Battle of Chernomen (Maritsa)

During the 1360s the Ottoman Turks established themselves firmly in Thrace and around 1369 took Adrianople, which swiftly became the centre of the Ottoman state in Europe. Until then the Turks had acted mainly as a raiding force, carrying off plunder and captives to Asia Minor and seizing smaller settlements one by one. The growing danger spurred the strongest Christian rulers of the southern Serbian and Macedonian lands — the brothers Vukašin Mrnjavčević, king and co-ruler of the Serbian realm, and the despot Jovan Uglješa, lord of Serres — to organise a great campaign to drive the Ottomans back into Asia.

The two brothers gathered a large Christian army — the Serbian writer Isaiah, a contemporary of the events, speaks of some 60,000 men, though other sources give far fewer. The army advanced eastward down the Maritsa valley toward the Ottoman centre at Adrianople, counting on surprise and speed.

On the night of 25–26 September 1371, near Chernomen (modern Ormenio) on the bank of the Maritsa, a considerably smaller Ottoman force launched a sudden night attack on the inadequately guarded Christian camp. According to the early Ottoman chronicler Mehmed Neshri the troops were led by Lala Şahin Pasha; other sources credit Sultan Murad I himself. The startled and unprepared Christian army broke in panic. Both brothers, Vukašin and Uglješa, were killed, and much of the army was swept away and drowned in the disorderly flight across the river. Because of this end the event lived on in popular memory as 'the Maritsa' — the river that swallowed the Christian host.

The accounts of the battle come from diverse and often contradictory sources — the Serbian monk Isaiah (a contemporary close to the despot Uglješa), the early Ottoman chronicles of Neshri, the Byzantine historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles and the Anonymous Bulgarian Chronicle. They disagree on almost everything: whose initiative the clash was, Christian or Turkish; who took part; the size of the armies; the name of the Ottoman commander; the fate of the prisoners and the exact date. With such late and partisan testimony many details remain uncertain; the outcome itself, however, is beyond doubt — the total destruction of the Christian army.

Contemporaries agreed that something new and different had happened at Chernomen. Until then the Ottoman presence in the Balkans had had the character of raiding; after the Maritsa a total war for mastery of the peninsula began. The battle removed the last serious military force able to resist the Ottomans and opened their road into Macedonia, Serbia and the Bulgarian lands.

For Bulgaria the consequences were immediate and grave. The rout left the Balkan states to face the growing Ottoman power one by one. Soon after Chernomen, Tsar Ivan Shishman was compelled to acknowledge the sultan's overlordship and become an Ottoman vassal — the condition that preceded the siege and fall of Tarnovo in 1393 and the final end of medieval Bulgarian statehood. The Battle of Chernomen, also called the Maritsa, is among the most decisive engagements in the history of the Balkans.

The account that follows sets out the military operations in greater detail, drawing on the Bulgarian Military History of the Middle Ages by D. Angelov and B. Cholpanov.

The war that flared up in the mid-14th century was directed against the Genoese and their colony of Phocaea, with the conflict quickly expanding to encompass wide territories of the Balkan Peninsula. Two years after the beginning of this war, the Byzantine feudal class, led by the emperor, resorted to calling in Turkish assistance to strengthen their positions and cope with the growing threats. This Turkish intervention proved decisive, as with it the independent principalities of Epirus and Thessaly were conquered, significantly altering the balance of power in the region.

The Byzantine feudal class, although at the head of the empire, was in internal conflict with neighboring peoples and states. It pursued aggressive aims, striving to expand its influence and maintain its power through alliances and agreements with the invaders, among whom the Turkish detachments played a particularly important role. This policy of cooperation with the invaders was in direct contradiction to the interests of the popular masses, who saw in the Turkish threat a serious danger to their lives and lands.

The popular masses, composed of peasants and urban poor, waged a prolonged struggle to expel the invaders both from Asia Minor and Europe. Their resistance was most vividly expressed during the period of class and dynastic struggle in Byzantium between 1341 and 1354, when the Byzantine feudal lords used Turkish aid to strengthen their positions. Throughout this entire period, Turkish detachments were continuously summoned in Thrace and Macedonia, where they were used to crush opponents of the Byzantine feudal lords, including the movements of the peasantry and urban poor.

