Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Mohács

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylansmitt127 (article contribs).

Chaos Among The Ottoman Ranks

[edit]

Article states upon the initial "success" of Hungarian lines, there were chaos among Ottoman ranks. That can't be true because the initial "loss" is an Ottoman tactical manoeuvre. After the first small attack of Ottomans (which is known to be a loss), enemy is expected to push forward only to encounter with a stronger Ottoman force. This is exactly what happened in Mohac. The initial loss was planend from the beginning. Besides how can there be chaos in a battle which only took a few hours? Ottomans stayed straight all the way so that they could eliminate the enemy. You can't put your army into order in a few hours if there was any chaos. It just doesn't make any sense. This claim also lacks any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.228.236 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottomans had to be in numerical superiority because of the lack of well armed forces. Don't forget the Turks (mostly) always lost their battles against Hungarians where the numbers of the armies were equal.

The main article is intentionally not accurate... it is biased against ottomans.. Ahmedashourful (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Executed POWs

[edit]

Reportedly among the 2,000 were Pal Timori and several other notable Hungarian leaders.

I never heard that. What is the source of this information? By the way Tomori was killed by a gunshot, when he tried to stop the fleeing Hungarian soldiers.

I do not know if the 2000 included many nobles. Lord Kinross simply says that the Sultan ordered that no prisoners be taken. Kinross reports this policy was "more expedient than chivalrous." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.50.19 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately?

[edit]

This line "Unfortunately the fall of Belgrade ... meant that most of southern Hungary was now indefensible." is apparently written from a point-of-view in which it was unfortunate for Hungary to be indefensible. Should the article be adopting that POV? Filu3

And here again; "Unfortunately, by the time the Ottoman's army had crossed, the Transylvanian army was further from Buda than the Ottomans were. " I think wikipedia should be neutral on battles. Oghuz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.10.220 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • another example of POW: "The result was a disaster, with the Hungarians advancing into withering fire and flank attacks, and falling into the same trap that John Hunyadi had so often used successfully against the Ottomans..." Disaster for whom? Ottoman army? Sulaiman?? to me the result looks like a success ! --94.123.214.185 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

little choice

[edit]

This I don't understand at all: "the Ottomans had little choice and decided to use military power" -- why did they have little choice? Filu3

The strength of the armies

[edit]

"Hungary mustered some 25,000 men and 85 cannon (only 53 being used in actual battle), while for various reasons the troops from Transylvania and Croatia failed to arrive. The Ottomans are said to have numbered over twice as many - though this figure is exaggerated - and had up to 160 cannon." David Nicolle, Hungary and the fall of Eastern Europe, 1000-1568, p. 13

"The latter group prevailed, and on August 29, 1526, the fateful battle of Mohacs was fought: 25,000 to 28,000 Hungarians and assorted allies on the one side, and on the other 45,000 Turkish regulars supported by 10,000 to 20,000 lightly armed irregulars." L.S. Stavrianos, The Balkans Since 1453, p. 76 Lysandros 17:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

........(i-tech)as i read, ottomans had an army of 100.000 and hungary had a 150.000 one.

what? check your sources ...
Ottoman Empire: population: 20 million.
surface  : >1.5 million skm
Hungary  : population: 4 million
surface  : aprox. 350,000 skm
Plus the Ottoman's had a bigger and much more modern army. --fz22 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The european armies were moderner than turks (Don't forget: Hungarians and Italians teached the turks about cannon produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.4.5 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, Turkish army was made of professional soldiers, Janniseries who was solely combatants. Europeen armies were gathered during war time from knights whose main duty was governing. Besides greatest cannons were Turkish made during that era, check for şahi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.228.236 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman army was far superior, money as well as technology wise. see following: janissaries, kapikulu corps, abus gun, mehteran... --94.123.214.185 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you cant know population of ottomans because that times they dont count population.The first population established is 1800s. toolga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolga (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while ottoman population was huge, even if not count, most of them are non-muslim and only muslims(arabs fight for ottomans very rare) can be a soldier in ottoman army, unless merceneries, in addition ottoman army consist of professional soldiers, so less in numbers as you pay them or give them some land(timar). in every article on battles on wiki i have read, there is a heavy dispute on numbers. i think you should mention what every source claims, to get rid of this disputes. everone says we are too few like 1000 men and enemy were 100000 and either we win as we are super heroes or we lost, but killed 90000 of their men(even some historians follow this way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.82 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian commanders

[edit]

Somebody regulary changes the name György Zápolya to John Zápolya. It was György who led the Hungarian army.

