Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Szigetvár/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

NPOV

This whole page is messed up. The Turks had the 90-100,000 men and the defending force had only 2,300. This should be fixed immediately. The Nikola Šubić Zrinski page has the correct figures for the battle.

Readeraml86 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

O god...

This article Must be deleted, first of all:

  • Numbers are from legends, which obiviously are Anti-Turkish
  • Suleiman did fight during the war, but he didn´t die during the actual fight, he was old and exhausted.
  • This is a PURE Anti-Turkish article, it simply Must be deleted!

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?

Hm, what do we have here? Information warfare of muslim internet terrorists! 78.1.159.118 (talk)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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

Factual Inaccuracy

The Ottoman Grand Vezier was 'Ottoman' Turk not Croat or of Skolovic. His name used in Ottoman documents and histories is Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and not Skolovic which is anything but Ottoman!!! We have to be neutral which means we have to use the name used by the person (Sokollu Mehmed he was for years on end); used on the documents that he signed; used by the (unbiased) sources of history. Sokolovic is an irredendist Croat usage and is definitely not a fact in his time and for the times since (except for the irredendist Croats it seems).Noyderuk (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

@Noyderuk, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about, firstly, Sokollu's lastname was Sokolović, as he was from a Serbian (not Croatian) family in modern day Bosnia, there is nothing irredentist in this fact because of devshirmeh system of enrolling boys from Christian families into Ottoman imperial institutions. Adriatic_HR 12:23, 1 Nov 2011 (UTC)

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 !!!=Alapy Gáspár

Definitely not Hungarians.

Killed nobels; Vuk Papratović, Nikola Kobač=Kovács Miklós!!!, Petar Patačić=Patay Péter!!!, Lovro Juranić (carried the flag in the last assault) ... Definitely not Hungarians???

2500 Croats saved europe from turks not austrians nor hungarians,i hate when people steal Croatian history like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.250.98 (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) OK:John Calvin was a english, because his name was english!!!!Kálvin János was a hungarian no france!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.36.130 (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

wow...

This whole article, as it stands today (March 12, 2007) is ludacris... Idiotic even. Turks attacked Europe with 18 000 troops??? Croats had over 100 000 soldiers defending, and they didn't think to attack an army 1/5th of their force? Somone needs to examine and re-do this ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.183.7.89 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Croats and Hungarians in the 16th and 17th centuries

I checked the references to nationalities in the "Szigeti veszedelem" by Miklós Zrínyi / Nikola Zrinski, the great-grandson of the defender of Szigetvár, Croat ban, Croat and Hungarian aristocrat, and Hungarian poet. Although the "Szigeti veszedelem" is not completely correct factually (as Zrínyi himself admitted), it certainly reflects the contemporary knowledge on the events. In the long poem, Hungarian, German, Croat, Turkish, and Ottoman terms ("magyar", "német", "horvát", "török", and "ottomán") denote the nationalities. The defender soldiers are Hungarian, the ban is Croat, the Habsburg court are German, the attackers are Turkish or Ottomans. The nationality was a political term rather than ethnic. Clearly, both the Turkish army and the defenders were ethnically mixed (even the Habsburg court were so). This ethnic diversity is not represented in the poem. Why? Because ethnicity was not so important issue then. The political communities and bodies were, or at least might be, ethnically diverse. The Hungarian soldiers served the Hungarian Kingdom, the Turkish soldiers served the Turkish Empire, the Croat ban was the governor of Croatia, part of the Hungarian Kingdom then. Both great-grandfather and great-grandson spoke Hungarian, Croat, Latin, and a few other languages (Turkish and German among them), and the higher ranking officials and officers were multilingual at both sides, and many of the lower ranking persons might have some language skills beyond their mother's tongue. The main rupture between the people were then the religion - even more important than the nationality (in political sense). In my opinion, focusing to the ethnicity of the people of the battle of Szigetvár is a projection of the more recent nationalism to that time.

Miki, Hungary


Show me a single Hungarian name on the list above. There is none. Sziget and that whole area was evacuated. Main forces including Hungarians were far north and didn't engage in battle. 

Petar Kruzic

Petar, you misunderstand my point. I agree with you that the majority of the defenders were ethnic Croats, without doubt, including the four heroes of the poem. In the Sziget part of the poem I have found only a single certain Hungarian name, two or three uncertain ones, and seven certain Croat ones. But I argued that nationality had been a political term, and ethnicity had been a much less important issue than in the following centuries of increasing nationalism.

Miki, Hungary


Parts of the Battle Removed

Is there any reason that the part of this battle involving the families of the soldiers at the battle, such as killing the wives and daughters, and arming their sons has been removed? Also, the explosion that occured once the Ottomans took the fort was reportedly caused by the one person staying behind in the ammunition bunker, not by a pre-lit fuse, or am I wrong on that?

MaticGuy (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC) MaticGuy

The Croats were the military strengh of Hungary and if it wasnt for the Croats you guys would be bow to alah.this artice is highly disrespectfull for Croats and is quite disturbing seeing people steal our history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.250.98 (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that Szigetvár was a Hungarian battle. We've made sure to state the importance and primacy of the Croatians at every turn. The Hungarians were there too, however. Please don't let nationalism cloud the issue. Korossyl (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The Peril of Sziget, among other sources, makes clear the mixed composition of the army at Szigetvár. Please do not remove the Hungarians from this article, or, explain your reasons for doing so. Korossyl (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Peril of Sizget is what? a hungarian epic poem which ofcourse it says that in this battle there were hungarians becouse it was no benefit to hungary back then to say that Croats saved your country. 2.In croatian poem "Vazetje Sigeta grada" it is clearly stated that the defenders were the 2500 croats. 3.I dont see any hungarian surnames when i look at the list of the soldiers who were killed. 4.Dont be offended but it's hard for me to belive that anyone except for the Croats were capable of that kind of bravery.The Croats were maybe the breavest warriors in Europe,as Napoleon once said "if i had 5000 Croats i would have dinner in moscow , if i had 100000 Croats i would conquer the world,they are the best warrior i have ever seen."

