Ottoman War Elephants

[David Amicus]

Does anyone have info on the Ottoman use of war elephants?

I'm reading "The Siege of Sziget" and in 2:42 it says Suleiman brought six elephants. But apart from the mention in the poem I've found nothing about it.


Also I read that when the Ottomans fled Vienna at the siege of 1683 the defenders found that they had left elephants behind. But no details.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_of_Sziget

[David Amicus]

I found this also


http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Ottoman/Suleymanname/Execution_of_Prisonsers_Belgrade-Suleymanname.htm

[AlexMilman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_of_Sziget does not contain a single reference to the elephants.

The Ottomans most probably had them but were they "war" elephants? The terms implies that the animal is being used as a part of a military formation, usually as an attacking weapon. AFAIK, the Ottomans never used them in this
capacity on any significant or permanent scale.

The elephants captured in Vienna were most probably the beasts of burden or
just 'prestigious' animals (Kara Mustafa had numerous luxury items in his camp). The same goes for the reference in the 2nd post of this thread. It seems that an elephant on the picture is not a battle animal: at the time
of Suleiman couple naked riders on elephant's back would have zero military
value.

[David Amicus]

Thank-you! Just for transport and show then. I'm guessing they were African elephants since they would be easier to acquire and that African elephants were rarely used in battle.

[David Amicus]

Here's another picture I found


http://p4.storage.canalblog.com/44/62/577050/41484677.jpg

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:43:30 -0700 (PDT), David Amicus
<davida...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thank-you! Just for transport and show then. I'm guessing they were African elephants since they would be easier to acquire and that African elephants were rarely used in battle.

From their size, ear size, colour and the fact that people were riding
them, I would say that they are Indian elephants.

African elephants are larger, darker, have bigger ears and are much
harder to tame, although they can be tamed to a point: cf Hannibal.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[David Amicus]

Thanks! Indian then it is. Suleiman did war with the Safavid Empire. Maybe he acquired them there, spoils of war?

[Robert Mulain]

AFAIK, elephants have never been used effectively as weapons of war. They are herbivores, naturally afraid of predators, vulnerable to pain and panic, and no matter how well trained, impossible to use reliably as tanks.

Many were used (abused) by a 'pilot' equipped with a hammer to dash out their brains should they run amok. Their effectiveness in battle seems to have been entirely symbolic, due to their immense size and visual impact on an enemy.

It seems that mammoths may have been more useful, but as we have all seen in the last part of Lord of the Rings, even these aggressive behemoths were vulnerable to attacks from athletic elves and the attacks of the Undead.

[AlexMilman]

On Friday, July 25, 2014 7:36:35 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> Thanks! Indian then it is. Suleiman did war with the Safavid Empire. Maybe he acquired them there, spoils of war?

Almost definitely: IIRC, the Iranians ha been 'experimenting' with the usage of elephants and camels as the 'artillery platforms' (ended up with having a camel artillery but it does not look like this worked out with the elephants)

[AlexMilman]

Yeah, LOR is a really good source on almost anything. At least as far as the
movie is concerned you can use pretty much any episode as a good indicator
that in a reality things did not happen this way. :-)

[David Amicus]

I've never watched "Lord of the Rings". But there were mammoths in "Game of Thrones".


http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Mammoths

[AlexMilman]

On Saturday, July 26, 2014 6:04:55 PM UTC-4, David Amicus wrote:
> I've never watched "Lord of the Rings". But there were mammoths in "Game of Thrones".
>
>
>
>
>
> http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Mammoths

On more great source of the historical information. They also have the dragons... :-)

[Erilar]

The movies of LOTR were fun, but not written by an actual medieval scholar.
They were"based on" the books, which weren't intended as history antway.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <d6713174-f9b3-4c44...@googlegroups.com>, David

Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:
> Thanks! Indian then it is. Suleiman did war with the Safavid Empire. Maybe
> he acquired them there, spoils of war?

More likely through trade.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Or as gifts. For example, the Safavid Shah Abbas gave Osman II (Osman
the Young, who met a tragic end at the hand of the Janissaries, which
he was planning to disband) 4 elephants as a gift.

Ottoman relations with Mughal India were good (mutual Sunni interest
against the Safavids) but since communcation was difficult the fruits
of this formal alliance was not realized.

Elephants were used in the Battle of Ankara by Timur's general isen
Buga (or Esen Boga) and the horses of the Ottoman cavalry of Bayezid I
(The Thunderbolt) were spooked and panicked by them. At any rate, the
Anatolian Turkish Cavalry deserted anyway (the Anatolian Turkish Begs
were angry at the loss of their independence and took up Timur's offer
of restoring their privilages) and Bayezid was left with the army of
the Serbian king as his only reliable ally.

Esen Boga's ("Healthy Bull") encapment was in the vicinity of what is
now Ankara International Airport and the village adopted his name, and
so in modern times the airport. So Esenboga Airport ended up being
named after him, although this not in the conciousness of the planners.
In the 1980's it was proposed that the name of the airport be changed
and the name of the unpopular Junta leader (and proclaimed president)
Evren was proposed. A columnist who writes on historical affairs
pointed out what I just mentioned and added "Let the name stay, it is
already named after a Turkish general" (albeit Eastern Turkic).

In the 1990's cultural protocals were signed with the newly Turkic
republics. They insisted that Turkey rehabilate Timur, Shah Ismail (who
was also an Azeri poet) and the brilliant Turkish poet Nazım Hikmet, a
Communist who died in exile in the Soviet Union (Moscow).

[David Amicus]

Thanks Yusuf! Much appreciated!

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <81707f78-beb3-46d9...@googlegroups.com>, David

Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:
> Does anyone have info on the Ottoman use of war elephants?
>
> I'm reading "The Siege of Sziget" and in 2:42 it says Suleiman brought six
> elephants. But apart from the mention in the poem I've found nothing about
> it.
>
>
> Also I read that when the Ottomans fled Vienna at the siege of 1683 the
> defenders found that they had left elephants behind. But no details.

The Treaty of Qasr-i Shi:ri:n (journalistic romanization of Modern
Persian has it: Qasr-e Shirin; Turkish: Kasr-ı Şirin) of 1639 ended 150
years of intermittent military hostilities between Iran and the Ottoman
Empire and established, with only minor adjustments since, Iran's
western frontier, currently with Turkey and Iraq.

One can definitely rule out the Ottoman elephants in the outskirts of
Vienna 1683 being war booty from Iran.





>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_of_Sziget

[Paul F Austin]

On 7/25/2014 2:43 PM, David Amicus wrote:
> Thank-you! Just for transport and show then. I'm guessing they were African elephants since they would be easier to acquire and that African elephants were rarely used in battle.
>

Possibly Asian elephants used as draft animals to move artillery?
Paul

[AlexMilman]

Was it practical on any substantial scale? The Ottomans did not have
too many elephants and easily available draft animals had been cheaper,
easier to feed, easier to obtain along the road, etc.

[AlexMilman]

You are probably right: the next was happened only in 1722

[Bill]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
<alexm...@msn.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 28, 2014 7:08:36 AM UTC-4, Paul F Austin wrote:
>> On 7/25/2014 2:43 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>>
>> > Thank-you! Just for transport and show then. I'm guessing they were African elephants since they would be easier to acquire and that African elephants were rarely used in battle.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Possibly Asian elephants used as draft animals to move artillery?
>
>Was it practical on any substantial scale?

The British certainly used them for this.

There are two or three pictures in this lot.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-history/13465-pre-1900-indian-military-photographs-3.html

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <983e281a-e404-4539...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

Ottomans and Russians attmpted to take advantage of the fall of the
Safavids but Nadir Shah (or Nader Shah as in Ralph Nader) was able to
restore the status quo, at least with the Ottomans. Further border
tensions were done through trying to get the allegiances of fronteir
tribes and local bigwigs. The net result was that the border of Qasr-i
Shirin was preserved in its essentials. Iran gave up a mountain when
the Republic was declared in Turkey. The new Shah (the father of the
last one) was an admirer of Ataturk, saying with an Azeri accent in
Turkish "You are the commander, I am the soldier." when he visited
Ankara. But later he took a pro-Axis stance.

Nadir Shah tried to make a religious compromise by making Ja`fari law
(which Twelver Shiaa adhere) the fifth judicial school of Sunni Islam
because he felt Shiism was isolating Iran and would hinder his eastern
ambitions. Apparently this is not taught in schools in Iran. The
Ottomans rebuffed this proposal only conceding by allowing pilgrims
from Iran.

[AlexMilman]

On Monday, July 28, 2014 2:34:58 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
>
> <alexm...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, July 28, 2014 7:08:36 AM UTC-4, Paul F Austin wrote:
>
> >> On 7/25/2014 2:43 PM, David Amicus wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Thank-you! Just for transport and show then. I'm guessing they were African elephants since they would be easier to acquire and that African elephants were rarely used in battle.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Possibly Asian elephants used as draft animals to move artillery?
>
> >
>
> >Was it practical on any substantial scale?
>
>
>
> The British certainly used them for this.
>
>

The obvious difference being in the fact that the Brits were ruling India and the Ottomans did not. In the British case they had been easily available and in
Ottomans case they were more of an exotic animal and what was practical for the
Brits was not practical for the Ottomans.

[AlexMilman]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:10:48 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In <983e281a-e404-4539...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>
> wrote on 7/28/2014:
>
> > On Monday, July 28, 2014 1:23:24 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >> In <81707f78-beb3-46d9...@googlegroups.com>, David
>
> >>
>
> >> Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Does anyone have info on the Ottoman use of war elephants?
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I'm reading "The Siege of Sziget" and in 2:42 it says Suleiman brought six
>
> >>> elephants. But apart from the mention in the poem I've found nothing about
>
> >>> it.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Also I read that when the Ottomans fled Vienna at the siege of 1683 the
>
> >>> defenders found that they had left elephants behind. But no details.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The Treaty of Qasr-i Shi:ri:n (journalistic romanization of Modern
>
> >>
>
> >> Persian has it: Qasr-e Shirin; Turkish: Kasr-ı Şirin) of 1639 ended 150
>
> >>
>
> >> years of intermittent military hostilities between Iran and the Ottoman
>
> >>
>
> >> Empire and established, with only minor adjustments since, Iran's
>
> >>
>
> >> western frontier, currently with Turkey and Iraq.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> One can definitely rule out the Ottoman elephants in the outskirts of
>
> >>
>
> >> Vienna 1683 being war booty from Iran.
>
> >>
>
> > You are probably right: the next was happened only in 1722
>
>
>
> Ottomans and Russians attmpted to take advantage of the fall of the
>
> Safavids but Nadir Shah (or Nader Shah as in Ralph Nader) was able to
>
> restore the status quo, at least with the Ottomans.

