# Talk:Battle of Vaslui

"The battle lasted for four days where the fleeing Ottoman army was pursued by the Moldavian light cavalry and the 2,000-strong Polish cavalry for three days until they reached the town of Obluciţa (now Isaccea, Romania), in Dobruja." Is that seven days in all, or what? Can someone explain the sentence to me? Metamagician3000 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that and I was intending to fix it. Iorga says 3 days; the doc says 4 days. I'll fix it l8r. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Map is wrong - in 1475 east from Moldavia was Lithuania, or Grand Duchy of Lithuania, not Poland and Tartars  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygandas (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made some minor corrections concerning spelling and sentence structure; please look them over to verify if I've made any mistakes or changed common spelling. One thing in the article that should be fixed is the use of the word "latter" which is used four or five times within a couple of sections. Just reword a few instances of it so the article flows better. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I intend to start working on the article, again, in December. There are many things that need improvement. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a battle between the Ottomans ruled then by II.Mehmed and Moldavians. The nonneutrality starts from the name; it is supposed to be a battle where one side is Ottomans and the name of the battle in Turkish is not given! Again when we look at the references, nearly all of them (except 4 lines of shambolic Ottoman/Turkish references) are in Romanian given under Romanian names, even though this article is in English. When it comes to references to Ottoman historians which is written in three lines the shambles start: Oruc Bey and Kemalpasazade are given in one line even though these are published in different volumes and names in Turkish; Tajul Tevarikh is written by Hoca Sadeddin Efendi but shown to be by a Sa'd al-Din?? and the names of these references are written in English translation first (while in contrast Romanian references are in Romanian). The name of the Ottoman commander is given as Hadan Suleyman Pasha which cannot be correct since there is no word (mispelled or not) as Hadan in Turkish; it should be Hadim Suleyman Pasha. Again the Ottoman army numbers are totally inflated. In the 15. century an Ottoman army under a sub-commander was never as big as 60,000-80,000. One can only attribute this to non-neutrality since it gives the Moldovian so-called victory a bit more glitter.  The whole edifice of nonneutrality is topped up by the last quote from a very biased source: Catholic Encyclopedia. The references again show how non-neutral this article is: no reference to it from the Turkish Wikipedia !!!!! User:noyder 10 May 2008 88.106.149.100 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jan 10, 2010 a change was made to the graphic to show 80,000 Moldavian soldiers and 50,000 Moldavian casualties.  This contradicts the text.  Might the change to the graphic be mischievous?  It reverses the issue of who outnumbered whom, and who suffered more casualties. 71.91.126.109 (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the infobox  there is a portrait of Suleyman Pasha. A good portrait. But alas, it is false. The portrait belongs to Suleiman Pasha of Egypt who was actually a French named Joseph Anthelme Sève (1788-1860). The battle took place 313 years before he was born. The image must be delated. But before delating, I’ll try to reach the contributor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

the name of the II. Mehmet's general has been written Hadam(Hadım) suleyman pasha in the article. I have to say that it's not true. He was born on around 1470 and died in 1548. He cant rule a battle at 5 years old. Every source(even turkish) are wrong. Only tr: Hadım Süleyman Paşa is correct. If someone could translate from the original source to any languages i can relink them again. Now i unlink the articles about hadim suleiman pasha because of you are not talking about the same and correct general. Zulayhe (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this name is used? Dracula is a a creation of Bram Stoker, and while inspired by Vlad Dracul is just a fictional character. The real name of the prince is Vlad Dracul, also known as Vlad the Impaler. At least use Vlad Dracula, otherwise a reader might get the impression that armies of vampires supported Stephen... Roofred (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vlad Dracul was Vlad Tepes father,not Vlad Tepes himserf.His father Vlad II Dracul, 'Dracula' was Vlad III Tepest=The Impailer - the "a" meaning "son of".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.32.90 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Vaslui. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114112449/http://www.stefancelmare.ro:80/izvoare.htm to http://www.stefancelmare.ro/izvoare.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051118174511/http://www.gdws.co.uk:80/vaslui.htm to http://www.gdws.co.uk/vaslui.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050618051520/http://www.tabula-rasa.info/JamesAdams/treasure_trove/vasluiBattle/vaslui.htm to http://www.tabula-rasa.info/JamesAdams/treasure_trove/vasluiBattle/vaslui.htm
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) 22:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that user:Dahn--who I see contributed greatly to the development of this article by creating the battle map--changed the appearance of the flags of Moldavia and Wallachia and I'm a bit confused because the new appearance makes it difficult to distinguish the flags. I don't understand what the Moldavian flag is supposed to look like or why it resembles a ship flag. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually did not create the battle map. On the flag issue: shouldn't we use flags/symbols that are (a) actually attested and (b) from at least sometime around that period? Also, (c) at that resolution everything is hard to distinguish, if that is your only query. Maybe you can talk to the project coordinators to change the default size in displays? Also (d), while I added the flags to the template and the infobox, I only created a few of them, most are assortments of the work of other editors. As long as they were already there, why not use them? Dahn (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Also (e): it says Moldavia right next to the flag. I get the hyperbole, but I raise you a literalist deadpan: do you really have trouble distinguishing Moldavia from a ship, and as relates to a battle that happened on land? Anyway, some countries just have stupid flags and flag traditions; it could be much worse. Dahn (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, Anonimu created the map, although I see that you have acquired a similar sets of skills, seeing how nicely you created Arbore's coat of arms. Your styles are very similar. My 'mistake'! As for what flag should be being used, I see the same flag being used as before, but under a different format. Are you saying that this was the format used during the 15th century? If we look at the flags from that period, we see that the dimensions differ from the dimensions we use, and also that a different set of flags were used to identify the different host regiments (the boyar). I believe that Musatin's coat-of-arms were used to represent the overall host, but for the sake of simplicity, we use a flag that shows Moldavia's coat-of-arms in full. If we were striving for accuracy, we would first need to know what flag was used to represent the overall host during the battle in question, then we would need to know its correct dimensions; and, in case Musatin's coat-of-arms was used as the main flag, then we would still have to decide if we wanted to represent Moldavia with the Musatin flag or with its coat-of-arms. Yes, we lacked consistency and I agree that it's stupid, but at least we don't have an ugly bird hanging. --Cei Trei (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The "flag" in the Agence Rol picture has a weird story: Petre Ș. Năsturel, who used to be very enthusiastic about identifying it as a flag, has since backtracked and argues that it is in fact a votive offering with no military role whatsoever (see citations in Stephen III of Moldavia, relevant section). The fact it is that it was the French army who identified it as a flag during WWI, without having any documentation for this. Even if it is a flag, it is one that is hung up vertically. The flag we use now in the infobox is attested, and actually drawn, by illustrators of Thurocs and Dlugosz, though the color is disputed (well: there is at least one hand-colored version of Thurocz which uses gules); this is clearly identified by historians as being the Moldavian flag of the period. (You apparently don't seem to realize how scant and sketchy the records on Moldavian vexillology actually are.) The next version we know about is a blue banner of unspecified shape (I drew it as rectangular, which is default), where the bull or aurochs has a ring through the nose. As for Wallachia: ugly bird or not, Wallachia has even more absurd flags; the one that was used here is only attested from and in 1600.
Please stop implying that I and Anonimu are the same, Anittas. It is a ridiculous allegation by any standard, and I do recall it was debunked by at least one checkuser -- if the disputes I have had with that user aren't satisfactory enough. You know I hate bureaucracy, but if you keep at this I will have to report you and you can guess how that will work out. Dahn (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what you mean about dimensions. The triangular flag follows at least one representation, including the dimensions, of the two chronicles from the period (I'm not too excited about the bull's head, which seems to be vastly different from any of the designs ever used by Moldavia, and is all symmetrical and cute like a logo; but the same goes for the bull on the flag you favor). The only dimensions you can possibly mean refer to ratio, and we seem to be following at least one of the ratios in the pictures quite closely, much closer than if we were to use an anachronistic, or unattested, rectangular flag. Dahn (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Now of course you may in theory be right with that hypothesis about there being no central Moldavian flag, or that flag not being accurately depicted -- but it doesn't matter. What matters is that secondary sources such as Tiron and Năsturel and Cernovodeanu identify those flags in Thurocz as the flags of Moldavia, or the closest thing we have to it. This is the state of scholarship, and that is what we mean to reflect here. Dahn (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
My main problem with the flag is that I can't depict what the coat-of-arms looks like: neither that of Moldavia nor that of Wallachia. In the other version, I could see the coat-of-arms looked like. I see what you tried to do here, but I think it's a sub-optimization if one cannot depict the coat-of-arms. You solved a problem and created a new one. Lastly, I think that in those days, the coat-of-arms was the most important symbol to identify a faction or a house. The look of the flag wasn't as important. And the auroch is beautiful. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not touch that article at all, dude (and I hate the display there). For the rest: the country data project prioritizes flags when these existed, CoAs appear to be their second option. Why are we discussing your aesthetic preferences? Dahn (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The issue is, again, that the coat-of-arms can't be identified because they are too small ... unless you think the problem only lies with me. Can you make out what the coat-of-arms (Moldavia and Wallachia) look like in your version? I linked to the Battle of Baia because it shows the Moldavian flag in battle. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a non-issue. If we have to favor an artificial flag over an attested one for aesthetic reasons, we are doing it wrong. Dahn (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with aesthetics. A flag and, in this case, the coat-of-arms is an identifier meant to convey information. Remove that and you've defeated its purpose. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Can user:MAXIMILIAN KLAUS VERSTAPPEN P2 explain the changing of referenced figures as done here? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with those of you who deemed this a “Good Article.” Perhaps the name of the article is inappropriate. In my opinion, the article is more a history of interactions and warfare between Moldavia and the Ottoman Empire in the 15th Century. The bulk of the article (the Background and the Aftermath) comprising over 60% of the text covers a landscape of events that occurred decades apart from the battle. The discussion of the battle (discounting the “Preparations for War”) is contained in portions of four paragraphs and comprises only 15% of the text. I found the Background and Aftermath too long winded for an encyclopedia article that purports to be a description of a battle. Just my opinion. I expect that you will restore the accolade that I removed to get your attention. VFF0347 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You can't decide by yourself whether this article should be a GA or not. For this, you'd have to nominate it to be reassessed. Super Ψ Dro 11:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

a most up-to-date casualty estimate - modern historians would bring down these numbers, which are typical of the vastly inflated numbers in almost all primary sources - there were many dead soldiers on the battlefield, but not to these extents  -  HammerFilmFan 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:BDAB:63A3:1A1A:8607 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Elanoraga:, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you delete a sourced data. Maybe they are not reliable sources (I don't know, I'm really honestly curious)? Undoing an edit without any explanation will not solve the problem. Norden1990 (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My problem is not with you, my problem is with the person who has been trying to hide Ottoman casualties for months. He is doing IP vandalism and puppetry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nabukednezar03
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.223.48.12
Look at his edits, he uses almost the same sources
he was already punished for vandalism and rude behavior in the past
i don't know if they are the same person but they look very similar Elanoraga (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is this dubious reference in the page: "Kronika Polska mentions 40,000 Moldavian troops; Gentis Silesiæ Annales mentions 30,000 Ottoman troops and "no more than" 40,000 Moldavian troops; the letter of Stephen addressed to the Christian countries, sent on 25 January 1475, mentions 30,000 Ottoman troops; see also The Annals of Jan Długosz, p. 588;" Kronika Polska mentions 40,000 Moldavian troops and 120,000 Ottoman troops but the latter part isn't mentioned. The letter of Stephen addressed to the Christian countries does not mention the number of Ottoman troops defeated at Vaslui, only the name of the defeated commanders. And in the The Annals of Jan Długosz, the number is between 60.000 - 120.000 Turks while the Ottoman losses are estimated at 30.000 (page 593), this is not a statement of how many Turks participated in the battle but how many died, the exact quote is "the Turk losses are estimated at 30.000", it's very black and white that this is how many Turks died in battle, not participated in battle. TheThorLat (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)