A particularly striking example of the use of Turkish support is the figure of John Kantakouzenos, who most frequently resorted to the help of the Turks. With their assistance, he managed to ascend the imperial throne and crush all resistance movements in Thrace and Macedonia. However, this policy had severe consequences for the population, as between 1341 and 1354 the Turkish detachments inflicted great damage on Byzantine territories in Thrace and Macedonia, with the devastation being significant and painful for the local population.

In addition to Byzantine lands, Turkish detachments also invaded the Bulgarian state in the years 1344, 1345, 1346, 1350, 1351, and 1352. These invasions caused great devastation, with the Turks abducting numerous slaves and inflicting serious damage on Bulgarian lands. The Byzantine emperor John Kantakouzenos himself wrote about the Ottoman incursion in 1350, describing the crossing of the Turkish leader Suleiman over some ford on the Hebros River (Maritsa) and the subsequent raid in Moesia.

During this raid, Suleiman plundered extensive territories, abducting many people and livestock, after which he returned back to Asia. These raids were especially harsh for the population of Macedonia, which in 1347 suffered particularly severe hardships from the Turkish attacks. This series of events and actions by the Byzantine feudal class, which sought help from the invaders, and by the popular masses, who fought against them, outlines the complex and tragic picture of the political and military processes in the Balkans in the mid-14th century.

The Ottoman raiders who entered the Balkans were initially received as allies of the local feudal class. However, this support quickly turned into a source of tension, as the actions of the Ottoman hordes provoked strong hatred among the Balkan population. The inhabitants of the region, who suffered from constant raids and plundering, began to view the Ottoman invaders as the main threat to their lives and livelihoods. This hatred not only increased the readiness of the Balkan peoples to resist the invaders but also united them in the common desire to expel them.

As a result of these events, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs came to the conviction that only through joint efforts could they cope with the Ottoman threat. Nevertheless, the feudal fragmentation of the Balkan states continued to deepen over time, making it difficult for any one of them to oppose the enemy pressure independently. No Balkan state had sufficient resources and military strength to stop the Ottoman invasions alone. Therefore, it was concluded that the only way to remove the looming danger was to create a common front that would unite the efforts of all the affected peoples.

The popular masses, who for years had been victims of Ottoman attacks, were the ones who best understood the necessity of such a common front. Their suffering and desire for peace prompted them to insist on unity and joint defense against the invaders. This public support was an important factor that encouraged political leaders to take concrete steps in this direction.

In 1351, negotiations began between the government of Constantinople and the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Alexander. These negotiations were initiated even before Orhan’s Ottoman hordes established a permanent presence in Europe, which shows that the Balkan rulers were aware of the growing danger and sought ways to counter it. The main goal of the negotiations was the construction of ships to stop the frequent Turkish raids in Thrace, thereby providing better protection for the coastal areas and the interior of the Balkan Peninsula.

Byzantine envoys sent by the emperor arrived in Tarnovo [Търновград] with the mission to request financial assistance from Tsar Ivan Alexander for the building of these ships. This move was also supported by the inhabitants of Tarnovo, who gathered in the streets of the city and insisted that the tsar allocate the requested sum. They clearly expressed their desire to put an end to the enemy raids through the construction of the ships, which shows that public opinion and popular will played a key role in the political decisions of the time.

By the mid-14th century, the inhabitants of Constantinople were seized by a strong desire to resist the growing Turkish threat. Nevertheless, the masses in the capital failed to impose their voice, and their concerns and appeals remained unheard by the rulers. Particularly sharp were the accusations against the prominent Byzantine aristocrat Kantakouzenos, whom many in the city suspected of treason, as his actions and decisions did not meet the expectations for the defense of the empire.

At the same time, the Bulgarian tsar Ivan Alexander initially accepted the agreement proposed by Byzantium, which, however, proved to be a mistaken decision. He underestimated the serious danger coming from Asia Minor, where Turkish forces were gaining strength and beginning to spread towards the Balkan Peninsula. In addition, the tsar refused to participate in financing the construction of the Byzantine fleet, which could have strengthened the defense against the Turkish naval raids.

The Byzantine emperor, for his part, showed insincerity in his relations with the Bulgarian ruler. Several years later, he even called upon Turkish detachments for help against his internal rivals and neighbors, which only facilitated the Turkish expansion in the region. These actions led to the rapid capture of key fortresses in the Balkans by the Turks.

