Talk:Battle of Varna

message: The numbers listed are just ridiculous. The Christian coalition most certainly did not number 86,000 men, much less 200,000. That's utter nonsense. Medieval armies weren't that big. The Christians had at most 23,000, but probably more like 15,000. The Ottoman army was certainly no larger than 60,000, but probably closer to 30,000 or 40,000. These articles need to ban these absurd inflated numbers and stick to the sober scholarly estimates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutin5432 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd numbers

message: There are certain conclusions on the page concerning Đurađ Branković's role in the christian defeat in this battle; while the books with credible research do not contain such information, there is a source from the book called Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide. It is written by a badly received, not overly credible, Croatian dissident. The very book that is taken as a source is heavily criticized for not being objective. And the very fact that Branković betrayed the crusaders can't be found in other sources other than this revisionist title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.107.240 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable source

message: Following information about the battle is not precise but much closer to the real numbers. For more information refer to another website. Or a history book will be better.
Strengths of Armies (total number of soldiers)
Turkish Army - 40000
Crusader Army - 100000
Losses
Turkish Army - 15000
Crusader Army - 65000 (including the Hungarian King Vladislas, who had given his word some time before the battle to the Turks that he wouldn't fight against them. He should have kept his word. He was a brave man though.)
* Stop using huge numbers for the strengths of the Ottoman armies. 120.000 was an impossible number for the time of the Battle of Varna. Ottoman armies started to contain 100,000(+) soldiers with the Siege of Constantinople. Varna was before the conquests of Mehmet the Conqueror. With respect, Deliogul 07:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uzair Ansari333 - Please cite which Reliable published sources you are referring to in order to obtain those figures - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong numbers 

message: Can someone confirm that this is a picture of the battle? 
The picture is from Polski Chronicle from 1564.
:I see crosses on the eight of the flags on the right (the one in the center is fluttering on a cavalry horn); and I see crescent moons on two of the flags on the left.  So, it would seem this is a battle between christians and moslems.  Beyond that I don't know.  And, that's probably as much as others have noticed. 68.48.160.243 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image from Polski Chronicle

message: I believe Wikipedia to be a fantastic idea however I wish contributors would aknowledge their sources and more importantly not copy other sites verbatem. For example this wording is straight from my website http://www.warfareeast.co.uk/main/Hungarian_Battles.htm#Varna
 (formally http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Hungarian_Battles.htm#Varna)
'the Hungarian army was smaller and very imbalanced. It contained almost no infantry, except 100 to 300 Czech mercenary handgunners. There were also 100 warwagons probably with crews, though none are mentioned. The rest of the army was heavy cavalry, mostly Royal and foreign mercenaries, with some Episcopal and Noble banners as well. '
and this from this article 
'The Hungarian army was smaller and very imbalanced. It contained almost no infantry, except 100 to 300 Czech mercenary handgunners. There were also 100 warwagons probably with crews, though none are mentioned. The rest of the army was heavy cavalry, mostly Royal and foreign mercenaries, with some Episcopal and Noble banners as well.'
please reword it or link to the original source.
"By this time the Turkish army may have contained 60,000 men (probably Murad himself did not know how many he had) almost outnumbering the Christians by three to one." The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571 Vol.2:The Fifteenth Century (p.90) by Kenneth Meyer Setton
"...In due course the sultan arrived at Varna with his army of between 60,000 and 100,000 men, as against only 19,000 to 20,000 for the Christians." East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 (p.247) by Jean W.Sedlar Lysandros 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   sources and links 

message: First, I think "Aftermath" and "Follow up" are really the same thing and should be one section.  Moreover "Aftermath" largely tries to be the section on the battle itself, which is missing.  We need a section titled something like -oh, I don't know- The Battle.  Plus I expect the decription of battle could be fleshed out a bit more.  Someone attacked without waiting for someone else and died, and that was it.  Well, that might actually go farther to represent what happened than I thought.  But still, there must have been other things that happened also.
Also, it reads "Władysław III of Poland", but then it goes on to read "The death of Władysław III in the battle left Hungary in the hands..."  Am I missing something here?  So just which country was Wladyslaw king of exactly?  (Sounds Polish to me, but I'm not just taking a guess on this one.)
And, what was Janos Hunyadi?  Was he the king of Hungary?  Or something else?  A respected knight perhaps?  It just seems unfair to the guy that folks haven't bothered to put what he was.  Like, oh Hunyadi?  Don't worry about him.  Not important.  Won't be on the test.
Oh and the bit about the Bulgarians "affectionate" nickname for Wladyslaw...  I can't help but think that may be cynical sarcasm.  The Bulgarians especially during the Byzantine era are known for an ironic, sometimes cruel, sense of "affection".
My last thought is that, except for elite mercenaries such as the Czechs, historians of the era were known for an infantry-don't-count kind of attitude.  Not only that, but historically you could count on knights bringing about twenty plus or minus bonus men-at-arms with them to the field of battle.  At least a handful of who were indispensable as support for the knight.  Not that I think the numbers on the size of the united Christian army were wrong.  I just think that a much larger portion of them were infantry than has been suggested.  But, since historians haven't felt like mentioning them much, and because I suspect the infantry didn't do much in the battle before things had already gone very very bad, I think they've been over-looked. 68.48.160.243 01:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything is cynical, it is your comment on Bulgarians. From where exactly did you get the impression that they were "known" for "an ironic, sometime cruel, sense of "affection"? Please, do not make such childish and racist remarks, especially wneh they are not backed up by any proof. If you wish, I can show you a map of Varna or any random Bulgarian publication regarding the battle and Wladyslav, all of which prove you wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.252.114 (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the article

