Talk:Siege of Eger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Eger article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Ottoman military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Siege of Eger:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	Middle Ages Portal Siege of Eger is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	Crusades task force
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Hahahahaha, who made this article!? Not even the most retarded commander or the weakest soldiers could lose a battle when numbering 200,000 against 2,500, I am chocked that noe one has updated this article! I will update this article with some more logical sources.

"More logical" does not mean "more accurate". And in this case, it doesn't even make sense. How could you fit 50,000 men into a tiny border fortress?

The numbers are from Géza Gárdonyi's book, Az Egri Csillagok, which appeared at the beginning of the 20th century. He spent over 10 years on the research alone, travelling even to Istanbul to check Turkish records. The figures are a little bit disputed today, but the turks are known to have had a MINIMUM of 120,000 soldiers.

Please only change the article with proper sourcing. Korossyl 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

you haven´t written any references, that could prove quality. Also, please don´t use Hungarian or Turkish sources. Géza Gárdonyi was Hungarian, and then it is obivious that he take Hungarian benefit; I looked at a Turkish source that say 20,000 Hungarians against maximum 10,000 Ottomans, and this author say 150,000 to 200,000 against 1,500, mostly women!? This is nonsens, if you bring such huge armies against a fortress, you obiviously use artillery. No matter how dumb a commander might be they bombard down walls, and then storm into the fortress. It is simply impossible to lose when numbering such armies against such small opponent. I think it shall say "unknown" until other, more reliable sources appear. This is as wrong as it possibly could be, pure Anti-Turkish, 100% Hungarian patriotic.

Anti turkish is probably every article who dont have turks as heroes or victors,interesting history and reality perception these people have.Always getting upset instead of using critics for further development...maybe the reason for their very few nobel prizes aso?

Also, use the word "Ottomans" instead of Turks. There were very few Turks in the armies, the actual ethnic Turkish population in the empire was very small. The army consisted mostly slave warriors from allover North Africa and eastern Europe. In an army of 100,000, The actual Turks would have numbered Maximum 5,000-8,000.

I have changed "Turk" or "Turkish" to "Ottoman" in all instances when talking about members of the army -- those were indeed very diverse. I have left "Turk" when talking about rulers, or "the Turkish forces", or the like, as it really was the Turks who ruled and planned strategy and military expeditions, etc. Hope this helps. Korossyl 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is wel fitted, but the numbers shall still remain unknown, it simply cannot make sense. Also, it seems like it was not so important to give the Turkish commanders blue text, but the Hungarian should have it...

I have reverted the troop numbers and sourced them. The most extensive research on the Siege of Eger was undertaken by Géza Gárdonyi, a prominent academic and linguist who published a novel, Egri Csillagok, based on his findings in the early 1900s. He spent over ten years conducting his research, with significant time spent in Istanbul as well, perusing Turkish records and archives. Please do not make controversial changes without discussing them first on the this talk page. Korossyl 20:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not change the article, but I don´t believe Géza Gárdonyi´s theory, and I think that his researches in Istanbul only is a cover, he probably based his sources on Hungarian history. The only information I could find from any Trukish hostorical litterature was these numbers:"The Ottomans marched with a small force of 10,000 men who already were established in Hungary. The fought against 20,000 Hungarian troops, defending their well fortified fortress. " I still think that the numbers should be changed to "unknown",unless I am not allowed to write these numbers I recently added here. This Turkish sources could be just as true as Géza Gárdonyi´s theory.

I spent six months this Summer in Eger, in and around the fortress. There is absolutely no way that could hold 20,000 men. The Hungarian troop size is, at least, above dispute. The Ottomans are a little less sure -- Gárdonyi wrote 200,000, but that was a hundred years ago, and we have new sources, and we do not have some of the sources he used. Today, historians say somewhere in the 100,000 range, probably from 80,000-120,000. 200,000 should be kept as the upper limit.

What basis do you have for calling Gárdonyi's honor into question, or saying he might have deliberately lied? Besides my own research on him, I have spoken extensively to experts on his life and work, at the Gárdonyi Museum in Eger. Please do not make such claims without backing them up. Korossyl 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is difficult not co claim my opinions since I have red many incorrect historical fact Hungarians have written when it comes to the subject aobut Turks. Just one example is that almost all Hungarian authors who spent their researches on Atilla the Hun refuse to confess that he was of Turkic origin, from Central Asia.

On the other hand, Hungarians would claim the exact opposite: How can you trust Turkish historians when they deny that Attila was Hungarian? But this is not the topic here. Without any specific evidence, please don't attack Gárdonyi's reputation.

Anyways, to move forward, could you provide maybe the reference or citation where you found your numbers? Thanks! Korossyl 14:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In siege warfare the attackers' numerical superiority does not always grant victory. Look at the Siege of Constantinople, which saw many men beaten back for quite some time against a few defenders. Only poor morale in the end saw Constantinople fall (when the Genose general fled the defenders panicked). But at Eger, the defenders had a high morale thanks to the legen of bulls blood. Tourskin 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian? No Habsburg Hungarian

This is not a Hungarian battle because the Hungarians as an independent entity was destroyed after the battle of Mohacs and henceforth was either part of the Ottoman vassal state or part of the Austian Archduke's territory.Man of Bravery!! 05:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think this particular siege was a unique engagement. While it was part of the Ottoman wars, and the fortress was manned by citizens of the Habsburg Empire, I don't think it can be called a Habsburg victory.