With the Russians it was even better (for him) because they (a) wanted an ally
against the Ottomans and (b) were looking (at this time) for at least some
stable regime in Persia to which they can give back the conquests around the
Caspian coast made by Peter I. Maintaining troops there was considered a huge
drain both on already empty Treasury and on the available troops (huge losses
due to the climate-related diseases). Of course, within few decades and under
the different rulers Russian Empire started reconquering all these areas back
and ended up with everything except for the Southern part of the Caspian coast.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <81707f78-beb3-46d9...@googlegroups.com>, David
Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:

I found a website in Turkish deatiling the role of the elephant in the
Ottoman army.

http://gezgindergi.com/fil-yokusu-2/

I'll sumarize.

It explains that the first encounter of the Ottomans was in the debacle
of the Battle Ankara when they faced Timur's elephants. From then on a
certain number of elephants were kept for the army. Ottomans prided
themselves in rapid deployment and rapid mobile attacks, so elephants
were a retarding factor. Nevertheless, as a backup and as a reserve in
case of need, a certain number of elaphants were included.

Elephants were among the expected gifts from Asian ambassadors. The
elephant convoys came by land to the Asian shore of Istanbul. From
there there was a difficult sea journey to the European side to the
Byzantine city (Constantinople). They went up the Golden Horn and as it
narrowed there was a bridge called the Elephant Bridge (Fil Köprüsü)
to the district of Eyüp (near the city walls). Today there is still a
street called Elephant Bridge Avenue (Fil Köprüsü Caddesi). After being
fed and rested they made a land journey to Topkapı Palace (Topkapı
Sarayı - that is back at the mouth of the Golden Horn) to be displayed
to the Sultan. After this, they were put on display to the public in
the Hippodrome and this became known as "The Elephant Spectacle (Fil
Temaşası)". When the spectacle was over, some of the elephants were
brought to a Byzantine cistern converted into an elephant stable in the
district of Fatih (near the Aquaduct of Valens). Now at that site there
is a street called The Elephant Incline (Fil Yokuşu). Others were
housed in the Hebdemon Cistern, popularly known as the Elephant Shack
(Fildamı) in today's Bakırköy (beyond the walls, beyond today's main
airport going along the route westwards near the Sea of Marmara;
formerly called Mekriköy in Turkish before the Republic). The cistern
served as an elephant stable since Selim I ("The Grim") - Yavuz Sultan
Selim (who BTW defeated Shah Ismail, founder of the Safavid Dynasty).
The Zeyrek Cistern of Fil Yokuşu (Elephant Incline), in the Old City,
is adjacent to the Church of the Monastery of Christ Pantocrator.

See:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/istanbul-church-of-the-pantocrator-zeyrek

In the website

http://gezgindergi.com/fil-yokusu-2/

One can see the street sign of Fil Yokuşu (Elephant Incline)

"fil" is from Arabic fi:l (mentioned in the Qur'an in teh context of
the battle attributed in Islamic tradition to the expedition of Abraha,
the Christian Ethiopian King of Yemen, mid 6th cent. CE, towards Mecca)
from Persian pi:l "elephant".

[AlexMilman]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In <81707f78-beb3-46d9...@googlegroups.com>, David
>
> Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:
>
> > Does anyone have info on the Ottoman use of war elephants?
>
> >
>
> > I'm reading "The Siege of Sziget" and in 2:42 it says Suleiman brought six
>
> > elephants. But apart from the mention in the poem I've found nothing about
>
> > it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Also I read that when the Ottomans fled Vienna at the siege of 1683 the
>
> > defenders found that they had left elephants behind. But no details.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_of_Sziget
>
>
>
> I found a website in Turkish deatiling the role of the elephant in the
>
> Ottoman army.
>
>
>
> http://gezgindergi.com/fil-yokusu-2/
>
>
>
> I'll sumarize.
>
>
>
> It explains that the first encounter of the Ottomans was in the debacle
>
> of the Battle Ankara when they faced Timur's elephants.

Presumably, Timur had 32 of them placed in the center of his formation (and presumably he hold an opinion that an elephant is equal to the thousand of
the infantrymen).

However, it is not clear if these elephants really played a significant role
in the battle: the left flank of the Ottomans collapsed when the Tatars changed sides and attacked it at the rear and the same happened to the Ottomans right flank where the soldiers refused to fight against their former lords. I did not
find any mention of the Ottoman center (the Serbs, some cavalry and Kapikulu infantry) being crushed by the elephants and at least the Serbs managed to
break through (meaning that they did not suffer noticeably from the elephants).
No mentioning of the elephants crushing Bayazid's infantry either.

So, what exactly these elephants had been doing (if anything at all) is
anybody's guess. Obviously, being in the center, they had nothing to do with
the Ottoman flanks and the betrayal/flight happening there (the reasons had
been clearly political).

>From then on a
>
> certain number of elephants were kept for the army. Ottomans prided
>
> themselves in rapid deployment and rapid mobile attacks,

Judging by "Ottoman Warfare" by Murphey Roads (admittedly, he is dealing with
the period of 1500 - 1700, well after Timur's time), http://www.e-reading.ws/bookreader.php/136094/Murphey_-_Ottoman_Warfare_1500-1700.pdf

the Ottoman armies had been rather slow on the move (with exception of the
Tatar units): they were making something like 10 - 15 miles per day on the
good roads inside the empire marching few hours per day and stopping quite
often for eating and resting. They tended to pay a huge attention comparing
to their European contemporaries who were still predominantly living off
the land (system of the depot supplies became predominant only in the XVIII
century with the resulting slowing down of the European armies as well)
to the issues of supplies and, while the depots were available at least in
some parts of the empire, when advancing into the hostile territories, they
were taking with them huge supply trains, which were obviously quite slow.
Probably, they could move faster on some occasions but these cases were
rather exceptions than a rule and Bayazid's (presumably) fast march to
Ankara was a good example of a disastrous rashness (exhaustion of his troops
is repeatedly mentioned by various authors even without specifying how it did
impact the course of the battle).


BTW, Murphey Roads does not mention the elephants at all and he is very
thorough on the supply arrangements and other minute details.

This of course does not imply that they were not present at all, just that they
were not of any significant importance in the Ottoman operations.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <8d42066c-c42f-40ca...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

wrote on 7/30/2014:
> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:31:32 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> In <81707f78-beb3-46d9...@googlegroups.com>, David
>>
>> Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:
>>
>>> Does anyone have info on the Ottoman use of war elephants?
>>>
>>
>>> I'm reading "The Siege of Sziget" and in 2:42 it says Suleiman brought six
>>> elephants. But apart from the mention in the poem I've found nothing about
>>> it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Also I read that when the Ottomans fled Vienna at the siege of 1683 the
>>> defenders found that they had left elephants behind. But no details.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_of_Sziget
>>
>>
>>
>> I found a website in Turkish deatiling the role of the elephant in the
>>
>> Ottoman army.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://gezgindergi.com/fil-yokusu-2/
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll sumarize.
>>
>>
>>
>> It explains that the first encounter of the Ottomans was in the debacle
>>
>> of the Battle Ankara when they faced Timur's elephants.
>
> Presumably, Timur had 32 of them placed in the center of his formation (and
> presumably he hold an opinion that an elephant is equal to the thousand of
> the infantrymen).
>
> However, it is not clear if these elephants really played a significant role
> in the battle: the left flank of the Ottomans collapsed when the Tatars

I don't know what you mean "Tatars" in this context. The ones who
changed sides were the cavalry of the Anatolian Begs who had just lost
their independence and other Turkish units dissatisfied by Bayezid's
favor of new converts and Christians from the Balkans. There was only
small minority of Eastern Turks and Turkified Mongolians in Anatolia
left over from the Mongol Period that can be legitimately called
"Tatars," and these were Timur's natural allies, though not a
significant force. Those Turks that are characterized as "Turkmens" or
"Turcomans" who had kept Oghuz Turkic tribal traditions. Anatolian
Turks are among the Oghuz Turkic group. Even the Ottoman Dynasty at
that time was to some extent "Turcoman". After Bayezid there was an
ideological revival of the Ottoman Dynasty's Turkish, "Turcoman" roots,
even though the state became more cetralized.

> changed sides and attacked it at the rear and the same happened to the
> Ottomans right flank where the soldiers refused to fight against their former
> lords. I did not find any mention of the Ottoman center (the Serbs, some
> cavalry and Kapikulu infantry) being crushed by the elephants and at least

There is no mention of "crushing" by elephants in the narrative. The
horses, and perhaps to some extent their human riders, panicked at
their sight, as they had not seen the animals before and went into
dissarray.

> the Serbs managed to break through (meaning that they did not suffer
> noticeably from the elephants). No mentioning of the elephants crushing
> Bayazid's infantry either.
>

Turkish orthography is Bayezid. /a/ is a front vowel (and in this case

> So, what exactly these elephants had been doing (if anything at all) is
> anybody's guess. Obviously, being in the center, they had nothing to do with
> the Ottoman flanks and the betrayal/flight happening there (the reasons had
> been clearly political).
>

At this particular battle, the elephants caused the horses facing them
to panick, so the narrative states.

>
>
>
>
>> From then on a
>>
>> certain number of elephants were kept for the army. Ottomans prided
>>
>> themselves in rapid deployment and rapid mobile attacks,
>
> Judging by "Ottoman Warfare" by Murphey Roads (admittedly, he is dealing with
> the period of 1500 - 1700, well after Timur's time),
> http://www.e-reading.ws/bookreader.php/136094/Murphey_-_Ottoman_Warfare_1500-1700.pdf

Thanks.

>
> the Ottoman armies had been rather slow on the move (with exception of the
> Tatar units): they were making something like 10 - 15 miles per day on the
> good roads inside the empire marching few hours per day and stopping quite
> often for eating and resting. They tended to pay a huge attention comparing
> to their European contemporaries who were still predominantly living off
> the land (system of the depot supplies became predominant only in the XVIII
> century with the resulting slowing down of the European armies as well)
> to the issues of supplies and, while the depots were available at least in
> some parts of the empire, when advancing into the hostile territories, they
> were taking with them huge supply trains, which were obviously quite slow.
> Probably, they could move faster on some occasions but these cases were
> rather exceptions than a rule and Bayazid's (presumably) fast march to

Turkish orthography has Bayezid. /a/ is a back vowel, and in this case
long, representng Arabic alif /a:/. <e> represents a front open vowel,
in standard pronounciation like French <è> and corresponds to Arabic
and Persian fatHa, /a/, oprionally indicated by a vowel sign ( stroke
above). Turkish approximated the pronouciations of these phonemes in
Iranian Persian and Iraqi Arabic, where /a:/ is a back vowel (in
Persian frequently rounded) and /a/ is fronted, approx. [ä], except in
the vicinity of certain consonants in which it is back vowel (this is
particularly true of Arabic, and Turkish adopted this rule as well).

However, Bayezid is an uncommon name and is usually pronounced by Turks
as [Beyazıt] except in very careful, bookish spepch.

[AlexMilman]

Pretty much what everybody else does when the term is being used in post-XIII century context.

>The ones who
>
> changed sides were the cavalry of the Anatolian Begs who had just lost
>
> their independence and other Turkish units dissatisfied by Bayezid's
>
> favor of new converts and Christians from the Balkans.