i am very proud of this battle and so are others from my country.please dont continue this couse i will alert more and more people from Croatia about what is going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.227.198 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hungarians are also quite proud of this battle, but the Peril of Sziget is hardly the usual Hungarian epic; it was, in fact, written by Zrinyi/Zrinski's great-grandson -- a patriot who all his life strove for the equality of Croatia within the Kingdom of Hungary. He is very fair, and makes it quite clear that Zrinyi/Zrinski himself and many others were Croatian. However, the fifth chapter gives a list of the commanders present at the battle, and many of those names are quite recognizably Hungarian (Balázs, Győri Mátyás, Medvei Benedek, Bika András, for examples). The majority of the names are Croatian. Zrinyi (the author) makes clear in the introduction to the work the amount of research he did, and the names are recognizable from historical records. The Croatians were the majority in this battle, but they fought alongside very many Hungarians, also.
Some of your comments are not helpful, however. Please do not argue that Croatians (or any nation) were better than Hungarians (or any other nation). Hungarians would say the same thing about their soldiers; so would Germans, Russians, Austrians, etc. This is only letting nationalism cloud the issue. And please do not threaten to bring more people to overwhelm the article; you should win arguments because you're right, not because you've got more numbers on your side.
Thank you for replying here, and for making the points that you did. I am going to revert the page back to how it was; please do not change the article until we have found an agreement here. Thank you. Korossyl (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you admit that the majority of the soldiers were Croats then write that into the wikipedia.this is the only agreement i will accept and it's as far as i will go. well about Croats being the best warriors i was a bit nacionalist but i didnt say that,one of the best military generals in europe's history did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.194.173 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the last change I have made? I have made clear that the majority were Croatians, and placed Croatians before Hungarians (which should have been the case before). Zrinski is likewise identified at the beginning as a Croatian nobleman. I have left the info in the box the same -- Croatian is listed first, and the statement is accurate; anyone looking for more information will see the Croatian majority statement in the article. Will this be acceptable? Thank you for your comments! Korossyl (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ok,its a deal,i wont change anything i promise you that. but you should also state casulties of the turks couse they are from every source,heavy and that is an important part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.180.246 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, using your word: "Heavy." Thank you for your teamwork in this! Korossyl (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Names of Zrinsky/Zrinski/Zrínyi

I think that English name Zrinsky, for Zrinski/Zrínyi is best solution for the article. It is neutral, and will reduce edit-wars about the names in the article. Moreover, this Wiki is on English language. So, I put an English name first, followed by Croatian and Hungarian, when the name is firstly mentioned in the article. After that, the name is always in English. Like this:

The problem arosed from the fact, that there are two articles on this wiki, about the same person, Nicholas VII of Zrin. We have Croatian version Nikola VII Zrinski, and Hungarian version Miklós Zrínyi. I put a merge tag on both of them in September this year, but without any result so far. For now, I will put his name in this article like this:

So, we will have to wiki links for same person, until this problem is solved. Additional comments about the names are welcome. Kebeta (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The problem is, "Zrinsky" is not a name, either in Croatian or Hungarian: it's just an artificial compromise. And though "Nikola," "Petar," etc. are easily converted into their English counterparts, it's not Wikipedia policy to do so (see examples at WP:UE). The issue I was trying to address is indeed the confusion caused by the two pages Zrinyi pages. A while ago, there was a consensus reached that Zrinyi the elder would have his article use his Croatian name, and Zrinyi the younger would have his article under his Hungarian name: a reflection of the nations they tended to most associate themselves with. The rival "Croatian" Zrinyi page was created (by a user who is fully aware of the original page, having edited it several times), apparently to dodge the previous consensus -- a bizarre situation, and one I've been unsure how to address. So far, I've just been editing out links to the pirate article, which is what I was trying to do here. I know there have been so many headaches caused by the editwarring conducted by nationalists on both sides, but I think the best (and most Wiki-legal) approach is just to follow the consensuses -- Nikola Šubić Zrinski in Croatian, Miklós Zrínyi in Hungarian, Petar Zrinski in Croatian -- and to exclude the pirate article. Both Croatian and Hungarian names should be supplied for each, of course, but the prior consensuses should decide which comes first, and which article they link to. What do you think? Korossyl (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If the problem is only a relink for Nicholas VII of Zrin from Nikola VII Zrinski to Miklós Zrínyi in the article, we can easily change it - delete wiki link Nikola VII Zrinski, and leave only Miklós Zrínyi. Furthermore, after the English name, we can put firstly Hungarian name, followed by Croatian one. So, the name would be re-directed to Miklós Zrínyi, and would appear like this in the article: Nicholas VII of Zrin (Hungarian: VII. Zrínyi Miklós, Croatian: Nikola VII. Zrinski). Though, I am not sure how long it will last like that. Although, members of Zrinsky family were both Hungarian and Croatian national heroes, they were etnic Croats. So, I am afraid this will be changed by some Croatian editor in the future, especially if the content and wiki links of these two articles are different. If the articles of all members of Zrinsky family were titled in English, it would be less edit-wars, I think? As for WP:UE, I understanded that if there are English sources to constitute an established usage, it can be done. Although, renaming all Zrinsky articles to English, can easily lead to more edit-wars, from both sides. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yah. The Zrinski family was Croatian, without a doubt, in ethnicity and also sentiment. The exception to the rule was Miklos Zrinyi (the younger), who is best known for writing the most famous epic poem in the Hungarian language, and who clearly identified himself with the Hungarian people, at least as much as with Croatia (cf. Szigeti Veszedelem XIV.4). So I think the consensus I keep mentioning was a good one: the Croatians will be satisfied that two of the three Zrinskis are under their Croatian names, but the one most Hungarians will care about is under his Hungarian name. Though I'm Hungarian, I'm most care about trying to enforce that consensus, and the Hungarian nationalists who occasionally try to upset the status quo are just as damaging to all this as the Croatian nationalists. What I am most adamant about in all this is that the Miklos Zrinyi article should not be renamed, and above all, that the pirate article not be made legitimate -- which would be a very dangerous precedent. So, I'll be completely on board with your suggestion, above.
Upon further reflection, I see two possible problems with the English-name solution: the first is practical, whether you could get it implemented across the board with each of the articles individually, or whether it would get shot down by either the H's or the C's. But more power to you, should you be able to implement it. The second is stylistic: How, then, would we refer to the individuals in the articles, after their introduction? Take as an example: "In 1776, Miklos Zrinyi went to Philadelphia." Would it be "In 1776, Nicholas went to Philadelphia"? The problem is: though Zrinyi/Zrinski translates to "of Zrin," it had become an actual name, at least by the time of the writing of the Szigeti Veszedelem, where the hero is often referred to as simply "Zrinyi." What had been an indicator of origin had, at some point, become a full-fledged, modern-style last name. It would be inappropriate to call the individuals simply "Nicholas" or "Peter," then. No? On the other hand, a simple translation wouldn't quite do, either: "In 1776, of Zrin went to Philadelphia" is just awkward. It would sound fine and familiar if it was "von Zrin" or "de Zrin," but that would be dragging yet another language, artificially, into the fray. So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm having trouble seeing an elegant solution, from here. I'd like to know what you think. Korossyl (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I accept your name proposal for Nicholas VII of Zrin, and will relink it only to Miklós Zrínyi. Especially because of context in which he is mentioned in this article - his poem written in Hungarian language. Although, I do not agree that he is best known for writing famous epic poem in the Hungarian language. Maybe he is in Hungary, but probably not in Europe, and certainly not in Croatia. He was a warrior and statesman above all. So, I will back you in this article, until the problem is solved. But, I am not willing to participate in solving that particular problem, nor I am willing to implemented the English-name solution across the board, within each of the articles individually. Not because I wouldn't like to do it, but because I am tired of dealing with Hungarian nationalists, and I certainly don't want to deal with Croatian nationalists. Which would certainly be a case if I tryed something like that, alone, on large scale, within a wiki. Especially, since there are much more disagreements between Hungarian/Croatian POVs on en-wiki. So, I will work on individual articles, like this one, just trying to solve the current problems. Like we solved this one. I understan your point of view, and fully support your way of conducting with other editors in solving the problems. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
...Exactly, which is why I haven't tried taking down the other article. It's a hornet's nest on both sides, and it's just not worth getting pulled into. Good luck with what you're doing, article by article -- it's admirable.
I know that Zrinski VII was, as he himself said, "warrior and statesman" before all else. I guess I didn't quite realize that he is still better known for his role in history than his literary achievements outside Hungary (and I wouldn't completely know in Hungary, either -- I grew up in the US). On the other hand, I do know that Petar Zrinski translated the Szigeti Veszedelem into Croatian just a year or two after it was published -- would you know if this work is popular in Croatia?
Either way, thanks for being a welcome breath of civility in an otherwise uncivil topic. I think this will provide some stability to this article -- at least for now... Korossyl (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Anyway, I am not done with the article, yet. But, if you have any other observations, please tell. As for popularity of Peter Zrinskys translation of "Szigeti Veszedelem" into "Opsida Sigecka", I know that it is more pro-Croatian (even then), but not as popular as Ivan zajc's opera "Nikola Šubić Zrinski". For more info on both books, "Peril of Sziget", "Opsida Sigecka", and opera "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" see pages 518-522 from:

If you are interested in Croatian literary works from 16th-17th century, the best works, as far as I understand the subject, are:

Enjoy in exploring. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Shelton source

Edward Shelton's book is a bit problematic as a source:

  • archaic language - not a problem in itself, but this was transferred to the article and requires copyediting for style
  • fanciful claims, such as 3000 dead in the gunpowder explosion
  • it's offline - again, not a problem in itself, but makes it harder to use

Overall, there is a solid (if mostly offline) bibliography, yet to me it appears to be a bit insufficient for a full modern perspective on the battle. GregorB (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi GregorB. The language is a bit archaic, but there are now two sources in the article which confirm 3000 dead in the gunpowder explosion, and it is online, see here. Anyway, I nominated the article for GA. I hope you will help, as you did so far with other articles. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good - that was probably sloppy searching on my part. No reason for it not to be on Google Books, the copyright has expired. Added the URL.
Would like to give a hand, but I have a technical problem with my Internet connection at the moment. Will keep an eye at least... GregorB (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, there is no hurry. In the category "War and military" on "Wikipedia:Good article nominations" page, there is big backlog. Kebeta (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory?

Shouldn't this battle be described as a pyrrhic victory, considering that the Turks, although they were the victors, suffered the heaviest losses?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should, especially because the battle delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna that year. But we should't put that into "Infobox military conflict" without several reliable english sources which state that. Kebeta (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

85.102.55.26 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Wiktionary describes Pyrrhic Victory as "A very costly victory, wherein the considerable losses outweigh the gain, so as to render the struggle not worth the cost." Not every war which the victors suffered heavier losses than the defenders matches that definition. If that would be true than every siege should be tagged as "Pyrrhic victory". I think "Pyrrhic victory" is overused in Wikipedia, it has become a instrument to push POV to articles. I can understand that the defenders fought well and brave, but the battle did not delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna. The Sultan's death did that for them and the Sultan died from natural causes not related to the battle. So adding these non-related issues to the result of the war is stretching the importance of the siege a bit. I think it should stay as a "Ottoman victory". "Pyrrhic victory" is misleading for the first-timers who visit the page and just glance through the result bit. Otherwise I think this is a good article, as a Turk I didn't have the slightest idea the importance of this battle for Croats and Hungarians and I wasn't aware that it provided a background to their folklore, poetry, and cultural identity.

A good point. At the very least, "pyrrhic" should be sourced. There is this, for example, but to me it appears highly biased and is therefore not reliable. Comments? GregorB (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

85.96.113.2 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I agree with you, that site seems to have a far-right approach which is highly biased. Most of the sites I looked describes the war as a Ottoman victory with higher than usual casualties due to the bravery and the strategic ingenuity of defenders, but I see nothing Pyrrhic about the war. This entry accepts that the siege ended with the Treaty of Adrianapole in which "The Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian II, agreed to pay an annual "present" of 30,000 ducats and essentially granted the Ottomans authority in Moldavia and Walachia." Is there anything pyrrhic about it ? I really don't think the death of 17.000 to 23.000 men outweighs the gains of this siege. Equating heavy loses to "pyrrhic victory" makes the. importance of the term meaningless.

The pyrrhic victory should be tagged with a citation.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have just added info into the article that Maximilian agreed to pay an annual "present" of 30,000 ducats. The things that makes this battle a Pyrrhic victory are: 1.) the battle delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna that year. Even if Suleiman had lived, he would turned back because of the incoming winter. 2.) the battle suspended the Ottoman expansion in Europe and marked a stalemate between Christendom and Islam (regarding to the land-war). 3.) unfavourable Ottoman casualties (20,000–35,000) comparing to a 2,300-3,000 defending casualties, 4.) Suleiman did die (several contemporary accounts evem account Suleiman's death to Zrinsky's hand), and Ottomans never had such a powerful Sultan after him (Grand Viziers took things in thear hands). 5.) the question is, what did the Ottomans gained by this victory..?...not much...Maximilian didn't care much about Moldavia and Walachia which were already Ottoman possessions before the battle. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Still, this is an interpretation of facts, and therefore has to be sourced. Otherwise, it's sufficient to tell it like it is and let the readers decide. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged the "Ottoman pyrrhic victory". Note 1, sounds like WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have put into the article two reliable english sources which explicitly state that it was a 'Pyrrhic victory'. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

85.101.2.27 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Altough I cannot understand the notion of nationalism in this day and age, of course people have the right to push their nationalistic agenda to wikipedia articles, this is not a peer-reviewed medium after all. There are some logical problems with your vision, though. You are confusing the "result" of the war, with the following incidents after the war. In your second point you say that "the battle suspended the Ottoman expansion". Now this is an absurd statement. This battle "marked" the end of the Ottoman expansion should be the right choice of words. The Ottoman expansion didn't stop beacuse of the victory or because of their losses in the victory. You are trying to simplify a complex concept such as the Ottoman stagnation and decline to a victorious siege. I believe this is done to dramatize the importance of the siege. On your fourth point about Suleiman's death, I think that the only Sultan who died on the battlefield was Murad, who was killed by Serbs in Kosovo. Suleiman's death at the hands of Zrinsky is a fairy tale, an element of folklore. I recognize the importance of such tales in the nation-building process where we need heroes to admire but nowadays it seems absurd. I didn't see any respectacle source for that nonsense. Your fifth point is totally POV, too. If you perceive that paying an annual fee to an another monarch is not important, that is your point of view. To me it is clear sign of defeat and subordination. By the way nationalism is the arch-enemy of the histiography. I wonder when some loony would change the "pyrrhic victory" to a draw, and than to a Croat/Hungarian victory.

