Talk:Battle of Zenta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

The article mentions the actions of Sultan as the leader of the army. As it happens, looking at the dates he must be Mustafa II, and as far as I know after around mid 1600's no Ottoman Sultan personally led an army to war. I might be mistaken, but if not then it is a big blunder in this article. Also, if he was there, he had to be mentioned by name, not just title and he should have also been put as the leader of the Ottoman forces. Cafer Pasha name being speeled Dschaafer Pasha is a whole other funny story.

So absurd

This is one of the most absurd articles I have ever red! I mean, how can the one who wrote the article possibly belive that an army over 80,000 Turks would even lose against 34,000 soliders. This is obiviously a fake source, it actually makes me laught. I have studied this battle for a long time, and I am going to fix it as fast as I am a 100% sure that I am writing the correct information!

1) numbers are sourced from good-class source

2) in article is 50 000 austrian soldiers, no 34 000 (it is infantry only)

3) Ottoman army was suprised in time of river crossing

4) here was main ottoman army - do you want really argue seriously: main army of ottoman empire under personal command of sultan had 20000 man? :o)

5) You have no acceptable source Cinik 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I do have 100% reliable sources, and I´ve been reading lots of theories about this(and many other) battles. These numbres are incorrect. I do not write incorrect articles, and if I do, then all books and researchers are wrong,not me, since I get the information from them. And, you also need to describe which units that fought, it was mostly mercenaries, not Turks.

(Could the Turks ever fight?)

As I see, you vandalised a great deal of article. Cinik 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to want to change this page, but you do know that by the end of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire was no longer a world power? Consequently, its military suffered. On the the hand, in Europe the situation was quite different as the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution caused France, Sweden, Spain and later Prussia, Austria and Britain (amongst many other nations) to pioneer new forms of land warfare. Subsquently, when Ottomans met the Austrians and their allies at Vienna, they were outclassed in almost ever sense of the word (the Ottoman army still had horse archers). History has known far more severe defeats than this one, and looking at it from an entirely militaristic (or in your case ethnic) point of view is always going to give the wrong impression.

Can you actually list your "100% reliable" sources? The mere fact that you would describe them as such suggests that you don't even have a basic understanding of history. I don't think you could censure anybody for believing them to be anything more than folk tales. On the other hand, I am using one of the definitive modern accounts of the battle, John Stoye's Siege of Vienna.

Name dispute

Hungarian name Zenta simply was not official historical name for this town in the time of this battle. Hungarian language was not official here before 1867, and in the time of the battle, town of Senta was still de jure part of Ottoman Empire and was mainly inhabited by Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove your statements with Google hits. Luftburger 20:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

With google hits? Are you serious? What can google prove? Before the Treaty of Karlovci in 1699, Senta was de jure part of Ottoman Empire, and was mainly inhabited by Serbs who used name Senta (read for example dr Dušan J. Popvić, Srbi u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1990.). Do you have one single reason why we should use Hungarian name here? PANONIAN (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So, here are reasons why we should use name Senta:

• 1. It was name used by majority of its population in the time of the battle.
• 2. The town in that time belonged to Ottoman Empire and that empire usually officially used for the places same names as they were used by local inhabitants.
• 3. It is also a current official name of this town.
• 4. Name Senta is most often used for this town in English.

Now please tell me any specific reason why name Zenta should be used? I would suggest that you use this talk page before your next revert. PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Britannica (and 100 more sources [1]) accepts it, we can so [2]. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2006. July 6 11:36 (CEST) 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not much of the argument. Britannica obviously used Hungarian source for its article where name was Zenta (If it used Serbian source, it certainly would have name Senta). The question is which of the two names is historical and which is not. Do you have answer to it? PANONIAN (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

De facto there was a no man's land and battlefield, and there were four houses (what houses just dugouts) in five rows.

You must tell these arguments to the editors of Britannica and Wikipedia too, and they will immediatly change several thousands of articles.

Battles Austerlitz to Slavkov, Eylau to Bagrationovsk, Weissenstein to Paide, Kokenhausen to Koknese, Kircholm to Salaspils, Port Arthur to Lü-shun, Chocim to Hotin, Liegnitz to Legnica, Iwo Jima to Io-jima and Little Bighorn to I don't know etc.