You are talking about one of the flanks. The Tatars had been on another.

> There was only
>
> small minority of Eastern Turks and Turkified Mongolians in Anatolia
>
> left over from the Mongol Period that can be legitimately called
>
> "Tatars,"

There were also big numbers of those, on the other side of the Caucasus who had been routinely referenced as the Tatars and this name is still in
use. Initial definition related to pre-Genghis times mostly lost its practical meaning by the late XII century.

>and these were Timur's natural allies, though not a
>
> significant force. Those Turks that are characterized as "Turkmens" or
>
> "Turcomans" who had kept Oghuz Turkic tribal traditions. Anatolian
>
> Turks are among the Oghuz Turkic group. Even the Ottoman Dynasty at
>
> that time was to some extent "Turcoman". After Bayezid there was an
>
> ideological revival of the Ottoman Dynasty's Turkish, "Turcoman" roots,
>
> even though the state became more cetralized.
>
>

The Tatars had been on Bayazid's right flank and Anatolian troops on the left. Both betrayed him. Some sources also call Anatolian troops (B's left flank) "Black Tatars", which is what you are probably referencing to.

>
> > changed sides and attacked it at the rear and the same happened to the
>
> > Ottomans right flank where the soldiers refused to fight against their former
>
> > lords. I did not find any mention of the Ottoman center (the Serbs, some
>
> > cavalry and Kapikulu infantry) being crushed by the elephants and at least
>
>
>
> There is no mention of "crushing" by elephants in the narrative.

No mentioning of them doing anything in any description that I saw.

>The
>
> horses, and perhaps to some extent their human riders, panicked at
>
> their sight, as they had not seen the animals before and went into
>
> dissarray.

Does not work: presumably, the elephants were in Timur's center and Bayazid's center fought stubbornly.

>
>
>
> > the Serbs managed to break through (meaning that they did not suffer
>
> > noticeably from the elephants). No mentioning of the elephants crushing
>
> > Bayazid's infantry either.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Turkish orthography is Bayezid. /a/ is a front vowel (and in this case
>

Thank but I'm using the 'Western' spelling.

>
>
> > So, what exactly these elephants had been doing (if anything at all) is
>
> > anybody's guess. Obviously, being in the center, they had nothing to do with
>
> > the Ottoman flanks and the betrayal/flight happening there (the reasons had
>
> > been clearly political).
>
> >
>
>
>
> At this particular battle, the elephants caused the horses facing them
>
> to panick, so the narrative states.

Don't know which narrative you are referencing to but the story seems to
be unpopular. Did not see anything of the kind in the serious military
histories either.

Interesting but irrelevant to the speed of the march.

[David Amicus]

The Year of the Elephant has been mentioned, the year Muhammad was born. Was it an African or Indian elephant? I wonder how it got to Yemen? Africa is across the Red Sea but sea trade with India is also possible.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <44da977d-568e-4cd2...@googlegroups.com>, David

What has become the canonical tradition of Ibn Ishaq places Muhammad's
birth at the Year of the Elephant and that is usually given as 570 CE.
Abraha is said to have commanded the expedition against Mecca. However,
it is considered by most that it is highly unlikely that the Ethiopian
State in Yemen would be strong enough to mount a northwards expedition.
Abraha may well have died around that time, and Islamic tradition
usually places Abraha's death shortly after the alledged expedition.

In what is now Saudi Arabia, near the well of al-Murayghan, an
inscription has been found in Sabaic describing an expedition of Abraha
well NE of Mecca at Huluban and a secondary expedition of one of
Abraha's general towards the direction of Mecca and with tribes allied
with Mecca. The inscription is dated 662 of the Sabaean Era, which
corresponds to either 552 CE (prefered) or 547 CE depending on
synchronization of the two calenders which is under debate. 552 CE is
consistent with "The Year of the Elephant" as given by al-Zuhri, an
early historian whose work is known through quotes in later works.
al-Zuhri's chronology does not involve the date of birth of the
Prophet, or for that any activity by Muhammad except the year of the
Hijra and the rest of the milestones in that chronological passage
involve minor people, making the passage not likely to be colored by
piety. The date of the Hijra, or rather the beginning of the Islamic
era (the earliest manuscripts and inscriptions do not mention the Hijra
in the date, although all traditions are unanimous on this matter. An
early Christian source describes the era as "the year of the rule of
the Arabs" - consistent with laying the groundwork for the first
Islamic polity by Muhammad) is accurate and historical since a
bilingual Arabic - Greek papyrus from Egypt (involving the mundane
matter of a requisition of some sheep by the Arab army) establishes the
synchronicity of the Islamic calendar at the year 22 with the Byzantine
cycles of indiction. OTOH 547 CE gives the year of the birth of
Muhamamd as 570 if one adopts the statement by al-Kalbi that Muhammad
was born 23 years after the Year of the Elephant. The events described
in the inscription cannot be later than 554 CE since the Lakhmid king
Mundhir III is mentioned with whom a treaty is concluded and Mundhir
III died in 554 CE (the Lakhmids were sattelites of the Sasanids of
Iran - Eranshahr at the time). The inscription does not mention Mecca
by name nor any elephant, nor for that matter any information about the
military equipment involved. The expedition is claimed as a success by
the Yemeni Ethiopians but IMHO the Meccans may have claimed success if
the expedition did not reach their city or failed to do so. Mecca may
have been a target of Abraha for its importance in trade.

Muhammad is accepted by Muslims as having been born in 570 CE because
he is said to have been "forty" when he "received his revelation" i.e.
started his religious mission in 610 CE. But "forty" is a motif in the
Near East. "Forty" this, "forty" that is a figure of speech, still, for
"many". Also being aged forty is considered the ideal age for both
wisdom and vigor. The Qur'an only tells us that Muhammad was somewhat
advanced (an "`umr" had passed - `umr in relatively modern Arabic
denotes "a lifetime", but was more specific in older Arabic) when he
beagn his mission. So the figure "40" should be regarded as only an
approximation, he may have been younger, from the information we have
concerning his vigor during later events. Actually, there are Muslim
traditions that admit that the date of the birth of the Prophet is not
reliably known. There are conservative Muslim scholars that cite this
among their onjections to the Birth of the Prophet (Mawlid)
festivities. It was after all, as Islam admits, a birth from two
ordianry mortal parents belonging to a dissposessed branch of the
Quraysh in Arabia.

Accurate determination of the chronology of events prior to Muhammad's
death from Arab tradition is impossible due to the likely presence of
the practice of having an intercalary month every so often - we don't
know the algorithm. But even such intercalation apparently didn't
prevent the months drifting even during Muhammad's lifetime from their
place in the year as determined from etymological considerations (for
example Ramadan - ramaDa:n comes from ramaD meaning "scorching heat").
Intercalation was prohibited by the Quranic verses al-Tawbah 9:36-37
which are in the chronologically the latest chapter of the Qur'an.

The case for the Murayghan Inscription as representing the Year of the
Elephant is best made by M.J. Kister, The Campaign of Hulubān. A new
light on the expedition of Abraha, Le Muséon 78 (1965), 429–30.

Many modern Muslim authors have tried to deconstruct this thesis.

For the above issues see:

http://ygursey.blogspot.com/

The Arabic word for "elephant" comes from Persian pi:l, not Ethiopic
t.oli

The Persians conquered Yemen after Abraha and the brief reign of his
sons. They also had a presence along the Persian Gulf coast and their
Arab Lakhmid clients had some nominal dominion over the tribes of the
Arabian Peninsula. But we have no information, even if just in
tradition, or even any hint of any sort, as to what species Abraha's
elephant belonged to.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <5cf68ea7-4cef-4d61...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

The Black Tatars, Kara Tatar, were the branch found in Anatolia, or the
tribe in which the Mongols and Eastern Turks belonged to. Also called
Tatar Türkmen. Türkmen was a legal category in the Ottoman Empire based
on the nomadic lifestyle regardless of ethnicity. There were also
Türkmen-i Ekrad or "Kurdish Türkmen" - taken up by modern day
chauvinists to try to prove that Kurds are "Mountain Turks".
Fortunately, this has become passé.

Calling Anatolian Turks of any sort "Tatars" is clearly wrong. The two
cavalry formations you refer to are the Right and Left Akıncı
("raider") troops, evidently in this case divided up according to
ethnicity. They consisted of nomads and soldiers of fortune. The feudal
cavalry were known as Sipahi.

A third type of cavalry were the mounted bondsmen soldiers known as
Kapıkulı Süvarileri (the misnomer is Kapıkulı Sipahileri) litt.
Servants of the Porte (Kapıkulı) Cavalrymen. A sort of mounted
Jannisary.


In Eastern Anatolia the Mongols had formed direct government and for
some time later this remained an independent state, the Eretne (usually
spelled Eretna) State, named after their Uighur ruler. The Kara Tatar
belonged to this remnants of this state.

>
>>
>>> changed sides and attacked it at the rear and the same happened to the
>>> Ottomans right flank where the soldiers refused to fight against their
>>> former lords. I did not find any mention of the Ottoman center (the
>>> Serbs, some cavalry and Kapikulu infantry) being crushed by the elephants
>>> and at least
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no mention of "crushing" by elephants in the narrative.
>
> No mentioning of them doing anything in any description that I saw.
>
>> The
>>
>> horses, and perhaps to some extent their human riders, panicked at
>>
>> their sight, as they had not seen the animals before and went into
>>
>> dissarray.
>
> Does not work: presumably, the elephants were in Timur's center and Bayazid's
> center fought stubbornly.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> the Serbs managed to break through (meaning that they did not suffer
>>> noticeably from the elephants). No mentioning of the elephants crushing
>>> Bayazid's infantry either.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Turkish orthography is Bayezid. /a/ is a front vowel (and in this case
>>
>
> Thank but I'm using the 'Western' spelling.

Increasingly they use Turkish orthography for Ottoman names.

Similar ad-hoc romanizations were present in Western sources in Ottoman
times. Or perhaps one more irregular Turkish rendition of this
particluar name. Perhaps from Russian? In Azeri Cyrillic and Roman
orthography Turkic /e/ appears as a schwa <ə>, pronounced [ä] unrounded
low (open) front, the original Turkic pronounciation. This is rendered
in Russian Cyrillic as <a>, not distinguished from Azeri /a/ a back
vowel. Cyrillic <e> is used for Turkic /é/ unrounded mid front. Turkic
/é/ is rendered in Ottoman orthography (it survives in some dialecs of
Turkish) and Chaghatay (Arabic script Eastern Turkic) orthography with
Arabic ya:' <y>, in unvowelled Arabic script representing both /y/ and
/i:/. In Classical Persian and Afghanistan Persian (called Dari by the
government) this represents the long version /é:/. Thus, Timur
(ti:mu:r) really represents Témür. In Turkic words /é/ is found only in
the first syllable. But in Azeri it occurs in Russian loawords in all
positions, including the surname suffix -ev.

