Talk:Battle of Szigetvár
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
[edit] NPOV
It amounts almost to a nationalist hagiography. Certainly POV. Jensboot 6 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
Certainly agree. --wanderer 10:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, I don't want to play down the role of the Croatians, but as far as I know this was a battle between Hungarian (with mixed ethnicity, among them Croatians) and Turkish forces.
Fairy tale or history?
Those are history facts, of course. Siget‘s captain Nikola Šubić Zrinski was Croat. Most of Siget‘s defenders were also Croats. It is written as a history fact, so I don‘t see any problem with that. Thank You! B. Klan, 11/19/2005, Dubrovnik, Croatia
The opposing sides are not entirely correct. This wasn't a battle between Croatia and the Ottoman empire, but rather between the Habsburg Empire which included the Kindgom of Hungary, which in turn included Croatia at the time.
Zrinyi was Croatian by nationality, and he was appointed to be the Ban of Croatia (and later captain of Szigetvár) by the King of Hungary, this is correct.
However about the troops: Szigetvar is in (national) Hungarian territory, and was most likely guarded by (national) Hungarian soldiers and reinforcements. The soldires of the border-fortreses ("végvár" in Hungarian) were stationary (as in not moved between the fortresses), they lived and worked there, they actually formed a new stratum of a society ("vitézlő rend" in Hungarian) between the nobles and the peasants during the Ottoman wars. "Croatian" should be changed to "Hungarian" to be historically correct (as in the multinational Kingdom of Hungary), or rather "Imperial", so nobody feels left out.
It should also be noted that Suleiman wasn't killed in battle, but died because of a stroke.
--Masterbo 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The area has been vacated decades before the arrival of Suleyman to Szigetvar. The larger portion of inhabitants of the area were now refugees from Bosnia, Slavonia and lands to the south already conquered by the Turks. Many Hungarians were distrusted by the Imperial government due to their favour towards the Reformation among many other reasons. Most funds for defense came from Vienna and probably Zrinski.
Baranya county in Hungary has the highest proportion of ethnic minorities in Hungary to the present day, and the area around Szigetvar is still known to have a Croatian minority even after 200 years of Magyarization. --adam300 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Point of view is a luxury for the objective historian. This article seems to be the product of a pro-Hapsburg, pro-Christian perspective. The Turkish Sultan died of a non-combat cause during the campaign, and the news of his death was kept from the fight until the capture of the stronghold. Szigetvar certainly did not see the largest force Suleiman could muster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.237.45.168 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 February 2006.
I do not see where the trouble is ?
There were Turks (and Greeks and Bulgarians and Albaneses and so on) on one side and Hungarians (and Croats and Bosnians and so on) on the other side. One of the major commanders was Croat and what ?
In the Napoleonic wars, it is usual to speak about the French army who included French, various Italian nationalities, Saxons, Bavarians, Dutch and other nationalities soldiers. They were french led with other nationalities commanders, it is the same thing here.
It was a Hungarian army with a Croat chief, that's it !--82.216.75.95 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It is an important point, this battle.
While most of the armies assembled by the kings of Croatia and Hungary (Croatia and Hungary were joined in 1102AD by the "Pacta Conventa", meaning that the Croatians chose to enter a union between states, which would be connected only by the same ruler, and Croatia, once again willingly, entered the Habsburg monarhy in 1527AD) were multinational, often were there examples of purely onesided armies (for example, in 1526., the king died in the battle of Mohac, which the Turks won because the king refused to wait for the Croatian formations to arrive).
Szigetvar and its fort were assigned to a Croat, the ban Nikola Subic Zrinski, and to the troops under his command: some 2300 Croatian warriors. Some Hungarian soldiers were posted there as well, but most of the fighters were, in fact, Croatian.
The sultan died of a stroke, that is true, as far as I know, but the claim that his army at Szigetvar was not the best force that he could muster is, I think, laughable. The Turks were planning to assault Vienna (Wien) with that army, so it must have been a great force. If, ofcourse, the sultan could have rallied more men, he would have done so. You don't assault Austro-Hungary's capital with only a portion of your strength.
I believe that it is very important to name the defenders as Croatians, if only to show their loyalty to the Crown and Emperor. Also, Croatia has never been conquered by Hungary. On both occasions when Croatia entered unions with Budapest (1102AD, 1527AD), Croatia did so by choice, which is illustrated clearly by the fact that Croatia had a parliament(Sabor), and conquered nations seldom do.
The joint armies of Hungary, Croatia and Austria did, in fact, stop the Ottoman Empire from breaking into Europe, and it is up to Europe to acknowledge the fact that these 3 countries suffered centuries of war to accomplish that task.
-Fritz, Wien, Austria
Fritz's contribution to the discussion pretty much covers all the points and answers all the objections. Who even nominated this article as suspect in the first place and why? The first person mentioned here gives no explanation for his statement that the article "amounts to a nationalist hagiography". You know, there were nations involved in important historical events, like it or not; and like it or not, there was actual heroism displayed in some of those events. Are we to write heroic defences out of history altogether because someone thinks they could be offensive to the descendants of the attackers, or to the modern obsession with "complete neutrality" that holds the very notion of heroes to be suspect? Please, remove that tag from the article. How is it that all it takes for an article to be branded "biased" is one objector who need not even have any special knowledge of the subject, but then it stays branded for months or years?
Toby, Oxford, United Kingdom
[edit] Factual Inaccuracy
Um... is there a factual problem dispute here...? If not, then perhaps the tag should be removed... Korossyl 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the earlier debate seems to have come to a close, and there does not seem to be any going discussion. I'm going to remove the "factual accuracy" tag. If there actually is a dispute involving this, let's have it. Korossyl 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
FRITZ; The names of the surviving ones;
Franjo Črnko, Gerecij, Stjepan Oršić Gašpar Alapić !!!
Definitely not Hungarians.
Killed nobels; Vuk Papratović, Nikola Kobač, Petar Patačić, Lovro Juranić (carried the flag in the last assault) ... Definitely not Hungarians.
[edit] WELL DONE FRITZ
WELL DONE FRITZ, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Wats up with the revert of the full extended siege. Why was it taken offTHE MILJAKINATOR 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