Treaties Karlowitz to Sremski Karlovci, Passarowitz to Požarevac, Pressburg to Bratislava, Nystad to Uusikaupunki, Tilsit to Sovetsk etc.

C'mon Panonian you can do it.Luftburger 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Names of some of the articles you mentioned should be also changed, but that is not our subject. You still did not proved that Zenta was historical name used for this town in the time of this battle. I am waiting for such proof from you. Tell me also why you removed from the article categories "History of Vojvodina" and "History of Serbia"? Also if it was "no man's land" as you claim, then why you insist that it was "Hungarian land" by posting Hungarian name here? It was battle between Austrians and Ottomans, so maybe we can post German or Turkish name for it. But how interesting, the German name for the town is also Senta, as you can see here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Orte_der_Vojvodina#Gemeinde_Senta Regarding Britannica, there are many other errors in that encyclopaedia, so the title used there is not relevant. Can you tell me please just one reason why you consider name Zenta historical here? Just one single reason? Can you? PANONIAN (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just one more note: the term "historical name" means that this name was used in time to which historical article refer. For example, I do not object that article about Bács-Bodrog county have Hungarian name, because Hungarian was official language in that time, but we speak here about year 1697 when things were very different. If you want to impose here one name only because this name come from your mother language and because you like this name more than another, with claim that this name is "historical", but if you cannot explain why you consider this name historical, then about what we talk here really? PANONIAN (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Now about google hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=FP-pull-web-t&ei=UTF-8&p=Battle+of+Senta (there are much links which use name Battle of Senta - in fact exactly 33,900 by the google, while for Battle of Zenta, there are "only" 1,510 hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Battle+of+Zenta&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-pull-web-t&x=wrt So much about what user Luftburger said that I should "prove my statements with Google hits" (No matter that I do not consider Google a proof - real proof are my previous posts). PANONIAN (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no Panonian. Did you mean Battle+of+Senta Berger? And when you see inside you found mainly chess sides with .yu domain. And these are Yahoo hits. And Senta is a name. Do not exert yourself. I think my opinion is proved with Google search in these languages:

Russian-Битва при Зенте (completely or mainly)

Swedish-Slaget vid Zenta (completely or mainly)

Danish-Slaget ved Zenta (completely or mainly)

French-Bataille de Zenta (completely or mainly)

Portuguese-Batalha de Zenta (completely or mainly)

Spanish-Batalla de Zenta (completely or mainly)

Italian-Battaglia di Zenta (completely or mainly)

Dutch-Slag bij Zenta (completely or mainly)

Polish-Bitwa pod Zenta (completely or mainly)

+ English, German, Slovak and Czech from article. And Hungarian natürlich.

And here we are. Luftburger 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What ever, what I already told you is that google hits are not relevant for the discussion. Would you finally explain why you consider name Zenta historical? PANONIAN (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let say like this: if one source (we can name it source A) write something wrong, and if many other sources take this wrong information from source A, we would have many sources with wrong information. But what then happens? Somebody realize that there was a wrong information and correct it, so the new source (we can name it source Z) have correct information. You see the difference between quality and quantity? It is not important how many sources use one information, but whether that information is correct or not. I presented on this page why name senta is historically more correct, while you only insist on the quantity of the sources. I suggest that you try to explain historical relevance of the name Zenta for this article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please protest at the USA government why they use illegally the term America. In 1492 Cristopher Columbus didn't discover America but India or let us say New World. On that score the legal and right name will be United States of India or United States of New World.

The source of this "wrongfulness" is probably here. In the Middle Ages the historians had one or two maps and one source. And they didn't know for your claims. If they knew for your claims it would be probably Senta.They knew nothing about significant Serb population in these four dugouts.Sorry.