>
>>
>>
>>> So, what exactly these elephants had been doing (if anything at all) is
>>> anybody's guess. Obviously, being in the center, they had nothing to do
>>> with the Ottoman flanks and the betrayal/flight happening there (the
>>> reasons had been clearly political).
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At this particular battle, the elephants caused the horses facing them
>>
>> to panick, so the narrative states.
>
> Don't know which narrative you are referencing to but the story seems to
> be unpopular. Did not see anything of the kind in the serious military
> histories either.

The one in the website.

[AlexMilman]

I did not call them this way, not because of the underlying ethnic considerations but because this way one can not avoid a confusion with
the "Quipchak" Tatars (modern Tatars).
Tracing the roots back to pre-Genghis times is pretty much a pointless
occupation (unless one is a professional historian and being paid for
this): the name had been applied in various contexts to the various
groups of tribes and in its broader meaning included both Mongolian and
Turic people of the Eastern steppes. Genghis exterminated a lot of the
'real Tatars' (as a quite definite tribe) but these people had little
to do with the post-Genghis modern Tatars who are predominantly Quipchak
(Turik) with a minor addition of the Mongolian blood: number of the
Mongols in the Horde founded by Batu was minuscule.

> The two
>
> cavalry formations you refer to are the Right and Left Akıncı
>
> ("raider") troops, evidently in this case divided up according to
>
> ethnicity. They consisted of nomads and soldiers of fortune. The feudal
>
> cavalry were known as Sipahi.

Indeed. At least one of the sources I read explicitly mentions the Tatars
of Crimea. In general, the Crimean troops (in the later times) had been
separate from the rest of the Ottoman Army.

>

>
>
>
>
> In Eastern Anatolia the Mongols had formed direct government and for
>
> some time later this remained an independent state, the Eretne (usually
>
> spelled Eretna) State, named after their Uighur ruler. The Kara Tatar
>
> belonged to this remnants of this state.

Yes.

I was talking about something a little bit more 'serious': the websites are useful (and I'm using them a lot) but the material is often
questionable.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <4c22d3b9-538d-4887...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

Qypchaq. Scholarly transcriptions don't feel obligated to put <u> after
<q>. <q> represents Arabic script qaf and <q> was chosen since Latin
<q> and Greek koppa come from the same Phoenician letter, qoph as
Arabic qaf. <y> represents the Turkic unrounded high back vowel, in
Turkish orthography the undotted <ı>, which Russian <ы> approximates,
and hence the use of <y> from Romanized Slavic tradition.

> times is pretty much a pointless occupation (unless one is a professional
> historian and being paid for this): the name had been applied in various

I am not, but I can! The Tatars first appear in the Turkic Runic
inscriptions as first as 30 Tatar and later as 9 Tatar as subjects of
the Türk Empire. In the 11th cent. Turkic - Arabic encyclopedic
dictionary of Mahmud al-Kashgari the Tatars are counted Mongolian
tribes like the Qay as those people that speak Turkic but have a
different language of their own. All this is consistent with the likely
etymology of the name as Turkic tat meaning "foreign subject people"
and an archaic Turkic collective suffix -ar . NB the plural suffux of
mainstream Turkic -lar and the collective -iz < *-iŕ (becoming -ir in
Bulghar Turkic and Mongolian). Examples of -iz as a collective are
Qyrqyz (Later becoming Qyrghyz, i.e Kirghiz, Kyrgyz etc.) from Qyrq
"40" + -yz (another example of numbers in ethnic names in Turco-Mongol
tradition is Naiman, "8" in Mongolian. "Tat" has been used as ethnonym
(exonym) for several people but Turkic people. "Tat" as "Tajik" by
Mahmud al-Kashgari in the 11th cent., "Tat" as one of the subjects of
the Crimean Tatars (some say remnants of the Goths), "Tat" as the West
Iranian (similar to Persian) speaking population of Azerbaijan,
especially those that are Jewish.

Later "Tatar" became the appallation to the Qypchaq speaking (with
admixture of Literary Chaghatay Turkic - i.e. the then standard
literary Turkic language of Central Asia, having Uzbek and New Uighur
as the principle modern descendants) Turkic popualtion of the Russian
(then known as the Qypchaq)Steppe in the domains of Jochid Khans.

> contexts to the various groups of tribes and in its broader meaning included
> both Mongolian and Turic people of the Eastern steppes. Genghis exterminated
> a lot of the 'real Tatars' (as a quite definite tribe) but these people had
> little to do with the post-Genghis modern Tatars who are predominantly
> Quipchak (Turik) with a minor addition of the Mongolian blood: number of the
> Mongols in the Horde founded by Batu was minuscule.

Their Khans were of Chinggisid descent.

[AlexMilman]

You ability to turn any subject into the lecture on the Turkish spelling
keeps amazing me (after all these years). :-)


Do I have to reiterate again the fact that I'm NOT interested in the
linguistics?

The subject was related to the military use of the elephants by the Ottomans
(just to remind you). :-)

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2014 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), AlexMilman
<alexm...@msn.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 2, 2014 7:32:15 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> In <4c22d3b9-538d-4887...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>>

For God's sake snip, if you want anyone to read this ...

>> >> Tatar T�rkmen. T�rkmen was a legal category in the Ottoman Empire based

>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> on the nomadic lifestyle regardless of ethnicity. There were also
>>
>> >>
>>

>> >> T�rkmen-i Ekrad or "Kurdish T�rkmen" - taken up by modern day

>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> chauvinists to try to prove that Kurds are "Mountain Turks".
>>
>> >>
>>

>> >> Fortunately, this has become pass�.

>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Calling Anatolian Turks of any sort "Tatars" is clearly wrong.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I did not call them this way, not because of the underlying ethnic
>>
>> > considerations but because this way one can not avoid a confusion with the
>>
>> > "Quipchak" Tatars (modern Tatars). Tracing the roots back to pre-Genghis
>>
>>
>>
>> Qypchaq. Scholarly transcriptions don't feel obligated to put <u> after
>>
>> <q>. <q> represents Arabic script qaf and <q> was chosen since Latin
>>
>> <q> and Greek koppa come from the same Phoenician letter, qoph as
>>
>> Arabic qaf. <y> represents the Turkic unrounded high back vowel, in
>>

>> Turkish orthography the undotted <?>, which Russian <?> approximates,

>>
>> and hence the use of <y> from Romanized Slavic tradition.
>
>
>You ability to turn any subject into the lecture on the Turkish spelling
>keeps amazing me (after all these years). :-)
>
>
>Do I have to reiterate again the fact that I'm NOT interested in the
>linguistics?
>
>The subject was related to the military use of the elephants by the Ottomans
>(just to remind you). :-)
>

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <405efe01-f5d8-4200...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

What I wrote about was not about standard Turkish orthogrpahy but a
common transcription used in scholarly literature.

>
>
> Do I have to reiterate again the fact that I'm NOT interested in the
> linguistics?
>

Then ignore the post or that section. It was not a private email to you
but a post to the group. I happen to be interested in linguistics. I
find the languages of the era being discussed within the purvue of this
group. So is a common scholarly transcription of a name. Those
interested in research in the topic won't find much under "Quipchak"
which is quite ideosynchretic.

I find my occasional excursus into linguistics more relevant and more
interesting than the frequent digressions into modern politics in this
forum. Although I am actually interested in politics, I don't care to
share my views or argue in this forum. I just ignore those posts.

> The subject was related to the military use of the elephants by the Ottomans
> (just to remind you). :-)

I am quite aware, but due to their use by Timur there was a discussion
about the Tatars, and what I posted was relevant to that.

I am not forcing you to read my posts.

[AlexMilman]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:38:33 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In <405efe01-f5d8-4200...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

> > You ability to turn any subject into the lecture on the Turkish spelling
>
> > keeps amazing me (after all these years). :-)
>
>
>
> What I wrote about was not about standard Turkish orthogrpahy but a
>
> common transcription used in scholarly literature.
>

Even more common seems to be "Kipchak" so the 'scholary literature' is neither here nor there.

>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Do I have to reiterate again the fact that I'm NOT interested in the
>
> > linguistics?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Then ignore the post or that section.

Don't you worry, I'm routinely ignoring your linguistic exercises
but unfortunately you totally switched from the original subject
that we had been discussing.

Basically, you made a couple of claims (effectiveness of the elephants
at Ankara and the speed of the Ottoman armies) but when asked for the
details you just changed subject to something totally different.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <2e2257b4-d78c-4119...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

wrote on 8/4/2014:
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:38:33 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> In <405efe01-f5d8-4200...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>
>
>>> You ability to turn any subject into the lecture on the Turkish spelling
>>> keeps amazing me (after all these years). :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> What I wrote about was not about standard Turkish orthogrpahy but a
>>
>> common transcription used in scholarly literature.
>>
>
> Even more common seems to be "Kipchak" so the 'scholary literature' is
> neither here nor there.
>

Yes. Like Romanized Turkish Kıpçak. <q> represents the back allophone
of Turkic /k/, which becomes phonemic when loanwords are included. Much
of our information comes from Arabic script sources which use Qaf, <q>.
Unfortunately, the decision was made in Turkey in 1928 not to make a
distinction between the two sounds in writing, although the original
proposal had <q> for the front allophone and <k> for the back allophone
(as in Albanian), as did the "Unified Turkic Alphabet" adopted in the
Soviet Union around that time (about ten years later, these we replaced
by Cyrillic alphabets, for each language a different one). About a year
ago, the use of <q> in official documents was allowed in Turkey to
accomodate Kurdish names.

>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Do I have to reiterate again the fact that I'm NOT interested in the
>>> linguistics?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Then ignore the post or that section.
>
> Don't you worry, I'm routinely ignoring your linguistic exercises
> but unfortunately you totally switched from the original subject
> that we had been discussing.

Then ignore ignore those posts or that section.

>
> Basically, you made a couple of claims (effectiveness of the elephants
> at Ankara and the speed of the Ottoman armies) but when asked for the
> details you just changed subject to something totally different.

I was translating what I read from a website, they are not my claims.

[AlexMilman]

On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:07:52 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In <2e2257b4-d78c-4119...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>
> wrote on 8/4/2014:
>
> > On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:38:33 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >> In <405efe01-f5d8-4200...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>> You ability to turn any subject into the lecture on the Turkish spelling
>
> >>> keeps amazing me (after all these years). :-)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What I wrote about was not about standard Turkish orthogrpahy but a
>
> >>
>
> >> common transcription used in scholarly literature.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Even more common seems to be "Kipchak" so the 'scholary literature' is
>
> > neither here nor there.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes. Like Romanized Turkish Kıpçak.

Yes, even if the term has little to do with Turkey: the Kipchaks mostly lived outside the Ottoman Empire.

> About a year
>
> ago, the use of <q> in official documents was allowed in Turkey to
>
> accomodate Kurdish names.
>

What a country! Allowing usage of the letter and
even more, recognizing existence of the Kurds! :-)

> > Basically, you made a couple of claims (effectiveness of the elephants
>
> > at Ankara and the speed of the Ottoman armies) but when asked for the
>
> > details you just changed subject to something totally different.
>
>
>
> I was translating what I read from a website, they are not my claims.

