Battles in History...

I like to bring up battles throughout history that changed the course of a war, a civilization, of mankind or relevant in history...

I will pick the Battle of La Fobie... It was the death-nail to the Crusader states in the Levant. It will be the last time the Crusader states could put a large army in the field along with ending their offensive abilities as well. We all know the Battle of Hattin this battle really was the Crusaders Gettysburg marking their pick and the beginning of their decline. The battle of La Fobie left them open to being push into the sea which happens 50 or fewer years after the battle, in 1291 with the Siege of Acre by the Mamluks.

The Battle of LaFobie...

LINK:
Battle of La Forbie - Wikipedia

The Battle of La Forbie, also known as the Battle of Hiribya, was fought October 17, 1244 – October 18, 1244 between the allied armies (drawn from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the crusading orders, the breakaway Ayyubids of Damascus, Homs and Kerak) and the Egyptian army of the Ayyubid Sultan as-Salih Ayyub, reinforced with Khwarezmian mercenaries.


Snip... the battle two days

Battle was joined on the morning October 17, with the Christian knights repeatedly charging the Egyptians and fighting up and down the line. The Egyptian army held its ground. On the morning of October 18, Baibars renewed the fight and threw the Khwarezmians against the Damascene troops in the center of the allied line. The center was shattered by their furious attack, after which they turned on the allied left and cut the Bedouin to pieces. The Emir's cavalry held stubbornly, but they were nearly annihilated; Al-Mansur finally rode from the field with 280 survivors, all that remained of his troops.

Threatened by the Egyptians in front and the Khwarezmians on their flank, the Crusaders charged the Mamluks facing them and were initially successful, pushing them back and causing Baibars some concern. Their assault gradually lost momentum as the Khwarezmid tribesmen attacked the rear and the flanks of the Christian forces, which were defended by disorganized infantry. The well-armed knights fought on doggedly and it took several hours for their resistance to collapse.[3]

Over 5,000 Crusaders died. 800 prisoners were taken, including Walter of Brienne, William of Chastelneuf, Master of the Hospital, and the Constable of Tripoli. Of the troops of the knightly orders, only 33 Templars, 27 Hospitallers and three Teutonic Knights survived; Philip of Montfort and the Patriarch of Jerusalem Robert of Nantes also escaped to Ascalon. However, Armand de Périgord, the Master of the Temple, the Marshal of the Temple, the archbishop of Tyre, the bishop of Lydda and Ramla (St. George), and John and William, sons of Bohemond, Lord of Botron, were all killed.

Snip...

Pope Innocent IV at the First Council of Lyon in 1245 called for a new Crusade, the seventh, but the Franks were never again to muster major power in the Holy Land. The Kingdom of Jerusalem suffered worst in the aftermath of La Forbie. It had not been able to put so large an army into the field since the Battle of Hattin, and would never be able to undertake offensive operations again. It brought no lasting success to the Ayyubids; the Khwarezmians were defeated outside Homs by Al-Mansur Ibrahim in 1246 after falling out with the Egyptians. Baibars (not to be confused with Al-Zahir Baibars who became a sultan), joined the Khwarezmians and was later arrested by as-Salih Ayyub and died in prison.

While the Battle of Hattin holds great symbolic importance as having led to the fall of Jerusalem, it was La Forbie that truly marked the collapse of Christian power in Outremer.

Here is another account of the battle...

Link to the battle with much more detail than I have snipped in... http://www.burnpit.us/2012/10/battl...-turkic-allies-defeat-crusaders-syrian-allies

Battle of La Forbie

The next morning both armies arose early and began forming their battle lines. The Franks and Syrians arranged themselves in their tradition three divisions, or "battles." The Christian troops – including the Military Orders – lined up on the right flank, with the spearmen and crossbowmen in the front. The Damascene troops and the men from Homs comprised the center, and the Bedouins of Kerak took their place on the left flank. The Egyptians initially lined up opposite the Damascene center, while the Khwarezmians faced the Christian right and the Bedouin left.

However, things changed quickly. Possibly without orders, the Central Asian horsemen en masse charged the Damascene center. After initial contact, the Khwarezmians began surrounding the Syrian horsemen, smelling blood like wolves after a wounded animal. Seeing they were almost completely boxed in, al-Mansur ordered his Syrians to retreat, cutting their way out after hard fighting. One historian claims al-Mansur returned to Damascus with less than 300 survivors. At this point, seeing the Syrians surrounded and being cut to pieces, the Bedouins fled the field virtually without striking a blow.

Meanwhile, the Franks launched their own attack on the Egyptians. Despite the massive shock of the blows of the Christian knights, the Egyptian mamluks held their ground, pinning the Christians in place. By this point, perhaps two hours had passed since the initial charge of the Khwarezmians. Consequently, with both the Syrian Muslims and the Bedouins retreating, the Franks were isolated. The Central Asian cavalrymen then fell on the left flank and rear of the Latin soldiers, which were defended by the now-disordered Christian infantry. The battle lasted another five hours, with the Christians either dying or being captured by the Muslims. Most of the members of the Military Orders fought to the last (more on that below). By late afternoon, the battle of La Forbie had ended.

Snip the end...

Aftermath

According to contemporary accounts, over 5000 Franks and 2500 Syrians died in the battle. The three Military Orders sustained catastrophic casualties: only 33 Templars, 27 Hospitallers, and 3 Teutonic Knights survived, fleeing to the fortified city of Ascalon. About 800 Franks were taken prisoner, including the Master of the Hospital and possibly the Master of the Temple, Armand de Périgord. The Egyptian casualties are not recorded.

Footnote #1: After the defeat of the Franks at La Forbie, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was never again able to muster a military force so large to resist the Muslim forces arrayed against it. The final decline of the Crusader kingdoms of the Near East can be directly traced to this defeat.

Footnote #2: Most notable of all the prisoners was Walter of Brienne, the Count of Jaffa and Ascalon. Shortly after the battle, Walter was taken by the Khwarezmians to Jaffa. Its fortifications were too strong to be breached by the Central Asian horsemen. Therefore, they threatened to hang Count Walter unless the defenders surrendered. As he was further tortured as the invaders awaited a response, Walter shouted to his soldiers not to capitulate. Eventually, the Khwarezmians tired of their sport, left Jaffa, and handed their prisoner over to the Egyptians. According to one historian, Walter of Brienne was imprisoned by the Egyptians and died some time afterwards, killed by an Egyptian emir over a game of chess.

Footnote #3: The marriage of convenience between the Egyptians and the Khwarezmians was short-lived. Some of the Central Asians remained in Egypt as mamluks, while others left and migrated toward Syria. In 1246 the Khwarezmians blockaded Damascus, and were shortly afterward defeated by al-Mansur and his troops.

Footnote #4: A very fine fictional account of the battle of La Forbie can be found in a short story written in 1932 by Robert E. Howard – creator of Conan the Barbarian – entitled "The Sowers of the Thunder." It can be found online at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sowers_of_Thunder .

The 2nd siege of Constantinople in 717-718AD marks the furthest expansion of the Arab Caliphate in the east like the Battle of Tours in the West in 732AD marks the end of Arab expansion in the west. It marks the first use of Greek Fire by the Byzantine in Naval warfare.

Siege of Constantinople (717–718) - Wikipedia

The Second Arab siege of Constantinople in 717–718 was a combined land and sea offensive by the Muslim Arabs of the Umayyad Caliphate against the capital city of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople. The campaign marked the culmination of twenty years of attacks and progressive Arab occupation of the Byzantine borderlands, while Byzantine strength was sapped by prolonged internal turmoil. In 716, after years of preparations, the Arabs, led by Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik, invaded Byzantine Asia Minor. The Arabs initially hoped to exploit Byzantine civil strife and made common cause with the general Leo III the Isaurian, who had risen up against Emperor Theodosius III. Leo, however, tricked them and secured the Byzantine throne for himself.

Snip...

The Battle of Tours (10 October 732),[8] also called the Battle of Poitiers and, by Arab sources, the Battle of the Highway of the Martyrs (Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء‎, romanized: Ma'arakat Balāṭ ash-Shuhadā'),[9] was an important victory of the Frankish and Burgundian[10][11] forces under Charles Martel over the raiding parties of the Umayyad Caliphate led by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus.

Snip...

The expedition's failure weakened the Umayyad state. As historian Bernard Lewis commented, "Its failure brought a grave moment for Umayyad power. The financial strain of equipping and maintaining the expedition caused an aggravation of the fiscal and financial oppression which had already aroused such dangerous opposition. The destruction of the fleet and army of Syria at the sea walls of Constantinople deprived the regime of the chief material basis of its power".[44] The blow to the Caliphate's might was severe, and although the land army did not suffer losses in the same degree as the fleet, Umar is recorded as contemplating withdrawing from the recent conquests of Hispania and Transoxiana, as well as a complete evacuation of Cilicia and other Byzantine territories that the Arabs had seized over the previous years. Although his advisors dissuaded him from such drastic actions, most Arab garrisons were withdrawn from the Byzantine frontier districts they had occupied in the lead-up to the siege. In Cilicia, only Mopsuestia remained in Arab hands as a defensive bulwark to protect Antioch.[45] The Byzantines even recovered some territory in western Armenia for a time. In 719, the Byzantine fleet raided the Syrian coast and burned down the port of Laodicea and, in 720 or 721, the Byzantines attacked and sacked Tinnis in Egypt.[46] Leo also restored control over Sicily, where news of the Arab siege of Constantinople and expectations of the city's fall had prompted the local governor to declare an emperor of his own, Basil Onomagoulos. It was during this time, however, that effective Byzantine control over Sardinia and Corsica ceased.[47]

Besides this, the Byzantines failed to exploit their success in launching attacks of their own against the Arabs. In 720, after a hiatus of two years, Arab raids against Byzantium resumed, although now they were no longer directed at conquest, but rather seeking booty. The Arab attacks would intensify again over the next two decades, until the major Byzantine victory at the Battle of Akroinon in 740. Coupled with military defeats on the other fronts of the overextended Caliphate, and the internal instability which culminated in the Abbasid Revolution, the age of Arab expansion came to an end.[48]

Here is a video of the Siege and its aftermath... its good and short...

