Chapter I

(3A.) “Nicopoly.”—In my Geographische Anmerkungen zum Reisebuch von Schiltberger (Sitzungsberichte d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 271), I have endeavoured to shew that, in stating that the Infidels knew the city of “Schiltaw” by the name of “Nicopoly”, Schiltberger does not call attention to the city of Nicopolis on the Danube, near the estuary of the Osma, but to ancient Nicopolis founded by Trajan, the ruins of which are still to be seen near the village of Nikup, on the Rushita, a tributary of the Yantra. I was formerly of opinion that the battle which decided the Eastern question at that period, was fought near the village, and this opinion, adopted by several authors of merit, has recently been supported by M. Jirecek in his admirable work, Geschichte der Bulgaren, wherein reference is made to an ancient Servian Chronicle in which it is recorded, that the battle took place “na rece Rositê u Nikopolju”. It would appear, however, that the author of this notice, through some misapprehension, confounded the Rushita with the Osma; and M. Kanitz (Donau-Bulgarien, ii, 58–70) having lately, on just grounds, condemned my hypothesis, I am now persuaded that the Christians were defeated by Bajazet in the neighbourhood of the present town of Nicopolis, which was in existence at that time, though from what period is not known; nor are we able to determine when the ancient Nicopolis “ad Hæmum”, disappeared.

If Schiltberger’s contemporaries sometimes designated the one city by the name of Great Nicopolis, they did so simply to distinguish it from a fortress on the opposite, the left bank of the Danube, called Little Nicopolis, that was taken by the Christians in the preceding campaign (Jirecek, 354). It is, therefore, just possible, that the sultan, having passed Trnov, or Ternova, when on his way to the besieged city, had also entered Tchunkatch (see trans. of the Turkish historiographer, Neshry, in Zeitschr. d. D. Morgenl. Gesellsch., xv, 346), the name possibly given by Neshry to the castle of Tchuka, the ruins of which are to be seen in the upper part of the city, called now as it was then, Shvishtov, Shistov, Sistova, situated at a distance of fifteen miles to the south-east of the field of battle. If such were indeed the case, I would venture to suggest, until some better explanation is offered, that our author may, by mistake or through some misconception, have given to the besieged city the name of Shistov, corrupted by him to “Schiltaw”.—Bruun.

(3B.) Nicopolis, the city besieged “by water and by land for XVI days”, must, unquestionably, have been the place of that name on the right bank of the Danube, and not ancient Nicopolis, “ad Istrum”, as believed by some authors, the site of which, distant nearly forty miles from the river, has been satisfactorily determined by M. Kanitz, from an inscription he has been fortunate enough to disinter out of a mass of its ruins. The present Nicopolis, built on a limestone cliff, fills a ravine formed by two heights commanding the town. Sigismund may, or may not, have occupied those heights; but, when surprised at his dinner, at ten o’clock in the morning on the day of the battle, by being informed that the Turks were making their appearance (Froissart, iv, c. 52), he advanced one mile only from his encampment outside the beleaguered city, for the purpose of encountering Bajazet; and the French assumed the offensive immediately after the “Duke of Walachy” had reconnoitred the enemy’s position. If a further advance was made at all, it could scarcely have covered much ground, seeing that the 12,000 foot-soldiers routed by Sigismund had advanced to oppose him; and when the king was about to follow up his victory by attacking a body of horse, the sultan being on the point of taking to flight, the timely aid of the latter’s ally, the despot of Servia, changed the fortunes of the day. The battle, says Froissart, lasted three hours only, and the result, so disastrous to the Christian army, he attributes to the impetuosity of Philippe d’Artois, Comte d’Eu, who disregarded the instructions of the king of Hungary. “Nous perdons hui la journée”, said the latter to the Grand Master of Rhodes, “par l’orgueil et bobant (vanity) de ces François; et s’ils m’eussent cru, nous avions gens assez pour combattre nos ennemies.”

The Christian soldiers fled in disorder, and being hard pressed by Bajazet’s troops, many were killed on the mountain, one of the heights near Nicopolis, as they hurried to the Danube, many others being drowned in their unsuccessful efforts to reach the shipping—probably some of the vessels of the Venetian blockading squadron, under the command of Giovanni Mocenigo, on board of which, Sigismund, and Philibert de Noillac, Grand Master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, were received; the latter being conveyed to Rhodes, whence the ships sailed for Dalmatia to land the king. It seems pretty clear, from Schiltberger’s narrative, that the battle of Nicopolis was fought in the immediate vicinity of the city on the Danube, and therefore at a considerable distance from the ancient Nicopolis, the city of Trajan. Details of the action will be found in Aubert de Vertot d’Aubeuff’s Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers de St. Jean de Jerusalem, etc., 1726.

There is no evidence that Schiltberger set foot in Shistova, but the name had doubtlessly become familiar to him, both before and after his capture, at a time that he was totally unacquainted with the language of the people amongst whom he had fallen. If the incidents of his eventful career were indeed dictated from memory, his statement that the Infidels knew Nicopolis as “Schiltaw”, for Shvishtov, Shishtovo, may be accounted for, by the accidental confusion of names.—Ed.

We read in Boucicault, that one Jean Chasteaumorant arrived in Turkey, with the money for the ransom of the French knights. It is very possible that a namesake, and even a near relative of this Châteaumorant, was among them, to whom the marshal afterwards entrusted the defence of Constantinople against the Turks, upon his own return to France.—Bruun.