I see. So there is nothing about the quality of this website ... Well, what you
translated about the speediness of the Ottoman
armies tells a lot about its quality and
credibility. No offense, as you said you just
made a translation without doing any personal
contribution...

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <edb19e7b-7dfb-43a6...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

wrote on 8/4/2014:
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:07:52 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> In <2e2257b4-d78c-4119...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>>
>> wrote on 8/4/2014:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:38:33 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> In <405efe01-f5d8-4200...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> You ability to turn any subject into the lecture on the Turkish spelling
>>>>> keeps amazing me (after all these years). :-)
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> What I wrote about was not about standard Turkish orthogrpahy but a
>>>>
>>
>>>> common transcription used in scholarly literature.
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Even more common seems to be "Kipchak" so the 'scholary literature' is
>>> neither here nor there.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. Like Romanized Turkish Kıpçak.
>
> Yes, even if the term has little to do with Turkey: the Kipchaks mostly lived
> outside the Ottoman Empire.

Related languages with the same phonological issues I talked about.

>
>> About a year
>>
>> ago, the use of <q> in official documents was allowed in Turkey to
>>
>> accomodate Kurdish names.
>>
>
> What a country! Allowing usage of the letter and
> even more, recognizing existence of the Kurds! :-)
>

Well, I avoid discussing politics here but I happen to agree with the
gist of the sentiment.

>
>>> Basically, you made a couple of claims (effectiveness of the elephants
>>> at Ankara and the speed of the Ottoman armies) but when asked for the
>>> details you just changed subject to something totally different.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was translating what I read from a website, they are not my claims.
>
> I see. So there is nothing about the quality of this website ... Well, what
> you translated about the speediness of the Ottoman
> armies tells a lot about its quality and

Those were not the main issues of what was posted at the website. The
main issues were the procurment of elephants as gifts from Asian
ambassadors and how they were brought and displayed in Istanbul and
current urban landmarks related to this event.

That the elephants in Timur's army spooked the Ottoman horses seems
something that is repeated elsewhere, though this may not have been of
any actual military significance.

[AlexMilman]

Yes, this seems to be the case because the Ottoman center held.

The most interesting (IMO) thing about this battle (besides a quite obvious
conclusion that if the troops on both of your flanks betrayed you, you are
in a serious trouble :-)) is that it demonstrated an advantage of a heavy
cavalry (the Serbs) in the hand-to-hand fighting against more numerous light
cavalry (Timur's troops).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <38eab454-70d8-4a59...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

wrote on 8/5/2014:
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 5:18:37 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> In <edb19e7b-7dfb-43a6...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>>
>> wrote on 8/4/2014:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:07:52 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> In <2e2257b4-d78c-4119...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>>>>
>>
>>>> wrote on 8/4/2014:
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>> On Monday, August 4, 2014 10:38:33 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrot a

>> That the elephants in Timur's army spooked the Ottoman horses seems
>>
>> something that is repeated elsewhere, though this may not have been of
>>
>> any actual military significance.
>
> Yes, this seems to be the case because the Ottoman center held.
>
> The most interesting (IMO) thing about this battle (besides a quite obvious
> conclusion that if the troops on both of your flanks betrayed you, you are
> in a serious trouble :-)) is that it demonstrated an advantage of a heavy
> cavalry (the Serbs) in the hand-to-hand fighting against more numerous light
> cavalry (Timur's troops).

Turkish Wikipedia gives more detail on the elephants in the Battle of
Ankara:


In response to an Ottoman offensive, Timur unleashed 32 armored war
elephants that were chained together and under the command of İsen Buga
(Ésen Buga) that had been hidden between the pine tres. ... They
appeared in the front of Timur's center that was divided in two. The
elephants caused the Janissaries and the feudal cavalry (Sipahis) to be
surprised as they had never encountered elephants in battle before. The
janissaries continued fighting but made a pre-planned false retreat
early and caused the Sipahis face to face with the elephants. This was
the bloodiest encounter of the battle. The elaphants were neutralized
by the arrows of the Janissaries and the attacks of the Sipahis.

The article goes on to say that the Kara Tatars were sent to help the
Janissaries but switched sides as part of a prior secret deal with
Timur. The Anatolian cavalry withced sides when they saw that the
Anatolians on the side of Timur had unfurled their own banners,
belonging to the Anatolain Begs.

[David Amicus]

Thanks all! I appreciate all the replies. I find the use of elephants fascinating. I've wondered why Sub-Saharan Africans did not domesticate and use elephants like the Indians did?

[AlexMilman]

Thanks. Very interesting but raises the obvious questions:

(a) If the elephants had been chained together, how could they be hiding between the trees? You need a lot of trees to hide 32 elephants and if they are all "chained together", they'd have a problem with getting out of the trees (BTW, not that the maps of the battle are
perfect but I did not see a forest in Timur's center on any of them).
Then, the whole idea of them being chained together is somewhat
strange: death of a single elephant would stop all of them and the
same goes for a single elephant panicking and trying to run away.

(b) "The Janissary continued fighting but made a pre-planned false retreat early and caused the Sipahis face to face with the elephants"
OK, if this retreat was pre-planned, it either had nothing to do with
the elephants or appearance of the elephants was not a surprise. Not
that it makes things even a little bit clear: what is the reason for
infantry's retreat if it leaves you cavalry alone on the battlefield?
Just to make your defeat easier? Not sure how this would end as a
bloodiest part of the battle if the elephants had been "neutralized"
by the archers (aka, from the distance) and probably the same was
going for Sipahi's attacks: unless they had been watching "LOTR" too
much, they'd be using their bows rather than charge the elephants
sword in hand. The bloodies encounter was probably a final stage of
the battle when the Ottoman center had been surrounded and most of the
Janissary killed.


To make a long story short, the narrative looks, shall we say, rather
fishy. The same goes for most of the "contemporary accounts" of the
medieval battles: they tend to be full of the fancy details invented
by the contemporary writers and/or eyewitnesses (principle "lies as
an eyewitness" is an old one).

(c) As far as the Tatars are involved, there seems to be a discrepancy
between various sources. Some are explicitly talking about the Crimean
Tatars and some (like yours) about the Kara Tatars. While I don't have
a fixed opinion on the subject, I suspect that the Kara Tatars are more
probable because the Crimean became Turkish vassals only in the late XV
century and the Khanate itself became independent only in 1441, 40 years after the battle at Ankara, and by 1402 Timur already dealt with Tokhtamysh and the Golden Horde was under control of Edigu (who also defeated Tokhtamysh and his allies in 1397) who was not Timur's enemy
(anyway, his troops would not be called "Crimean").

[Robert Mulain]

On Friday, 8 August 2014 03:14:45 UTC+1, David Amicus wrote:
> Thanks all! I appreciate all the replies. I find the use of elephants fascinating. I've wondered why Sub-Saharan Africans did not domesticate and use elephants like the Indians did?

I agree David. I have no knowledge of the Turkish language, and know little about their history, but like almost everything I am unfamiliar with, I find it interesting. Same goes for elephants...

BTW, in answer to the question about how 32 elephants were hidden in trees when chained to gether, I assume they were arranged in column and did a series/paralell manouver afted emerging, arranging themselves in line...? Just a guess, I admit that the management of armoured elephants in battle is not a thing I am familiar with, it just seems like common sense?

As for the use of African elephants as war machines, that I do know is an almost impossible task. African eles are bigger, have even bigger ears, but are far more aggressive, independent and as far as I know, impossible to 'tame'. They are too clever if you ask me, and refuse to be used as free labour or mercenaries for the piffling little bipeds who seek to enslave and abuse them. Asian elephants are possible to dominate, which has led so many of the poor beasts to a life of tedious misery and death at the hands of man.

It seems to be an African thing, look at the Zebra. DEspite looking like stripey horses, they are also impossible to break and 'tame' - wre it possible, they would no doubt have been enslaved, abused and killed by man for thousands of years... good for them I say! Same goes for giraffes, rhinos and hippos - can you imagine the wonder and longing of a medieval knight at the thought of riding a rhino into battle! I'm sure it was tried... many times.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Mulain
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

--- snip ---

>It seems to be an African thing, look at the Zebra. DEspite looking like stripey horses, they are also impossible to break and 'tame' - wre it possible, they would no doubt have been enslaved, abused and killed by man for thousands of years... good for them I say! Same goes for giraffes, rhinos and hippos - can you imagine the wonder and longing of a medieval knight at the thought of riding a rhino into battle! I'm sure it was tried... many times.

I would think it was one of those things that was tried only once.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <352a1347-1e44-4098...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

Yes, I understand your suspicion. unfortunately no sources were cited.

>
> (b) "The Janissary continued fighting but made a pre-planned false retreat
> early and caused the Sipahis face to face with the elephants" OK, if this
> retreat was pre-planned, it either had nothing to do with the elephants or

My impression from the narrative is that a false retreat was planned
(perhaps to draw in enemy troops) but it occured early, out of panic by
the Janissaries.

> appearance of the elephants was not a surprise. Not that it makes things
> even a little bit clear: what is the reason for infantry's retreat if it
> leaves you cavalry alone on the battlefield? Just to make your defeat
> easier? Not sure how this would end as a bloodiest part of the battle if
> the elephants had been "neutralized" by the archers (aka, from the distance)
> and probably the same was going for Sipahi's attacks: unless they had been
> watching "LOTR" too much, they'd be using their bows rather than charge the
> elephants sword in hand. The bloodies encounter was probably a final stage
> of the battle when the Ottoman center had been surrounded and most of the
> Janissary killed.
>
>
> To make a long story short, the narrative looks, shall we say, rather
> fishy. The same goes for most of the "contemporary accounts" of the
> medieval battles: they tend to be full of the fancy details invented
> by the contemporary writers and/or eyewitnesses (principle "lies as
> an eyewitness" is an old one).
>
> (c) As far as the Tatars are involved, there seems to be a discrepancy
> between various sources. Some are explicitly talking about the Crimean
> Tatars and some (like yours) about the Kara Tatars. While I don't have
> a fixed opinion on the subject, I suspect that the Kara Tatars are more

I agree that Crimean Tatars would be strange, and there were Kara
Tatars

BTW there was, and still is, a Tatar colony in the Dobrudja region
(Romania - Bulgaria). After the Ottomans lost Crimea, a member of the
Khan's family was granted the title Khan of the Dobrudja Tatars, with
the same succession rights given to Khan of Crimea. His name came up in
the attempted coup against the reformist Mahmud II (early 19th cent.),
at which point the Ottoman dynasty had no heir to succeed him. However
the rebels hesitated at the radical step of replacing the dynasty, and
Mahmud II prevailed.

