[513] See the sources and references for Nicopolis grouped in the classified bibliography. Although the citations in the text of my narrative are mostly from Froissart and Schiltberger, all chronicles and contemporary sources available have been used in the preparation of this section, especially Bellaguet’s edition of _Religieux de Saint-Denis_, ii. 425-30, 483-522 (Bellaguet’s notes, however, on these sections are very disappointing). [514] Froissart, pp. 218, 221, 223. [515] Ibid., pp. 227-8, 230, 394-8. A complete list of the chevaliers, compiled from sources, is found in Buchon, and, in much more complete and accurate form, in Delaville Leroulx, ii. 78-86. [516] Froissart, and other earlier writers, have several ways of designating Bayezid. Froissart calls him Amorath-Baquin (p. 216), Amorath (p. 226), le roy Basaach, dit l’Amourath-Bacquin(p. 230), l’Amourath-Bacquin many times, and l’Amourath three times in one paragraph (p. 311). Chroniclers and writers of the fifteenth century were continually confusing Bayezid with Murad (cf. Cuspianus, Secundinus, Sylvius Aeneas, Donado da Lezze, Paolo Giovio, _et al._). From the different ways Froissart designates Bayezid, it is very clear that he is not mixing him with Murad, but that by ‘dit l’Amourath-Bacquin’ he means ‘_l’émir-pacha_’. The fact that he uses the definite article so frequently and says several times ‘l’Amourath’ is proof positive of this. His transcription of the title _emir_, and that of many other western writers, led later historians to think the chroniclers meant Murad! It is merely a coincidence that the words are so similar. Froissart, however, would be capable of mistaking Murad for Bayezid. On p. 216 he calls Sigismund Henry, and on p. 334 Louis! Olivier de la Marche (éd. Beaune et d’Arbuthnot), i. 83-4, speaks twice of ‘Lamourath-bahy’. Here, too, there is not a confusion of Murad and Bayezid. He, like Froissart, means to say ‘l’amiral-pacha’. On ‘amiral’ for ‘emir’ see above, p. 163, _n._ 2. [517] Froissart, pp. 230-1, 242. [518] Donado da Lezze, p. 9. [519] Leunclavius, _Hist. Musul. Turc._, preface, p. 14, speaks of how grateful Sigismund was later for the services rendered to him personally by the Burgrave in the Nicopolis campaign, and that the friendship formed then led to the later advancement of the house of Brandenburg. [520] Wylie, i. 6, 158, quoting Ducas, 13, and _Venetian State Papers_ (Brown), i. 85. Ducas knew nothing of Nicopolis, while the Venetian reference is based on a misapprehension. [521] Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, iv. 311: ‘on l’avait vu à la bataille de Nicopoli sur les bords de la Baltique avec les chevaliers _teutoniques_.’ Lavisse has evidently mixed up the Nicopolis expedition with the earlier Prussian one in which Henry did take part. His statement on the same page that Henry IV took part in the Boucicaut expedition is another error.