Talk:Bayezid I

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bayezid I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Wallachia invasion

I made a minor correction, there were no "Romanians" back then. Is a common mistake in history to identify old people with modern nations. There was no national conciousness of this kind in the middle ages.

depends on what you are talking about - both Hungarian and Wallachian had very strong attitudes of their national identity and defending their 'motherlands' 50.111.63.192 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

In the section on Beyazid in Ottoman Empire, i've NPOVed the portion on nature of Murad's death and outcome of the battle of Nicopolis (AKA Nikopol, Bulgaria). I edited only that article, for the moment, since it is clearly in progress (and the contributor may be about to review transcriptions or wording for reconsideration) and since there are two articles at hand that contradict the battle part.

I am also adding this note to talk pages of Ottoman Empire, Beyazid I, and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor.

If the Ottoman Empire contributor defends her/his version with sources, IMO others should also bring forward sources, and there should be discussion, in case the factual dispute is not resolved, about how to lessen the burden of NPOVing the various articles affected - e.g., could all three articles say "see Death of Murad and Battle of Nicopolis for controversial matters relevant to this section"? -- Jerzy 20:40, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Conqueror of Constantinople?

Beyazid I didn't conquer Constantinople, did he? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Phoenix (talk • contribs) .

No. He besieged it after the Byzanyine Emperor Manuel II escaped from semi-captivity at the Ottoman court in Edirne (or Adrianople, depending on whether you use the Turkish or Greek name). Mehmed II actually took the city in 1453 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.153.95.101 (talk • contribs) .

Info-less box

Such a very big box! So little information in all that blank space! And not even a caption to tell the reader who painted the (Venetian?) portrait, which dates long after Bayazid's time, apparently. Is it not actually of Bayazid II, patron of Western culture?--Wetman 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real problem, Wetman, that some editors deem it helpful to illustrate articles about medieval rulers with modern images, without providing any credits. Those who want an authentic portrait of a 15th-century sultan ought to check Gentile's painting of Mehmed II. The info-box is supremely redundant. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1391, wrong

No this is wrong, bayezid di not lay siege in 1391, I have this book:

Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002

To prove otherwise.Tourskin 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

"and prevented Bayezid from conquering the country" - What citation is needed for that ? Did Wallachia get conquered by Bayezid ? Isn't that common knowledge ? --Venatoreng 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two sons named Süleyman

In the section Marriages and progeny there are two sons named Süleyman. I think both refer to the same person namely Çelebi Süleyman who was the de facto ruler of Rumelia and and was killed in 1411. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two Süleymen's delated. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

What is the word "false" supposed to mean/imply/suggest in this sentence?
( False ) Mustafa Çelebi, Sultan of Rumelia (d. 1422) - son of Devlet Shah Hatun.
A clarification is needed. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Fiction section

Shouldn't the "In Fiction" section be located at the very end of the article, especially after the legacy and Marriages section? --Defensor Ursa 22:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captive painting is not truthful

Bayezid is about 30 years younger than Timur but in this painting he seems wide older than Timur. --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's lovely art and might get included for portraying the historical presentation of Baye's captivity, but you're right that that particular issue should be noted if we include it, either in the caption or in a {{efn}} footnote linked from it. — LlywelynII 21:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

Why is the date of birth 1354 while on the wikis of other languages (e.g. Greek) the date of birth is 1360? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.131.148 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lost material? incomplete?

" Constantine of Ostrovica wrote neither about the cell, nor about the nudity of Bayezid's wife ..." - where did this come from? There was no earlier statement about any nudity. Has something been lost inadvertently through copyediting? 50.111.63.192 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the illustrations, the earliest before 1561, show this, & it is certainly part of the legend. It should be added, with refs. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Bayezid in Captivity section is confusing, irrelevant, and lacks any authenticity, and does not deserve to remain on the page which is only a general overview of his rule. It does not deserve to go into so much detail on one specific event which repeatedly contradicts itself. 67.237.189.189 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could be improved by rewriting, but should not just be cut. The "event" lasted over a year, the last of his life. It would be useful if the consensus view of modern historians was made clearer, but the legend needs to be here either way. It was pretty much the most famous aspect of his life in Europe. It is not surprising if Turkish writers downplay or deny this humiliating episode. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with discussing in depth Bayezid's time in captivity, or even saying that he was treated poorly. However, at the very least the explicitness of the details can be toned down slightly and the image can be removed. There is no need for this article to be so explicit for no real reason, and it could just as easily say that Timur treated him poorly without a few small details which, I must stress, have no authenticity. Fine, keep the narratives themselves, but those certain details should be removed. 67.237.189.189 (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burton's takhtrawan

Aurangzeb's

I'll just note this is still a problem (I came to the talk page for the exact same reason as 50.111...), as was 67.237...'s attitude. Bayezid's captivity has been the single most WP:NOTABLE aspect of his life to Western culture and even one of the main points of Timur's. Of course we should talk about it and of course we should present it more clearly. Neither the images nor the explicitness should be 'toned down' (cf. WP:DONTCENSOR). The nudity of his wife while serving was an important part of the legend, even if the legend was false. It should be stated in the running text, not hidden in a caption, and—if it doesn't match the more important written accounts—the image is if anything too demure for what was being described.

Note also that this article seems to treat the sultan's "iron cell" as a byproduct of poetic excess that captured the early modern imagination too completely. In fact, at least according to an extensive section of the Arab wiki's lengthy and well-sourced treatment of the Battle of Ankara, the actual issue was with mistranslation of the contemporary witnesses' account of the sultan being carried in a takhtrawan (تختروان, its pic) that allowed him to pull a curtain, shade, or shutter between him and his captors. There was apparently some overlap in Turkish &c. description of that royal litter and the words used to describe cages. (Note also that the Arabic articles—and the OED treatment of same term in translation—deal with TRs as only covering covered litters borne between two camels or mules, but the same Persian term seems to get used to describe the early Mughals' open litters borne by teams of porters. It's unclear whether the Arab wiki knows that and is certain the Bayezid accounts are talking about the animal-borne kind or whether they're just using the more common modern meaning of a somewhat ambiguous historical term.) — LlywelynII 22:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you have a go? Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birhts

@Sira Aspera: you edit a lot below. Are those date of birhts of sehzades based on the article or on your sources? TDV doesn't mention these birth dates. Beshogur (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]