I have a battle that may not have decided the world but mark the Golden Age of the Georgian's of the Caucasus region of central Asia. Their Golden age lasted until the Mongols arrived. The Great King David IV ruled from 1089AD until death in 1125AD, during his reign he drove the Seljuk Turks out of their lands creating the Kingdom of Georgia. The battle of Didgori in 1121AD...

Muslim powers became increasingly concerned about the rapid rise of a Christian state in southern Caucasia. In 1121, Sultan Mahmud b. Muhammad declared a holy war on Georgia and rallied a large coalition of Muslim states The size of the Muslim army is still a matter of debate with numbers ranging from fantastic 600,000 men to modern Georgian estimates of 250,000–400,000 men However, 12 August 1121, King David routed the enemy army on the fields of Didgori, achieving what is often considered the greatest military success in Georgian history. The victory at Didgori signaled the emergence of Georgia as a great military power and shifted the regional balance in favor of Georgian cultural and political supremacy.

Snip...

The size of the Muslim army is still a matter of debate, with numbers ranging from a fantastic 600,000 men (as given by Walter the Chancellor and Matthew of Edessa) to 400,000 (Sempad Sparapet's Chronicle), while estimates of modern Georgian historians vary between 100,000 and 250,000 men. Although the higher numbers are exaggerated, all sources indicate that the Muslims made massive preparations and vastly outnumbered the Georgians.

On the other side, the Georgians were facing a significantly superior foe in terms of numbers but had the strategic as well as a tactical advantage. The Georgians were well aware of the Muslim preparations and took necessary precautions. In 1118, after successful completion of David IV's military reform, a royal guard (known as Monaspa) of about 5,000 horsemen was formed. The Georgian army of 56,000 men included 500 Alans, about 200 Franks, and 15,000 Kipchaks.

Snip... the natural features of the land were used and choose the place of battle...

King David could not allow Ilghazi to unite with the Tbilisi Muslims, so he decided to intercept him on his way there. He used a strategy of surprise and to entice the enemy step-by-step into a trap. He chose a mountainous and wooded area near the Didgori Mountain range, situated between Manglisi and Tbilisi, to attack. On August 11, 1121, King David led his army along the Nichbisi valley from the ancient capital of Mtskheta and divided his troops into two parts, one under his personal command and the other smaller group under his son Demetrius I, hidden in reserve behind the nearby heights with orders to attack the flank at a given signal.

LINKS:

Battle of Didgori - Wikipedia
David IV of Georgia - Wikipedia
[URL='https://www.slideshare.net/ketevanBatselashvili/david-iv-the-builder']David IV the builder - SlideShare

Here is a video...

[/URL]

Here is another Byzantine battle: The Battle of Manzikert was fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk Empire on 26 August 1071. This battle is considered the beginning of the decline of the Byzantine empire... The Roman Emperor was captured which later would lead to a civil war within the Byzantine Empire... It may have been led the call for the crusades which start about 20 years later...

Battle of Manzikert - Wikipedia

The Battle of Manzikert was fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Seljuk Empire on 26 August 1071 near Manzikert, the theme of Iberia (modern Malazgirt in Muş Province, Turkey). The decisive defeat of the Byzantine army and the capture of Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes[9] played an important role in undermining Byzantine authority in Anatolia and Armenia,[10] and allowed for the gradual Turkification of Anatolia. Many of the Turks, who had been traveling westward during the 11th century, saw the victory at Manzikert as an entrance to Asia Minor.[11]

The brunt of the battle was borne by the professional soldiers from the eastern and western tagmata, as large numbers of mercenaries and Anatolian levies fled early and survived the battle.[12] The fallout from Manzikert was disastrous for the Byzantines, resulting in civil conflicts and an economic crisis that severely weakened the Byzantine Empire's ability to adequately defend its borders.[13] This led to the mass movement of Turks into central Anatolia—by 1080, an area of 78,000 square kilometres (30,000 sq mi) had been gained by the Seljuk Turks. It took three decades of internal strife before Alexius I (1081 to 1118) restored stability to Byzantium. Historian Thomas Asbridge says: "In 1071, the Seljuqs crushed an imperial army at the Battle of Manzikert (in eastern Asia Minor), and though historians no longer consider this to have been an utterly cataclysmic reversal for the Greeks, it still was a stinging setback."[14] It was the first time in history a Byzantine Emperor had become the prisoner of a Muslim commander.[15]

Link:http://www.burnpit.us/2013/08/battle-manzikert-turks-defeat-byzantines-emperor-captured

Byzantine casualties were fairly heavy, with between 2000 and 8000 soldiers killed, and another 4000 captured. Turkish casualties are unknown, but were probably less than 10 percent of their force.

Footnote #1: While Manzikert has been considered a great military disaster, modern historians have downplayed this assessment. Granted, a major East Roman army was destroyed, but more than half of the original army was still intact and had not struck a blow (and some of these units would fight for Romanus during the upcoming civil war). It took nearly another decade for the Seljuk Turks to occupy central Asia Minor, eventually reaching the Aegean Sea. Many historians consider Manzikert to be the beginning of the decline of the Byzantine Empire.

Footnote #2: In the aftermath of the battle, Emperor Romanus IV was brought before Alp Arslan as a prisoner. After making the Roman ruler bow before him, Arslan then placed his foot upon the neck of Romanus (apparently a sign of submission and humiliation). Then, several chronicles report the following conversation taking place.

Alp Arslan: "What would you do if I were brought before you as a prisoner?"
Romanos: "Perhaps I'd kill you, or exhibit you in the streets of Constantinople."
Alp Arslan: "My punishment is far heavier. I forgive you, and set you free."

For the next week, Alp Arslan treated Romanus with great kindness, and negotiated a peace treaty and a ransom for the emperor. After giving up several cities, Alp Arslan settled on a ransom of 1.5 million gold pieces immediately, with an additional 360,000 gold pieces annually. Romanus was then laden with many gifts and given an escort back to his capital. Shortly after his return to his subjects, Romanos found his rule in serious trouble. He was defeated three times in battle against the Doukas family and was deposed, blinded and exiled. Soon after, he died as a result of an infection caused by brutal blinding.

Footnote #3: The Byzantine loss at Manzikert, and the resurgent forces of Islam, were both likely causes for the calling of the Crusades.

Snip... wiki

In hindsight, both Byzantine and contemporary historians are unanimous in dating the decline of Byzantine fortunes to this battle. As Paul K. Davis writes, "Byzantine defeat severely limited the power of the Byzantines by denying them control over Anatolia, the major recruiting ground for soldiers. Henceforth, the Muslims controlled the region. The Byzantine Empire was limited to the area immediately around Constantinople, and the Byzantines were never again a serious military force."[36] It is also interpreted as one of the root causes for the later Crusades, in that the First Crusade of 1095 was originally a western response to the Byzantine emperor's call for military assistance after the loss of Anatolia.[37] From another perspective, the West saw Manzikert as a signal that Byzantium was no longer capable of being the protector of Eastern Christianity or of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Places in the Middle East. Delbrück considers the importance of the battle to be exaggerated, but the evidence makes clear that it resulted in the Empire being unable to put an effective army into the field for many years to come.[38]

Here I have too little known battles that save England from the French invasion of their isle by Prince Louse in 1216AD. It was during King John's disastrous reign during the first Baron war in 1215-1217. Prince Louse the future Louse VIII of France was asked by the rebel barons to come to help them defeat King John and become king of England. He first sent over knights to secure London in 1215 and Prince Louse came in 1216.

An initial contingent of knights were sent to protect London in November 1215, before Louis landed along the Kentish coast in May 1216 and first made his way towards London. There he was welcomed by the rebel barons and citizens of London with a great procession at St Paul’s Cathedral. Sermons preached in the churchyard at St Paul’s Cross urged Londoners to support the French prince.

King John dies in 1216... beginning of the end Battle of Lincoln 1217AD

According to calculations, by October 1216 a large majority of the barons were in revolt: only the holders of one quarter of the baronies and just under one third of the greatest barons remained loyal to the king. Ultimately, however, Louis’ campaigns in England proved unsuccessful. John’s death and the coronation of his young son Henry III (r. 1216–1272) on 28 October 1216 meant that the target of many of the barons’ personal complaints was no longer in the picture, paving the way towards an eventual conclusion to the barons’ revolt.

King Henry III is just a boy so regents are appointed a William Marshal ( the greatest knight) is one of the regents. He takes over the effort and things begin a change for the Royalist favor. Prince Louse controls London and most of Southeast England. There are two castles still in Royalist control and Louse splits his army one under him and another under Thomas, Count of Perche. Marshal sees his chance and attacks the French army Under Thomas of Perche while he sieges Lincoln.