cakovec.hr

This source is no good, unfortunately - it appears to be derived from Croatian Wikipedia. GregorB (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It that is true, we have to found another source, or delete that content from the article. Kebeta (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hidden text

In the article there is some hidded text due to lack of good sources. If anybody can cite it, that would be great. Kebeta (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Only four surviving defenders were later ransomed from the Turks. One of them was Zrinsky's nephew Gašpar Alapić (Alapy Gáspár), who later became a Croatian ban himself, and was infamous for having crushed the Croatian-Slovenian peasant revolt. Another survivor was Franjo Črnko (Ferenc), Zrinsky's chamberlain, who later wrote the only first-hand report of the siege. His detailed report, published in Croatian, German and Latin, includes a poignant description of Zrinsky's last hours before the final sortie.
  • Hungarian comics artist Endre Sarlós, made a 90 page comic album, by the title "The siege of Szigeth" (Hungarian: Szigetvár ostroma). The comic's approach is neutral, based on historical facts, as seen by non-Ottoman sources and detailed research, rather than the Hungarian epic poem.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Szigetvár/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Renata (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am leaning towards failing the article as it has some major flaws, but I decided to give you an opportunity to fix them -- I see a good start. I will list my biggest concerns now and will hold on detailed review until the big-picture items have been addressed.

  1. Entire article needs to be thoroughly pruned of "heroic" references to Zrinsky and emotional descriptions of the battle
  2. Title: I believe it should be Siege of Szigetvár. Also, please decide and stick to consistent naming of Szigetvár or Szigeth. (I understand this is a controversial/nationalistic matter).
  3. Background section is extremely unbalanced: 300 words on 3-year period (1526-1529) and only 57 words on 23-year period (1529-1552). Trim one, expand the other.
    • I've done this by bringing in a summary of information from related WP articles about the 1529-1552 period. Someone may want to confirm the citations and go through to makes sure that my summary makes sense. One thing that is unclear is whether there wasa treaty (of sorts) in place in the last few years of this period or whether the Turks were just occupied elsewhere. It seems that the latter may be the case, as other articles suggest that the Turks were engaged with a Shah closer to home who was nibbling at their territory. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Please provide modern scholarly references (ie after World War II) for the number of troops, especially 3000 vs 100,000 -> cited references are from 19th century, which is the time of Romantic nationalism and its historiography is seriously flawed in favor of Romantic legends
  5. Section on "depictions in culture" needs to be transformed into prose.
  6. Aftermath needs more about the Treaty of Edirne (what were its major provisions?) and future years.
  7. Entire article needs serious copy-editing as some sentences are broken and I am having a diffulty understanding them.
    • I was able to bring in more information about the treaty, but more importantly that th etwo sides were able to resolve their immediate conflict and the aftermath was 25 years of realtive peace between the beligerents. I'd like more info, but I don't see this aas standing in the way of eventual GA status.
    • I've begun the copy edit process and substantially completed the lead section and the next two sections. The was much confusion, repetition and unneccessary detail which I removed. However, some of the text was so confusing that I had to guess at the true meaning and may have goofed in my interpretation. The main contributers may want to verify my work and make corrections. I'll do some more later. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Renata (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've left a further to-do-list below. I suggest that wehn that work is complete, this article should be renominated for GA status. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Renata, and thank you for a GA Review of this article. Unfortunately, I don't think that I can seize an opportunity that you gave me, by not failing the article in the start. By your points, I will try to explain why not:

  1. I already pruned "heroic" references to Zrinsky as I could, particularly since every second English source which I found refers to Zrinsky as a modern "Leonidas", and so on..
  2. No problem. The most of the English sources which I found referes to the battle as the "Battle of Szigeth", but I don't have no problem with using the name "Szigetvár" throughout the whole article. In some cases the name Szigeth is necessary, like Hungarian epic poem "Peril of Sziget", and so on... I am not following why is this a controversial/nationalistic matter, what is the difference?
    • Google test: Siege 193 : Battle 18. Renata (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. You think it should be "siege" instead of "battle". More precisely "Siege of Szigetvár". There were some skirmish before and final battle after, but the siege is definitely prevailling. So I agree. Should we make a move proposal to "Siege of Szigetvár"?
  3. No problem. I thought that was a good Background section, but I could expand 23-year period (1529-1552).
  4. I provided both: from 19th century & modern scholarly references (ie after World War II) for for the number of troops. Actually, I didn't found any reference which says that there were more than 3,000 defenders and less than 100,000 attackers. The numbers are in fact "worse"; less than 3,000 (2,000, 2,300, 2,500 and 2,800) and more than 100,000 (120,000, 150,000, 200,000, 250,000 and 300,000). In adition I put a note to this matter.
  5. Ivan zajc's opera "Nikola Šubić Zrinski" is hardly a prose. Maybe to put a sentence about "Turkish–Hungarian Friendship Park in Szigetvar", that would make a section "less prose"?
    • I think you misunderstood. The section needs to be converted from a bullet list into a naturally-flowing paragraph.
      • Yes, I misunderstood you. So this want be a problem.
  6. No problem.
  7. No problem - I can get some help.

Regarding above, if you think that there is a chance to achive a GA status for this article, I will give it a try. If my answer above doesn't satisfy requirements, we can adjourn this nomination, and let some other editor to nominate the article when it is "good to go". I notified WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Croatia, WikiProject Hungary and WikiProject Middle Ages when I nominated this article for GA, so it might "wake up" more interest from others, but since now no edits from another editors were made (except user GregorB). Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Are you saying you are not going to fix any of the issues? Renata (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am not saying that I am not going to fix any of the issues, just that some issues I can not fix. I will fix some of your issues regardless to GA, but if that is not sufficient for GA, I will take my time and fix them in a period longer than one week. Like I said, I provided both: from 19th century & modern scholarly references (ie after World War II) for for the number of troops. If somebody else can provide better sources, that would be great. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, some of Renata's objections seem to coincide with my earlier comments. Essentially, #1 is a consequence of #4; unfortunately, fixing #4 requires significant additional sources, so this is probably going to be very difficult to address. I tried to find some sources online, but no luck. GregorB (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am failing the article. It's been exactly a week and not a single edit was made -- or even promised. Renata (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Todo list?