The king was present, but not commanded the army. Two commander was elected by the war council: György Zápolya count of Szepes and Pál Tomori archbishop of Kalocsa. They led the army jointly though Tomori was dominant. Both of them became KIA. John Zápolya (voivode of Transylvania)was György's brother and he did not take part in the battle. 84.2.210.3 10:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman-Habsburg wars ???

[edit]

Someone please explain me why is the battle of Mohács part of the Ottoman-Habsburg wars?

"In the battle, forces of the Kingdom of Hungary led by King Louis II (Jagiellonian) were defeated by forces of the Ottoman Empire led by Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent."

--213.178.108.57 10:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the slow response but understand this: the King of Hungary was married to the sister of the leading Habsburg family member in Austria, the Archduke. In turn, he was married to the sister of King Louis of the Hungarians, so there is a dynastic connection. Furthermoore, it marked the start of the wars so must be included for teh sake of completness. I will however, remove it if a concensus can be achieved against such a decision.Man of Bravery!! 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The battle

[edit]

In the second paragraph of this subtitle explainig the battle, it is explained different than I learned from Turkish sources. In Turkish sources it says that letting Hungarian soldiers penetrate deep into the Ottoman army was an old Turkish military tactic. It has been performed in so many battles by the Turks and also by muslim Arabs during the history. The name of this tactic is "Crescent Moon" and it is as follows:

While two armies start engaging, Turks separate themselves into two parts in the left and right wings so that the rival army thinks that Turks are retreating (the shape of the Turkish army,at this stage, looks like a crescent).This causes the rival army to penatrate into the Turkish army with an aim of overwhelming victory.

When the rival army penetrates enough into the Turkish army, two wings start closing trapping the rival army inside and usually no rival slodier is taken prisoner, which simply means massacre of the rival force in the battle field.

The following video shows roughly how the tactic is performed from 2:34 to 2:37. The video has been taken from the movie "Kingdom of heaven". [1]

So that was a planned tactic and did not cause any panic in the Ottoman army. It is true that Sultan Süleyman was in danger for a while and some of his close guards who are called içoğlan were killed by Hungarian soldiers. At the end of the battle there was a pyramid made of about 3000 heads of killed knights and nobles in front of the Süleyman's tent.

--Ersinist 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In Turkish sources it says that letting Hungarian soldiers penetrate deep into the Ottoman army was an old Turkish military tactic."
So old and so Turkish that even Hannibal employed it over 1700 years before Mohács. Amanitin (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hungarian sources:

  • the Hungarian army was already on the battlefield, when the Ottoman army arrived on August 28. The Hungarian field armies were drawn up into three main battles (to avoid encirclement in long-drawn-out defense), at early dawn. The battle started before all Ottoman units were fully deployed. At 3:00 PM, Tomori's forces opened hostilities in the right and had acieved success, but the middle battles formations failed against the janissary ... So I do not see any 'crescent moon' tactics possible ... Regards --fz22 19:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation section upgrade

[edit]

What's the goal of this secion if fact? To summarize somehow thousand of bibliography books in few lines. IMO my version is in some degree more accurate then it was. Now the paragraph contains a lot of repetition, contradiction, and irrelevant parts:

  • The Hungarian army was divided into three main units... this could be mentioned in the Military of Hungary article under the King Sigismund's Military Laws chapter. It is not connected to the preparation section directly ...
  • Contemporary historical records, though sparse, indicate that Louis preferred a plan of retreat, in effect ceding the country to Ottoman advances, rather than directly engaging the Ottoman army in open battle.

Not just indicate, but this is a fact ... Preferred a plan of retreat, up to Mohacs where the densely populated part of the country begun. The Srem was already deserted, in those times.

  • The Hungarian forces chose the battlefield, an open but uneven plain with some swampy marshes near Mohács leading down to the Danube.
  • The Ottomans had been allowed to advance almost unopposed.
  • While Louis waited in Buda, they had besieged several towns and crossed the Sava and Drava Rivers.

repetition

  • Louis assembled around 25,000 to 28,000 soldiers while the Ottoman army numbered around 50,000 to 65,000.[1][2][5] correct but already part of the infobox
  • The Hungarian army was arrayed to take advantage of the terrain and hoped to engage the Ottoman army piecemeal. - contradiction the battlefield was ill-chosen. --fz22 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a contradiction - the battlefield was level for heavy cavalry to charge through, but was ill - choosen because the Danube was not defended. Tourskin (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troop numbers for the Ottomans and Hungarians

[edit]

The Ottoman strength appears to be seriously under estimated. According to the following sources, the Ottomans had 100,000 men almost, and 15,000 Janissaries.