When Marshal became aware of the movements of the Anglo-French forces, he decided to gamble everything on a decisive engagement at Lincoln. He marched his forces north to Newark-upon-Trent, a mere 15 miles from Lincoln, and gathered as many men as he possibly could to augment his force. Local knowledge was provided by Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester who had served at Lincoln Cathedral earlier in his career. He advised against a direct advance on Lincoln as the Royalists would need to cross the bridge over the River Witham, a significant bottleneck, and then would face a steep uphill battle through the town to reach the castle. Accordingly, Marshal flanked around the town to the west and advanced on Lincoln from the north-west; a much flatter approach that placed him in direct proximity to the West Gate of Lincoln Castle.

Although Count Thomas was aware of the advance of the Royalists, he did not have intelligence as to the size of their force. Furthermore, he saw no reason to risk an open confrontation when he could just retreat behind Lincoln Town Walls. Thomas knew time was on his side as, once news of the Royalist movements reached Prince Louis, Anglo-French reinforcements could be expected. This defensive posture presented a significant problem for Marshal as he had no siege machinery nor time to conduct a protracted blockade. He sent his scouts to assess the defences of the town and they identified that a minor gate had been blocked with rubble but could possibly be cleared if a diversion could be arranged.

The crossbowmen made it to the castle... The person inside Lincoln Castle leading the men was a woman named: Nicola de la Haie (died 1230),[1] of Swaton in Lincolnshire, (also written de la Haye)

With all of the French forces having withdrawn into Lincoln, William Marshal was free to access Lincoln Castle via its West Gate. He sent his crossbowmen, under the command of Faulkes of Breaute, into the fortress and they started attacking the besiegers in the town from the castle ramparts. Their attack caused significant casualties amongst the Anglo-French besiegers and, more importantly, created a significant distraction. With the ongoing commotion, forces under Ranulf, Earl of Chester crept forward and started clearing the rubble from the blocked gate.

After a few hours the Royalists had created an access in the Lincoln defences and stormed into the town. They captured the North Gate (now called Newport Arch) and swept into Lincoln in force. The Anglo-French army fell back in disarray to the Cathedral Close where Count Thomas rallied his troops. For a while the battle hung in the balance but a Royalist Knight, Reginald Croc, surged forward and delivered a fatal blow to the Count. This caused shock on both sides - high status magnates, who were protected by their armour, were not supposed to die in such engagements. With the leader dead, the Anglo-French forces started to retreat and this quickly turned into a rout. Many were killed as they were caught in a double bottleneck caused by the South Gate and the bridge over the River Witham. Numerous rebel barons were captured including Robert FitzWalter and Saer of Quincy but around 200 Knights escaped and fled south to London. In the immediate aftermath Lincoln was extensively looted by the Royalists and accordingly the battle became popularly known as “Lincoln’s Fair”.

This leads to the next battle to save England...

The Second Battle of Lincoln is arguably one of the most decisive battles in English history as the defeat of the Baronial-French forces marked the beginning of the end for Prince Louis’s campaign for the Crown. A belated attempt was made to bring in additional French reinforcements, under the command of Eustace the Monk, but he was defeated by Hubert de Burgh at the Battle of Sandwich on 24 August 1217. Prince Louis returned to France and the subsequent Treaty of Lambeth (1217) ended the First Barons’ War

Western gate...




The Observatory Tower, Lincoln Castle

LinkS:

http://www.battlefieldsofbritain.co.uk/battle_lincoln_1217.html

https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2015/05/when-the-french-invaded-england.html

Here is Lady Haye ... first female sheriff...

Good link: https://hauntedpalaceblog.wordpress...e-la-haye-the-female-sheriff-of-lincolnshire/

Nicola de la Haie (died 1230),[1] of Swaton in Lincolnshire, (also written de la Haye) was an English landowner and administrator who inherited from her father not only lands in both England and Normandy but also the posts of hereditary sheriff of Lincolnshire and hereditary constable of Lincoln Castle. On her own, she twice defended the castle against prolonged sieges. After the death of her second husband in 1214, she continued to hold the castle until she retired on grounds of old age in 1226.[2][

The second battle that saved England from the French was the sea Battle of sandwich in 1217AD... This battle along with the battle of Lincoln save England from French rule...

The Battle of Sandwich, also called the Battle of Dover[1] took place on 24 August 1217 as part of the First Barons' War. A Plantagenet English fleet commanded by Hubert de Burgh attacked a Capetian French armada led by Eustace the Monk and Robert of Courtenay off Sandwich, Kent. The English captured the French flagship and most of the supply vessels, forcing the rest of the French fleet to return to Calais.

The French fleet was attempting to bring supplies to Prince Louis, later King Louis VIII of France, whose French forces held London at that time. The English vessels attacked from windward, seizing Eustace's ship, making Robert and the knights prisoner and killing the rest of the crew. Eustace, a notorious pirate, was executed after being taken, prisoner. The battle convinced Prince Louis to abandon his effort to conquer England and the Treaty of Lambeth was signed a few weeks later.

Snip...

After his lieutenants were badly defeated at the Battle of Lincoln on 20 May 1217, Prince Louis raised his siege of Dover Castle and retired to London. Signalling his willingness to negotiate an end to the struggle, he agreed to meet at Brentford with adherents of the boy-king Henry III of England. The victor of Lincoln, William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke and Louis came close to an agreement. However, in order to pardon the bishops who had gone over to Louis' cause, Pope Honorius III's acquiescence was required. Since this was not possible without a long journey to Rome, the negotiations broke down. Louis received the news that reinforcements and supplies would soon arrive from France. Encouraged, he resolved to fight on.[7]

Snip...

Pembroke's cog and FitzRoy's ship grappled Eustace's flagship, one on each side. After a one-sided melee, Robert of Courtenay and the French knights were captured for ransom, while the French sailors and common soldiers were massacred. Eustace, dragged from his hiding place in the bilge, offered to pay 10,000 marks as ransom. Though his very high price was tempting, FitzRoy and the other English leaders considered Eustace a turncoat because of the pirate's employment by King John.[15] Marked for execution by the enraged English, Eustace was tied down and a man named Stephen Crabbe struck off his head with one blow.[17]

With their flagship taken, the French fleet headed back to Calais. Encouraged, the English attacked, using ramming, grappling, and rigging-cutting to disable the enemy vessels. The nine surviving troopships got away, but most of the smaller vessels fell prey to the English mariners. As few as 15 ships escaped from the rampaging English.[18] The French troopships owed their deliverance to their train of supply vessels because the English turned aside to plunder the smaller craft.[17] The French sailors were slaughtered or thrown into the Channel, except for two or three men on each captured vessel who were spared.[19]

Link :
The battle of Sandwich: England’s medieval Trafalgar

https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/the-battle-of-sandwich-englands-medieval-trafalgar/

Here a video of the battle...

I think our German friends would like a medieval battle from the Northern Crusades, The fame Battle on the Ice... How many of you know about the Northern Crusades?

Snip a detailed account: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2015/12/08/lake-peipus-battle-on-the-ice/

The battle happens in 1242 and it was fought on the frozen Lake Peipus... ended Latin expansion into Russia... Like, think it's technically a German loss...

Snip... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice

The Battle on the Ice (Russian: Ледовое побоище, Ledovoye poboishche; German: Schlacht auf dem Eise; Estonian: Jäälahing; German: Schlacht auf dem Peipussee) was fought between the Republic of Novgorod led by Prince Alexander Nevsky and the forces of the Livonian Order and Bishopric of Dorpat led by Bishop Hermann of Dorpat on April 5, 1242, at Lake Peipus. The battle is notable for having been fought largely on the frozen lake, which gave the battle its name. A significant defeat was sustained by the crusaders during the Northern Crusades, which were directed against pagans and Eastern Orthodox Christians rather than Muslims in the Holy Land. The Crusaders' defeat in the battle marked the end of their campaigns against the Orthodox Novgorod Republic and other Slavic territories for the next century.

Snip... Battle and the knights fell through the ice... but no its a farse but it so much better than the truth ... tell the legend!!!



On April 5, 1242, Alexander, intending to fight in a place of his own choosing, retreated in an attempt to draw the often over-confident Crusaders onto the frozen lake. Estimates on the number of troops in the opposing armies vary widely among scholars. A more conservative estimation has it that the crusader forces likely numbered around 2,600, including 800 Danish and German knights, 100 Teutonic knights, 300 Danes, 400 Germans, and 1,000 Estonian infantry.[8] The Russians fielded around 5,000 men: Alexander and his brother Andrei's bodyguards (druzhina), totaling around 1,000, plus 2,000 militia of Novgorod, 1,400 Finno-Ugrian tribesman, and 600 horse archers.[8]

The Teutonic knights and crusaders charged across the lake and reached the enemy, but were held up by the infantry of the Novgorod militia. This caused the momentum of the crusader attack to slow. The battle was fierce, with the allied Russians fighting the Teutonic and crusader troops on the frozen surface of the lake. After a little more than two hours of close quarters fighting, Alexander ordered the left and right wings of his army (including cavalry) to enter the battle. The Teutonic and crusader troops by that time were exhausted from the constant struggle on the slippery surface of the frozen lake. The Crusaders started to retreat in disarray deeper onto the ice, and the appearance of the fresh Novgorod cavalry made them retreat in panic.

It is commonly said that "the Teutonic knights and crusaders attempted to rally and regroup at the far side of the lake, however, the thin ice began to give way and cracked under the weight of their heavy armour, and many knights and crusaders drowned"; but Donald Ostrowski in Alexander Nevskii’s "Battle on the Ice": The Creation of a Legend contends that the part about the ice breaking and people drowning was a relatively recent embellishment to the original historical story. He cites a large number of scholars who have written about the battle, Karamzin, Solovev, Petrushevskii, Khitrov, Platonov, Grekov, Vernadsky, Razin, Myakotin, Pashuto, Fennell, and Kirpichnikov, none of whom mention the ice breaking up or anyone drowning when discussing the battle on the ice. After analysing all the sources Ostrowski concludes that the part about ice breaking and drowning appeared first in the 1938 film Alexander Nevsky by Sergei Eisenstein.

Snip... aftermath... it halted the expansion eastward... it marks the dividing line of the Latin and Eastern churches...

The legacy of the battle, and its decisiveness, came because it halted the eastward expansion of the Teutonic Order[11] and established a permanent border line through the Narva River and Lake Peipus dividing Eastern Orthodoxy from Western Catholicism.[12] The knights' defeat at the hands of Alexander's forces prevented the crusaders from retaking Pskov, the linchpin of their eastern crusade. The Novgorodians succeeded in defending Russian territory, and the crusaders never mounted another serious challenge eastward. Alexander was canonised as a saint in the Russian Orthodox Church in 1574.

In 1983, a revisionist view proposed by historian John L. I. Fennell argues that the battle was not as important, nor as large, as has often been portrayed. Fennell claimed that most of the Teutonic Knights were by that time engaged elsewhere in the Baltic, and that the apparently low number of knights' casualties according to their own sources indicates the smallness of the encounter. He also says that neither the Suzdalian chronicle (the Lavrent'evskiy), nor any of the Swedish sources mention the occasion, which according to him would mean that the 'great battle' was little more than one of many periodic clashes.[13] Russian historian Alexander Uzhankov suggested that Fennell distorted the picture by ignoring many historical facts and documents. To stress the importance of the battle, he cites two papal bulls of Gregory IX, promulgated in 1233 and 1237, which called for a crusade to protect Christianity in Finland against her neighbours. The first bull explicitly mentions Russia. The kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark and the Teutonic Order built up an alliance in June 1238, under the auspices of Danish king Valdemar II. They assembled the larger western cavalry force of their time. Another point mentioned by Uzhankov is the 1243 treaty between Novgorod and the Teutonic Order, where the knights abandoned all claims to Russian lands. Uzhankov also emphasizes, with respect to the scale of battle, that for each knight deployed on the field there were eight to 30 combatants, counting squires, archers and servants (though at his stated ratios, that would still make the Teutonic losses number at most a few hundred).[1

Here is a good video... of the battle...

5fish said:

How many of you know about the Northern Crusades?

Click to expand...

i do - actually it was part of my history lessons at secondary school

rittmeister said:

i do - actually it was part of my history lessons at secondary school

Click to expand...

The site always does a good post mortem of battles ... Battle on the Ice... http://www.burnpit.us/2014/04/battle-lake-peipus-alexander-nevsky-wins-battle-ice

Aftermath

Casualty figures for this battle seem rather light from the contemporary chronicles. Casualties among the Teutonic/Livonian Knights are listed as about 400 killed (20 of them Teutonic or Livonian Knights) and 50 captured (6 of them Knights) and held for ransom.

The Russians probably took the highest casualties among the militia spear, as they bore the brunt of the enemy attack. Casualties among the other Russian units are unknown.

Footnote #1: This battle was significant in that it was the last major European attack on Russia until the Napoleonic invasion of 1812. Seven hundred years later, the Russians would use this "German" aggression as a popular myth to support their propaganda campaigns against Nazi lebensraum in the Second World War.

Footnote #2: Alexander Nevsky was only 21 years old at the battle of Lake Peipus. Nevsky was glorified (the Orthodox version of canonized) as a saint in 1547. His principal feast day is November 23.

Footnote #3: The fame of this battle rests almost entirely on the 1938 Russian film Alexander Nevsky, directed by famed filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein. It depicted an "Us versus Them" vision of medieval Russians defeating an invasion by rapacious Germans bent on wiping out civilization as they knew it, a theme repeated in Russia during World War II, still referred to as the "Great Patriotic War." The movie was initially viewed favorably by Russian leader Joseph Stalin, who rushed the film into movie theaters so that the whole Russian nation could see it. However, the movie was abruptly withdrawn from circulation at the beginning of the Second World War, after the signing of the non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. Remarkably, it was back in Russian movie houses after June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded Russia.

Footnote #4: The soundtrack to Eisenstein’s movie was composed by Sergei Prokofiev (author of "Peter and the Wolf"). Because the film was rushed into movie theaters by Stalin’s order, the sound recordings are not up to par. However, this suite of Prokofiev music is performed by many orchestras around the world every year.

Footnote #5: Until the fall of the Soviet Union, one of the highest military awards was the Order of Alexander Nevsky.

5fish said:

Footnote #3: The fame of this battle rests almost entirely on the 1938 Russian film Alexander Nevsky, directed by famed filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein. It depicted an "Us versus Them" vision of medieval Russians defeating an invasion by rapacious Germans bent on wiping out civilization as they knew it, a theme repeated in Russia during World War II, still referred to as the "Great Patriotic War." The movie was initially viewed favorably by Russian leader Joseph Stalin, who rushed the film into movie theaters so that the whole Russian nation could see it. However, the movie was abruptly withdrawn from circulation at the beginning of the Second World War, after the signing of the non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. Remarkably, it was back in Russian movie houses after June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded Russia.

Click to expand...

Trivia
Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising (1986) depicts two American intelligence officers watching Alexander Nevsky (on an unauthorized Soviet state television satellite feed) on the eve of World War III. The officers take note of an improved sound track, as well as the anti-German sentiment and strong sense of Russian (as opposed to Soviet) nationalism.

Here is another battle that changed history but is forgotten... The Battle of Bouvines...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines

The Battle of Bouvines was fought on 27 July 1214 near the town of Bouvines in the County of Flanders. It was the concluding battle of the Anglo-French War of 1213–1214. A French army of approximately 7,000 men commanded by King Philip Augustus defeated an Allied army of approximately 9,000 commanded by Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV.

In early 1214, a coalition was assembled against King Philip Augustus of France, consisting of Otto IV, King John of England, Count Ferrand of Flanders, Duke Henry I of Brabant, Count William I of Holland, Duke Theobald I of Lorraine, and Duke Henry III of Limburg. Its objective was to reverse the conquests made by Philip earlier in his reign.

Philip now took the offensive himself, and after manoeuvring to obtain good ground for his cavalry he offered battle on 27 July, on the plain east of Bouvines and the river Marque.[4]

Otto was surprised by the speed of his enemy and was thought to have been caught unprepared by Philip, who probably deliberately lured Otto into his trap. Otto decided to launch an attack on what was then the French rearguard.[5]

The Allied army drew up facing south-west towards Bouvines, the heavy cavalry on the wings, the infantry in one great mass in the centre, supported by a cavalry corps under Otto himself. The French army formed up opposite in a similar formation, cavalry on the wings, infantry, including the town militias, in the centre. Philip, with the cavalry reserve and the royal standard, the Oriflamme, positioned himself to the rear of the men on foot.[4] It is said by William the Breton, chaplain to Philip at the battle, that the soldiers stood in line in a space of 40,000 steps (15 ha or 37 acres), which leaves very little clearance and predisposes to hand-to-hand fighting. William the Breton also says in his chronicle that "the two lines of combatants were separated by a small space".[6]

BATTLE

Allied left[edit]
The battle opened with an attack by 150 light cavalrymen from the Abbey of Saint-Médard de Soissons against the Flemish knights on the allied left, aiming to throw it into confusion. The Flemish knights easily drove off the unarmoured horsemen. Some Flemish knights left their formations and chased the retreating light cavalry. 180 French knights from Champagne in turn attacked and killed or captured the over-aggressive Flemish knights.[13][14] The Count of Flanders counter-attacked with his entire force of 600 knights and threw the French back.[15]

Gaucher de Châtillon launched his 30 knights at the Flemish force, followed by a further 250 knights.[13][14] They carried out a continuous series of charges, and halted the allied advance.[14] Many knights on both sides fell from their horses in the first clash. The French were better ordered than the more loosely formed Flemish knights, and the Allied ranks grew thinner as they were assaulted by the compact French masses. Châtillon and Melun with their knights broke through the ranks of their Flemish counterparts, then wheeled and struck them from the rear, constantly switching targets. St. Pol's knights and the Burgundians engaged in an exhausting struggle against the Flemings, taking no prisoners. The Duke of Burgundy's horse was killed and the Duke thrown to the ground, but he was saved by his knights, who beat off the Flemish and found him a fresh horse.[16]

The Flemings fought on for three hours despite their increasingly desperate situation, driven by knightly honour. Finally, the wounded and unhorsed Count of Flanders was captured by two French knights, triggering the collapse of his knights' morale.[16][17]

Centre
King Philip II of France's victory at Bouvines,The French urban militia infantry, 2,150 strong, were gathered under the Oriflamme in the centre, in front of Philip's knights and the fleur-de-lis standard.[18]Soon after deploying, they were attacked by Allied knights and infantry under Otto and thrown back.[16] Otto and his knights had nearly reached the French king when they were halted by French knights.[19] The allied infantrymen broke through to Philip and his handful of knightly companions, unhorsing him with their hooked pikes. The French king's armour deflected an enemy lance and saved his life. Gales de Montigny used the royal standard to signal for help and another knight gave Philip a fresh horse.[20]

The allied infantry used daggers to stab unhorsed French knights through the eye-slits in their enclosed helmets or great helms and other weak spots in their armour. The Norman knight Etienne de Longchamp was killed in this way and the French suffered heavy losses. After repeated French counterattacks and a prolonged fight the Allies were thrown back.[20][4]

