Talk:Siege of Kőszeg

Uprising by the Janissaries or a powerful army collected in Vienna?

"After the final unsuccessful attack, the Turkish leadership were forced to decamp due to an uprising by the Janissaries." is written in the article Kőszeg.

I propose to check this information because it contradicts the information written in this article that sultan had not the courage to face a powerful army collected in Vienna.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I found that info in couple sources, but if you have reliable source about 'an uprising by the Janissaries', feel free to insert it as an alternative reason for Suleiman's withdrawal. Kebeta (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that your sources are quite reliable. If I find source about 'an uprising by the Janissaries' I will introduce it to the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How does a comment about courage fit into your NPOV? Why not comment also that the Habsburg Emperor did not have the courage to face Ottomans so he fled to Vienna? So you think war is all about courage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.128.150 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate use another word and to replace "courage" with more appropriate word (i.e. intention), regardless what source says. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, you are welcome to rewrite that info. IP, I tend to agree with you "that the Habsburg Emperor did not have the courage to face Ottomans", just find sources to back that claim, and add it into the article. --Kebeta (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ottomans were not defeated

Funny, the text and the side bar are in contradiction. In sidebar it is claimed that the Ottomans were defeated and in the text just the reverse is implied. The fact (according to history books) is that although the defenders fought well the fort was finally captured by the Ottomans (Aug. 28) . I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the fort wasn't captured. The outcome has two versions. In both version the Ottomans didn't captured the fort, but in one version they were allowed to raise the Turkish flag (only few Turks - token force). Anyway, Suleiman withdrew, and did not continue towards Vienna as previously planned, but homeward (nor he captured the fort - it was in the defenders hands all the time). Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a review by an expert. I checked several sources (Austrian historian Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, British historian Lord Kinross, Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga as well as Turkish sources) Those sources don't agree with the two versions of the outcome presented in the article. According to sources Güns was captured by Pargalı İbrahim Pasha. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then start disputing them already. Just bring here the source that you have checked, and we will all see them, and decide how to solve the problem (if there is one). I am not sure what expert are you expecting here? --Kebeta (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A French translation of Jurischitz's own report of this siege written to his master Ferdinand can be found in Charriere vol i p 215 etc Also in Monumenta Hungariae Historica vol i p 169. The fort was formally capitulated. Jurischitz was a former ambassador to Ottoman Porte and was a good friend of Pargali Ibrahim Pasha, who was leading the siege. He used this to obtain very good conditions. Güns was not pillaged. Ten janissaries entered the forte and erected an Ottoman flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.196.36 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article talks about two versions of the outcome, but there is really one version. Someone who is more into Wikipedia should clean this article up. I have given sources above which are indisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugur (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 12:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

I correcting some grammatical errors and tweaked some of the wording. As it stands now, the prose and grammar seem good, and the content appears to follow MOS guidelines. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is well-referenced, and citations are frequently distributed throughout the text. I detected no original research. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all major aspects of the subject for which reliable information is available. No irrelevant details have been included. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Overall the article's content was neutral, but I tweaked a few words which sounded a bit more conversational than encyclopedic. I see no further issues as such. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

For a war article, its history has been admirably peaceful; most of the editing for the past few months has been done by a single editor; no edits appear to be repeated reverts and restores. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All images used are from the Wikimedia Commons and have valid licenses for being there, so there is no fair use issue. All images have suitable captions, and serve a relevant purpose in the article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through Siege of Güns thoroughly and making minor changes, I feel the article now satisfies the GA criteria, and am pleased to add it to the company of War and military GAs. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Will, thank you very much for your effort, especially on your help regarding the wording (grammar)!--Kebeta (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RESULT

The result of this war is the Ottoman victory. Yes, the castle fought well, no one denies it, but as a result, the castle fell into Ottoman hands. Joseph von Hammer in his book Ottoman History 5th Volume (p.125-128) said that those who defended the city fought very well, but He says that the Ottomans achieved victory. Similarly, in Nicolae Jorga's book titled Invincible Turk Suleiman the Magnificent, he says that the Ottomans achieved a victory by far. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show your sources! Links, texts!