The sources are:

  • Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. p. 132. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  • Stephen, Turnbull (2003). The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey. pp. p. 46 – 48. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

I will edit this article if no response is given because the current number of Ottoman troops relies only on a book about Hungarian decline - which might underestimate the strength of the Ottomans and look instead to the weaknessess of the Hungarians on par with the book's theme. Furthermore, I have two reliable references written by two credible publishers, Osprey and Dorling Kindersley whilst the current numbers fluctuate with the one present source in the article - the reference says that the Ottomans' outnumbering the Hungarians by more than 2 to 1 is "an exageration" - so why does the article say the Ottomans were 60,000 and the Hungarians 28,000 - 20,000, hmm? Thats between 2- 3 times greater. So we have inconsistency at the moment - unacceptable! lol but lets be serious here. Furthermoore, according to Grant, the Ottomans third line of cannon and Janissaries held the knights, and John Zapolyai did not do battle - he arrived a day late and then fled to the Ottoman Sultan seeking his permission to be vassal king. Tourskin (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current number of Ottoman troops relies on three sources, not only on a book about Hungarian decline:
1. Stavrianos, Balkans Since 1453: "...45,000 Turkish regulars supported by 10,000 to 20,000 lightly armed irregulars."
2. Molnár, A Concise History of Hungary: "...50,000 men against 25,000."
3. Nicolle, Hungary and the fall of Eastern Europe: "The Ottomans are said to have numbered over twice as many..."
According to the article the Ottomans were around 50,000 to 65,000 (not 60,000), and the Hungarians 25,000 to 28,000 (not 20,000-28,000). Lysandros (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Its just that believe it or not, Ottoman numbers counted - since the foolish Hungarian cavalry charges found themselves heavily outnumbered when they hit the cannon-chain line, as stated by Grant in his Dorling and Kindersley book.Tourskin (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar

[edit]

This article neglects to say in what calender the dates are given. I suppose the Julian calendar is most likely, with a small chance the proleptic Gregorian calendar was used, but I think expecting our readers to figure that out is not the way to treat our readers. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Julian calendar was probably used in this document, I have removed the autoformatting of dates. If this had remained, some readers would have seen dates in the form 1526-08-29, that is, the ISO 8601 format. That format would have constituted an assertion that the date is in the Gregorian calendar. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Ottoman resources?

[edit]

Why? The article is not accurate. "65000 vs 26000" its not true according to Ottoman archives. Ottoman advantage was firepower not the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.90.215 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget: Historically, the Turkish artillery were developed by Christian foreigners (Italians Hungarinas) in the 15th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.5.102 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every (Turkish and Hungarian) sources and real (academic) mainstream historians state the numbers were around 65000 Turks VS. 26000 Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.4.5 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Turks had perfected use of hand carried guns. First time in history they made lines of fire and decimated the charging cavalary. Having also invented trigger-like firing mechanisms, they were very mobile and quick. This was a tremendous advantage in the field. Many interesting details about the battle, weapons and tactics is missing from this important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Europeans (Hungarians Italians) taught the Turks to make fire-arms and cannons.

Background PoV

[edit]

The section entitle "Background" appears to have a considerable amount of PoV writing, and has no references, making me think it is the author's own original contribution, written from a certain PoV. Perhaps that could be cleaned up a bit? Example: the bit about the nobility oppressing the people rather than defending the kingdom of Hungary. Doug (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Consequences than just Hungary.