In 1352, Turkish forces succeeded in capturing the fortress of Tzympe, located on the strategic Gallipoli Peninsula. After this victory, they continued with the capture of the fortress of Gallipoli, which was also an important military and commercial center. The settlement of the Turks in these fortresses marked the beginning of their long-term expansion on the Balkan Peninsula, which would have profound consequences for the region.

In 1354, the Turks launched an invasion into Eastern and Northern Thrace, with their attacks being particularly aggressive and destructive. The Byzantine historian Kantakouzenos reports that the leader of the Turkish forces, Süleyman, attacked Bulgaria with a large army, disturbing the inhabitants, plundering cities, and devastating the land. This military aggression provoked a reaction from the Bulgarians, who sent troops led by Michael, son of Tsar Ivan Alexander, to oppose the invaders.

Despite the efforts of the Bulgarian army, Michael was killed in battle with the Turkish invaders, and the Turks captured a large number of Bulgarian soldiers. These prisoners were taken to Gallipoli, which is noted in the 15th-century "Bulgarian Chronicle" and testifies to the heavy losses suffered by Bulgaria during this period.

After this battle, the Turks continued their advance and over the next ten years conquered numerous towns in the region, including Keşan, Çorlu, Lüleburgaz, Dimotika, Stara Zagora, and others. According to tradition, in 1363, after stubborn resistance, Plovdiv, one of the important cities in Thrace, also fell.

In 1371, Adrianople (Edirne) became the Turkish capital, which was a key moment in the Turkish expansion in the Balkans. Adrianople served as a strategic base for further conquests and the strengthening of the Turkish presence in the region, opening the way for the future expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe.

The losses for the army were enormous – many soldiers fell in battle, and bones remained unburied. Some died by the sword, others were captured, and only a small number managed to escape. The Turks took many prisoners, who were transported through Gallipoli, likely to be used as slaves or for other purposes. This catastrophic defeat marked an important moment in the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and demonstrated how dire the situation was for the local rulers in their attempts to stop the Turkish invasion.

The Byzantine writer Laonicus Chalcocondyles elaborates in detail on the reasons for the defeat of the allied army at Chernomen. According to his observations, one of the main causes of the catastrophic outcome of the battle was the insufficient care for the weapons and horses of the army. This negligence led to a reduced combat capability and readiness of the allies to effectively oppose the attack.

Furthermore, Chalcocondyles emphasizes the negligence regarding the security of the camp at Chernomen, the present-day village of Chirmen. This overlooked security measure allowed the Ottoman forces to carry out a sudden attack, which proved decisive for the outcome of the battle. The carelessness in guarding the camp enabled the Turks to assault it by surprise, significantly weakening the resistance of the allied troops.

Ottoman sources confirm the role of the sudden attack in the defeat of the allies. According to them, the assault was carried out during the night, which further increased the effect of surprise and confused the defenders. The leading cavalry detachment that executed the attack was part of the army of Lala Shahin, one of the Ottoman commanders known for his tactical insight.

The camp of the allied forces was surrounded, with the roads by which they could advance or retreat having been previously occupied by Ottoman forces. This strategic encirclement deprived the allies of the possibility to maneuver and respond quickly, contributing to the complete rout of the army.

During the battle, two of the leading commanders of the allied army—Valkaship and his brother Uglesha—were killed. Their names have been preserved in local tradition, which keeps the memory of their demise alive. This account is also documented in the chronicle of Ivan Muzaki, written in 1510. This source is based on narratives from contemporaries of Valkaship, which were orally transmitted from generation to generation, lending credibility to the information about the events.

The troops commanded by Valkaship and Uglesha were mainly composed of Bulgarians from their domains. This assertion is also confirmed by Ottoman sources, which likewise note the Bulgarian composition of the allied army. This ethnic makeup of the forces highlights the importance of the Bulgarian lands and population in the conflict and their role in attempts to resist the Ottoman advance.

Additionally, in the history by the Serbian chronicler Mihailo Konstantinović of Ostrovica, written in 1490, Valkaship is called a ruler of Bulgarian land. The same designation appears in the chronicle of Ivan Muzaki, as well as in the 16th-century chronicle manuscript "Serbian Genealogy" (Rodoslovie Serbskoe). These sources emphasize Valkaship’s status as a ruler of Bulgarian territories, which further explains his role and significance in the allied army and in the events surrounding the battle of Chernomen.