And the first writer of the article is a guy from Brazil and not Hungarian. Let's revert again. Luftburger 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all: WATCH WHAT YOU REVERT, PLEASE!!!. If you do not agree with name, then do not revert my other edits, and do not remove categories that I added, ok? Second, we do not talk about America. Third, maybe there was only 4 houses, but it is about 30-40 people that lived in them. Today you have the village of Obornjača in Bačka Topola municipality populated with only two persons, both of them ethnic Hungarians, so it is listed here as a place with Hungarian majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Vojvodina#Settlements_with_Hungarian_majority Also, I explained that Senta is also German name, and since you do not like much Serbian names, we can use German one because the area was de facto controled by Austria where German was official language. And I bored myself with this already, but I will ask you again to explain historical relevance of the name Zenta. PANONIAN (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose you to see this map from 1528 but what you don't want to see, you will not see it. If you see the map you will see mainly German toponyms.Let's play with these toponyms.

Zolnok (on map) - Sollnock (in German nowadays) - Szolnok

Segedein - Szegedin or Segedin - Szeged

Zenta -Senta - Senta

Eseck -Essegg or Esseg - Osijek

Grichisch Weissenburg -Belgrad -Beograd

Debretin -Debreczin -Debrecen

And what we see? German toponyms were modified between these dates. Your lack of elasticity is amazing and amusing for me.Luftburger 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course that they were modified, but the important thing is what name was used in the time of the battle, not in 1528, and that name would be the one that Germans hear from local Serbs. And did I told you not to remove categories? What is your problem? PANONIAN (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mhm, but on the map in article (map from 17th century) is Zenta! Cinik 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw too another map where name Zenta is used, but that still do not solve the problem. Since both names, Zenta and Senta, are historical names (both were used in that time), then we still should use name Senta because the town is better known under this name. PANONIAN (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? I know it only as Zenta. I newer heard Senta, I newer saw Senta (If this battle was not, I did not know this small town to exist). Where is Senta better known? In czech not. In english? May be, I don't know, but battle is better known as Battle of Zenta - after all: it is historical events and was named in history, not today. Cinik 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The town is better known under name Senta in English of course (this is English Wikipedia, right?). And if you say that battle is better known as Battle of Zenta, there is a question - in which language? Numerous English language sites with title Battle of Senta could be found on the net: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=FP-pull-web-t&ei=UTF-8&p=battle+of+senta PANONIAN (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

I hope no one has anything against me editing the article itself. --Carl Logan 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rejected Award

PANONIAN, I awarded you once with Laughing Orangutan for your contradictory edits, but you rejected my Award. PANONIAN, I explained to you (yes, in Serbian), that Austrian Emperor was crowned king of Hungary, and not Grand Mufti of Military Frontier, and he liberated Hungary and not lands later known as ... Please...Bendeguz 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Austrian emperor treated lands that he conquered as the "new-conquered lands" not as Hungary or anything like that. PANONIAN (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing: in the time of the battle, the area still officialy belonged to the Ottoman Empire, so the territories about what we talk here were officially OTTOMAN territories in the time of the battle (and in the time of the treaty as well), i.e. they were vilayets and the later Habsburg provinces existed officially only after the peace treaty was signed in 1699. In another words, sultan Mustafa II ceded his vilayets to Habsburgs. He did not ceded Hungary because it was not Hungary - it were vilayets. PANONIAN (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This allegation is a nonsense, history-faker allegation: was not Hungary. In virtue of this todays it cannot be already Germany, as joint of the European Union. Doncsecz (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

casualties

Ottoman casualties are heavy? they never defeated even in crusades. sissy serbians killed them all? its a bullshit!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.12.128 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hungary in the Ottoman Wars

Hungary was spare sy the Habsburg Army 20,000 soldier, Croatia further ca. 10-15,000. Hungary and Croatia was be instrumental in the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars. Doncsecz 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Zenta battle diorama Can we mention in article that there was made a big diorma a unique, of the battle and it was made by modelars in Zenta to honour the battle...Here is the link if you are interested into this fact...http://www.krilapetrovgrada.org.rs/forum/index.php?topic=2114.0 Thanks 109.93.121.114 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Map (better: sketch) from 17th century ?

At least Latin handwriting on it hints without any doubt to production date in the 2nd half 20th century, until today. Whoever claims that let us say, sketch, is more than 300 years old, misleads. Obviously ! --88.217.98.166 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1