> probable because the Crimean became Turkish vassals only in the late XV
> century and the Khanate itself became independent only in 1441, 40 years
> after the battle at Ankara, and by 1402 Timur already dealt with Tokhtamysh

I prefer, Toqtamysh, as Tokhtamysh is a dialect pronounciation (Uighur
script is ambiguous on this point. Kazan Tatar has Tuqtamysh with the
local o > u change). Similarly Kazakhstan is known as Qazaqstan (in
modified Cyrillic with hooked К - Қазақстан). Russians chose the
variant Kazakh just to distinguish them from the Cossacks. In reality,
Russian Kazak and Ukranian Kozak represent the same Turkic word (Turkic
/a/ frequently appears as /o/ in Slavic, especially in older loans),
denoting a freely roaming nomad exempt from taxes (qaza= "to roam
freely"). There is also a group of Azeri Qazaqs, which would be in the
local vernacular [Gazakh]).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <3c13bdd6-ec62-4cbb...@googlegroups.com>, Robert

Mulain wrote on 8/9/2014:
> On Friday, 8 August 2014 03:14:45 UTC+1, David Amicus wrote:
>> Thanks all! I appreciate all the replies. I find the use of elephants
>> fascinating. I've wondered why Sub-Saharan Africans did not domesticate and
>> use elephants like the Indians did?
>
> I agree David. I have no knowledge of the Turkish language, and know little
> about their history, but like almost everything I am unfamiliar with, I find
> it interesting. Same goes for elephants...
>
> BTW, in answer to the question about how 32 elephants were hidden in trees
> when chained to gether, I assume they were arranged in column and did a
> series/paralell manouver afted emerging, arranging themselves in line...?
> Just a guess, I admit that the management of armoured elephants in battle is
> not a thing I am familiar with, it just seems like common sense?
>
> As for the use of African elephants as war machines, that I do know is an
> almost impossible task. African eles are bigger, have even bigger ears, but
> are far more aggressive, independent and as far as I know, impossible to
> 'tame'. They are too clever if you ask me, and refuse to be used as free
> labour or mercenaries for the piffling little bipeds who seek to enslave and
> abuse them. Asian elephants are possible to dominate, which has led so many
> of the poor beasts to a life of tedious misery and death at the hands of man.
>
> It seems to be an African thing, look at the Zebra. DEspite looking like

Probably there is less motivation to domesticate animals in the economy
and lifestyle of pre-modern Sub-Saharan Africa. I found out that
African Elephants have been doemsticsted for logging in a region of
South Africa since the late 19th cent.

> stripey horses, they are also impossible to break and 'tame' - wre it

More like stripey donkeys, except for their size. "striped donkey" is a
frequent expression in Turkish for "zebra".

> possible, they would no doubt have been enslaved, abused and killed by man
> for thousands of years... good for them I say! Same goes for giraffes, rhinos

They are hunted nevertheless.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <352a1347-1e44-4098...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
wrote on 8/8/2014:

I went to school in Ankara (but looked forward to any vacation to go
back to Istanbul - where I was born and where my heart is) and worked
in Ankara. Ever since I ahve heard repeated over and over how Ankara
was forested in Timur's time and now is a steppe. There has been
intensive tree planting, especially in the campus of my and my father's
university in the outskirts and in an area set aside by Ataturk. But
many of those trees have been uprooted in the past couple of years by
the Erdogan government's "development" projects.

I found out Timur's elephants figure in a Nasredddin Hoca (Khodja)
anectode. The historical person of that name lived a century prior to
Timur. Nasreddin Hoca (formally Khwa:dja Nasreddin / Nasruddin) may
have had dealings with the Ilkhanid general Geikhatu who oversaw
Anatolia, thus in later popular imagination conflated with Timur.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <81707f78-beb3-46d9...@googlegroups.com>, David
Amicus wrote on 7/25/2014:
> Does anyone have info on the Ottoman use of war elephants?
>
> I'm reading "The Siege of Sziget" and in 2:42 it says Suleiman brought six
> elephants. But apart from the mention in the poem I've found nothing about
> it.
>
>
> Also I read that when the Ottomans fled Vienna at the siege of 1683 the
> defenders found that they had left elephants behind. But no details.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Siege_of_Sziget

Apparently the Muslim rulers who made first and most use of war
elephants were the Ghaznavids, founded by Mahmud of Ghazna (now in
Afghanistan), an Oghuz (like Turkmens, Azeris and Anatolian Turks) Turk
who ruled over Persian speaking realms and North India. Here is what
the scholarly publication Enc. of Islam II has to say:

It was the Ghaznavids, the first Islamic dynasty whose empire spanned
both the Persian and northern Indian worlds, who first used elephants
in large numbers for military purposes and who first assigned them a
definite place in their tactical theory. The next two centuries, the
5th/11th and the 6th/12th, were the heyday of the elephant as a
military weapon in the Islamic world. Sebüktigīn and Maḥmūd of Ghazna
captured elephants in hundreds from the Indian princes. These beasts
fell within the Sultan's fifth of plunder. Their use was jealously
guarded by the Sultans and by their successors in northern India, the
Ghūrids and the Slave Kings of Delhi, and only as an exceptional mark
of favour were they bestowed on great men of state. Armour plating was
often placed over their heads and faces. In battle, they were usually
placed in the front line; their metal accoutrements and ornaments were
jangled to make a terrifying din, and they were then stampeded towards
the enemy. This tactic was used with demoralizing effect on the
Ḳarakhānids in 398/1008 and 416/1025 (cf. C. E. Bosworth, Ghaznevid
military organisation, in Der Islam , xxxvi (1960), 61-4, and M. Nāẓim,
The life and times of Sulṭān Maḥmūd of Ghazna, Cambridge 1931, 139).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Another website says that the elephants emerged from the mists and the
area around Esen Boga's HQ, where present Esenboga village is located,
is indeed known for its frequent fogs. The author also adds: Why build
an airport in a foggy area? (Ankara's Esenboga International Airport is
located in the area).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Doing some research on this subject, The America's and Africa are
mostly on a North - South axis, while Asia - Europe is mostly on an
East - West axis. Keeping on the same latitude means similar climate
and trade, particularly in domestic animals and plants, is much easier
and more frequent. North Africa is on an East - West axis and new
domestic animals have been introduced there, as in the example of the
camel introduced during the Ptolemaic era into Egypt. Cats seemm to
have been first domesticated in the Levant in the feral state, hanging
around agricultural settlements, but became pets in Egypt and spread to
the rest of the world from there.

So a culture domesticating a certain animal in Sub-Saharan Africa is
more likely to remain localized.

[David Amicus]

Maybe Raphia is the only battle where African elephants were used?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raphia

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <ad308e6a-3410-4d1e...@googlegroups.com>, David

Amicus wrote on 8/9/2014:
> Maybe Raphia is the only battle where African elephants were used?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raphia

Raphia is modern Rafah in the Gaza strip, straddling the Egyptian
border.

It seems to be the only battle when the two species were pitted against
each other. Hannibal seems to have had mostly African elephants but at
least Indian elephant from Syria, an area where they were not yet
extinct at the time.

We don't know about Abraha's elephant(s) or for that matter any
historical account of it other than Arab tradition explaining a chapter
of the Qur'an (which, typical of the Qur'an, does not give any names or
dates, but mentions a battle - against the Quraysh from the context -
by "The Companions of the Elephant") both embellished with fantastic
allusions. The cause of the war is also not believable as given by
Muslim accounts: that an Arab insulted Abraha by defecating or
urinating in the Grand Church at Sanaa or that Abraha wanted to
establish the church as the main center of pilgrimage over the Ka`bah.
However, Mecca would be a legitimate target from the point of view of
Abraha because of its being a center of trade.

There is also this mention by Beeston, an expert on Pre-Islamic Arabia,
in Enc. Of Islam II: (Again, fil is the Arabic word for elephant, from
Persian).

<<

A striking proposal advanced by C. Conti Rossini ( JA , xi sér., xviii,
30-2) deserves a passing mention, although it has not been endorsed by
general approval. This is that the story as we know it is a
contamination of two records of South Arabian attacks on Mecca: that by
Abraha, and a much earlier one led by the Aksumite king Afilas, whom
numismatic evidence assigns to around 300 A.D. It was at or shortly
after this time that the kingdom of Aksūm did in fact exercise a
short-lived hegemony over South Arabia, and a military enterprise
further north is not impossible. Conti Rossini appeals to this event in
order to suggest that a conflated story of this nature was the one
known to the Prophet's contemporaries, and that fīl in this context is
a later corruption of the name Afilas.

>>

BTW the Indian elephants seem to have been better trained and won out
in the confrontation at least.

(AFAIK African vary in size according to subspecies, the large ones are
larger than Indian elephats, the smaller ones are smaller than Indian
elephants).

Here are some quotations from the website:

According to Polybius, the African elephants could not bear the smell,
sound and view of their Indian counterparts as well as their greater
size and strength and would easily give way and rout.

In the beginning of the battle, the elephant contingents on the wings
of both armies moved to charge. Most African elephants, the species
used by Ptolemy, retreated in panic before the impact and ran through
the lines of friendly infantry arrayed behind them, causing disorder in
their ranks. At the same time, Antiochus had led his cavalry to the
right, rode past the left wing of the Ptolemaic elephants charging the
enemy horse. At the same time, the right wing of Ptolemy was retreating
and wheeling to protect itself from the panicked elephants. Ptolemy
rode to the center encouraging his phalanx to attack, Polybius tells us
"with alacrity and spirit", while on the Ptolemaic far right, Ptolemy's
cavalry was routing their opponents.

[David Amicus]

Hannibal's elephant seems to have been an Indian one.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surus

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <b2dbdbd3-3af6-43b5...@googlegroups.com>, David

Amicus wrote on 8/9/2014:
> Hannibal's elephant seems to have been an Indian one.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surus

There were originally 36 other elephants in the army. As an African
elephant was depicted in the coin struck during his time, and given his
base in Africa, it's not unreasonable to suppose that African elephants
were included in the expedition.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <352a1347-1e44-4098...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
wrote on 8/8/2014:

The following article "The Ankara Field Battle" 28 July 1402

"meydan" is Arabic mayda:n ; an open field field or a large public
square of a city, which Ukrainian has evidently borrowed, I assume from
Crimean Tatar.

{The battle was on a Friday. Muslim sources fortunately usually give
the day of the week along with the lunar date, which is otherwise hard
to synchronize as it may be based on observation. Otherwise a common
algorithm is relied on by historians}

You can see a historical map of the region involved in the background
of the pdf image.

Timur's men were 160000, Timur's victory proclamation puts the Ottoman
army at 70000, another source puts it at 900000. There were 20000
Serbian troops under the command of the Serbian king Stefan Lazarević
who was also Bayezid's father-in-law through his wife Despina, so this
should account for the discrepancy.

Despina was the subject was of underground propaganda against Bayezid
amongst the Turks, many of whom felt undue influence of the Christian
woman.

