Talk:Battle of Rovine

message: In the main article it is claimed that a later Serbian source testifies for two battles. All I know is of several later Serbian sources claiming a single battle on the date of 10th of October 1394 (Al. V. Diţă, G. S. Radojičić, L. Stojanović), a fact which can be interpreted as interpolation - they are similar with some earlier Serbian sources that mention only the year (6903 = 1394-95). Daizus 13:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating the battle 

message: As far as I know, Romanians aren't (and never were) Slavs. --PaxEquilibrium 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the Wallachian and Moldavian chronicles were written in Slavonic at that time, which was the official language in Church and administration (like Latin was in the Western Europe). Actually my entire list was based on a language/"state" pair. Daizus 06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the language on which the ROC holds service? --PaxEquilibrium 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Today, Romanian. At that time, Slavonic. Daizus 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does that mean that there's a possibility that just maybe the historical events took a different course, Romanians would today (still?) write in Cyrillic and be generally considered as Slavs (something like with Bulgarians)? --PaxEquilibrium 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't like talking alternative histories, but let me give you an opinion. I think on a different track of history Romanian could use a Cyrillic-derived alphabet (for instance there were intermediate alphabets between Latin and Cyrillic, and Romanian has sounds like 'î' which have a traditional Cyrillic rendering). But under no circumstances Romanians couldn't be considered Slavs, because from the Romanian language was and probably will be for a long time a Romance language, basically the Vulgar Latin spoken in this part of the Empire. AFAIK, the only major Slavic influence on Romanian is at lexical level, which is a rather common phenomenon (just note how many words of French origin are in English, and by these English won't become a Romance language). Daizus 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it's different from the Bularian case, huh? --PaxEquilibrium 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Bulgarians have themselves slavic origins, so yes, their case is quite different. -- Astazi (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavonic = Wallachian/Moldovan 

message: What is the point of a mention of the Scrisoarea a III-a poem in the article. Especially if it is known to be historicaly inacurate. It has no historical value in regard to the battle. If it is a famous poem made about the battle then perhaps it would be better to include it in another section titled 'Aftermath' or something, then that would put the peom itself into perspective, ie as a result of the battle, as significant to later literature, for example. otherwise why not just leave it out?--80.193.42.110 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The poem: historical relevence? 

message: Above there has been some discussion about the outcome of the battle. In the infobox it reads "Wallachian  tactical victory". But according to three sources, Nicolae Iorga, Halil İnalcık and Yaşar Yücel-Ali Sevim the resıult is Ottoman Victory. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Rovine. 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/20090212153853/http://www.deremilitari.org:80/resources/articles/muresan.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/muresan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "This was the inexpugnable point of the Ottoman defense, applied justly the next year, in the famous Battle of Nicopolis." What does this mean? --Khajidha (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: archaic term for impregnable.50.111.48.57 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Isn't the result indecsive? Where does the Wallachian victory come from? Both armies are withdrawing. Can someone explain? Overvecht3301 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The ottoman are not able to conquer Walachia and had to retreat due to their casualties Semihas1234 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result