Part 19
Harith Ubaidah
The Battle Between Sultan Bayezid I and Timur the Lame
Timur the Lame, widely known as Tamerlane, was born into a noble family in the region of Transoxiana. In 1369 CE, he rose to power in Khorasan and established his capital in Samarkand. Over time, he steadily expanded his influence throughout the Islamic world, leading a vast and formidable army that swept across Asia. His campaigns stretched from Delhi to Damascus, and from the Aral Sea to the Arabian Gulf.
His empire came to encompass Persia, Armenia, and the fertile lands between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. He annexed significant portions of Russia, and his banners were raised as far as the Volga River, Jordan, and the Dniester. Timur openly declared his ambition to conquer the known world and rule without rival.
He was known to declare, “There should be only one ruler on Earth, just as there is only one King in the heavens.” Timur’s success on the battlefield was not only due to personal courage but also to his careful military planning. Before launching any campaign, he gathered detailed intelligence and deployed scouts to assess enemy strength. He acted with deliberation, avoided rash decisions, and chose his moments wisely. His calm leadership and strict discipline earned him deep loyalty from his soldiers. As a Muslim ruler, Timur showed high regard for scholars, religious leaders, and particularly the Naqshbandi Sufi sheikhs.
Causes of the Conflict
The confrontation between Sultan Bayezid I of the Ottoman Empire and Timur was driven by several factors:
1. Political Asylum: An emir from Iraq, whose lands had been taken by Timur, sought refuge with Bayezid. At the same time, various Anatolian leaders appealed to Timur for protection. These alliances set the two rulers on a path toward confrontation.
2. Christian Influence: European Christian powers, alarmed by Ottoman expansion, encouraged Timur to attack Bayezid and even urged him to eliminate the Ottoman threat altogether.
3. Diplomatic Hostility: A series of inflammatory letters exchanged between Timur and Bayezid worsened the situation. Timur questioned Bayezid’s lineage and legitimacy, mocking him in a tone that, although cloaked in diplomatic language, was clearly condescending. He concluded one letter by referring to Bayezid merely as “the chief of the Turks.” In response, Bayezid lashed back, threatening to punish Timur’s arrogance in his own capital, Tabriz. These exchanges fanned the flames of conflict, though the core issue remained the same: both leaders sought dominance, and their empires were on a collision course.
The Fall of the Ottoman Army at Ankara
As the two powers moved toward war, Timur marched westward and seized the city of Sivas. Despite being defended by Bayezid’s son Ertuğrul and a force of 120,000, the city fell. In 804 AH (1402 CE), Bayezid mobilized his army and marched to Ankara to confront the Timurid advance.
The two forces met on July 20, 1402. Timur launched the assault, and a brutal battle followed. The Timurid army won a resounding victory. Sultan Bayezid was captured and died in captivity a year later.
Reasons Behind Bayezid’s Defeat
Several key factors contributed to Bayezid’s downfall:
– Impulsive Leadership: Bayezid’s battlefield decisions were often rash and overconfident. He misjudged the strength of Timur’s forces and chose a battleground ill-suited for his large army, which some chroniclers claimed numbered two million.
– Superior Timurid Tactics: Although smaller in number, Timur’s army included thousands of elite warriors who were hardened by harsh training and well-prepared for prolonged campaigns.
– Environmental Hardship: Many Ottoman troops died of thirst, unable to endure the intense summer heat and lack of water on the battlefield.
– Internal Disintegration: Tatars within Bayezid’s ranks deserted early in the battle. In addition, auxiliary forces from recently conquered territories did not remain loyal when faced with pressure.
Despite fighting valiantly, Bayezid and his remaining forces were ultimately overwhelmed and suffered a decisive defeat.