How about creating a todo subpage for this article? We should start with the seven points from the GAR above; some of them are already solved. GregorB (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As part of my copy edit as requested at the copy editors guild noticeboard I've been using the GA reviewer's list directly to track progress in th echanges. I don't think we need another list. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's fine too. GregorB (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To do list - (post copy edit)

I've finished my copy editing of the exisiting text, but this may be an ongoing process as you build the article a bit more. I've taken some liberties in trying to tie the story together, and you'll need ot tell me if I've misunderstood. Here's a list of items whoch you can work on. I'm happy to come back when you need help with language and grammar issues. I find this to be a facinating story and I'm proud to be a part of sharing it with the world. It is very similar to the US story of the Alamo, of course on far greater importance to the European civilization. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. I brought information in from other WP articles which need to be sourced. I'm a bit uncomfortable copying the source citations from those articles without being able to verify. I suggest that you research the unsourced information.
  2. I'm a bit concerned about the powder magazine section. It seems a bit like a legend and unless the source is rock-solid, I'd make it more clear that it is legend. That area need the most work.
  3. I'd like to see a cleaner description of the battleground. It is very unclear and terms are thrown about inconsistently, e.g., old town, new town, old city, bailey, castle, fortress, etc. These should be clarified, and preferably, one term should be used consistnently for each individual place. My sense is that the bailey and the castle are one in the same; the old towna nd old city are one in the same, and the new town is the third component. Further, I'm reading that these are all separted by water, connected by bridges, and collectively they form the Fortress.
  4. The siege lasted for over a month. I'd like ot know more about what happened in the interim between the Ottoman arrival and the last days.
  5. I was confused by the specific dates of the last days. I too a liberty here which you will want to confirm.

Please get hold of me if I can help in any way. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A very nice job overall, and your reservations are also valid. I must say, though, that the opening sentence of the article still irks me a bit: one cannot just say "which blocked Suleiman's line of advance towards Vienna" in the first sentence without introducing Suleiman, etc. Needs to be reordered a bit. GregorB (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Source

There is some text which lacks sources. If anybody can cite it, and move it in the article, that would be great. --Kebeta (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

  • Only four surviving defenders were later ransomed from the Turks. One of them was Zrinsky's nephew Gašpar Alapić (Alapy Gáspár), who later became a Croatian ban himself, and was infamous for having crushed the Croatian-Slovenian peasant revolt. Another survivor was Franjo Črnko (Ferenc), Zrinsky's chamberlain, who later wrote the only first-hand report of the siege. His detailed report, published in Croatian, German and Latin, includes a poignant description of Zrinsky's last hours before the final sortie.

Depictions in art

  • Hungarian comics artist Endre Sarlós, made a 90 page comic album, by the title "The siege of Szigeth" (Hungarian: Szigetvár ostroma). The comic's approach is neutral, based on historical facts, as seen by non-Ottoman sources and detailed research, rather than the Hungarian epic poem.
  • One of the canvases by Czech Art Nouveau painter Alfons Mucha in the 20-painting work, The Slav Epic, is entitled "Defense of Sziget against the Turks by Nicholas Zrinsky."

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Szigetvár/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found in the artcile, but two found in the Ottoman-Hapsburg wars box (Ottoman-Ventian wars & Austro-Ottoman Wars). Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The Siege of Szigetvár or Battle of Szigeth (Hungarian: Szigetvári csata, Croatian: Bitka kod Sigeta or Sigetska bitka, Turkish: Zigetvar Savaşı) was a siege of Szigetvár Fortress in Baranya, which blocked Suleiman's line of advance towards Vienna Needs explanation of where Barayan is. Please remember that the general reader won't necessarily know. Done
    This was followed by a series of conflicts with the Habsburgs and their allies fighting against the Ottoman Empire. In the Little War in Hungary or Campaigns of Suleiman from 1529 to 1552, both sides exhausted themselves sustaining heavy casualties. Confusing - are we talking about Ferdinand fighting the Hapsburgs or what? Done
    In January 1566 Suleiman went to war for the last time.[14] The battle resulted in an Ottoman victory, with heavy losses on both sides. Both commanders died during the battle, Zrinsky in the final charge, and Suleiman in his tent from natural causes. Which battle are we talking about now? Done
    Ok, the lead is a mess and needs rewriting to be a clear succinct summary of the article. please see WP:LEAD. Done
    Zápolya was a supporter of King Louis II whom Suleiman had promised to make the ruler of all Hungary. Confusing - had Suleiman promised this to Zapolya or Louis II? Done
    An assault of Buda was driven off by John Szapolyai, Is this the same person as Zápolya?{{done}}
    where he met with John II Sigismund Zápolya, to whom he confirmed an earlier promise to make him ruler of all Hungary. very poor prose. Done
    Each linked to others by bridges and causeways. needs a verb - "was"? Done
    The fall of the castle appeared inevitable, but the Ottoman high command hesitated, for on September the 6th Suleiman died in his tent,[6] but at great effort his death was kept secret. Again poor prose. Done
    One disputed view[by whom?] by a historian asserts that, before leading the final sortie by the garrison, Zrinsky ordered a fuse lit to the powder magazine. Both the historian and those who dispute the view need attribution. Done
    Over all the prose is rather poor and clarification is needed throughout. Probably needs the assistance of a good copy-editor with some knowledge of the subject. Done by user Chaosdruid
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well referenced with the exception of the attribution noted above, sources appear to be RS, no evidence of OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Sufficient detail without unnecessary trivia.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images are captioned, licensed and tagged.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for the prose to be copy-edited and turned into plain English. I will look at it again then. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    Well, the prose is much improved. I made a few further copy-edits. It could still do with a lot of work, but I am happy to pass it as reasonably well-written. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, and thank you for your GA Review. As I understood, most of your remarks are related to copyediting. Since I am not a native speaker of English language, I have made a request at WP:GOCE, and asked for help. User Kevin Murray helped on 25 October 2010, but he also added a lot of new content to the article (expanded Background). Anyway, regarding your GA remarks, I have fixed some by myself, but I will made new request at WP:GOCE (and ask user Diannaa personaly for help). Regarding your remark "Well referenced with the exception of the attribution noted above", can you clarify this please, what needs to be fixed regarding references. Anyway, thanks for your help with the article, and I hope that all remarks will be solved. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't make myself clear, I was referrring to the comment in the prose section above: One disputed view[by whom?] by a historian asserts that, before leading the final sortie by the garrison, Zrinsky ordered a fuse lit to the powder magazine. Both the historian and those who dispute the view need attribution. WEE need the name of the historian, also the name(s) of those who dispute this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I deleted first part of the sentence "One disputed view by a historian asserts that". The reason is - I have found several sources which confirm this, and one which state that it may be disputed. None of them which state that the explosion didn't happened. I also added a note, which referes to the "disputed view". I hope this is OK with you. BTW, I left a notice to Diannaa and to WP:GOCE for further help.--Kebeta (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the copyediting by user Chaosdruid is now done. Can you please take a look, and see if all your remarks are resolved. Thanks.--Kebeta (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jezhotwells for your final help with copyediting and for positive GA Review. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pargali Ibrahim

Pargali Ibrahim is mentioned multiple times throughout this article, even though he has been dead for 30 years. Szigetvar was n 1566 yet the article makes various mentions of an Ibrahim Pasha which links me to the article Pargali Ibrahim, who died in 1536. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whataboutery