[edit]

The Battle of Mohacs greatly weakened the Emperor and put a fear of the Moslim advance into europe again. It has been cited by many as one of the turning points of history, an argument put forward by a number of historians and most succinctly by Belloc, that had Mohacs not happened neither would had the reformation succeeded. It broke and paralysed the Imperial forces and forced a look to the east and not inside itself distracting the Emperor from the revolts which would lead to the permanent sundering of Christendom and as such one, if not the after Tours the most important battle in European history in casting the shape of the world to follow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.245.115 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BAttle of Mohács video

[edit]

Revert

[edit]

User CoolKoon reverted my edit with following explanation: "Undid revision 448622735 by PANONIAN (talk) - you should work on that map of yours a bit more. Thököly's (short-lived) principality was NOT an Ottoman vasal state"

Answer: first of all my map lists its references and they claiming that principality of Imre Thököly was an vassal Ottoman state. Here is quotation from one of the sources that I used ("Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002"): "Intention of Thokoly was to unite all Hungarian territories under Ottoman suzereinity. Ottoman Porta proclaimed him for a king of Hungary, but he took for himself only title of a prince of Upper Hungary. According to Ottoman document (berat), Thokoly ruled over 13 northern Hungarian counties and this area was called Orta Macar (Middle Hungary) in Turkish. It was defined as an Ottoman vassal autonomous principality and it was obligated to pay 20,000 ducats per year to Ottoman authorities." Now, if you think that this is not correct, please provide quotations from other sources that might claim opposite things and then we can analyze these quotations. The second question is: why you returned to article map named "Hungary 1683", which certainly have numerous errors and which show completely incorrect borders of eyalets in year 1683 (not to mention other errors). Uploader of that map did not provided any references and therefore his map is example of original research that cannot be confirmed by sources. If I am not right, please present some sources that can confirm that borders of eyalets in map named "Hungary 1683" are correct. PANONIAN 09:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Now, let examine what some other sources are saying about Imre Thokoly and Upper Hungary:

  • [2] - Quotation: "Thokoly was received with great pomp by the pasha of Buda in the summer of 1682 and at once a joint army of kurucok and Turks embarked on the conquest of Hungary. They spedily captured the north-eastern strongholds of Košice, Prešov, Levoča and, at the cost of 4000 Turkish dead. Fidiakovo. Thereupon the pasha Ibrahim delivered to Thokoly the antham of Mehmed IV which declared Thokoly to be king of all Hungary and Croatia, as tributary vassal of the sultan..."
  • [3] - Quotation: "Thokoly was crowned the king of central Hungary by the governor of Buda, Ibrahim pasha, and thus became a Turkish vassal."
  • [4] - Quotation: "In 1682 the Turks decided to help Imre Thokoly, the Hungarian leader, and Thokoly agreed to be a vassal of the sultan."
  • [5] - Quotation: "the insurrection continued until it culminated in the expulsion of the Germans out of the whole of Upper Hungary by Thokoly. He was recognised by the sultan as vassal king of Upper Hungary"
  • [6] - Quotation: "In 1682 a Turkish army invaded Northern Hungary and placed Thokoly on the throne of Northern Hungary as a vassal of Kara Mustafa."

I doubt that all these sources are wrong, and there are more in google books search: [7] PANONIAN 14:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Losses

[edit]

According to official Imperial statistics, in the field of Mohacs 1 king, 3 marshall, 300 nobles, 4,000 cavalry, 20,000 infantry corpses were counted on the Hungarian side while Turkish losses 1,000. And please dont troll here for saying "Hungarians were better warriors than Turks, they teached Turks how to cast cannons" something. Read and learn history. Maby one day you can write history as the Turks did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.87.80 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ottoman sources are very "beliveable". Ottoman Sources mentioned only 1000 Ottoman casualty in 1456, when they were defeated at Belgrade, and they mention 1500 casuality after Lepanto...

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Even though it's sourced, "Suleiman could not believe that this small, "suicidal" army was all that once powerful country could muster against him" doesn't seem neutral at all.62.245.69.24 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not NPOV, but Suleiman's opinion.--Beslek (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuffar people reference

[edit]

Is the external reference "Why kuffar people hate King Sulaiman al-Qanun?" this useful in an English-language page, or can it be deleted? Muleiolenimi (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete it. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Chamboz (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Mohács. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation spam on the Ottoman section of the infobox

[edit]

Why does the estimate for the Ottoman troop strength in the battle require a whopping seven citations of mixed reliability instead of sticking with the one citation from the Encyclopedia of Islam article written by the world's foremost expert on the Ottoman military in Hungary during this period? Chamboz (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Mohács. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the battle

[edit]

I've replaced the description of the battle with an older version from 2014, since the newer version was verging on incoherence and was essentially unsourced. I'm open to discussion, of course. -- Elphion (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map used to demonstrate the partition of Hungary

[edit]

