Talk:Siege of Belgrade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Turkey This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Belgrade or Nándorfehérvár

Shouldn't we redirect this to "Siege of Belgrade"? :) --Joy [shallot] 12:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The articles on John Hunyadi and Giovanni da Capistrano talk of Belgrade, not Nándorfehérvár, although this did seem to be its official name at the time. I'll redirect the other way around for now. --Joy [shallot] 12:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And on the other hand, the Magyar name was probably phased out by the time the other sieges happened... dunno. --Joy [shallot] 12:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that Siege of Nándorfehérvár is not appropriate as Belgrade is the common english name. One constant of manny old (and new) cities is that they changed names. While the historic event the article refers to, took place in the middle ages since Belgrade is constantly populated a designation as Siege of Belgrade seems logical as it is the 'same' city. Historic events that took place at Belgrade in anticity should refer to the antique name of Singidunum, which was a different settlement at the same location. Orjen
I guess that rationale makes sense. Besides, Nándorfehérvár doesn't seem notable enough to have an article of its own (a border fort? don't think it would ever have), so there's no obvious lineage to it. --Joy [shallot] 6 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

[edit] sultan's suicide

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.52.206.20 (talkcontribs) 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)

[edit] The "follow up" section

I have doubts that whoever wrote the last section knows what he was talking about. Raids into Hungary continued as soon as the Ottomans could do it, and large parts of Hungary were eventually conquered, culminating in sieges of Vienna. Should be reworked, there's plenty of info on the Ottoman wars in Europe in other articles.


I agree and I made the corrections to this absurd revisionism based the accounts of McNally and Florescu, everything there is to read on Hunyadi and Mehmet II, and the basic facts about the Ottoman wars in Europe documented on this site. Whoever wrote that was an amatuer Ottoman Empire enthusiast attempting to discredit Hunyadi by making the ridiculous claim that the battle tipped the scaled in favor of the Ottomans. This little theory unintentionally made Mehmet (or Mehmed) the Conquerer sound like a sissy. Mehmet II is not as well-remembered by most Westerners, but he was on par with Ghengis Khan as an Asiatic conquerer. This man wanted the world, and he was not about to change his mind without a fight. He made several attempts to attack Hungary and I have explained why he was not successful. As for Hunyadi, he was far from infallable but his abilities as a military strategist and a political leader saved Europe from a man who could have otherwise conquered half the continent. Shield2 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted the contradictory sentence about Hungary being vulnerable to attack. This is where this person's little theory is not only ahistorical but does not even make sense. Even disregarding world history and well-documented facts about his intentions and character, if Mehmet II was "not in the least interested in occupying Hungary," why would he directly attack Hungary instead of using his military strength to cement his authority over the Balkan territories? This would amount to nothing but harrassing the Hungarians and making a new enemy in the militarily strong but rarely aggressive Matthias, something he certainly wouldn't have done if he only wanted the Balkans. Matthias' army was clearly strong enough to successfully defend Hungary and launch retaliatory attacks on Mehmet II (who already had Balkan resistance to deal with), so any preemtive attacks on Hungary would have been a completely wasteful and idiotic move on Mehmet's part in this fantasy where he only wanted the Balkans. And what does the loss of Belgrade have to do with him anyway? Belgrade was still threatened by Mehmet but was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman was not as capable a military leader as Mehmet was, and he conquered a large portion of Hungary. The ridiculous theory would have us believe the fearsome and ambitious Mehmet II would have left Hungary alone had he managed to take Belgrade. The question is, should the revisionist nonsense assertion even be here at all? Can whoever wrote it back it up? Does anyone have any objection to the idea of entirely deleting it?Shield2 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I realize what was bothering me about this section, and why it was a waste of time to even argue with it. It was so simple (and the claim so stupid) that it passed my eye. Mehmet did not see the Danube and the Sava as his boundry in any way. His predeccessors had already extended their influence past the Danube and into the Romanian territories or Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia). Mehmet II, the great conquerer of Constantinople, certainly had no desire to withdraw from those regions and in fact Vlad Tepes and Stephen III successfully thwarted his attempts to strenghten Ottoman authory over those two principalities (although neither actually won independence from the Ottoman Empire). So why would this person claim Mehmet's later attacks were opportunism instead of an attempt to once again live up to his his nickname? Well, for whatever reason, the writer is claiming Hunyadi actually LOST the Siege of Belgrade to Mehmet the Conquerer! I don't even think the most staunch Turkish nationalist would try to claim that with a straight face. As I mentioned before, Belgrade was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. I'm going to have to rewrite the "follow-up" section. As for whoever wrote this, I'm not sure but I think I can guess what he (and I doubt it was a woman, you never know though) was up to. I respect Muslims who have a respect for history and actually have something valuable to contribute to the history of the Ottoman Wars, but the moderators of this site should beware of vandalism such as this which falls under the category of "Jihad through deceit." Shield2 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For Front Page

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)