I couldn't care less what other articles do or don't do, per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX "Pyrrhic victory" is not used in infoboxes. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read anywhere there that Pyrrhic victory can't go to the info box, those are some of your rules.93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I've alreedy refuted that other strawman here. It says In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcome. You can deny it says that if you like, I wouldn't recommend it though. FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
So it says in the source. What will write something that is not? Then it is best to delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the World. You also have a Pyrrhic article so delete it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
More whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I see that anyone can edit WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX so I could too. It remains to be seen who wrote it. And he should have gotten a consensus for something like that written, so that would be fine.93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a consensus, that's why it's in the guideline. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Which we will all change and delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the world. Then a lot of battles need to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Holme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Plevna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenkins%27_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Defile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Sault ... etc Look at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Then Epirote Victory it does not exist, it must also be written differently here in infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. That references say it was is not relevant, it doesn't go in the infobox according to the MOS. Saying See article Battle of Vukovar for example is just more whataboutery, and is of no relevance. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes in WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX "terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes" but they are not forbidden, it is not written. Here we have two sources where it is strictly written "Pyrrhic victory". First source [[1]] , second source [[2]].Without Pyrrhic this battle gives the impression that it was easily won by the Ottomans. That is why Pyrrhic is written in books and this should be taken into account what is written in the source. As in the other battles written above. "Whataboutery" is not a reason and argument for deletion.93.136.115.120 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX is the reason for removal, since it doesn't matter if reference says it the manual of style says it doesn't go in the infobox. Nothing to counter is has been presented except whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
But on WP: MILMOS # INFOBOX it doesn't say it's forbidden to write a Pyrrhic victory. Explain to me why this exception is deletion only on this battle and not on other battles? It’s not okay to make exceptions and let it be just this battle, because something bothers you. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't need to say something is forbidden using that exact word, since saying it's inappropriate is more than enough. See WP:LAWYER. FDW777 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Not inappropriate more than enough. It is not 100 percent that it does not have to be written or banned. Look at other battles where it says Pyrrhic victory so they are not erased. You avoid the second question, why only in this battle must it be erased and nowhere else?93.136.115.120 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Since you've no argument except more whataboutery ("Look at other battles" and "why only in this battle" are textbook examples) to the guideline that says it's inappropriate, it's not going in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I have arguments, and you don't, you didn't write anything, you repeat the same thing, I showed you the sources and proved that "nappropriate for outcomes" is not a ban in the infobox. Stop repeating like a parrot “whataboutery,” and you haven’t answered the questions of why only in this battle must the Pyrrhic victory be erased, and in the others not. And the sources say Pyrrhic victory. The question is simple to which you have no answer. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
No, your only arguments are whataboutery. You insist this article can't be changed becuase others say Pyrrhic victory. But if you stopped wasting everyone's fucking time on this article maybe people would be able to move on to other articles and change those too. FDW777 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Again you didn't say anything, you're just selling fog here93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive439#User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned). FDW777 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
What are you showing me now that the other IP wrote. What does it matter now, you're bypassing my questions again. Of course you need to get a consensus to delete something that was written 10-15 years here, and you didn’t say anything to make it so. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to claim you are a totally different editor to the similar IP in the similar location making the same non-arguments while making the same disruptive edits. Nobody will believe it. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Stop falsely accusing me and sending messages, just because you don’t have arguments on the talk page. What you do is forbidden on Wikipedia. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You opened an account 2 years ago and you're already acting like you're some kind of boss here, and you can falsely accuse me just because you don't have arguments on the talk page. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
IP, this is your single and final warning: stop personalising this dispute. The only person whose conduct here is abrasive is yours, and if you keep attacking editors instead of discussing the article content, both A) others will be unwilling to listen to you even if you are right and B) you may get blocked because of it; are plausible outcomes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
It is important that he did not personally attack me by falsely accusing me, but you do not see this because I am unimportant to you IP. That’s why you exercise your muscles on me because you can’t on others ,but on some irrelevant IP 93.136.115.120 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
You're clearly the same person as the other IP. You editing style is similar; you've immediately focused on this page; and, even more tellingly, both IPs geolocate to the same area (Croatia) and to the same ISP. So basically this is a case of WP:DUCK, which is additionally confirmed by technical evidence. If you keep persisting, and refusing to listen to the concerns of others, then you are clearly not here to contribute to a collaborative project (which this is). Now as I said, that was a single and final warning. Feel free to disregard it as much as you want if you think I'm wrong; but I'm afraid that's going to do you no good. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
93.136.115.120 and 93.138.63.81 not same, the rest are the conspiracy theories you are now using. So anyone can blame anyone. But you are right here, I am some irrelevant ip address so you can do whatever you want. But I will never tell you any conspiracy theory, because that is not right, nor is it true. I have given arguments here and I know I am right, but I know that no one will accept it, because I am irrelevant IP 93.136.115.120 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Lol, I just saw you made an account 1 year ago and you're playing the boss here, you're really funny93.136.115.120 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
"The references say it was a "Pyrrhic victory" is also a non-argument. We wouldn't describe any conflict as a "Pyrrhic victory" without references to start with, so why do we have a manual of style saying not to use the term "Pyrrhic victory"? The manual of style (and the further instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict) are designed to specifically avoid time-wasting like this. We don't use "decisive", we don't use "tactical", we don't use "strategic", we don't use "Pyrrhic". We do use "x victory" or Inconclusive". The argument that "references say it was a Pyrrhic victory", if followed through to its logical conclusion, would mean every single victory described as "Pyrrhic" would have an infobox saying just that, rendering the instructions in the manual of style in direct contradiction to what actually happens. FDW777 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

My request is to change the part in the summary that says "Result Ottoman victory" to "Result Pyrrhic Ottoman victory". Pyrrhic means that a battle was won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.

Being as Count Nichola Zrinsky inflicted 10 times the casualties as his garrison suffered, Suleiman the Magnificent died during The Siege, and it was aprroximatly a hundred years before the Ottomans tried to invade Europe again, I think this is a much more accurate description of the actual result. Just plain "ottoman victory" sounds like the they won. And while they certainly captured the town, I think most people would argue that count Zrinski succeeded in breaking the Ottoman army at Szigetvár. Not unlike the way we view the Battle of Thermopylae actually. The Spartans lost, technically, but inflicted so many casualties on the Persians that we consider it a victory. Minus the Spartans, everything I have said is supported in the Wikipedia article in question, with most of it being taken directly from the summary box (I don't know what else to call it. The thing with the main picture and brief overview). I'm not trying to make any radical changes about facts. I'm just trying to help the description convey what happened better. Thanks! 107.191.2.62 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The weight of reliable sources must refer to it that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 Note: In addition, such request is against WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Melmann 18:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Many sources say the victory was pyrrhic.
I do not understand what the problem with that is. ZidarZ (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
In Hungarian historiography this is a great Hungarian-Croatian defender battle against the Ottomans. The 100,000 Ottoman army was halted for weeks and they lost 20-30,000 men by 2-3000 Hungarian-Croatian defenders, finally the Ottomans won but the planned full Ottoman campaign stopped. The sultan died. Zrínyi ordered a fuse be lit to the powder magazine. After cutting down the last of the defenders the Ottoman Army entered the remains of Szigetvár and fell into the trap. 3,000 Ottomans perished in the explosion. I think these things are sourced in the article.
I found a great explanation video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SilVXqdffw4 OrionNimrod (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it was a "pyrrhic" victory.
I do not understand why anyone is opposed to calling it a "pyrrhic" victory. ZidarZ (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Nikola Zrinski's final speech

Is anyone interested in the full speech that Nikola Zrinski allegedly gave before the final sally in which Zrinski and his remaining officers were killed. The following version is a compilation from sources in Latin and Hungarian and then translated to English. There is no on accepted speech and this version provides a sense of what may have been said. How much of the speech is worth including?

English version of the speech.

According to Željko Zidarić, the speech is:

Zrinski steps onto a makeshift podium and addresses the crowd of soldiers.

Zrinski [Speaks loudly, with genuine conviction and strength.]

My beloved brethren, true valiant men! We can see how our Lord God harshly punishes us with these flames. Our enemy cannot defeat us by their heroism on the battlefield with a sword in hand, and thus they weaken us with this cowardly but cruel fire and the smoke that chokes us. The punishment that the Almighty Lord sends fits our sins. We must bear this punishment with a grateful spirit for we suffer not only for forgiveness and purification of our sins but also for the sins of our Homeland. Unfortunately, we can see now that staying here is not possible even if we want to, no matter how heroic we are. For this there are three reasons: first, the fire grows stronger and we will burn; even if we extinguish the fires we are few and will not be able to hold out for long, that is the second reason. The third reason is that we do not have food or water. Look at the women and children, suffering, hungry and thirsty. Do we want to stay and perish in this fire?

Remember now the oath I swore at the start of this siege, how first I pledged allegiance to you and then you pledged allegiance to me. With God as our witness, we swore to live together and die together. Thanks be to God that so far among us there has been no treachery or betrayal and there will not be any now. I advise we reject any shameful and inglorious thoughts of ignominious surrender at the end of our steadfast lives and adhere to our long-standing military honour and fulfill our duties as best we can.

Soldiers, let us go out from here into the Fortress, as only true men can. Let us show the enemy our middle finger and fight valiantly with them face to face, chest to chest, to the death, so that our deaths will be spoken of with good and honourable words. Those of us who fall will be with God, while those who survive will be celebrated with honour. The ages will not forget our heroism and virtuous deeds; they will celebrate them forever.

I have lived free and I will die free! Therefore, I want to be the first to go, in front of you, and you will follow me. What I do, you do the same. Believe me, my beloved brethren, even unto death I will never abandon you!

Source: "As Only True Men Can: Nikola Zrinski's Last Stand at Sziget", by Željko Zidarić, 2019, pp 491-492


Originals in Latin


According to Wechel, the speech, in Latin, is:

Mei fratres, et strenui milites! num re ipsa, et ante oculos simul cernimus omnes, qua ratione nos Deus igne hodie puniat, igne nos hostes nostri superant et vincunt; nec tantum eorum nobis potentia et copiae nocerent, quantum ignis et incendium damni dat, nosque pessundat. Nihilominus tamen hanc poenam a Deo Optimo Maximo immissam, patienti gratoque animo perferre nos decet; hac enim, non solum ob nostra nos peccata, sed etiam ob provinciae huius flagitia, punire voluit.

Quapropter, ignorare vos minime arbitror, quo pacto antea fidem meam vobis dederim, vosque mihi vicissum, sancte, et Deo interposito testo, per iusiurandum promiseritis: nos hic una sumul victuros et morituros esse. Et quidem ad hoc usque temptus, Deo sint gratiae, nihil mali commissum, nec ulla inter nos proditio deprehensa est: quod et nunc nulla penitus ratione accidere debet. Iam cuncti in praesentia videmus, quod hoc in loco longius moram protrahere et perseuerare, etsi vellemus, non possumus; idque tribus de causis.

Prima est, quod hic flammis et incendio consumimur; altera, quod nostrum admodum pauci sunt; tertia, quod commeatu caremus, vobisque infantes et mulieres, fame sitique pereunt. Quapropter, cur igne hic conflagrare volumus?

Sinitote, exeamus foras in exteriorem arcem, strenui milites, mediumque digitum hostibus ostendamus, et cum eis fortiter manus conseramus; ut post interitum et mortem, quisque nostrum famam sibi et gloriam comparet sempiternam. Qui occubuerit, aeuum cum Deo sine omni dubio aget: cui vero ufura vitae longius concessa fuerit, in eaque superstes manferit, is summis laudibus nunquam non celebrabitur. Atque hac de causa, ego omnium primus esse volo, vos primo foras praecendere; et quod ego facturus sum, hoc idem et vos facite. Certo mihi credite, fratres dilecti, me vos ad rogum usque non esse derelicturum.

Source: "Rerum Hungaricarum scriptores varii, ..." Wechel, Marnius, Aubrius, 1600. pp. 529-530


According to Istvanffy, the speech, in Latin, is:

“Quonam in loco res nostrae sint, commilitones, et quam duriter atque improspere nobis fortuna consuluerit, perspicue cernere potestis. En eo deventum est, ut non virtute aut, vera hostium vi, sed intempestivis ignibus ob ruamur.

Itaque ego vobis magis supremae necessitatis index, quam consilii auctor processi; neque enim ut cadentibus rebus nostris, hic manendo pertinacius cum irata fortuna ignibus ustulandi colluctemur, sed neque ut majore animi mollitie, quam Chriftiani nominis viris militibusque conveniat, subita consternatione acti, infamem deditionis conditionem amplectamur, deliberare, aut consulere in animo habeo. Verum sicuti ego nuper vobis, ac deinde vos mihi Sacramentum praestitistis, ut mutuis animis consiliisque egregie et fortiter simul vivendum, et simul moriendum statuamus: ita nunc hortor, et quantum maxime possum suadeo, ut turpi repudiata sententia, anteactae militiae et gloriae constantissimo vitae exitu satisfaciamus.

Adeo fortuna virtuti nostrae invidit, ut jam nihil nobis praeter arma, et animos armorum memores reliqui fecerit: et perpetua ac ignominiosa servitus obeunda sit, si, plus, quam viros decet, ferrum timeamus. Honestiora igitur consilia, et magis decora sequamur, contemta omni degeneris vitae cupidine, et in media arma ruamus: ita ut nos et honeste vixisse et decoris veraeque laudis et constantiae tenaces, e vivis excessisse testemur, atque adeo apud posteros nostros totumque orbem terrarum, gratam et aeternam nostri memoriam relinquamus.

Agite milites, me modo sequimini, sicuti hactenus sequuti estis, et ceu a fronte salutaria a me exempla hauriatis, qui bus nec superbi et fallaces hostes, se nobis vincula, carceres, catenas, quod omnium miserri mum foret, iniecisse gloriabuntur, et facta virtutemque nostram nulla, quin justis laudibus efferant, unquam saecula conticescent.”

Source: "Regni Hungarici historia ... ", by Miklós Istvánffy, 1724.