The battle in the centre was now a melee between the two mounted reserves led by the King and the Emperor in person. The French knight Pierre Mauvoisin nearly captured Otto and his horse and Gérard la Truie stabbed the Emperor with a dagger, which bounced off his coat of mail and struck Otto's horse in the eye, killing it. Otto was saved by four German lords and their followers.[4] As the French sent more knights to attack him personally he fled the field. The German knights fought to the bitter end to save their emperor, all being killed or captured. The Imperial Standard with the eagle and dragon was captured by the French knights, who brought it to their king. By this time, Allied resistance in the centre had ceased.[20]

Allied right[edit]
Meanwhile, on the French left Robert de Dreux's troops were at first pressed by men led by William Longespée.[21] William Longespée was unhorsed and taken prisoner by Philip of Dreux, the Bishop of Beauvais, and the English soldiers fled. Mathieu de Montmorency captured twelve enemy banners. (In memory of this feat, the shield of Montmorency includes an additional twelve eagles or sixteen altogether instead of the previous four.)[22]

Last stand[edit]
Ferrand of Flanders and Renaud of Boulogne being conveyed as prisoners to Paris in a 14th-century illustration. Ferrand was released in 1227 and died soon after of a disease contracted in prison. Renaud was kept in chains and committed suicide in 1227. The day was already decided in favour of the French when their wings began to close inwards to cut off the retreat of the imperial centre.[20] The battle closed with the celebrated stand of Reginald of Boulogne (Renaud de Dammartin), a former vassal of King Philip, who formed a ring of 400–700 Brabant pikemen. They defied every attack by the French cavalry, while Reginald made repeated sorties with his small force of knights.[21] Eventually, long after the Imperial army had retreated, the Brabant schiltrom was overrun by a charge of 50 knights and 1,000–2,000 infantry under Thomas de St Valery. Reginald was taken prisoner in the melee. A pursuit was not conducted owing to the approaching nightfall and a fear that the prisoners might escape. The French formations were recalled using trumpets.[23]

NOTE: The French King is unhorsed and almost killed early in the battle if he had been the battle would most likely have been a loss for the French...
The armies clashed at what became known as the Battle of Bouvines. Philip was unhorsed by the Flemish pikemen in the heat of battle, and was it not for his mail armour he would have probably been killed.

Aftermath[edit]
French knightly casualties are not recorded; the French infantry suffered heavily. The Allies had 169 knights killed and "heavy" but unquantified losses among the infantry; including between 400 and 700 Brabant infantry killed.[4] As well as Reginald of Boulogne two other counts were captured by the French, Hainaut Ferrand and William Longespée, as well as twenty-five barons and over a hundred knights.[23]

The battle ended the threat from both Otto and John.[24] According to Jean Favier, Bouvines is "one of the most decisive and symbolic battles in the history of France".[25] For Philippe Contamine "the Battle of Bouvines had both important consequences and a great impact".[26] Ferdinand Lot called it a "medieval Austerlitz".[27]

Philip returned to Paris triumphant, marching his captive prisoners behind him in a long procession, as his subjects lined the streets to greet the victorious king. In the aftermath of the battle, Otto retreated to his castle of Harzburg and was soon overthrown as Holy Roman Emperor by Frederick II, who had already been recognised as emperor in the south a year and a half earlier.[28] Count Ferdinand remained imprisoned following his defeat, while King John obtained a five-year truce, on very lenient terms given the circumstances.[29]

Philip's decisive victory was crucial to the political situation in England. The battle ended all hope of a restoration of the Angevin Empire.[30] So weakened was the defeated King John that he soon needed to submit to his barons' demands and agree to the Magna Carta, limiting the power of the crown and establishing the basis for common law.[31]

The battle ends Englands hold on French lands except for one city. The Angevin Empire dies... The French crown extends his rule over much of modern France...
Battle of Bouvines - Wikipedia

Video...

Here is a battle that may have been as famous as Hastings in 1066... Instead of talking about Normans, we would be talking about a Vikings, England The battle happens 1016 between the English and the Viking called the Battle of Assandun leaving the Vikings ruling England. It was the last battle of a year of battles between the English and Viking without a decisive winner, until Assandun. After the battle and after a few months the Viking prince Canute/Cnut, King of England and later of Norway and Denmark.

Here is the lead up to the battle of Assandun 1016...
Link: https://rexfactor.wordpress.com/201...-battle-of-assandun-and-the-road-to-hastings/

There was a certain inevitability about the way that the invasion proceeded. Eadric Streona abandoned Aethelraed and joined Cnut, along with about 40 ships, as did a mighty Viking warrior in Aethelraed’s service, Thorkell the Tall. Cnut ravaged the royal heartlands of Wessex (the south of England) before moving up to Mercia (the midlands). Edmund Ironside tried to provide resistance, but Aethelraed went back to London in despair and the army refused to fight without their king present.

However, the Saxons then enjoyed a piece of good fortune when Aethelraed the Unready died in London on 23 April 1016 (St George’s Day, though that was not a “thing” in 1016!). As a result, Edmund Ironside was elected the new king and added some much needed impetus and drive to the defence of England. Cnut came south to besiege London but Edmund had managed to slip out in time and headed to Wessex to raise an army. The fightback was on.

Edmund Ironside (a near-contemporary epithet due to his “valour” in resisting the Vikings) was clearly the determined and inspiring leader that the Saxons had needed and the next few months saw a serious of small-scale (but hard-fought) encounters between Ironside and the Vikings. The first two encounters (Penselwood in Somerset and Sherston in Wiltshire) do not seem to have been decisive for either side, though for the Saxons the defeats had at least been seen off. More significant was his success in relieving the siege of London, driving the Vikings out and then defeating them in battle at Brentford. Heavy losses forced him back to Wessex to raise another army and allowed the Vikings to resume their siege, but Edmund was soon back to drive them out again and defeat them at Otford (Kent).

It now seemed that Edmund Ironside was an Alfred in the making – with two victories to his name, the tide looked like it might be turning. Ever the opportunist, Eadric Streona now came back to the Saxons along with vital troops. If Edmund Ironside could just inflict one great defeat on Cnut, the war could be over.

Begining... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assandun

The Battle of Assandun (or Essendune)[1] was fought between Danish and English armies on 18 October 1016. There is disagreement whether Assandun may be Ashdon near Saffron Walden in north Essex or, as long supposed, Ashingdon near Rochford in southeast Essex, England. It ended in victory for the Danes, led by Canute the Great, who triumphed over the English army led by King Edmund Ironside. The battle was the conclusion to the Danish reconquest of England.

The battle was just a grinder battle no great tactics, except for betrail of the English King...

During the battle, Eadric Streona, the Ealderman of Mercia, left the battle allowing the Scandinavians to break through the English lines and win a decisive victory. Eadric Streona had previously defected to Cnut when he landed in England but after Cnut's defeat at the Battle of Otford he came back to the English, but this was a trick as he would betray them at Assandun.

During the course of the battle, Eadnoth the Younger, Bishop of Dorchester, was killed by Cnut's men whilst in the act of saying mass on behalf of Edmund Ironside's men. According to Liber Eliensis, Eadnoth's hand was first cut off for a ring, and then his body cut to pieces.[3] The Ealdorman Ulfcytel Snillingr also died in the battle.

The end;;;; http://www.patriciabracewell.com/2018/10/the-battle-of-assandun/

It seems clear that whether Eadric Streona fled before the battle began or retreated in the midst of the fray, he betrayed his king and directly impacted the outcome of the battle. Cnut’s collusion with him is somewhat less certain; made even more so by the fact that within a year he executed Eadric ‘most justly’ for his betrayals.

Edmund, apparently not yet willing to concede defeat, fled across England with the remnant of his army to Gloucester, with Cnut on his heels. There, the treacherous Eadric, who had a foot in both camps, brokered a settlement between them that divided England, with Edmund keeping the southern shires of Wessex and Cnut taking Mercia and the north, including the mercantile powerhouse that was London.

At this point, according to the Encomium, God stepped in: within a month Edmund was dead, likely from wounds or from an illness he suffered in the aftermath of Assandun. Soon after, Cnut was proclaimed king of England.

The Battle of Assandun, which put a Dane upon the English throne, is not as well known as that other battle that was fought exactly fifty years later at Hastings and resulted in a Norman takeover. There is no Tapestry that depicts the battle of 1016. But in Denmark, in the King’s Corridor of Frederiksborg Castle, both events are commemorated, for both Cnut and William came from Danish stock. On one wall is a hand-painted photographic copy of the Bayeux Tapestry. Facing it is a series of 19th century paintings documenting the 11th century Danish conquest of England, with several depictions of Cnut’s great victory at the Battle of Assandun prominent among them.

Video... the year 1016 could be the year all Britains know, instead of 1066...

Here is the battle that paved the way of Muslim rule over most of Spanish peninsula in 711AD. The Battle of Guadalete (711AD) between the Visigothic Kingdoms and the Umayyad Caliphate. There is a lot of conjecture over the details before and after...

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guadalete

The Battle of Guadalete was fought in 711 at an unidentified location between the Christian Visigoths of Hispania under their king, Roderic, and the invading forces of the Muslim Umayyad Caliphate, composed mainly of Berbers and a few Arabs[1] under the commander Tariq ibn Ziyad. The battle was significant as the culmination of a series of Berber attacks and the beginning of the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. In the battle Roderic lost his life, along with many members of the Visigothic nobility, opening the way for the capture of the Visigothic capital of Toledo.

Snip...