After the defeat by Timur, there is an ideological Turkification of the
Ottoman court. Firmans in Greek and Serbian gradually come to an end,
Eastern Turkic and Uighur script are taught at court for a few
generations following, Ottoman chroniclers stress the legitimacy of the
Ottoman dynasty through Central Asian lore, that they belong to the
Kayı tribe of Turkmens or Oghuz Turks, listed as the principle tribe by
the historian and sychophant of the Muslim Ilkhans Rashiduddin Tabib
(the Apothecary) and that their ancestor was the legendary Oghuz Khan
was some kind of monotheistic Muslim hero or prophet stressing the
oneness of Tengri (this last part was revived by the leader of
Turkmenistan Niyazov, later Türkmenbashy i.e. "Chief of the Turkmens").
Marriages to Christian royals stopped, and later to the daughters of
Anatolian Begs as well, for fear they will acquire power through that.
Mehmed the Conqueror required all the women of the Harem to become
Muslim, which eventually all consisted of concubines.


As for elephants in the Ottoman army in later times, scholarly articles
confirm that the main source was through diplomatic gifts of the Shahs
of Iran.

I have not found any mention of Crimean Tatars in Bayezid's army in any
Turkish article. They all identify the Tatars as Kara Tatars in
Anatolia.

http://www.altarmodeling.com/pdf/ankara_meydan_muharebesi.pdf

Timur had 32 war elephants. The vulnerable parts of the elephants were
covered with armor.It is said they carried towers and elaborate
harnesses and arrows and fire were hurled from them. How fire was
hurled from the elephants is not clear. Some sources speak of fire
cannons, some sources speak of explosive grenades. The goal was to
crush the Ottoman infantrymen and frighten the horses of the cavalrymen
by fire by these elephants carrying archers and fire cannons. The
Ottoman horses which had never encountered elephants before got
extremely frightened. Timur was a commander who gave importance to
elephants in his army. In spite of all the difficulties of using
elephants in a battlefield, he had brought them all the way to
Anatolia. According to the Spanish ambassador {Ruy Gonzales De Clavijo,
who traveled from Cadiz to Samarkand} who visited Timur and his country
in the year 1403 that an elephant [as regarded by the Timurids] was
regarded as worth a thousand infantrymen because once and elephant
attacks it will crush anything on its way and move forward, when
wounded it will do battle madly. The tusks of the elephants were cut
and in their place were put sword like weapons and when the elephants
attacked with these they caused mayhem all round. In additions the
elephants could fight for three days without being fed.

OTOH the author adds in the footnote the following:

Actually when looks at complete military history one sees that the use
of elephants in battle is considerably limited. Fundamentally it is
difficult to use the elephant in war. In addition to the great
dififulties of care, feeding and breeding, an animal that has a docile
nature like the elephant could easily panic from the chaos, noise,
smell and movements of the battlefield and could escape and could
escape and crush everything on its path, men, posts, HQ, including
those including those of its own army. The same thing holds true when
it is wounded, such an elephant who would seek to escape the field
through the shortest possible route could crush its own army and open
the way to the enemy. Because of these reasons, since Antiquity the use
of elephants in war has been considerably limited.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <ls6d0u$v2f$1...@dont-email.me>, Yusuf B Gursey wrote on 8/9/2014:
> In <352a1347-1e44-4098...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman wrote
> on 8/8/2014:
>
>
> The following article "The Ankara Field Battle" 28 July 1402
>
> "meydan" is Arabic mayda:n ; an open field field or a large public square of
> a city, which Ukrainian has evidently borrowed, I assume from Crimean Tatar.
>
> {The battle was on a Friday. Muslim sources fortunately usually give the day
> of the week along with the lunar date, which is otherwise hard to synchronize
> as it may be based on observation. Otherwise a common algorithm is relied on
> by historians}
>
> You can see a historical map of the region involved in the background of the
> pdf image.
>
> Timur's men were 160000, Timur's victory proclamation puts the Ottoman army
> at 70000, another source puts it at 900000. There were 20000 Serbian troops
> under the command of the Serbian king Stefan Lazarević who was also Bayezid's
> father-in-law through his wife Despina, so this should account for the
> discrepancy.
>
> Despina was the subject was of underground propaganda against Bayezid amongst
> the Turks, many of whom felt undue influence of the Christian woman.

I had read such a tract reprinted in the original Ottoman script.

>
> After the defeat by Timur, there is an ideological Turkification of the
> Ottoman court. Firmans in Greek and Serbian gradually come to an end, Eastern
> Turkic and Uighur script are taught at court for a few generations following,
> Ottoman chroniclers stress the legitimacy of the Ottoman dynasty through
> Central Asian lore, that they belong to the Kayı tribe of Turkmens or Oghuz
> Turks, listed as the principle tribe by the historian and sychophant of the
> Muslim Ilkhans Rashiduddin Tabib (the Apothecary) and that their ancestor was
> the legendary Oghuz Khan was some kind of monotheistic Muslim hero or prophet
> stressing the oneness of Tengri (this last part was revived by the leader of
> Turkmenistan Niyazov, later Türkmenbashy i.e. "Chief of the Turkmens").
> Marriages to Christian royals stopped, and later to the daughters of
> Anatolian Begs as well, for fear they will acquire power through that. Mehmed
> the Conqueror required all the women of the Harem to become Muslim, which
> eventually all consisted of concubines.
>
>
> As for elephants in the Ottoman army in later times, scholarly articles
> confirm that the main source was through diplomatic gifts of the Shahs of
> Iran.
>
> I have not found any mention of Crimean Tatars in Bayezid's army in any
> Turkish article. They all identify the Tatars as Kara Tatars in Anatolia.
>
> http://www.altarmodeling.com/pdf/ankara_meydan_muharebesi.pdf
>
>

This article is more reliable than the others as it names respectable
secondary sources in its footnotes.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <3c13bdd6-ec62-4cbb...@googlegroups.com>, Robert
Mulain wrote on 8/9/2014:

> On Friday, 8 August 2014 03:14:45 UTC+1, David Amicus wrote:
>> Thanks all! I appreciate all the replies. I find the use of elephants
>> fascinating. I've wondered why Sub-Saharan Africans did not domesticate and
>> use elephants like the Indians did?
>
> I agree David. I have no knowledge of the Turkish language, and know little
> about their history, but like almost everything I am unfamiliar with, I find
> it interesting. Same goes for elephants...
>
> BTW, in answer to the question about how 32 elephants were hidden in trees
> when chained to gether, I assume they were arranged in column and did a
> series/paralell manouver afted emerging, arranging themselves in line...?
> Just a guess, I admit that the management of armoured elephants in battle is
> not a thing I am familiar with, it just seems like common sense?
>
> As for the use of African elephants as war machines, that I do know is an
> almost impossible task. African eles are bigger, have even bigger ears, but
> are far more aggressive, independent and as far as I know, impossible to
> 'tame'. They are too clever if you ask me, and refuse to be used as free
> labour or mercenaries for the piffling little bipeds who seek to enslave and
> abuse them. Asian elephants are possible to dominate, which has led so many
> of the poor beasts to a life of tedious misery and death at the hands of man.
>
> It seems to be an African thing, look at the Zebra. DEspite looking like
> stripey horses, they are also impossible to break and 'tame' - wre it

I found this:

European horse breeders who settled in South Africa in the 1600s and —
like African herders for previous millennia — tried to domesticate
zebras. They gave up after several centuries for two reasons. First,
zebras are incurably vicious, have the bad habit of biting a handler
and not letting go until the handler is dead, and thereby injure more
zoo-keepers each year than do tigers. Second, zebras have better
peripheral vision than horses, making them impossible even for
professional rodeo cowboys to lasso (they see the rope coming and flick
away their head).

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <3c13bdd6-ec62-4cbb...@googlegroups.com>, Robert
Mulain wrote on 8/9/2014:

Among wild mammal species that were never domesticated, the six main
obstacles proved to be a diet not easily supplied by humans
(hence no domestic anteaters), slow growth rate and long birth spacing
(for example, elephants and gorillas), nasty disposition (grizzly
bears and rhinoceroses), reluctance to breed in captivity (pandas and
cheetahs), lack of follow-the-leader dominance hierarchies (bighorn
sheep and antelope), and tendency to panic in enclosures or when faced
with predators (gazelles and deer, except reindeer). Many
species passed five of these six tests but were still not domesticated,
because they failed a sixth test. Conclusions about non-domesticability
from the fact of non-domestication are not circular, because these six
obstacles can be assessed independently.

>>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

Part of the reason why large domestic mammals were mainly Eurasian is
simply that Eurasia, being the largest continent and having escaped the
Late-Pleistocene extinctions that eliminated
most large mammal species of the Americas and Australia, has the
largest number of large wild mammal species. But there is a second
part to the answer — a much higher percentage of large mammal species
proved domesticable in Eurasia (18%) than in any other
continent (Table 9.2 of ref. 1). Especially striking is the contrast of
Eurasia with sub-Saharan Africa, where none of the 51 large mammal
species was domesticable.

This difference constitutes a problem not in human behaviour, but in
animal behaviour and sociobiology — something about
African environments selected for one or more of the six mammalian
traits that made domestication difficult. We already have some clues,
as many of Africa’s large mammals are species of antelopes and other
open-country mammals whose herds lack the follow-the-leader
dominance hierarchies characterizing Eurasian cattle, sheep, goats and
horses3,61. To resolve this problem, I suggest attempting to
assign one or more of the six traits derailing domestication to each of
the non-domesticated large mammal species of Eurasia and Africa,
then evaluating the environmental factors behind the evolution of that
trait.

History of domestication of particular species

The history of domestication is much better understood for domesticates
of western Eurasia than of other parts of world. Taking Zohary &
Hopf ’s9 account of western Eurasian plant domestication as a gold
standard, it will be a challenge to workers on other biotas to match
that standard. Even for western Eurasia, important unanswered questions
abound. To mention only one out of dozens, calculation of
molecular divergence times between dogs and wolves suggests that
domestication of wolves began around 100,000 years ago62,63, yet the
marked morphological differences between wolves and dogs (which should
be easily detectable in fossilized skeletons) do not appear until
about 11,000 years ago.

>>

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <ls7khs$p6$1...@dont-email.me>, Yusuf B Gursey wrote on 8/10/2014:
> In <ls7jja$r24$1...@dont-email.me>, Yusuf B Gursey wrote on 8/10/2014:
>> In <3c13bdd6-ec62-4cbb...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Mulain

I propose that the high density of large carnivores in Africa has
favored the evolution of the African hebrivores to have a more
aggresive disposition and keener awareness of other animals and the
keener instinct to take flight to cope with them.

[David Amicus]

One of my favorite movie scenes is from the silent picture "King of Kings" where Mary Magdalene rides in a chariot pulled by zebras.


http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/246932/King-of-Kings-The-Movie-Clip-Magdalene.html

[David Amicus]

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 1:20:02 PM UTC-7, David Amicus wrote:
> One of my favorite movie scenes is from the silent picture "King of Kings" where Mary Magdalene rides in a chariot pulled by zebras.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/246932/King-of-Kings-The-Movie-Clip-Magdalene.html

Here is a still


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qzDbbfLe6Zw/UzFRaCAnWsI/AAAAAAAAnuM/eQdjxsbrgxY/s1600/DeMille-8.jpg

[AlexMilman]

On Saturday, August 9, 2014 8:05:36 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In <352a1347-1e44-4098...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>
> wrote on 8/8/2014:
>
>
>
>
>
> The following article "The Ankara Field Battle" 28 July 1402
>
>
>
> "meydan" is Arabic mayda:n ; an open field field or a large public
>
> square of a city, which Ukrainian has evidently borrowed, I assume from
>
> Crimean Tatar.