The map used to demonstrate the partition of Hungary shows Cyprus as being part of the Ottoman Empire in 1526. Cyprus did not become a part of the Ottoman Empire until 1571; at this time it was still a part of the Venetian Empire, as was Crete. Although this does not necessarily affect the content of the article, it is an incorrect map that might give the reader the wrong impression of the extent of the Ottoman Empire at this time. 147.188.254.156 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC) "AS"[reply]

The article has a biased tone

[edit]

I've read the entire article, and it seems to me that it resembles, in some parts, to some kind of lamentation for "the once powerful country" of Hungarian kingdom. The Hungarian army capabilities are underestimated, and it is even called a "suicidal army". Finally, the Legacy section again turns to Hungarian sorrow regarding the treaty of Trianon (I don't see how could it be, scientifically, related to this article), while the Ottoman point of view (and Legacy) is lacking. Regarding the Legacy of this battle, I would first mention the Siege of Vienna (1529) and other repercussions on the immediate European diplomacy. Stingaciu Radu N. 13:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits For My Project

[edit]

I mainly just revised the wording to make the article more neutral, and I added some information that I think was beneficiary to increase the articles quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylansmitt127 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mohács, 1517

[edit]

How does this 1526 incident compare with the one on 1517, referenced elsewhere? Broichmore (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious text moved from article

[edit]

The following has been marked as needing better citation since 2018, and was recently made into a note. That feels like it just hides the problem. So instead I've moved it here, where anyone interested can do whatevers needed to correct it.

{{citation needed span|text=The length of the battle is as uncertain as the number of combatants. It started between 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm, but the endpoint is difficult to ascertain. The few reliable sources indicate that Louis left the field at twilight and made his escape under cover of darkness. Since the sun would not have set until 6:27 pm on 29 August 1526,<ref>{{cite web | last1 = Cornwall | first1 = C.  | last2 =Horiuchi | first2 = A. |last3 =Lehman | first3 = C.  | url = http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/sunrise.html  | title = Sunrise/Sunset Calculator | work = [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] | access-date = 2008-08-31 | quote = using the Gregorian date of the battle, September 8, 1526. Also entered were the coordinates 45° 56′ 29″ N, 18° 38′ 50″ E and a "time zone" of 1.243 hours before Greenwich, since at the time of the battle, time zones had not been invented}}</ref> this would imply that the battle lasted longer than two to three hours (perhaps as long as four or five).|reason=This entire passage is speculation unsupported by historical references|date=March 2018}}

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing "more citations needed" template at the top of the page. Although the page is not perfect in terms of source, it does not seem like there is a lack of sources in the whole article that would require this template. I think it would be enough to add a "Citation needed" template to the paragraphs that need to be referenced. If necessary, my change can be reversed. Kyzagan (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian army

[edit]

Hello, I think you have "Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı Volume II" as PDF. Turn page 326. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please show readable link to academic sources to your claim. The article itself say the numbers, Hungarian army fought with the Ottomans and Hungarian army did not consist of 200,000 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mohács&diff=prev&oldid=1173328412
And what is this? "Joseph von Hammer, Ottoman History Vol 5, p.76"
Do you mean he? Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall (1774 – 1856) OrionNimrod (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I saw the talk page today while looking at the Siege of Belgrade. You downloaded and translated the book of the historian İsmail Hakkı Uzun Çarşılı as pdf. I quote the source from page 326 of the same book;
"The Battle of Mohacs lasted two hours, and this brief War buried the independent Hungarian kingdom there; however, just in case, the soldiers remained on the battlefield with their weapons in hand and on horseback.
In this war, the size of the Ottoman army was 300,000 and the size of the Hungarian army was more than 150,000."
A source from the Turkish Wikipedia https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moha%C3%A7_Muharebesi_(1526)
PDF of the book: https://turuz.com/book/title/Qanuni+Sultan+Suleyman-Yilmaz+Oztuna-1989-286 Göktuğ538538 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An excerpt from Yılmaz Öztuna's book titled Suleiman the Magnificent;
Page 39-40:
"There were 100,000 soldiers and 300 cannons in the army. According to Celal-zâde, the Hungarian army was around 200,000. 38,000 of them were German auxiliary forces." Göktuğ538538 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Turkish wiki was rewritten just some days ago, probably by your another sockpuppet: https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohaç_Muharebesi_(1526)&diff=next&oldid=29827954 OrionNimrod (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, your book write the Hungarians had 200,000 according to Celal zade an author from 1500s [8] it is an obvious exaggeration. And this is clearly not a modern historiography claim what an author from 1500 claimed about the number of enemy to give a bigger glory for his victorious sultan. (Hungarian medieval chronicles claimed the attacker Mongols had 500,000 army in 1241, this is also an exaggeration.)
And Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall talked about the Ottoman army is 100,000 not the Hungarian is 200,000.
We need use estimations by modern historians, your Turkish historian just presented what the historian of the sultan claimed. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Middle Ages...