The armies that met in battle on the day that decided the fate of the Gothic kingdom in Spain are not reliably described in the surviving records. Glick surmises that the Muslim army was predominantly Berber cavalry under Berber leadership.[34] The Arabic sources traditionally give Roderic 100,000 troops, gathered during his return to the south after confronting the Basques.[35] This number is outrageously high; it complements the figure of 187,000 for the Muslims provided by the Ad Sebastianum version of the Chronicle of Alfonso III. Ṭāriq is said to have landed with 7,000 horsemen and requested 5,000 more from Mūsā. There could thus have been as many as 12,000 Muslim fighters at the battle.[36] One modern estimate, disregarding the primary source claims, suggest a quarter of the 7,500 reported in one of them; this would be approximately 2,000.[37] The Visigothic forces were "probably not much larger", and the Visigothic kingdom was, unlike Francia to its north, not organised for war.[37] A small number of elite clans (perhaps around twenty five), their warrior followings, the king and his personal following, and the forces that could be raised from the royal fisc constituted the troops upon which Roderic could draw.

Snip...

The defeat of the Visigothic army followed on the flight of the king's opponents, who had only accompanied the host "in rivalry", "deceitfully", and "out of ambition to rule" says the Mozarabic chronicler.[32] The story of Sisibert abandoning Roderic with the right wing of the host is a legend. Estimating Visigothic forces at 33,000, David Lewis recounts how the Muslim army engaged in a series of violent hit and run attacks, while the Visigothic lines maneuvered en masse. A cavalry wing that had secretly pledged to rebel against Roderic stood aside, giving the enemy an opening. Ṭāriq's cavalry, the mujaffafa, forming as much as a third of the total force and armored in coats of light mail and identifiable by a turban over a metal cap, exploited the opening and charged into the Visigothic infantry, soon followed by the infantry. The Christian army was routed and the king slain in the final hours of battle. The engagement was a bloodbath: Visigothic losses were extremely high, and the Muslims lost as many as 3,000 men, or a quarter of their force.[38]

This aftermath of this battles seems a lot like the aftermath of Hastings a hundred years later in England. The elders of the nobility are wiped out during the battle along with their King, leaving the land leaderless. There is no one to organized against the invaders so they swipe in and conquer all.

Video...

Here is a site that goes into more details about before and after the battle of Guadalete than wiki does...

LINK: http://www.burnpit.us/2013/07/battle-guadalete-visigoths-defeated-muslim-invaders

Snip... Battle...

Beginning in the mid-morning, the Muslim force weathered several frontal attacks by the Visigoths, driving off the Gothic noble cavalry with missile fire and sharp counterattacks by the mounted Muslim horsemen. The Visigoths would then fall back, regroup, and make further attacks on their enemy.

After several of these probing attacks, King Roderic ordered a full frontal assault on the Muslim position by his entire army. [Several chronicles say that Roderic was seated on a sumptuous throne during the battle, but others state he was riding a warhorse with a beautiful saddle studded with rubies.] At this point, the Gothic center charged, but one wing, perhaps even both, refused to attack. One chronicle even states that the entire right wing simply left the field. Seeing this act, Tariq ordered first his entire cavalry force to charge the isolated Gothic center. Then, he ordered the infantry under his direct command in the center to charge the enemy. Tariq then made a beeline for King Roderic.

The suddenness of the Muslim counterattack – considering they were outnumbered nearly three to one by the Visigoths – took Roderic by complete surprise. The Gothic center was attacked in front and on the flanks. A number of the turncoat Visigoths even joined the attack on their countrymen. Soon after engaging the Gothic ruler, Tariq landed a heavy blow from this scimitar on the helmet of King Roderic. The monarch was knocked from his horse, and fell among the scrum of battle. Very quickly, rumors spread throughout the Gothic army that the king was dead.

The morale of the Visigoths plummeted, and all cohesion and discipline broke down. The Gothic center collapsed, and the noble horsemen began to head to the rear. The Muslim infantry surged forward and attacked the confused Gothic footmen. Although some of the Visigoths fought bravely, they were overwhelmed by nearly crazed Muslims, many shouting their battlecry "Allahu akbar!" [God is great] as they hacked down the demoralized Visigoths. The Gothic army could not long withstand the hammer blows of their enemy, and they broke and ran for the Guadalete River in their rear. However, the river was swift and wide, and many Visigoths either drowned attempting to cross, or were cut down by the pursuing Muslims.

Snip... The site always does a good job on the aftermath....

Footnote #1: The tide of Muslim expansion engulfed nearly all of Iberia within 6-8 years. Several small Spanish kingdoms formed in the north – Asturias and Gallicia to name two – and they led the effort for the Reconquista of Spain for the next 750+ years. This effort culminated in January of 1492, when the monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella accepted the surrender of the last Muslim kingdom in Ibera, Granada.

Footnote #2: It was only 20 years after this battle that a massive Muslim invasion into the Frankish kingdom was halted at the decisive battle of Tours. [For more on this fight, please see my Burn Pit post from October of 2012 battle of tours.]

Footnote #3: When the Muslims first landed in southern Spain and captured Algeciras, there was a prominent mountain across the bay, known to the locals as Mons Calpe. It was later given the Arabic name of Jabal Tariq, or "Tariq's Mountain." It was later corrupted by the Spanish into the word Gibraltar. [For those readers of a certain age, they will remember that the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America uses this mountain as part of their corporate logo. One of their former slogans stated, "Prudential has the strength of Gibraltar." ]

Footnote #4: The personal name Roderic is likely the only Visigothic name which transferred into modern Spanish, as Rodrigo

I left our details I hope you read the link...

The battle that effectively ended Welsh independence and to direct English rule... from wiki... one battle freedom gone forever...

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orewin_Bridge

The Battle of Orewin Bridge (also known as the Battle of Irfon Bridge) was fought between English (led by the Marcher Lords) and Welsh armies on 11 December 1282 near Builth Wells in mid-Wales. It was a decisive defeat for the Welsh because their leader, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was killed, and this effectively ended the autonomy of Wales.

Snip... years earlier...

Llywelyn had already fought a war against Edward I of England in 1277. Edward had organised a large full-time army with which he overran all North Wales as far west as the Conwy River, and a fleet with which he captured Anglesey, depriving the Welsh of much of their grain. Llywelyn was forced to come to humiliating terms, and ceded large areas of Wales to England.
Over the five years which followed, there was continued tension between Llywelyn and Edward over various lawsuits, and increasing unrest between the Welsh people and their English administrators in the newly transferred areas. The revolt was actually begun in 1282 by Llywelyn's brother Dafydd, who had sided with Edward five years earlier but now captured Hawarden Castle and slaughtered its garrison. This was followed by uprisings in many parts of Wales, and Llywelyn declared war on Edward on behalf of all Welsh.

snip... the fight... the welsh fought well...

On 11 December, Llywelyn's army occupied a hillside north of the Irfon River near the village of Cilmeri, placed to repel any attack from the south across Orewin Bridge. The army is thought to have consisted of a few thousand spearmen and javelinmen from North Wales, with some men-at-arms from Llywelyn's own teulu (household), and some local archers from Brecon (who had betrayed their former English allies and joined Llywelyn, having been disappointed in the English failure at the Battle of Llandeilo Fawr). Altogether, the army is thought to have added up to around 7000 infantry and 160 Cavalry (Llywelyn's Teulu). Llywelyn himself was not present, having gone to speak with local leaders (possibly at Builth Castle).
A local inhabitant had told the Marchers about a ford across the Irfon two miles downstream, near its confluence with the River Wye, and they sent most of their archers across it to attack the Welsh in the flank. The Welsh army turned to face them, and the English mounted men-at-arms charged across the now undefended bridge.

Meanwhile, the English archers shot into the Welsh spear schiltrons, weakening and disorganising the troops. The English heavy cavalry then charged the rear of the army. The leaderless and demoralised Welsh were routed.

As the Welsh army fled, Llywelyn returned in haste. On the outskirts of the fighting, he was attacked and cut down by an English man-at-arms named Stephen de Frankton, an English centenar from Ellesmere, Shropshire.

Snip... later...

Llywelyn's body was not recognised until the next day (he had probably gone in secret or incognito to his meeting, and would therefore not have worn any surcoat or other heraldic device). His head was cut off, and taken to London to be exhibited. He left only an infant daughter, Gwenllian of Wales. Leadership of the Welsh fell to Dafydd, who led a guerrilla resistance for some months but was soon betrayed, captured and executed as a traitor. Edward was able to formally end the existence of an organised resistance to English rule in the Welsh regions.

