Talk:Night attack at Târgoviște

message: Someone, using Babinger as a source for their own claims, wrote that "some sources say the Wallachians slaughtered a great number of Turks, while others say Ottoman losses were minimal."  Neither Babinger nor McNally/Florescu say any such thing.  Babinger says, "The entire skirmish, in which many camels, mules, and horses were killed, had no significant results."  He means it was not a strategically decisive battle in one way or another, and that statement has little to do with the losses.  McNally and Florescu find that a janissary who actually witnessed the skirmish says losses were heavy on both sides.  Several sources claim Ottoman losses were heavier, although that certainly isn't the case proportionally speaking and probably refers also to Ottoman wounded (who surely contributed to the process of spreading the bubonic plague).  But what Babinger was referring to was that it is not certain that this battle was the main factor in Mehmed's retreat from Tirgoviste, despite his original plan to attack the capital.  Babinger, who was writing in the 1950s before Romanian history was even a seriously considered subject by Western historians (he was an early exception, to be sure), notes that Mehmed's planned attack on Tirgoviste and direct conquest of Wallachia failed and forced him to rely on his backup plan of installing Radu, but without coming up with a sure answer as to the decisive factor, maintains that no particular battle was the decisive reason why.  As McNally and Florescu were writing decades later and about Vlad as their main subject, their more detailed and more thoroughly researched (about this particular subject anyway) account finds that it was Vlad's germ warfare mixed with the psychological effect of his tactics that compelled Mehmed to retreat.  
The reasons for the Dracula victory have been demonstrated by McNally and Florescu, but the reasons why it was a phyrric victory have not been sufficiently explored.  Babinger brings up an important point when he notes that after the sultan's retreat Dracula withdraw part of his army to Moldavia and this imperiled his domestic defenses, but does not seem to realize this is because Stephen III attacked Hungarian-Wallachian-held Chilia after the sultan retreated.  He mentions this skirmish as if it happened beforehand, and doesn't pay it much mind.  McNally and Florescu find that this happened on June 22 (two days after the sultan decided to retreat).  The combined force of several thousand (one source mentions 7000) of Dracula's men and the Hungarian garrison there compelled Stephen and the Ottoman Navy to lift the siege by June 28, or at least that is when it was reported.  During this time, Dracula had to resist Mehmed with his dwindling forces as Mehmed's army was heading east to Braila.  Mehmed writes of one Turahanoglu Omer Bey crushing Dracula's domestic forces at this point, but this must have been before a Dracula victory at the town of Buzau over one Evrenos Pasha, which McNally and Florescu say was the last military encounter between the two armies.  The Ottoman victory therefore took place between Tirgoviste and Buzau sometime in between June 22 and June 26, and the Buzau battle was a failed siege after that.  
I personally think the number of 200,000 captured Wallachian cattle and horses is two high, but it must be noted that Turkish sources seem to have exaggerated the number of Ottoman troops even more than Byzantine sources.  One Turkish historian mentions 300,000 troops.  Since 90,000-100,000 is a more realistic estimate, the number of cattle and horses taken (almost certainly during the above-mentioned time between the Ottoman retreat from Tirgoviste and the unsuccessful siege of Buzau) is probably closer to around 40,000-60,000.  In any event, Babinger notes that the number is "said to have" been 200,000 cattle and horses, not that it was.
What neither Babinger, nor McNally/Florescu discuss, but what is important to understanding the Vlad-Mehmed battle's place in history, is that Stephen's attack on Chilia ensured that Vlad's victory over Mehmed would be a phyrric one by forcing Vlad to divert his resources to Moldavia, but the failure of Stephen's Turkish-supported siege would leave a power vacuum in the region that would not be settled until he defeated Hungarian, Wallachian (under Radu), and finally Ottoman forces in battles over the unsettled Chilia question.Shield2 04:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Babinger does not say Ottoman losses were minimal

message: Stop adding such huge Ottoman numbers! 90,000 men was a complete impossibility to gather during that age. The biggest army to gather for such battle was 20,000 or less, the Turks has always been in constant war, and their numbers were few, since they lost many soldeirs after so many battles!
:All the versions are presented and a compromise is presented. The numbers are realistic. Only 13 years later, Mehmed gathered an army of up to 120,000. Please don't remove sourced material. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong numbers

message: I have decided to pass the article. I think that is very well written and well cited. The only thing I have to say against the article is that the after math section has no cits and I recommend that it is fixed. ANyway once again well done on the article. Kyriakos 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC

message: 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 made several corrections throughout the article as well. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. As a side note, I'd recommend that more sources be added to the "Aftermath and legacy" section, and that the long quotes in the "Battle" section be condensed some. 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Reading 'Ţepeş' all over the place looks just as unnatural as if the article on Edward the Confessor should constantly mention 'the Confessor': "The Confessor was born in 1003..."
Likewise, 'Ţepeş' is not a surname, and it was not even a name he ever used. His name was Vlad Drăculea, or Vlad III.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.184.218.214 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does the article use 'Ţepeş' as if it was his actual name?