Most probably but don't tell this to the Ukrainian 'patriots' because
they are convinced that they descended directly from a Super-Chimp,
did not mix with anybody and did not have any borrowings in their
language. :-)


Actually, this would not necessarily be just the Crimean Tatars: the
Tatars had been around well before the Crimea became an independent
Khanate and I can't tell to which degree the Tatar language is one
of the Kipchaks who had been in the area for even longer.

>
>
>
> {The battle was on a Friday. Muslim sources fortunately usually give
>
> the day of the week along with the lunar date, which is otherwise hard
>
> to synchronize as it may be based on observation. Otherwise a common
>
> algorithm is relied on by historians}
>
>
>
> You can see a historical map of the region involved in the background
>
> of the pdf image.
>
>
>
> Timur's men were 160000, Timur's victory proclamation puts the Ottoman
>
> army at 70000, another source puts it at 900000. There were 20000
>
> Serbian troops under the command of the Serbian king Stefan Lazarević
>
> who was also Bayezid's father-in-law through his wife Despina, so this
>
> should account for the discrepancy.

Yep. Still, these numbers look suspiciously big but this
is a typical problem with the Ancient, Medieval and even Early Modern
numbers.

It seems that the strength of the Janissari at this time was,
optimistically, around 1K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries) and
that this number raised beyond 10K only in the XVI cerntury and over 20K
by XVII century, The same source "The same source estimates the number of Timarli Sipahi, the provincial cavalry which constituted the main force of the army at 40,000" but this is for 1475.
"A roll call held in Hungary in 1541, reflecting the actual deployed strength of the Ottoman regular army forces participating in campaign, registered 15,612 men as present. Of these approximately 6,350 were Janissaries, 3,700 were Sipahis and another 1,650 were members of the Artillery corps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries

But by the time of the Battle at Ankara the Ottomans had been considerably
weaker than in mid XVI when they became military super-power (with some
caveats).
The same goes for the Serbs: at Nikopol (with the modern estimates of the
Ottoman force WITH the Serbs being, optimistically, under 25K) the Serbian
contingent (under the same Stefan Lazarevic) amounted to 1,500 knights.
This is much more plausible than to assume that at any point of its
existence Serbia could field 20K of the heavily armed knights: France
(except in the Shakespearean dreams) could not field anything close to
this number and the decent-sized European medieval countries usually
were counting them by thousands, not the tens of thousands. Serbia was
nowhere close to the this league.

Timur's army of 160K is the prime suspect even if only in the terms of
feeding and watering all these horses in more or less the same place.
The Mongolian invasion of the Eastern and Central Europe in mid-XIII
involved a somewhat lesser number (it seems that consensus is around
140K) spread on a huge front.

Not too sure how army of this would correlate to the population of
Timur's state. While Mongolian with its relatively small population
(not too small, taking into an account that by that time it included
most of the steppe areas East of Khwaresm) managed to field armies of
over 100K, this was done by conscription of a noticeable part of the
male population (all of whom had been warriors) AND these soldiers
were not paid (still, AFAIK, these campaigns created noticeable
economic problems and the livestock has to be replenished by the
conquest of Tankgud kingdom). Timur, OTOH, had a mercenary army and
a noticeable part of the population of his state were not well-suited
for a military service, while a big part of the nomadic nations of his
time were NOT the part of his state.


[]

>
>
>
> As for elephants in the Ottoman army in later times, scholarly articles
>
> confirm that the main source was through diplomatic gifts of the Shahs
>
> of Iran.
>
>
>
> I have not found any mention of Crimean Tatars in Bayezid's army in any
>
> Turkish article. They all identify the Tatars as Kara Tatars in
>
> Anatolia.

Yes, as I said, it would be difficult for the Crimean Tatars to be present
as an independent entity if they did not exist as such an entity for the
next 40 years and if at the time of this battle they were subject of the
state, which was (at beast) neutral toward Timur AND engaged in some
major fighting at approximately the same time.

>
>
>
> http://www.altarmodeling.com/pdf/ankara_meydan_muharebesi.pdf
>
>
>
> Timur had 32 war elephants. The vulnerable parts of the elephants were
>
> covered with armor.It is said they carried towers and elaborate
>
> harnesses and arrows and fire were hurled from them. How fire was
>
> hurled from the elephants is not clear.

In a simplest form, there could be conventional arrows with the burning
stuff attached to them. Almost anything else would require some kind
of the devices.

> Some sources speak of fire
>
> cannons,

Not sure how such a device is working but if it is anything like a
modern flamethrower, its 1st victim would an elephant (with the
predictable consequences).

>some sources speak of explosive grenades.

OK, an obvious question is how such a grenade is going to be thrown?
If by a human being, the chances of it hitting the elephant are too big
AND an elephant has to come really close to the opponent. Even a hand
grenade of the early XVIII is a big and unwieldy thing which you hardly
can throw very far.

> The goal was to
>
> crush the Ottoman infantrymen and frighten the horses of the cavalrymen
>
> by fire by these elephants carrying archers and fire cannons. The
>
> Ottoman horses which had never encountered elephants before got
>
> extremely frightened.

But the Serbian horses, which never saw an elephant seemingly weren't ...
And the Janissary had been fighting to the last man as well.

>Timur was a commander who gave importance to
>
> elephants in his army. In spite of all the difficulties of using
>
> elephants in a battlefield, he had brought them all the way to
>
> Anatolia. According to the Spanish ambassador {Ruy Gonzales De Clavijo,
>
> who traveled from Cadiz to Samarkand} who visited Timur and his country
>
> in the year 1403 that an elephant [as regarded by the Timurids] was
>
> regarded as worth a thousand infantrymen because once and elephant
>
> attacks it will crush anything on its way and move forward, when
>
> wounded it will do battle madly.

I know about this report but it is one thing to say something to
impress a foreign ambassador who never saw elephant in the battle
and another is a real life. Vulnerabilities of the elephants are
well-known.

> The tusks of the elephants were cut
>
> and in their place were put sword like weapons and when the elephants
>
> attacked with these they caused mayhem all round. In additions the
>
> elephants could fight for three days without being fed.

Who needs THAT even if it was true, which I doubt. Anyway, their crews
did need food and drink and sleep.

>
>
>
> OTOH the author adds in the footnote the following:
>
>
>
> Actually when looks at complete military history one sees that the use
>
> of elephants in battle is considerably limited.

Yes. And with the appearance of the firearms, their usefulness on a
battlefield became even more limited. Bobur, with a small army that
relied on the infantry with the firearms and artillery defeated a
much greater force of the Sultanate of Delhi where the elephants
presumably played an important role. The same, IIRC, goes for the
later British encounters in India.

>Fundamentally it is
>
> difficult to use the elephant in war. In addition to the great
>
> dififulties of care, feeding and breeding, an animal that has a docile
>
> nature like the elephant could easily panic from the chaos, noise,
>
> smell and movements of the battlefield and could escape and could
>
> escape and crush everything on its path, men, posts, HQ, including
>
> those including those of its own army. The same thing holds true when
>
> it is wounded, such an elephant who would seek to escape the field
>
> through the shortest possible route could crush its own army and open
>
> the way to the enemy. Because of these reasons, since Antiquity the use
>
> of elephants in war has been considerably limited.

Even in Antiquity their usage was not uniformly successful: the Romans
figured out how to deal with them.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <729f704c-899d-498d...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman

wrote on 8/11/2014:
> On Saturday, August 9, 2014 8:05:36 PM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> In <352a1347-1e44-4098...@googlegroups.com>, AlexMilman
>>
>> wrote on 8/8/2014:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The following article "The Ankara Field Battle" 28 July 1402
>>
>>
>>
>> "meydan" is Arabic mayda:n ; an open field field or a large public
>>
>> square of a city, which Ukrainian has evidently borrowed, I assume from
>>
>> Crimean Tatar.
>
> Most probably but don't tell this to the Ukrainian 'patriots' because
> they are convinced that they descended directly from a Super-Chimp,
> did not mix with anybody and did not have any borrowings in their
> language. :-)
>

Yes, I agree!

>
> Actually, this would not necessarily be just the Crimean Tatars: the
> Tatars had been around well before the Crimea became an independent
> Khanate and I can't tell to which degree the Tatar language is one
> of the Kipchaks who had been in the area for even longer.
>
>

Well, the word is of Arabic origin and in this context it concerns city
life. Also there are no sound changes like using Slavic /o/ for Turkic
/a/ found in earlier loans. OTOH in Kozak for Qazaq / Kazak we have a
Turkic word concerning nomadic life with the sound substitution I
mentioned. So I assume the Ukrainian word was borrowed from the
literary Turkic language of the area, which Crimean Tatar now best
represents and is descended from.

Crimean Tatar and Kazan Tatar are influenced from Literary Central
Asian Turkic (Chaghatay Turkic, now sometimes called Old Uzbek,
although the name is anachronistic), as well as Arabic and Persian
words from independent bookish learning. That is because those
populations called "Tatar" are those that lived under states claiming
to be succcesor states of the Golden Horde and thus were associated
with a high degree of civilization. Kazan Tatar shows a strong
influence of the Bulghar (Chuvash) substratum, especially in regards to
the changes in the Turkic vowels and vocabulary items. Crimean Tatar
lacks these and borrowed from Ottoman Turkish.

OK.

Babur. Uzbek renders it with the letter <o> which really is a
labialized a i.e. [å], usually with length. This is due to the Iranian
(Tajik) subsratum in Standard Uzbek, the urban dialect.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 17:15:42 -0400, Yusuf B Gursey <ygu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Stupid question perhaps but at what point in history or pre-history
did the two species become distinct??

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <5l7lu9pjbvl958f3f...@4ax.com>, The Horny Goat wrote
on 8/12/2014:

In prehistory.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mesaxonia/elephantidae.php


There may be two species of African elephants (Loxodonta), bush
elephants and forest elephants.

Mammoths (Mammuthus) and Asian elephants (Elephas) split more than 4
million years ago (comparable to the split between chimps, Pan, and the
lineage leading to humans, according to some estimates). Mammoths
(Mammuthus) split from Asian elephants 3 million years ago.

[David Amicus]

Elephants dance to violin music video


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11055882/Elephants-dance-to-violin-music.html

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:48:58 -0700 (PDT), David Amicus
<davida...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:b804d6b5-c886-455a...@googlegroups.com>
in soc.history.medieval:

> Elephants dance to violin music video

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11055882/Elephants-dance-to-violin-music.html

Those elephants have exceptionally good taste!

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.