Here is another take on the battle... http://www.burnpit.us/2009/12/battle-orewin-bridge-welsh-indepedence-lost

The Battle that effectively ended Welsh Independence. In 1277, Edward I Longshanks, King of England, had invaded and beaten Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, the Prince of Wales. As a result, portions of Wales came under direct rule of the English. For the next five years, English rule became more onerous, causing great unrest in the occupied areas. On Easter Day 1282, Llywelyn’s treacherous brother Dafydd (David), who had sided with Longshanks previously, reversed his loyalty and took Hawarden Castle and slaughtered its garrison. This act led to other risings throughout Wales, causing Longshanks to again raise forces and invade Wales. After occupying most of northern Wales, King Edward’s forces were not so successful. Two major battles in June (Llandelio Fawr) and November (Moel-y-don) were won by the Welsh, which caused Longshanks to recruit more forces before proceeding further. In the meantime, Prince Llywelyn continued to use his political skills to persuade wavering Welsh nobles to join his cause. He even went so far as to contact the Marcher Lords, who were English nobles established in eastern and southern Wales and enjoyed a large amount of independence from Longshanks. However, three of these Marcher Lords, Roger l’Estrange, John Giffard and Edward Mortimer, were staunchly loyal to Edward. As a result, these three nobles organized a sizeable force to oppose Llywelyn. Besides their own heavy horsemen, men-at-arms and English archers, they also received some forces from a Welsh noble who opposed Llywelyn’s uprising. The English force is thought to have comprised 5000 infantryman and 1300 heavy cavalry, moved from southern Wales in the central part of the country. They were approaching the Welsh town of Cilmeri, north of the Irfon River when they were confronted with a Welsh force occupying a hillside across the Orewin Bridge. The Welsh consisted of 7000 spearmen and javelinmen, with a few local archers and about 200 men-at-arms which were Llywelyn’s personal bodyguard. [Prince Llywelyn himself was not at the battlefield, either scouting the area or holding secret meetings with wavering local Welsh leaders.] A local Welshman loyal to Longshanks told the English commanders about a ford two miles downstream which could outflank the Welsh position. A force of English bowmen was sent across this ford to threaten the Welsh flank. Seeing the threat to their position, almost the entire Welsh army shifted position to face the bowmen, leaving the bridge undefended. This act allowed the English army to cross Orewin Bridge. The English archers then began to rain arrows down on the Welsh formations, killing a large number of the spearmen and disrupting their formations. Finally, the English heavy cavalry worked their way to the Welsh rear area and charged, causing the leaderless and demoralized Welsh to flee the field. Welsh casualties numbered about 2000 dead, with English losses probably light. Just as his army was routing, Llywelyn returned to the field. Trying to rally his men, Llywelyn was killed by an English man-at-arms named Stephen de Frankton. Because he was wearing neither armor nor a surcoat with his coat-of-arms, Llywelyn’s body was not identified until the next day. This battle effectively ended Welsh independence, though Dafydd led a guerilla resistance for the next several months. He was eventually captured in June of 1283, taken to London and condemned to death. His sentence was carried out on October 3, 1283 in the town of Shrewsbury, where Dafydd became the first prominent criminal in English law to be hanged, drawn and quartered…

Here is a battle between Saladin and Baldwin IV(Leper King) called Battle of Montgisard. It interesting because Baldwin IV was young and Saladin is almost killed or capture a few times in battle and the christian army was heavily out numbered. It was a surprised attack.... it was Saladins greatest defeat...

LINK:http://www.burnpit.us/2017/11/battl...eper-king-jerusalem-defeats-saladins-invasion

Saladin believed, with Baldwin and his forces blockaded in the city of Ascalon, that the remainder of his invasion was a sure thing. [A number of smaller towns had small garrisons, but even the garrison of Jerusalem was inadequate for the job of protecting the Holy City.] Therefore, the Egyptian sultan made a serious mistake; he loosened the usually tight discipline he exercised on his army, and allowed his mounted regiments to begin raiding and looting the countryside. The towns of Ramla, Lydda, and Arsuf were attacked and looted, collecting food, horses, and sheep.
However, the Crusader force had left Ascalon a few days earlier, eluding the small blockading force, and began to pursue the Ayyubid army, following the line of destruction left behind them. Finally, in the vicinity of the city of Ramla, near the modern-day village of Tell al-Safi, Crusader scouts spotted a large remnant of the Egyptian army, which included Saladin and his Mamluk bodyguard. Many of the Muslim units were still widely scattered, and would take a long while to reassemble them. Many other regiments were worn out from the long march. In addition, the Egyptian baggage train – carrying the army's accumulated plunder – was bogged down in recently-harvested, muddy fields trying to cross a nearby stream.

Apparently, the approach of the Crusaders gave Saladin sufficient warning to recall some of his troops. He managed to arrange a center division – probably his Mamluk bodyguards, with some supporting infantry – and right and left wings of cavalry placed slightly forward of the center. One of the wings was commanded by Saladin's nephew, Taqi ad-Din.

King Baldwin hastily arranged his battle formations, and asked the Bishop of Bethlehem to bring forward the piece of the True Cross. After being helped down from his horse, the monarch got on his knees before the relic, and prayed for victory. His entire army followed suit, cheering as their leader rose and re-mounted his horse.

Charging the Ayyubid force from the north, the Crusader army was led by King Baldwin himself, flourishing his sword in his left hand. [The first symptoms of leprosy were detected in Baldwin's right arm, and it had subsequently become useless to the teenage monarch.] He was supported by the entire force of heavy knights – fighting in a flying wedge – which impacted the center of the hastily-assembled Muslim force. Despite his youth and his condition, King Baldwin was in the thick of the fighting. The remainder of the Frankish army hurried to catch up to the rampaging knights.
The initial impact of the Frankish knights was like a whirlwind, shattering the Ayyubid formation and breaking the morale of the invaders. Saladin's bodyguards fought valiantly to protect their leader, and the Egyptian sultan came close to death or capture a number of times. If not for the courage of his Mamluks, Saladin might have died.

Despite his efforts to rally his troops, Saladin made a dash for the Egyptian border, riding on a swift camel. Seeing their sultan leaving the battlefield, many of his men followed him. It is likely that some portion of the Ayyubid force continued fighting the Franks, hoping to cover the retreat. Finally, all semblance of cohesion in the Egyptian force broke down in the late afternoon. The invaders sped to follow their sultan, and the Crusaders began a pursuit that lasted until nightfall. The battle of Montgisard was ended…

Snip Aftermath...

Like most medieval battles, casualties for both sides only vaguely stated. Historians estimate that only 10 percent of Saladin's invasion force managed to return to Egypt. [If the stated figure of 26,000 Ayyubid soldiers in the original force is even close to correct, that means that less than 3000 Muslim fighters survived.] It took Saladin 10 days to return to the safety of Egypt. The remnants of his army were harassed all the way across the Sinai Desert, in addition to suffering through 10 days of deluging rain.

The leader of one of the knightly orders stated that 1100 Crusader soldiers were killed in the fighting, and about 750 were wounded. If these figures are accurate, then something like 30-35 percent of the Frankish force was put out of commission. In the long run, the Kingdom of Jerusalem could ill-afford such Pyrrhic victories. They would need a steady stream of western adventurers to journey to Palestine to continue safeguarding the existence of the various Crusader states.

Footnote #1: Saladin was in a precarious position as the Ayyubid sultan. He was not a native Egyptian, being an ethnic Kurd from an area which is now part of the modern-day nations of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. He sent messages back to Egypt to alert his followers that he was still alive and would soon return to resume his rule. Saladin even spread misinformation that the Crusaders had lost the battle. He would continue his attempts to wipe out the Crusader states over the next decade.

Footnote #2: Baldwin memorialized his victory by erecting a Benedictine monastery on the battlefield, dedicated to St. Catherine of Alexandria, whose feast day fell on the day of the battle.

Here is wiki ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard

Saladin continued his march towards Jerusalem, thinking that Baldwin would not dare to follow him with so few men. He attacked Ramla, Lydda and Arsuf, but because Baldwin was supposedly not a danger, he allowed his army to be spread out over a large area, pillaging and foraging. However, unknown to Saladin, the forces he had left to subdue the King had been insufficient and now both Baldwin and the Templars were marching to intercept him before he reached Jerusalem.[4]
The Christians, led by the King, pursued the Muslims along the coast, finally catching their enemies at Mons Gisardi, near Ramla.[6] The location is disputed, as Ramla was a large region that included the town under the same name. Malcolm Barber equates Mons Gisardi with the mound of al-Safiya.[7] Saladin's chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani refers to the battle taking place by the mound of Al-Safiya, potentially modern Tell es-Safi near the village of Menehem, not far from Ashkelon, and within the contemporary Ramla province. Al-Safiya means white and, indeed, the Es-Safi hill is white with the foundations of a Crusader castle recently found at the top, called Blanchegarde. Ibn Al-Athīr, one of the Arab chroniclers, mentions that Saladin intended to lay siege to a Crusader castle in the area.[8] But Saladin's baggage train had been apparently mired. There is a small stream north of Tell es-Safi bordering farmland that in November might have been plowed up and muddy enough to hinder the passage of the baggage train. The Egyptian chroniclers agree that the baggage had been delayed at a river crossing.[9] Saladin was taken totally by surprise. His army was in disarray: part had been held up by the mired baggage train while another part of his force had scattered into raiding parties across the countryside. The horses were tired from the long march. Some men had to hurry to collect their weapons from the baggage train. Saladin's army, in a state of panic, scrambled to make battle lines against the enemy. King Baldwin ordered the relic of the True Cross to be raised in front of the troops.[10] The King, whose teenage body was already ravaged by aggressive leprosy, was helped from his horse and dropped to his knees before the cross. He prayed to God for victory and rose to his feet to cheers from his army.
The Jerusalem army attacked the hurriedly arranged Muslims, inflicting heavy casualties. The King, fighting with bandaged hands to cover his sores, was in the thick of the fighting. Egyptian effective command was under Saladin's nephew Taqi ad-Din. Taqi ad-Din apparently attacked while Saladin was putting his Mamluk guard together. Taqi’s son Ahmad died in the early fighting. Saladin's men were quickly overwhelmed. Saladin himself only avoided capture by escaping, as Ralph de Diceto claims,[11] on a racing camel. By nightfall, those Egyptians that were with the Sultan had reached Caunetum Esturnellorum near the mound of Tell el-Hesi. This is about 25 miles from Ramla. It is only about 7 km from Tell es-Safi (al-Safiya).[4]
Baldwin pursued Saladin until nightfall, and then retired to Ascalon. Deluged by ten days of heavy rains and suffering the loss of roughly ninety percent of his army, including his personal bodyguard of Mamluks, Saladin fled back to Egypt, harassed by Bedouins along the way. Only one tenth of his army made it back to Egypt with him.