message: Moved this from the article as it has been marked as unreferenced since 2008. AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath and legacy 

message: It is said in the article that the Ottomans invaded the city of Turnu Severin. I'm a total newbie when it comes to Wallachian geography, but aren't those two separate cities?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjaroszewski (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Turnu Severin"

message: He wasn't refusing to pay the jizya, since that is a per-head tax on non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire (or other Muslim states) proper; the Ottomans were treating Wallachia as a client state/tributary nation, not having annexed it, and thus were demanding tribute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.223.218 (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jizya

message: There have been tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of attacks during the night in history. Can we rename this article to something less vague? 117.56.215.14 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article seems to be so-named because this is how many reliable sources refer to it. Do you have a suggestion for an improved title? The Night Attack (Ottoman Wars in Europe) seems a little wonky. Plus, I don't think there are any other articles with a name like this, otherwise we'd have a disambiguation page with hundreds of thousands of articles for every nighttime raid that ever happened. But, most of those raids are in the context of other battles and wars that have their own names and are properly referenced on WP by the names of those battles and wars. By all accounts, this was THE proverbial Night Attack. Regards, <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Night Attack at Târgovişte. 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/20061107091828/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107091828/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html
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) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article uses S-cedilla and T-cedilla, move it to S-comma and T-comma. 93.136.83.252 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Title 

message: What do reliable sources say about the outcome of the battle? Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was the winner? 

message: Bruhsmillah (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: As far as I can tell all this source says about the battle is . I'm not sure if that's enough to change the infobox. What I will say, based on the pictures in the article, is that Vlad won the battle of mustaches. Leaving this open for other input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done: Failed verification as above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Per this version it's been described as a victory for either side, assuming the references are cited correctly. Per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict, it's either "x victory" or "Inconclusive", which is why it was amended from that version to start with. FDW777 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

text: , #1 if you make the claim that "most sources" state a result you need to produce those sources so they can be compared to what has already been considered above. #2, each language Wikipedia is an independent project and there is no particular reason or motivation to recognize what one language says about an event in another. If you want to produce the sources that those other articles use, and those sources are supportive, then they might add to the discussion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021 

message: It was clearly a Wallachian win, Vlad the III won in the field  ElDiabloChico (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you want to change the "result" parameter, we need something more than one editor's opinion. We need verifiable reliable sources that make this statement which we can cite. See above for a previous failed attempt at verifying such a change. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't the lack of references, but that the ones that do exist don't agree who won. In situations like that, the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict are to use "Inconclusive". FDW777 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

text: En quoi a t'il gagnait ? Il a échouer a l'assassinat de Mehmed 2 Radu devient le souverain de la Valachie Raziel1975S (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Did you even read the last post in the thread? Victory for both sides can be referenced, therefore the infobox instructions say to use "Inconclusive". FDW777 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

text: There's no need to, since there's a reference that disagrees and says the Ottomans won. You can pretend it doesn't exist as much as you like, it does and it prevents your preferred version per WP:NPOV. FDW777 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't an Ottoman victory, I agree.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wallachian "victory"

message: 🇷🇴 46.97.176.14 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have better reason than a flag? ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallachia victory 

message: restul= Walachian victory Bold text 46.97.176.244 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022 

message: The Template:Infobox military conflict says:  thus, it isn't appropriate to put this. Also if the ultimate goal of Wallachians were to assassinate Mehmed II, then how is this a victory since they're the attacker side? If both sides claimed victory, then it should either "Both sides claims victory" or remove it totally. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wallachian tactical victory" 

message: Is this title a commonname? I see some sources call it a battle as well. When did the title become like this? Anyone has an idea? Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hi all. While digging into the history of this article, I couldn't help but notice that this article, Mehmed II and Vlad the Impaler have variations on how the war started. Curiously, this well produced YouTube video from a respected creator  includes an Ottoman retaliatory raid for Vlad III's support for Steven III of Moldavia, which is put forward as the primary reason why Vlad refused to pay tribute and submit to Ottoman vassalage, and was therefore his de-facto casus belli. This info doesn't exist in the articles here, and although Youtube is obviously not a reliable source, I am interested in where they sourced that information. Does anyone have an original source?  Regardless, all three articles explore the same conflict, so we should look into better synchronising their perspectives of the war.  SuperTah (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of the background 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that sources typically use the term "night attack" in lowercase. Alternate proposals did not achieve consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Night Attack at Târgoviște →  – Virtually no sources capitalize "night attack" . Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I think the name of the page should be simply "Battle of Târgoviste" Keremmaarda (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's barely used , so probably not the best alternative. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I am opposed to the splitting proposal since the only significant military engagement of the campaign was this battle. Also notice that this article was originally based mostly in one source , which already used "night attack" to name this incident  (open edition from 2009, the original appears to be from 1989 and cannot be accessed ). It is a fair assumption that this article might have popularised this name but it did not originate it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 September 2023 

message: Does he have an academic background in history? Dr. or Professor?
 Super Dromaeosaurus
Keremmaarda (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that author is Nicolae Stoicescu. Medievalist, former diplomat and government minister, and honorary member of the Romanian Academy, the most prestigious Romanian academic institution. Pretty authoritative. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoicescu