory. Some hostile units surrendered without resistance, some we defeated. But after a time it was clear that we could not rely on past promises of assistance. We had to face a situation that we had not anticipated since the friendship of the above-mentioned princes at its best was worse than insufficient and since the promised alliance actually turned out to be an insidious deception. Thus, while neglecting the defense of our own land, we found ourselves ill-armed in enemy country. However, before our perilous situation became evident, we obtained many spoils, slaughtered many Turks, and inflicted great damage. We were able to avoid open battle, but we were ashamed to give up the campaign that we had started for Christ's sake Therefore, a pious boldness overcame us and we resolved to take a venturesome course. An unequal battle took place which was fiercely fought, and only the sunset stopped the carnage. But the battle became a losing one because of the continuous waves of an endlessly attacking multitude, from which we receded not so much defeated than rather overrun and separated from each other.

Nevertheless, we saw it with our own eyes and know it from many documents, that we did not inflict fewer wounds to the enemy than we received. We left them with the remains of a bloody and funestuous victory. Further it is worthwhile to lament with great sighs the deplorable casualties we suffered. For there perished at Varna the king, our most illustrious prince and leader, and the venerable father, the Lord-Legate, Julian, whose character was virtuous and solid Our defeat was not caused by our weakness, or the superior bravery of the Turks, but it was divine justice which administered the defeat to us for we were ill equipped and almost unarmed; the barbarians won the day because of our sins. Therefore, recognising rather the weight of our guilt than that of our wounds, we have a firm hope that the One who administered the defeat as revenge for our sins will give a remedy to those who hope, and will move the mind of Your Holiness to strengthen the unbroken but bent power of the Christian people

Source: Densusianu, Nic, ed. Documente Privitóre La Istoria Romanilor. Bucharest: Socecu and Teclu, 1890. Volume I, Part 2, 715-717. Cited in Alfred J. Bannan and Achilles Edelenyi. Documentary History of Europe Eastern. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1970. 71-74.

Нещо ненамирам в самото писмо некакви намеквания за конфликти с православните. Да не е нещо покъсната пропаганда на цариградската патри-
яршия , която получила монопол на християнството в османската империя,
които много хора означават за продължението на византийската , поне
за източните християни.А какви блага са дошли за българските миряни от
страна на цариградската патрияршия , да напомням ли ? Така , че аз имам малко поразличен поглед на нещата от много други хора.