István Dobó was appointed to the captaincy of the fortress some years prior to the battle. He used state funds to expand and strengthen the installation, as well as retain the fortress's 200-400 permanent defenders. However, when it became apparent that the Ottomans were threatening Eger, the emperor decided that it was not worth the effort to defend the fortress on that particular occasion. Dobó recruited an additional 1500-2000 men from Hungarian nobles. So at the time of the siege, the defenders were all Hungarian volunteers, while only Dobó and his permanent retainers were in the employ of the Habsburg Empire. Dobó still expected relief from Vienna, due to the ambiguity of his communications with the emperor. This relief never came. The Habsburgs left Eger to fend completely on its own, and it defeated the Ottomans completely on its own. Afterwards, the emperor asked Dobó and his co-captain, Mekcsey, to remain in command of the fortress; they both resigned in protest.

The action at Eger was a result of Dobó's own initiative. Had he remained within his duties as a captain of the Empire, he would have retreated from the fortress with 200 men. As it was, he defended it with 2000 soldiers, volunteers, and peasants, without any support from the Habsburgs. I just do not see how this could be called a Habsburg victory, but it certainly was not a battle between the Ottomans and the Austrians. Korossyl 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting the page until a conclusion has been reached here to the contrary. Korossyl 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, whilst the troops were Hungarian, there was no Hungarian political entity to claim the victory and thus in my opinion one cannot attribute a victory to a political faction that does not exist. The fortress of Eger belonged to Hungarians that opposed the Ottomans, who accepted King Ferdinand of the Habsburgs as their king - this source:

Stephen, Turnbull (2003). The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey, p. 49. 

States that King Louis of the Hungarians and King Ferdinand had married the other's sister, thus creating a dynastic link between Hungary and Austria.

I know how annoying war edits can be cos I jus came out of one with a certian Kurt Leyman who constantly reverted my well-sourced arguments. Therefore, I shall not edit this article until one of us is convinced or a concensus reached.

However, I would ike to propose a compromise - how bout we leave it as Hungarian / Habsburg victory? Don't forget that the Hungarians at Eger and the Austrians saw King Ferdinand of the Habsburgs also as King of Hungary, thanks to the diet of Bratislava on 26 October. as the above source also states (same page).

Regards, Tourskin 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy!

Sounds great! I've changed the victory to "Hungarian/Habsburg". But I want to make a case here to change it back to a fully Hungarian victory.

I'm not sure that it should be assumed that the "Result" field demands a political faction, per se. Nowhere does it state that, so... I dunno.

But I think there's a very good argument that this was not a Habsburg victory. A majority of Hungarians grudgingly accepted the Habsburg rulers, yes -- though by no means all. Captains Dobó and Mekcsey were in the employ of the Habsburgs. And the fortress was funded in peacetime by the Habsburgs. However, this was a battle that should not have occurred, in the eyes of the Habsburgs -- they saw no chance of victory (neither did the Hungarians), and they refused any reinforcements to what they saw as a lost or foolhardy cause. Of the fortress's defenders, only the couple hundred permanent retainers were paid by the government, whereas the rest belonged to the Hungarian nobles who also fought there, such as Bornemisza and others. These came not because of their allegiance to the throne, but because of their loyalty to Hungary and their opposition to the Turks, and in some cases, a result of their personal ties to the captains. This battle just didn't have anything to do with the Habsburgs at all -- and this is exactly why Dobó and Mekcsey both resigned their commissions after the siege, in protest to the absolute lack of support they received from Vienna.

It's just that no one there was really fighting for the king, or by his orders -- they were just a group of soldiers and peasants who all belonged to a nation that just happened to be the reluctant subject of a foreign empire at the time.

Anyways, that's how I see it. Best regards, Korossyl 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Whilst away from this discussion I began to relaize that they may have been Hungarian Hungarians if u know what I mean.

I respect your opinion, and understand how this could not have been a victory belonging to the Habsburgs, but it was a victory for them in that a Turkish defeat was an Austrian victory, if u know what I mean. Furthermoore it appears that you have more knowledge about it than I do. I have turned it back into a Hungarian victory then, but I would like to add in de facto Habsburg victory? What are your thoughts? I am convinced that your judgement is best on these matters; you have also shown exceptional sportmanship in this discussion so its only fair I do so as well!Tourskin 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that it was a victory for the Hapsburgs, much as it was a victory for all of Christian Europe. I'm fine with mention of both Austria and the Habsburgs in the first paragraph, also. I'd also be okay with the "de facto" plan you mention above, or if you've got any other ideas. In the much broader scheme of the Ottoman Wars, this was a victory for the Austrians/Habsburgs, who eventually won the war. I think maybe even saying "Hungarian victory (Habsburg victory)" would also work.

This particular battle, because of the book published on it, has always been one of my major interests, and this smmer I managed to spend about six weeks in Eger and the fortress doing volunteer work. It was a great experience, and that's where most of my knowledgibility on this comes from.

So, if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them. Thanks for making this a good and useful discussion. Korossyl 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The pleasure and honor (or honour) was mine!Tourskin 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really have problems with the 'Habsburg victory' as I do not really remember any Austrian, Czech or North Italian solders involved. Ferdinand took the Crown, yes he did(in a very incorrect way, but he did) but he did not help in the begining to the Hungarian defenders against the Ottomans. The reason was simple: a weeker Hungary was easier and so much more fitting fo him. Only exception to this analogy could be Mathias's 'Black Army' which did not include so much Hungarians but it was paid by the king andwas the Army fighting for the Hungarian King's goals(but actually the their victory cannot be added to the Czech or other nation...).

The other thing: Perhaps the 200,000 Ottomans is a slight exaggeration but you should know that there was two separate Ottoman armies united(perhaps under Temesvár) so I think 75,000-150,000 can be the real number. KaracharNevian (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)