Talk:Battle of Nicopolis

message: But Hungary didn't make inquiries about this battle enough. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it a battle for Hungary? 

message: Hungarian military experience (according to history of ottoman-hungarian wars): Turks could win only with minimum 3X preponderance. Because: 1. they are/were smaller shorter people, the tallness and lenghts of arms were important in hand to hand combats, 2. their asian Turk metal/steel-technology was too backward to make similar advanced armours as european armours
According to Spanish, Turkish and French history books ( are you sure? ), the Turkish army was much smaller than the Christian. The Ottoman Empire had not expanded large enought to gather such forces. There were mostly Turkish nomads who participated in the war. They were not more than 10,000 maximum! The Christian army managed to gather ah much larger army, which was 100,000. The reason why they were som many is because they were allied! 40,000 were Hungarians, 40,000 were French, and 20,000 were Wallachians.
Hungarian military experience: Turks could win only over 3X preponderance.
According to a British historian the composing armies at the battle of Nicopolis were not more then 6000 each. Who wrote those numbers down (104000 and 100000)?, its simply not true.
References to this article are missing ,therefore the numbers in this article should be taken with a grain of salt.
:There are references given at the bottom. It even says in the article that the numbers are most likely exaggerations, but nevertheless those are what the sources claim... Adam Bishop 16:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, sources claimed something like four million fo the First Crusade, as far as I can remember, and there were really about 100,000, including hangers-on. Ten to one or more is a usual ratio of claimed to actual combatants, if I recall correctly. Supersheep 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's pretty amazing, according to this article, no English nobility took part in this battle! Adam Bishop 02:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My searches about the Ottoman war machine show me that the Turkish army couldn't reach to 100,000 before the Fall of Constantinople because generally sources call Mehmet II's invasion army as the largest force that Ottomans gathered until that time. With respect; Deliogul 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hnag on a minute. The numbers according to Battle by R.G. Grant ISBN no. 1 4053 1100 2 claims that there were 16,000 Christians and 20,000 Ottomans. 
And of course the Ottomans had expanded alot they fielded 80,000+ men only 60 years later, check out my maps at Byzantine-Ottoman wars which are sourced from the Oxford History of Byzantium and the Compact History of the Wolr by THE TIMES. Tourskin 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The whole crusader force was only 25 000 men at best case. Atiya is an outdated source. In fact the whole article needs rewriting. 84.2.210.173 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  largest crusade? 

message: I am sorry but I am gonna have to take drastic measures here and replace these biased Turkish sources which aren't even in English with these neutral ones:
*Philip Sherrard, Great Ages of Man Byzantium, Time-Life Books 
*Madden, Thomas F. Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2005 
*Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005 
*Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002 
*Grant, R G. Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2005 
And use real numbers, not 60,000 men by Sigismund, thats ridiculous. Besides I can't analyse these sources in Turkish, so its not fair.! I will give 24 hrs for a response before taking action here.Tourskin 13:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ^blocked sockpuppet - ignore Flavius
why do you trust Hungarian sources than, the other side of this battle is hungary, so how do you know they are not biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.117 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Sigismund returned back home on board of a Venetian ship, might I remind you.
The Republic of Venice and the Republic of Genoa were among the participants in the war, like the Spaniards, Swiss, and the Knights of St. John who were based in Rhodes (instead of Malta) back then. Not to mention the Poles, Bohemians and Scots.
The new figures are vastly incomplete.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not believe this, but I do agree with you there to some extent, but without good references I am afraid we can't prove it. If you feel so strongly, then I won't stop you from changing it back, but I must state my protest if you do so without any other references. I'll have a look on the web too. As you can see, I have referenced my work with very reliable sources. Also, remember that desertions took a toll on all.Tourskin 14:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter, Flavius is blocked now as a sock.
Alright, I found your sources, these websites show numbers that you seem to support: http://www.geocities.com/nbulgaria/bulgaria/nicop396.htm 
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258182.htm 
I couldn't find anything else to confirm these. I wouldn't mind getting someone else with more knowledge on this matter or a third party/opinion/research. In the meantime, I am gonna try to contact Thomas F Madden, A professor who wrote this book: and ask.Tourskin 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Tourskin, I am concerned about your approach to sources.  All the sources you have listed are meant to be introductions, or their scope is far too vast to be useful for such a specific battle. Madden's book is a good start but it is also meant to be an intro to the crusades in general; it is very short and doesn't say much about Nicopolis. And where are they getting their information from? Have you looked for any primary sources? I understand that foreign languages are a problem (I can't read Turkish either!), but you shouldn't discount research just because it isn't in English. I also wouldn't put my faith in random websites like geocities or about.com. It's great that you are trying to help, but I worry that the article might actually suffer in the end. Adam Bishop 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright - but why has the number of Ottoman troops been lowered to 20,000 again. I now I added that in but it doesn't make sense if what you say is correct. The Ottomans suffered heavier losses than the Christians so why do they have less men, that would mean that they would have been wiped out. I'm getting rid of 20,000. If you say that the Crusader force was more than 16,000 than the Ottomans would have been more than 20,000 too. Tourskin 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again the no. 20,000 has emerged yet none have discussed this change. There is no references that point to this dismally low number. Considering that Bayezid took an army from a siege of Constantinople it would be safe to assume that the army was large. Indeed, Bayezid some 6 years later was able to field some 85,000 troops according to Battle of Ankara article and I know we aren't suppose to source from wikipedi but this number (85,000) was sourced from an external source. So if Bayezid had 85,000 men in 1402 after the costly Nicopolis, then he must have had at least 100,000 then. Tourskin 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Italians are missing 