Snip aftermath... wiki...

Baldwin memorialized his victory by erecting a Benedictine monastery on the battlefield[citation needed], dedicated to St. Catherine of Alexandria, whose feast day fell on the day of the battle. However, it was a difficult victory; Roger de Moulins, Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, reported that 1,100 men had been killed and 750 returned home wounded.[1]
Meanwhile, Raymond III of Tripoli and Bohemund III of Antioch joined with Philip of Alsace in a separate expedition against Harim in Syria; the siege of Harim lasted into 1178, and Saladin's defeat at Montgisard prevented him from relieving his Syrian vassals.

Here is a video its long ...

Here is a battle that still reverberates to this day in Serbia. It is the Battle of Kosovo in 1389... It is also called the "Fields of the Black Birds"... The battle ends with both armies devastated from which the Serbs never recovered. One of the interesting things about the battle is both leaders were killed in the battle. The Serb leader was killed in the battle while the Turkish leader was killed at his tent by a Serb knights. 12 knights broke through the Turkish line and fought their way to the Sultan tent and one lived to kill the Sultan. The question, who won the battle. I go with the Turks control the field of battle... In the 20th century the Serbs used this Battle to justify their claims to Kosovo and their behavior toward the Muslims...

Snip... elite Turk units...

This standing army had two major components: the janissaries, and the sipahis. The janissaries were former Christian children, taken as slaves in the Ottoman conquest. These boys were forcibly converted to Islam, then trained as foot soldiers. In this time period, their main weapons were the axe, the bow, the lance and the yataghan. The latter was a single-edge sword with a forward curve (see below). The janissaries-to-be were chosen for their physical size and intelligence, with latter being trained as engineers, architects, physicians, even prime minister to the sultan. They were expert archers, and would later adopt muskets as their primary weapons. Janissaries were also considered unequaled artillerymen and grenadiers

The sipahis were the elite cavalry contingent of the army. At this time period, they were recruited in the same manner as the janissaries. They served as the sultan's bodyguard on the battlefield, also guarding his advisors. As needed, the sipahis could be used to strengthen other cavalry division of the Ottoman army. The sipahis wore plated mail (see below), chainmail, round shields, composite bows, lances, maces, and axes.

Snip... confusion...

The dating of this battle is somewhat disputed. Under the old Julian calendar used by the Serbians in 1389, this fight took place on June 15, St. Vitus' Day. Modern Serbians celebrate this battle on June 28. However, when converting dates to their Gregorian calendar counterparts, the date for this battle is actually June 23.
One of the problems with profiling this particular conflict is the lack of contemporary reporting. The Serbians have several later chronicles about the battle, some of which read like historical revisionism. The Turks had the same problem, with the earliest description of the battle not being produced until years later. Surprisingly, there was even controversy over who actually won the battle.

Snip... It one of those battles where a noble leaves the field of battle with his men... a Serb noble did this...

The battle opened with an ineffective cannon barrage by the Serbs, with fell far short of the Turkish army. The Turks replied with a much more effective artillery attack, backed up with a long-range shower of arrows. In response, the entire Serbian coalition heavy cavalry surged forward, formed into v-shaped wedges. After negotiating the treacherous stakes, the Serbian cavalry impacted the Turkish front line. Though absorbing the initial charge of the Serbs, after considerable hard fighting, the Turkish left wing broke and retreated, exposing the flank of the Ottoman center.
Despite being hard-pressed, the Turkish center and right held firm. During this part of the battle, Bayezid's wing received a disproportionate number of casualties in the battle. However, he managed to send some Christian vassal cavalry formations to shore up the Turkish center. The initial charge of the Christian horsemen was finally exhausted after hard fighting.

At some point after the defeat of the Turkish left wing, one of the most controversial events of the battle occurred. Vuk Branković, commander of the Serb right wing, suddenly turned his horse around and retreated from the field, with most of his troops following after him. Serbian history styles him a traitor to his country, supposedly making a deal with the Turk beforehand to leave the battle. It is more likely that, being a practical man, he saw that the Serbs could not win the fight, and decided to save as many of his own soldiers as possible to continue ruling his little province (even if it would probably be under the thumb of the Turks).

The withdrawal of Branković's men gave the enemy a huge morale boost. Shortly afterwards, the Turkish cavalry, mainly the second-line timariots and sipahis, launched a massive counter-attack. This charge of these still-relatively fresh horsemen struck the Serbs like a thunderbolt. After the initial charge broke lances, the Turks began laying about them with swords, axes, and heavy maces. The played-out Serbian horsemen were ground down and annihilated. What Christian cavalry remained was finally forced to retreat, heading back to their infantry to attempt to regroup.

Snip... death of the leaders.... confusion...

The victorious Turks then launched themselves at the Serbian infantry formations. After more hard fighting, the Turks were near to victory. One Serbian chronicle states that Prince Lazar was knocked off his horse at this point. In attempting to mount a replacement steed, many of his soldiers thought their ruler had been killed. The entire Serbian army's morale plummeted, all hope was lost, and the army almost to a man routed.

During the rout, Prince Lazar's horse stepped into a ditch, and he fell to the ground. Turkish soldiers saw this, made a beeline for him, and captured him. Also taken with the prince was one of his sons. They were quickly brought before Sultan Murad, identified, and summarily beheaded. This final act essentially ended the battle of Kosovo Field.

However, there is a footnote to the battle. It seemed that Sultan Murad also perished in this battle, but the exact circumstances are, again, hazy. One tale says that during the a group of 12 Serbian nobles managed to break through the Turkish center, enter the sultan's tent, and kill him. Another chronicle states that Murad was walking the battlefield alone, the day after the battle, surveying the damage his army had done to the Christians. However, hiding among the piles of corpses was a Serbian noble named Miloš Obilić, who rose up covered in blood and stabbed the sultan several times until he died. Thus, the commanders of both armies died.

Snip... aftermath...

No casualty figures are available for this fight; suffice it to say that both armies suffered at least 50-65 percent casualties, perhaps more. The Serbian army was almost entirely annihilated, with the exception of Vuk Branković's force. King Vlatko of Bosnia managed to survive, and returned to his domain. He even sent several letters to various European rulers, claiming a Christian victory.

Footnote #1: Shortly after receiving word of his father's death, Bayezid sent a message to his brother Yakub, saying their father had new orders for him. Then, in the tradition of Ottoman succession, Bayezid ordered the strangulation of his own brother, to tie up any possible loose end. He then ordered a retreat, to reorganize his army for further action.

Footnote #2: Despite the devastating casualties inflicted on the Serbs, it was not until 1459 that the last vestige of the Serbian nation was finally conquered by the Turks.

Footnote #3: The Battle of Kosovo came to be seen as a symbol of Serbian patriotism and desire for independence in the 19th century rise of nationalism under Ottoman rule. Its significance for Serbian nationalism returned to prominence during the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo War when Slobodan Milošević invoked it during an important speech.

Snip... videos...

Here are some more notes on Kosovo...

Snip... aftermath...

Both armies were broken by the battle.[11] Both leaders Lazar and Murad lost their lives, and the remnants of their armies retreated from the battlefield. Murad's son Bayezid strangled his younger brother Yakub Çelebi upon hearing that their father had died, thus becoming the sole heir to the Ottoman throne.[22] The Serbs were left with too few men to defend their lands effectively, while the Turks had many more troops in the east.[11] Consequently, the Serbian principalities that were not already Ottoman vassals became so in the following years, yielding one by one.[11] Furthermore, in response to Ottoman pressure,[23] some Serbian noblemen wed their daughters, including the daughter of Prince Lazar, to Bayezid.[24][25] In the wake of these marriages, Stefan Lazarević became a loyal ally of Bayezid, going on to contribute significant forces to many of Bayezid's future military engagements, including the Battle of Nicopolis. Eventually the Serbian Despotate would, on numerous occasions, attempt to defeat the Ottomans in conjunction with the Hungarians until its final defeat in 1459.

Snip... legacy...

The Battle of Kosovo is particularly important to Serbian history, tradition and national identity.[27]

The day of the battle, known in Serbian as Vidovdan (St. Vitus' day) and celebrated according to the Julian calendar (corresponding to 28 June Gregorian in the 20th and 21st centuries), is an important part of Serb ethnic and national identity,[28] with notable events in Serbian history falling on that day: in 1876 Serbia declared war on the Ottoman Empire (Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78); in 1881 Austria-Hungary and the Principality of Serbia signed a secret alliance; in 1914 the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was carried out by the Serbian Gavrilo Princip (although a coincidence that his visit fell on that day, Vidovdan added nationalist symbolism to the event[29]); in 1921 Serbian King Alexander I proclaimed the Vidovdan Constitution; in 1989, on the 600th anniversary of the battle, Serbian political leader Slobodan Milošević delivered the Gazimestan speech on the site of the historic battle.

The Tomb of Sultan Murad, a site in Kosovo Polje where Murad I's internal organs were buried, has gained a religious significance for local Muslims. A monument was built by Murad I's son Bayezid I at the tomb, becoming the first example of Ottoman architecture in the Kosovo territory.

An interjection here on all these battles. I have never been a big fan of Wikipedia as a source of historical events. For names and dates they are good, but you'll not find much, if any, in-depth historical analysis or deep contextual explanations. These posts all seem to be straight cut/paste jobs from Wikipedia. I guarantee every one of these battles is more thoughtfully covered on a number of history sites.