message: I have added a link to the article, it seems only the Introduction is available online, but even that contains a lot of information.  I don't have the time (or, honestly, the interest) to go through and extract/write up all of it for this article, but it could help it significantly, perhaps even with the mentioned sourcing issues for the numbers.  I can only imagine how much more information the full book has, if anyone can get hold of that. -Bbik 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: i see in this article the talk of infantry and gunmen and such things...if its 1444 there isnt any guns then...so if you actually did research for this then you would know that...maybe they had archers but not gunmen for sure...when you read stuff like this it just makes everything thing youve done for this "project" seem absolutely pointless...please know what your talking about before you write something in here. your spreading stupidity  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newageweirdo (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Old post but deserving of an answer. Infantry means foot soldiers - guns, spears, rocks, whatever. There may have been Ottoman cannon at Varna, they certainly existed then, as did handguns but I can see no evidence they were used. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

text: It wasn't until the matchlock gun arrived in the 1400s that guns became effective as hand-weapons, but hand-cannons had been around since 1350 ..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.62 (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1444 there wasnt guns 

message: Sounds like fiction. Any source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.212.33 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LoL... Perhaps it was the elusive Balkan camel? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were actually camels in the battle, I don't believe there were any sizeable Arabs in the battle Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabs on camels? 

message: So 5 European Kingdoms can form an army of only 20000 soldiers, while the Ottomans who have settled in Anatolia recently form armies of 60000-100000 soldiers. 
Even if the Ottomans used Arabs in their army they still would not be able to form such huge armies. We are talking about the middleages not about the 18-19 century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 07:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it reads like a rant I'll take this seriously. See European Warfare, 1350–1750 edited by Frank Tallett, D. J. B. Trim ""Some notion of the disproportionate (even asymmetric) size of the two armies at Varna can be gleaned from Inalcik’s account of the battle.11 He suggests that the crusaders set out with a force of 16,000 knights collected from Hunyadi’s allies and his own cohorts. Drawing only on internal sources, the Ottomans mobilised 30,000 to 40,000 troops from Anatolia who were joined by a further 7,000 Rumelian troops following their crossing of the Gallipoli Straits into Rumelia. When the volunteer and self-mobilising akinci forces are included, it seems probable that an Ottoman force totalling nearly 60,000 took the field against the invading crusader army of 16,000. This disparity in army size, already apparent in the 1440s, remained characteristic of Balkan confrontations until the early decades of the eighteenth century. For example, in the summer of 1717 an Ottoman grand vizier, Halil Pasha, led a force of approximately 150,000 troops to attempt the rescue of the 7,000-strong garrison defending Belgrade. He encountered a besieging force led by Eugene of Savoy, that had began the campaign with a nominal strength of 80,000, but that had been so depleted by disease, desertion, and casualties by the later phases of the siege in early August that its numbers had shrunk to no more than 50,000." Doug Weller talk 14:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

text: yes, the problem of such huge forces in pre-industrialized times was logistics - clothing and feeding such large numbers of men (and pack animals); shortly after the Roman Civil Wars, Augustus was in control of a military force of almost half a million men - this was a number that would have been impossible to sustain (and politically dangerous to maintain) - he settled 3/4's of these soldiers and established a military of about 150,000 - this was not too great a burden on the civilian populace to maintain - the Mongols were only able to get 200,000 or so into the field by using massive amounts of extra horses packing food, and foraging off the land - but that land had to be able to sustain their mounts if they were to stay in the area for any appreciable length of time - large forces' discipline will break down quickly when they begin to get really hungry and no supplies are available - Alexander was able to operate because he had superb supply trains in his wake, and when this was disrupted by his stretching his forces too far, things began to fall apart - the numbers of men involved in this battle should always be thought of moderately - if numbers seem too great, then they most assuredly are . . .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.62 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you kidding me??  

message: The article says without sources that bombards were used by the Christian armies. This agrees, saying the Ottomans probably had none, and this says Hungarian cannon were successfully used against the Ottoman calvary.  But this suggests they had them with them at least, and this says the Ottomans had gunpowder weapons. A search for arquebuses looks useful. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you working on the article? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery and handguns 

message: At the top right the article refers to the Ottomans taking minimal casualties (doesn't look to reference a source). Whereas at the bottom of the article it makes reference to Ottoman casualties being severe to the point of the Sultan not being aware they had won the battle until 3 days later.
It can't be both? 2404:4408:877E:A000:E831:1005:A412:5C40 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a change to the infobox. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion