Academic literature on the topic 'Ankara (Turkey), Battle of, 1402'

One of the most important events in the Middle Ages was emergence of Timur's Empire between 1370 and 1405, culminating in the battle of Ankara between Timur and Bayezid in 1402. Tamerlane is more correctly called by his Turkish name, Temur; the Westem version of his name comes from the Persian Temuri lang, or "Temur the lame". He was probably born in 1336 near Samarkand (Manz 1990:1) in Transoxiana, which was then part of the Changhatayid Khanate in which Timur grew up. In the 1360s, there was a struggle in the former territory of Chingish Khans's second son, Chaghatayid, whose land was located close to the Isik Kul and Ili river, and included the Muslim territory of Central Asia. By this time, the various groups within the territory had made themselves independent under their own chiefs; this situation continued until Timur's assumption of power in 1370 (Hookham 1962:103).

Serbian language was being practiced in the corresponding countries in the region regarding activities of a different nature. Office of the Serbian language existed in the territory of present-day Albania, Hungary Romania, Moldova and Turkey. In the State Archives of Dubrovnik saved a document in the Serbian language in April 1403rd year, which testifies to the fact that such an office existed on the island in the Aegean Sea Laybos. The main contents of the letter is asking the government of Dubrovnik Francesco Gattilusi II, lord of the island of Lesbos (Mitylene) to check whether the island has its aristocracy from Bosnia and Serbia. Serbian and Bosnian feudal lords had fled from Turkey after Turkey fell into political chaos after the defeat 1402nd years in Ankara. Office of the earliest could be established in autumn 1402, shortly after the engagement of Despot Stefan Lazarevic, with Jelena, the daughter of Francesco II Gattilusi. It is not known how long the office held.

On 29 March 2017, President of the European Council Donald Tusk received a note from UK Ambassador Tim Barrow. Under the document, the procedure of UK’s leaving of the European Union was initiated.1 Gideon Rachman from “Financial Times” compared Brexit to a divorce, stating that the representative of the British government “granted the divorce papers”, thus beginning a “long (planned for two years) attempt to redefine mutual relations” (Rozpoczyna się Brexit…, 2017). In his announcement for the press, Donald Tusk commented: “There is no reason to pretend that this is a lucky day, both in Brussels and in London […] Most Europeans, including almost a half of British voters, would prefer us to be still together” (Wielka Brytania rozpoczyna…, 2017). The stance of the European Council clearly mirrors the moods caused by the decision on Brexit, which are prevailing among all EU member states. It should be noted, however, that leaving the EU by the Brits not only has an impact on their political situation, but it also determines the actions of states aspiring to become members of the Community. The aim of this paper is to discuss the reasons for Brexit and to present the position of the Turkish government on this issue on the basis of the analysis of press articles and politicians’ speeches. The hypothesis we posed assumes that Brexit meant Turkey losing its most important advocate in the Union. Thus, the future of accession negotiations between Turkey and the European Union has been called into question. One should also wonder to what degree Turkey’s foreign policy priorities, which have already been redefined under the influence of the war in Syria, the battle with ISIS, the immigration crisis and the futile accession process so far, will be affected by the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. Will Turkey choose to follow the so-called Trexit route, giving up its membership in the EU?

According to the simplified Byzantine idea, which was never discarded, the Byzantine basileus is the God's elected ruler. He is the only legitimate emperor in the world because he is the legitimate heir of Roman emperors. Apart from Byzantium, a series of other sovereign states existed throughout the Middle Ages on the territory of the former Roman Empire. That condition lead to the formulation of a sustainable interpretation of the conjured hierarchy of rulers and states. At the top of the fictitious ladder stood only the Byzantine emperor, and, at its bottom, rulers of the lowest rank to whom the emperor issued "orders". All other rulers were distributed between these two instances along the fictitious ladder of hierarchy, depending on their power and the esteem they enjoyed. At the same time, the Byzantine basileus was also perceived as the "spiritual parent" of the Christian nations and rulers who, on the otherhand, depending on their esteemed, boasted varying degrees of "spiritual kinship" with the emperor. These Byzantine concepts were adopted by Stefan Nemanja and his heirs, so that, at times, in medieval Serbia they were real and not fictitious. In the last decades of the XIV century, the power and esteem of Byzantium waned rapidly. The Empire had to take on difficult obligations towards the Ottoman Turks of which she was freed only after the Battle of Ankara (1402). The liberation from demeaning commitments brought on a revival of the ever present concept of ideal supremacy of the Byzantine emperor, especially among rulers in the Balkans. Such ideas were adopted by Constantine of Kostenec, the author of the Vita of Stefan Lazarevic, who, however, added certain corrections, conforming them to the views of the Serbian spiritual elite. According to the treaty of Gallipoli, sultan Suleiman accepted (1403) emperor Manuel II Palaiologos as his "father", a fact known also to Constantine the Philosopher, as was later also repeated by sultan Mehmed I. At the time when, in 1410, Stefan Lazarevic received for the second time the crown of despots from Manuel II, relations between the Byzantine basileus and the Serbian despots were defined as those of "father and son". By those means, Constantine the Philosopher elevates the position of the Serbian ruler to the level once held by king Milutin following his marriage to Simonis. The author of the Vita of Stefan Lazarevic took strict care to state the noble rank of the Serbian despots and thus matched it with those of sultan Mehmed I and the contender to the throne, Musa, who addressed the despots as "brother". Constantine the Philosopher makes no mistake either when referring to the king of Hungary and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Sigismund, whose vassal Stefan was. Regardless, of such ties between the two rulers, Sigismund is never mentioned as the despots' "parent" but solely as his "comrade"(ally), probably because the Hungarian king belonged to the oicumene of Western and not Eastern Christianity and could thus by no means have been a "spiritual parent" to the Orthodox Serbian despots.