Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)

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. the Turkish (and other Middle-Eastern) metal/steel-technology was too backward to make similar advanced armours as european armours  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not true. The highest number of Turk soldiers were 100 000 in this times. Probably in siege of belgrade fought about 60 000 Turks. And I have references for this. --Vojvodaen 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't forget that they were not only Turks. It was the Ottoman Empire, with many more conquered nations living under their rule, not just turks. While the core of the Ottoman army was well-armed and well-trained, the majority of the soldiers were more or less slaves who were ordered to either fight or get executed. This makes a huge difference against an army which fights to defend it's own homeland. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong numbers

message: I think that it is historically inaccurate to state that the Ottoman Sultan was barely prevented for commiting suicide by poison after the failure of the Siege of Belgrade. It seems to me hard to comprehend that the man who Conquerered Constantinople and later subdued Bosnia and Serbia could think about commiting suicide because of losing a single battle. This does not decrease the importance of the Siege of Belgrade, but losing in Belgrade did not have dire consequences on the fate of the already exisiting Ottoman Empire.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.206.20 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 July 2005
::Suicide theory isn't true but Mehmet II the Conqueror, in a point, was too close to death. He realized that his army started to escape from the battlefield so he attacked to the enemy line individually. He got injured from his arm and head. Then the fleeing Ottoman soldiers saw the condition of their emperor, they turned back and they saved both their emperor and the lives of many Ottoman troops by the hands of the enemy. With respect, Deliogul 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sultan's suicide

message: Who are McNally and Flerescu? Where and when were they published? Why is there no reference?
The person is totally non-neutral in showing no citation of references, in the use of weasel words like 'no doubt' etc. and in the whole tone and content of especially the "Follow up" section. For example, it totally neglects facts of Ottoman succession after Mehmed II.  This section needs a more knowledgable, not one sided and NEUTRAL write-up.88.104.160.81 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who wrote that part about Vlad Tepes being the reason that Hunyadi won the battle? Are McNally and Florescu really the best sources? Their book is something of a sensationalist narrative rather than scholarly history, no? At least that's my impression of what others have told me. I could be wrong. But seriously, there are no better sources? InFairness 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "follow up" section 

message: This should be on the frontpage in the "On this day..." section. The 550 year anniversary celebrations of the victory are held this very weekend throughout Hungary. 195.70.32.136 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Front Page 

message: I'm getting rid of "Mehmet" altogether, since "Mehmed" is a much more common way of writing his name.Shield2 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mehmed.--Vojvodaen 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mehmed" or "Mehmet" 

message: The article mentions that Ottomans had "200 ships" to help them. Yet the battle took place at Belgrade which is an inland city. How did the ships come useful in this case? Vice regent 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships 

message: The latter part of this section makes little sense and does not fit the first part.  The last sentence isn't (a sentence, that is).
The outnumbered defenders relied mainly on the strength of the formidable castle of Belgrade which was at the time one of the best engineered in the Balkans. As Belgrade was designated to be the capital of the Serbian Despotate by Despot Stefan Lazarević. Ottoman raids were expected after they recovered from the heavy loss against the Mongols. Utilising advanced building techniques from Byzantine and Arab fortress designs from the period of Seljuk and Ottoman military conflicts of the mid-11th century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing section 

message: It was Nándorfehérvár back then so it should be Siege of Nándorfehérvár. Just like it is called the Fall of Constantinopol and not Fall of Istanbul.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.164.123 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of Istanbul VS Siege of Belgrade 

message: I found various numbers:
Pál Engel - Realm of St. Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526
"However, this host never confronted the sultan, who began the siege of Belgrade on 4 July with an army which modern scholars have put at 60,000 to 70,000 men."
Tamás Pálosfalvi - From Nicopolis to Mohács, A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526
"Ottoman military preparations on land were equally impressive. Although the fantastic figures preserved by the various narrative sources must be doubted, the army which set about the siege of Belgrade was large by contemporary standards. A force of between 40,000 and 50,000 fighting men, probably closer to the former figure, seems a reasonable estimate, especially since the Ottomans, having left troops to secure Constantinople, seem to have suffered further losses before Smederevo while on their way to Belgrade.410 Eyewitnesses were particularly astonished by the size and range of the Ottoman artillery, “never seen by human eye before, nor even imagined by the mind.”411 The huge guns, partly manufactured onsite, were operated by an international team of experts.412"
Tarján M. Tamás https://rubicon.hu/kalendarium/1456-julius-22-a-nandorfehervari-diadal
"Although the reports of 150,000 people are exaggerated in relation to Mehmed's strength, we can say without exaggeration that his regular troops - spahs, janissaries - put out 20-30,000 people, and this number was at least doubled by the continuously joining Akinji and Asab units."
Bánlaky https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/799.html#ref3
"Sultan Mohamed's operational plan for the 1456 campaign, as already mentioned above, consisted of flooding Hungary with his armies immediately after the capture of Belgrade. Relying on his proud sense of self that he had succeeded relatively easily in taking Constantinople, the second capital of Europe at the time, he now allegedly took an oath that he would take the Danube castle, which his father unsuccessfully besieged for six months, in two weeks and in two more months he would be in Buda will have lunch.[2] As soon as spring came out, he gathered his army of 150,000[3] at Drinapoly. In order to keep the relief army at bay, he decided to block the castle on the water side, for which purpose he had 200 ships made in the provinces along the Danube and gathered them at Viddin.[4] The cannons cast at Krusevác were made from Constantinople bells.[5] The number of cannons brought under Belgrade amounted to 300;" OrionNimrod (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your help. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strenghts 

message: OrionNimrod Hello Mr. OrionNimrod, Franz Babinger writes that 4-5 thousand soldiers were lost on both sides in the war, the Hungarians sank 4 ships and captured 5, and only captured 10 cannons. Is there any truth to this? Or have you seen anything like this in any Hungarian source? Keremmaarda (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties