Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane's Ottoman Campaign: The Battle of Ankara and the Rise of an Empire
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about Tamerlane's campaigns in Persia, India, and against the Mamluks, but one of his most decisive and dramatic confrontations was with the rising Ottoman Empire. It really pitted two of the most powerful conquerors of the era against each other — Tamerlane and Sultan Bayezid I, also known as 'Yıldırım' or 'the Thunderbolt'. Luna: Right — and by that point, Bayezid had been expanding fast in the Balkans and Anatolia, kind of like a parallel empire. Lucas: Exactly. Bayezid had crushed the Crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396 and was annexing beyliks across Anatolia. That put him on a collision course with Tamerlane, who saw those same beyliks as part of his own sphere of influence. Plus, Bayezid had given refuge to some of Tamerlane's enemies — like the Turkmen ruler Qara Yusuf of the Black Sheep Turkomans. So by 1400, war was inevitable. Lucas: Tamerlane first struck at the Ottoman fortress of Sivas in central Anatolia in August 1400. The governor of Sivas was actually Tamerlane's own son, Miran Shah — but he wasn't there; he was back in Persia. The defense was weak, and after a siege of just three weeks, the city fell. What happened next is infamous — Tamerlane ordered the garrison of about 4,000 soldiers buried alive or thrown down wells. It was a brutal message. Luna: That's horrific. But also strategic — he wanted to demoralize Bayezid's forces. Lucas: Precisely. But Bayezid didn't back down. He marched his army eastward, and the two armies met near Ankara in July 1402. Tamerlane had perhaps 140,000 men, though some chroniclers inflate it. Bayezid had maybe 85,000, including his elite Janissaries and heavy cavalry, as well as contingents from his Serbian vassals. Lucas: The battle itself is a masterpiece of Tamerlane's generalship. He used a feigned retreat to draw the Ottoman right wing into a trap, and more importantly, he had sent agents to make contact with the Tatar and Turkmen auxiliaries in Bayezid's army — many of whom were originally from lands Tamerlane had conquered. So right in the middle of the battle, those units defected to Timur's side. Luna: Wow, so he essentially turned Bayezid's own allies against him. Lucas: Exactly. The Ottoman left wing collapsed, and Bayezid's Serbian vassal, Stefan Lazarević, fought bravely but couldn't hold. Bayezid himself was surrounded on a hill with his Janissaries and fought until his horse was killed. He was captured — one of the few times a major sultan was taken alive. Some accounts say he was brought before Tamerlane in chains, and Tamerlane reportedly mocked him, calling him 'the Thunderbolt' who had struck only at a mouse. Luna: But there's also the famous story of Bayezid being kept in an iron cage, right? Lucas: That's a legend that's been debated. The cage story comes from later European chronicles, but contemporary sources like Ibn Arabshah don't mention it. The truth is probably that Bayezid was treated with some respect but kept under guard. He died in captivity about eight months later, either by suicide, illness, or — one Persian account says — by smashing his head against the bars of his litter. We just don't know. Lucas: The aftermath of Ankara was astonishing. Tamerlane didn't try to conquer all of Ottoman territory — he restored the beyliks that Bayezid had absorbed and divided the remaining Ottoman lands among Bayezid's sons, who immediately started fighting each other. That led to the Ottoman Interregnum, a civil war that lasted until 1413. It delayed the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople by nearly 50 years. Luna: So in a way, Tamerlane's victory at Ankara changed the entire course of European history. Lucas: Absolutely. If Bayezid had remained strong, the Ottomans might have taken Constantinople much sooner, and the Renaissance might have played out differently. Tamerlane's campaign against the Ottomans is a perfect example of how one battle can reshape a continent. Lucas: You know, episodes like this — covering the big turning points — they remind me why we make this show. And honestly, if today was worth a coffee to you, that's the link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, even a small amount really helps keep things ad-free and focused on the history. Lucas: Totally. Now, speaking of the Ottomans, one thing I find fascinating is Tamerlane's occupation of Ankara after the battle. He didn't just loot and leave — he held court there for about two weeks, receiving submissions from local rulers and even from envoys of the Byzantine emperor. It was a real display of power. Luna: I've read that he also forced the Byzantine emperor to pay tribute — is that right? Lucas: Yes, Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who had been an ally of Bayezid, sent gifts and a tribute payment. Tamerlane even considered marching on Constantinople, but by that point his army was exhausted and he wanted to return to Samarkand. So he turned east, leaving the Ottomans to their civil war. Lucas: Another detail — Tamerlane's victory at Ankara restored the Anatolian beyliks like the Karamanids, the Germiyanids, and the Candaroğulları. These small states had been crushed by Bayezid, but now they regained their independence. For a while, it looked like Anatolia would be a patchwork of principalities again. Luna: But of course, they didn't last. The Ottomans came back stronger. Lucas: Exactly. Within a generation, Mehmed I reunited the realm, and by the time of Mehmed II, they were ready for Constantinople. Still, Tamerlane's campaign against the Ottomans remains one of his most consequential — and it's a brilliant example of his strategy: never conquer everything, just break your enemy's power structure and let your rivals destroy each other. Luna: So it's not just about the battle — it's about the political chess game. Lucas: Right. And I think that's why Tamerlane still fascinates us. He was a master of not just war, but of the long game.