NikolaZrinski (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Self-published source reverted

Kansas Bear reverted an addition that I made based on the fact that the source is "self published". What is wrong with self-published? How does self-published = not good?

This Wiki page does not say that self-published sources cannot be used.

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

So, the question is WHY?

Especially when there are few English sources that provide a depth of details and since self-publishing is growing more and more popular.

NikolaZrinski (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


Per WP:RS, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
Željko Zidarić, does not appear to be an historian.[3] Feel free to take your concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
The previous addition was also a self-published source.
Ante Mrkonjić,does not appear to be an historian, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Your comments are confusing because
Wikipedia itself says: Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used.
I look at your edit history and you have added little of value, other than delete work done by other people. It is odd considering that you are not Croatian nor are you a subject matter expert in this area. NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


  • "I look at your edit history and you have added little of value, other than delete work done by other people."
LMAO!
  • "It is odd considering that you are not Croatian nor are you a subject matter expert in this area."
Nice battleground comment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
So, I continue to be a victim of an aggressive wiki-bully.
What is YOUR level of credibility in Croatian history?
Did you not read the post that I make in this talk section? "Nikola Zrinski's final speech"
Read the Latin, and then read the English. Is it not a good translation?
Can you provide a better translation or English language source for the speech?
It almost seems like you are interested in holding back improvements rather than promoting progress. NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Your comment on "Nice battleground comment." is silly.
You attack me, you act like a bully and then I am the "bad guy" because I questioned you about your credibility.
Wow - what a nice welcome I have received to Wikipedia. TY for that. NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Quote with no reference

Siroxo says that "Wikipedia works with verified sources and quotes from some reliable books, you can't just change and delete an existing source, ..."

I find this strange because the quote that is on the page has no reference to a verified source.

The quote on this page

...Let us go out from this burning place into the open and stand up to our enemies. Who dies – he will be with God. Who dies not – his name will be honoured. I will go first, and what I do, you do. And God is my witness – I will never leave you, my brothers and knights!...

According to Siroxo , this quote with NO references is more credible than a better translation of a quote originally in Latin.

If quotes need to be from verified sources, then this quote should be deleted. NikolaZrinski (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have self-reverted after mistakenly reverting what looked like content removal. The quote you reference is from a different editor's edit summary. I have no input into this content discussion. Apologies once again. —siroχo 09:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
If you look at what happened, you will see that
  1. I posted a better quote but with a reference that Kansas Bear did not like and so he removed my quote
  2. I posted the better quote with references to old sources in Latin. The veracity of the translations can be easily ascertained as I posted the source quotes in Latin in the Talk section.
  3. You deleted my second post with the credible sources
Now the article has a quote with no references being "credible" but the quote that I placed, which has references is not credible.
By Wikipedia rules, should the present unreferenced quote be allowed to stay? NikolaZrinski (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Question for Siroxo.
You protect a quote that has no reference. It appears to be a popular "Internet" quote but there are no academic references for it.
Is the web blog "BadAssoftheWeek" a credible source? "HistoryNet" but there is no source. Maybe "Total War Center" is the credible source this is from?
According to the wikipedia "credibility" rules, this quote should be deleted. NikolaZrinski (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I returned it because you deleted this source [[4]] , and what is written before. Which you say has no source may be written in Shelton 1867, page 82-83 the source below the quote. Put sources where it says so that everyone can read what you wrote just has to be a source to read. Please @Silverije: I hope that you will get into editing the page, you understand history. I won't edit anymore when I don't really know it.Bye83.131.65.132 (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I have to tell you that I was wrong back. He put the sources, but I don't know what exactly is written in those sources, let someone check it with a historian, I just made a mistake. My mistake. Please @Silverije: @Joy: edit the page. I don't know, I won't mess around anymore, do what you want and check the sources, Bye83.131.65.132 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the page from a few days ago you will see that the original quote does not have a reference, If you read the reference for Shelton you will see that it is not a source for the original quote. It is appreciated that you admit you made a mistake, but why make such a "mistake" when you do not read references (talking about Shelton) or understanding other languages? For verifying quotes in other languages, Google Translate will give you a reasonable translation to check the veracity of the translation presented.
If you do not like the quote that I placed, maybe you prefer this quote
… Sinitote exeamus foras in exteriorem arcem ſtrenui milites, mediumq̃; digitū hoſtibus oſtendamus, & cū eo fortiter manus conſeramus, vt poſt interitū & mortem quiſque noſtrûm famam ſibi & gloriam comparet ſempiternam, qui occubuerit, euum cum DEO ſine omni dubio aget: cui vero vſura vitæ longius conceſſa fuerit, in eaq̃; ſuperſtes manferit, is fummis laudibus nunquam non celebrabitur.  Atq̃; hac de cauſa, ego omniū primus eſſe volo, vos primo foras præcedere.  Et quod ego facturus ſum, hoc idem & vos facite.  Certo mihi credite fratres dilecti, me vos ad rogum vsq; non eſſe derelicturum.  Pofthæc ter IESVS exclamat, atq; …
Source: Historia Sigethi: Totius Sclavoniae Fortissimi Propugnaculi quod a Solymano Turcarum Imperatore nuper captum Christianisque ereptum est, ex Croatico serone in Latinum conversa, by Ferenc Crnko, translated to Latin by M. Samuelem Budiman Labacensem, 1568.
This is a translation to Latin of the original work by Ferenc Črnko, who was a participant in the defense of the siege. Črnko's book was "Posjedanje i osvajanje Sigeta"
The modern Croatian version is:
»Hodimo, vitezi, van iz toga grada u veliki grad i ondi se pobimo na lice (prsa o prsa) s našimi neprijatelji i ondi pomrimo da nam bude po našoj smrti dobar i pošten glas! Ki umre, oće z Bogom biti, a ki ostane, oće vazda dobar glas imati. Zato ja oću biti prvi i ja oću najprvo pred vami pojti. Ča ja budem činil, to i vi činite! Verujte mi, moja bratjo i vitezi, da vas do smrti nigdar neću ostaviti«.
Source “Podsjedanje i osvojenje Sigeta i popratni tekstovi” by Ferenc Črnko, 1971
English translation
Freely (by our consent), let us go out into the outer citadel, strong soldiers, and show the middle finger to the enemy, and join hands with them with strength; so that after destruction and death, each of us may have everlasting fame and glory for himself.  He who has died will live forever with God without any doubt; but he who has been granted a longer life, and remains alive in it, will be celebrated with the highest praises of all times.  And for this reason, I want to be the first of all, to precede you first outside; and what I am about to do, you do the same. Be assured of me, my beloved brethren, that I will not forsake you even at the end.
The information has been presented and I will let the experienced editors do what they want. NikolaZrinski (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I put back what I removed because I deleted the sources and that the user Siroxo is not his fault but mine. Let more experienced historians check this, that's why I invited them to join the conversation and edit the page. I don't want to comment on the rest of what you wrote, I don't know.83.131.65.132 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Szigetvár/Archive_1&oldid=1255492407"