Ivan Shishman ascended the throne of the Tarnovo Tsardom only a few months before the Battle of Chernomen, marking the beginning of a difficult period for the Bulgarian state. Nevertheless, the question of whether Bulgarian detachments from the Tarnovo Tsardom participated in the battle itself at Chernomen remains unclear and is not confirmed by the available sources. This uncertainty highlights the complex political and military situation in the region at that time, when Bulgaria was trying to cope with the growing Ottoman threat.

The Byzantine historian Laonicus Chalcocondyles reports that after the defeat at Chernomen, Sultan Murad directed his forces against Ivan Shishman. This shows that the Ottoman advance was not limited to Thrace but continued into Bulgarian territories, where the tsar was forced to defend himself. As a result of this military campaign, Sultan Murad succeeded in defeating Ivan Shishman and compelled him to retreat to the "Danubian borderlands," which today lie in northern Bulgaria. This retreat was a strategic decision aimed at preserving the remnants of Bulgarian authority and securing the possibility for further resistance.

Ottoman sources further confirm that after the battle of Chernomen, Ottoman troops continued their advance to the foothills of the Balkan range (Stara Planina). This fact illustrates the scale of Ottoman expansion and the severity of the defeat suffered by Ivan Shishman in Thrace. The loss of control over these territories placed the Bulgarian tsar in an extremely vulnerable position and necessitated diplomatic actions.

The defeat in Thrace forced Ivan Shishman to enter into negotiations with Sultan Murad, seeking a way to stabilize the situation of his tsardom and to prevent its complete conquest. During these negotiations, Ivan Shishman promised military cooperation to the sultan, which was a clear sign of a change in the policy of the Tarnovo Tsardom and an attempt to achieve peaceful coexistence with the rising Ottoman power.

To cement the new agreement, Sultan Murad married Ivan Shishman’s sister, Tamara-Mara. This marriage had not only political but also symbolic significance, as it solidified the alliance between the two parties and demonstrated the Bulgarian tsar’s willingness to accept Ottoman influence. This dynastic connection was an important element of Ivan Shishman’s diplomatic strategy in an effort to preserve the remnants of his authority and to ensure relative stability in his tsardom after the heavy defeats on the battlefield.

In 1373, the Ottomans launched a large-scale offensive on a broad front in Thrace and Macedonia, which was part of their strategy to expand their influence on the Balkan Peninsula. One of the columns, commanded by Timurtaş, moved north along the valley of the Tundzha River, capturing the important town of Elhovo on the way. Afterward, the Ottoman column continued towards Yambol, where it encountered fierce resistance from the local defenders.

The defenders of the fortress near the present-day village of Boyadzhik, as well as those at the approaches to Yambol, waged a heroic struggle against the Ottoman troops attempting to break through the defenses. Particularly significant was the resistance at the fortress located in the area of the village of Voynika, which according to historical research is identified with the fortress Dultrovi. This fortress, although not yet localized with absolute precision, is presumed to be near Yambol, controlling key roads along the valley of the Tundzha River.

Dultrovi is a fortress with deep historical roots, its name suggesting an ancient origin. It is mentioned in the Hambarli Inscription, where fortresses from the time of Khan Krum are described, attesting to its importance already in the early Middle Ages. The territory where it is located became part of the Bulgarian state precisely during the reign of Khan Krum, and the deployment of the Bulgarian army from that period corresponds to the route of the rampart passing near the fortress.

During the Middle Ages, the shortest route from Adrianople (Edirne) to Pliska and Veliki Preslav passed along the valley of the Tundzha River, following its left bank through the Rish Pass. The fortress Dultrovi controlled this important road, as well as the route from Constantinople through Viza and Skopel (Eskipolos) via Fakia to the Rish Pass and from there to the Bulgarian capitals. This strategic location made the fortress key for the defense of the region and for control over trade and military routes.

Archaeological research conducted by K. Shkorpil revealed that the fortress was reinforced with three defensive ramparts located at distances of 40, 120, and 140 steps from it. These ramparts were likely built by the Bulgarians and served as additional protection for the fortification. The fortress wall, constructed of rubble stones bonded with white mortar mixed with crushed bricks, reached a thickness of 1.5 meters and a height of up to 1 meter, which testifies to the serious military preparation and the importance of the fortress.