message: The phrasing "reluctant vassals" to describe the relationship between Transylvania and Hungary has been disputed.  This is explicit in the citation source given for that paragraph, namely Tuchman page 553: "Part of the Hungarian army veered out to the north to gather in the reluctant vassal forces of Wallachia and Transylvania."  It is quite possible that Tuchman's book, which is after all a general source for the century, condensed this point into an inaccuracy.  In that case, it should be easy to find a source explaining the relationship between Transylvania and Hungary more accurately, and hopefully further explain the political tension that Tuchman alludes to but doesn't fully explain in her work.  In the meantime, removal of this phrasing without a backing citation is prohibited by all manner of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks, BanyanTree 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "reluctant vassals" 

message: I tried to add coordinates for the battle site, but have my doubts about the correctness of the battle map considering the local terrain. See my remarks on the talk page of the file on commons . I'd welcome your comments. Preslav (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrain 

message: Curious, this from the article: Chronicler Jean Froissart would declare. "Since the Battle of Roncesvalles when [all] twelve peers of France were slain, Christendom received not so great a damage."  As we know, that Battle was Christian against Basques (also Christian).  But I have read that many think that battle was a Christian v. Muslim encounter, so perhaps that explains the confusion. 
Cutugno (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be a logical conclusion, though someone who knows more about how Roncesvalle was perceived in 14th century France would have to confirm it. - BanyanTree 07:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was probably alluding to the Chanson de Roland; I don't know if he knew who the original enemy was at Roncesvalles. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken Chronicler? 

message: I don't know how many thousands of times, the name "Catholic" is used, when a negative thing happened. The persons that fought in this battle against Islam weren't just Christians. They were Catholics and this fact must showed. Whitout Roman Catholicism , Christianism would be over more than one thousand years ago, by Islam.Agre22 (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. Ideas are much harder to kill than that, especially an inspired faith.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.2 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The civilian hostages slaughtered by the Catholics in Nicopolis included a minority of Ortodox Christians. They didn't fight against the Ottomans and they shared the same fate with their muslim neighbours.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.142.108 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholics, not just Christians

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Battle of Nicopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070602050825/http://www.dallog.com:80/savaslar/nigbolu.htm to http://www.dallog.com/savaslar/nigbolu.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Nicopolis. 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/20090206151155/http://deremilitari.org:80/resources/sources/nicopolis.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/nicopolis.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) 19:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Please remove Kingdom Of Portugal from the list of Belligerents.
Kingdom of Portugal was busy enough fighting for the Reconquista Crusade at their border, how could they fight in Eastern Europe?
No source speak about Portugal Kingdom taking part in the battle of Nicopolis. 2A01:CB06:8079:B83B:A7D6:1CBC:8C9C:84A9 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021 

message: When the  Europe started creating a crusade many countries ventican, England, kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of castile, Kingdom of Bulgaria etc took part in it with their army. According to Islamic and Turkish history the strength of this crusade was 1200000 thousand to 1400000 thousand and ottoman army was 120000 thousand to 160000 thousand. Killj Arslan (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of nicopolis 

message: and nearly 15,000 Dutch, Bohemian, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Bulgarian, Scottish and Swiss troops on the land
Add this part back:
**flagicon image|Early Swiss cross.svg}} [[Old Swiss Confederacy|Swiss Confederacy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.13.146 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022 

message: Hello, in the combatants section of the article it shows England but in the article itself there's a whole paragraph about how English participation in the battle likley was a myth. Shouldn't them on the list at least be listed as "disputed"? Aleksandras Salenga (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contridiction