Talk:Battle of Mohács

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chaos Among The Ottoman Ranks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Executed POWs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unfortunately? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hungarian commanders 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ottoman-Habsburg wars ??? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Preparation section upgrade 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Calendar

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Ottoman resources? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Background PoV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Greater Consequences than just Hungary. 

message: *Battle of Mohács video with realistic period dresses and military units  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BAttle of Mohács video

message: 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)
thread_title: Revert

message: Now, let examine what some other sources are saying about Imre Thokoly and Upper Hungary:
*  - 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..."
*  - Quotation: "Thokoly was crowned the king of central Hungary by the governor of Buda, Ibrahim pasha, and thus became a Turkish vassal."
*  - Quotation: "In 1682 the Turks decided to help Imre Thokoly, the Hungarian leader, and Thokoly agreed to be a vassal of the sultan."
*  - 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"
*  - 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:  PANONIAN 14:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Losses 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: I say delete it. It doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Chamboz (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuffar people reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903064253/http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/article/11/crown_shaped/?tx_ttnews& to http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/article/11/crown_shaped/?tx_ttnews[swords&
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) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation spam on the Ottoman section of the infobox 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529094441/http://warfare.atwebpages.com/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm to http://warfare.atwebpages.com/Ottoman/Ottoman.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Description of the battle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map used to demonstrate the partition of Hungary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The article has a biased tone 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits For My Project 

message: How does this 1526 incident compare with the one on 1517, referenced elsewhere? Broichmore (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Mohács, 1517 

message: 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.
 
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious text moved from article 

message: *"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)
thread_title:  End of the Middle Ages... 

message: 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)
replies: text: ― novov (t c) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024