The fortress Kaleto near the village of Voynika, which rises about 1.5 kilometers south of the village, is situated on a reverse peak of the Bakadzhik Hills, from where there is an excellent view for tens of kilometers. The length of the fortress is about 130 meters, and its width is 30 meters. It is assumed that its entrance is on the east, which was probably a strategic decision for controlling access and observing the surroundings.

The heroic resistance of the defenders of the fortress Dultrovi and the approaches to Yambol was crucial in delaying the Ottoman advance in this area. Their struggle demonstrates the determination of the local population to protect their lands and strategic sites against the increasingly advancing Ottoman forces, who sought to establish control over Thrace and Macedonia. These events of 1373 illustrate the complex military and political situation in the region during the late Middle Ages and highlight the role of fortresses as centers of resistance and control over important routes.

After the conquest of Yambol, the Ottoman troops under the command of Timurtaş did not continue with new conquests, but returned to Adrianople (Edirne). The siege had been extremely harsh and had cost the Ottomans many casualties, who needed to replenish their contingents, rest, and recover after prolonged fighting.

At the same time, the garrisons of the fortresses Karnobat and Aytos offered strong resistance to the Ottoman invaders, while the defenders of other Bulgarian strongholds on the slopes of the Balkan range (Stara Planina) also fought valiantly and did not allow the enemy easy penetration.

According to local tradition, at the head of the defense of the fortress Shepkingrad, located north of the town of Tvarditsa, stood Tsar Ivan Shishman. In a fierce battle at Shepkingrad many Ottomans were killed, which testifies to the fierce resistance and determination of the Bulgarian defenders to preserve their territories. These events show that despite the loss of Yambol, the Bulgarian fortresses continued to be a serious obstacle to the Ottoman advance in the region.

According to the tradition reported by P. Deliradev, an Ottoman detachment settled in the area of Muglizh, near the present-day town of the same name, establishing a camp in this region. This detachment, led by Lala Shahin, not only occupied the area but also committed plundering, having robbed the nearby monastery in Muglizh. During these actions, the Ottoman soldiers captured the sister of Yanko Voivode, Borila, while Yanko himself was absent. This situation caused serious tension and danger for the Bulgarian defenders in the area.

Despite the difficulties, Yanko Voivode managed to sneak into the Ottoman camp during a dark and foggy night, demonstrating his courage and skill in operating under complex conditions. He freed his sister Borila from captivity, which caused confusion among the Ottoman invaders. In the ensuing chaos, the Ottoman soldiers killed each other, significantly weakening their forces and disrupting order in their camp.

Meanwhile, the garrisons of several key fortresses – Kostenets, Kokalyanski Urvich, Ikhtiman, and Samokov – offered strong resistance to the Ottoman troops. According to local traditions, Tsar Ivan Shishman also took part in the defense of these fortresses, highlighting the importance of the resistance and the personal involvement of the Bulgarian ruler in the defense of the country.

The fortress of Kostenets was located on the hill Gorna Tsurkva, also known as Stara Tsurkva, in the area of the present-day town of Kostenets. The researcher Y. Ivanov visited this area and noticed traces of the fortress walls, confirming the historical significance of the stronghold. According to a local tradition recorded by Ivanov, after the fall of Kostenets, the Bulgarians did not surrender but continued the fight in fortifications in the areas of Bunara and Gradishteto.

In the area of Gradishteto, remains of defensive constructions can still be seen, where the Bulgarian resistance continued for a long time. The defenders of this fortification were forced to abandon it only after the Ottomans discovered and cut off the water supply to the garrison. This tactical move by the Ottomans demonstrates their determination and skill in using siege and deprivation of resources as a means to capture fortresses.

Despite the loss of the fortification at Gradishteto, the Bulgarians did not surrender. They engaged in open battle with the Ottoman forces, managing to break through and retreat towards the valley of the Bistritsa River. This episode demonstrates the persistence and fighting spirit of the Bulgarian defenders, who did not give up resistance even under difficult circumstances.

Also noteworthy is the account of the traveler Evliya Çelebi, who visited Kostenets in 1653. He describes the stubborn resistance of the fortress garrison, which testifies to the long-lasting significance of this fortress as a center of Bulgarian defensive activity against the Ottoman invaders. These accounts complement the picture of the prolonged and fierce struggle of the Bulgarians in the region after the Battle of Chernomen.