[edit]
  • "The year of the battle of Mohács marked the end of the Middle Ages in Central European historiography." --Anna Boreczky, "Historiography and Propaganda in the Royal Court of King Matthias: Hungarian Book Culture at the End of the Middle Ages and Beyond." Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 43 (2019): 23–35.

I have removed this sentence from the article. I could not find anything in the reference to support this sentence. If anyone can find the information please post a quote and page number. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

[edit]

Under the subheading "Battle" in the last sentence, it is stated that "On 31 August, 2,000 Hungarian prisoners were massacred as the Sultan watched from a golden throne."

But the cited book (Spencer Tucker Battles That Changed History: An Encyclopedia of World Conflict, p. 166 (published 2010)) does not include anything related to Sultan watching the executions from a golden throne as this event is stated in the book as one sentence: "The next day Suleiman ordered that all the prisoners taken be killed, resulting in the deaths of another 2,000.".

Changing this sentence ("On 31 August, 2,000 Hungarian prisoners were massacred as the Sultan watched from a golden throne.") to "On 31 August, 2,000 Hungarian prisoners were executed as per Suleiman's orders." would be an accurate edit to this page. Nakfurb (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ― novov (t c) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish support

[edit]

It says that the Kingdom of Poland supported the Hungarian side in this battle, although there isn't particularly anything confirming this. It does say that there was external Polish help of 1,500 troops, but I'm not sure how correct that is.

Even in https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/52939622.pdf, page 32 (39 on the PDF) it says:

"Major purpose of the mission was truce with Poland for six years, which would also include Hungary. Suleyman did not agree with such a solution and granted a three year ‘ahidnâme to Poland-Lithuania only. This left Louis II of Hungary without Polish support and led to the lost battle of Mohács in 1526." Setergh (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perast sorry to bother you, although you're probably the only person I know that will actually be willing to help me with this. Setergh (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Polish version of the page and a source they give for Polish intervention is: Bielski Marcin, Kronika polska, Sanok, 1856, str.1068
Would you be able to gain access to this text? If you can, posting it here would be great too.
I'll look soon for English-language sources that talks about Polish involvement (if there are any). Perast (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://prussia.online/Data/Book/kr/kronika-polska-marcina-bielskiego-2/Kronika%20polska%20Marcina%20Bielskiego.%20T.%202.%20K.%20IV,%20V%20(1856)%20Google,%20OCR.pdf (376 in the pdf)
"In the year 1535, in the month of February, there was a mission to the king in Vilnius from the Prussian prince, informing about the law. Teutonic knights and asking for help. There was a second message on March 14, from Joachim, Margrave of Brandeburg, who asked Joachim for Princess Hedwig to the son of the Margrave of Brandeburg, which he received."
"Our winter was not successful, they were better prepared for the summer, because seven thousand people came from Poland with Jan Grand Hetman of Tarnów and Andrzej of Górka castellan of Kalisz; however, and those than came, Ostafi the starosta of Cherkasy, having three thousand Cossacks, a long time, Roko in March, the Moscow lands were fought."
From what I can see, this seems to already go way past 1526, so I don't understand why this is the source.
Setergh (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also went up a few pages to 1526 (1034, in the pdf 342) and I didn't see a single mentioned of Mohacs. Setergh (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's no mention of Mohacs in that source from what I can see. I'll have to search some English and Turkish sources to see what Poland's role in the battle was. I'll give you an update.
Thought you might be interested in this topic. @Kansas Bear Perast (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you so much! Setergh (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Paragraphs in “The loss of Belgrade"

[edit]

Three indented paragraphs appear in this section, which might be read as a quotation of the papal legate likening Hungarian preparations to an “own goal” and discussing himself in the third person, but which I guess are a copy of some editor’s notes, including but not limited to intended visible text. Does anyone understand the intent here?

Jdickinson (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Mohács&oldid=1256719545"