You always remove modern academic sources to overwrite them with your sources which are quite blurry and old, it is a vandalism to remove other historian views.

Joseph von Hammer is from 1800 clearly not a modern academic source (however it would be good to check what he wrote exactly), it is the same thing that you want use 500 years old sources from the personal history writer of the sultan who claimed the Hungarian army was 300,000 which is really irreal to praise more the sultan victory: Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army

Even your possible sockpuppet claimed that the Siege of Belgrade in 1456 was an pyrrhic Hungarian victory (however it stopped 70years the Ottoman advance in Hungary) and it claimed Turks won: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"?

The Koszeg Castle was not conquered, it was negotations and deal, (nominal victory) the Ottoman flag was raised to the caste but no Ottoman soldiers entered. After the deal, the Ottoman army moved toward in August to Sopron, Kismarton (these are more close to Vienna than Koszeg) toward Vienna (seems you have not so good local geography knowledge as I have as a native resident) so not true what you claimed that Ottomans went home due to the “winter” after a “picnic” (as you claimed, winter in August :)) and the Sultan changed direction because meantime the Germans gathered enough soldiers, so the defenders prevented the Ottoman advance toward Vienna due to this time waste for the sultan as it is in the article by modern history sources.

Very detailed Hungarian history source, use google translate: https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0013/963.html

What article next? Do you engaged to overwrite all Ottoman battle articles? I see you rewrite all Ottoman lost "just went home due to the weather from picnic" and you always reduce the number of Ottoman army and casualties while you always increase the number of enemy armies and casualties. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait a second, don't write so many things at once, I don't have translation skills and I have difficulty reading. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't be editing English wikipedia. 98.15.154.217 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the topic is not the siege of Belgrade and the Battle of Mohács, if you want to discuss them, I will, no problem. When it comes to the subject, Joseph von Hammer is a work still used by Modern Historians. You can't deny this. I gave you a reference from Joseph von Hammer's book. If you read Çekiç (p. 125-128), it is written that the castle resisted very well, but eventually surrendered and kissed Süleyman's hand. Download and review as PDF. Translation from Nicolae Jorga's book The Invincible Turk;

"After a few rainy days, the army began to besiege Guns Castle. Called by the besieged people, Nikolas Jurisich, or Nikolitza as the people call him, barely threw himself into the castle. It was impossible for him to resist for a long time. Because he had a thousand men in his hand. Just like he was in front of Vienna in 1529." From 21 August to 28 August, the Ottoman army showed all its war skills, this time in Güns, a less important and small castle. "Commander Nikolas" finally made a surrender agreement and handed over the castle. The Turks were very happy about this. Süleyman He didn't want to go all the way to Vienna after picking up Güns. The bad weather..."

Nicolae Jorga says this was a clear Ottoman victory.

Source: Nicolae Jorga, Invincible Turk, p.47-48 Göktuğ538538 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It would take me hours to write to you what Hammer said:D There is a translation problem and Hammer explained it in a very deep way. I am saying this, Hammer reports that the Castle resisted well but eventually surrendered to Suleiman. If you don't believe me, Ottoman History, Volume 5, p. Download .125-128 as pdf and check it out. It's not that hard, is it? Göktuğ538538 (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

To make it easier to understand, we can say this.

•The Ottomans captured the castle but had to return due to weather conditions. Or

•The Ottomans captured the Castle, but since the siege lasted for a long time, weather conditions caused problems and Suleiman ended the expedition. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/suleyman-i

The Encyclopedia of Islam, one of the world's greatest sources, does not say that Solomon was defeated:D Göktuğ538538 (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

None of that makes much of any sense. The siege was lifted, the castle remained in the hand of the defenders, the Ottoman attackers took no prize or pillage, and the only concession was a small parade through the fort and the hanging of a flag. More than that, the attacks slowed any forward momentum and the window for campaign season closed before anymore land could be taken.

So the attackers, most likely believing they were in a far worse situation than they were in sued for peace offering terms that were very, very beneficial to the defenders. Depending on what you believe their overall goal was they failed at both

1) Further advance to Vienna

and/or

2) Successful long distance raiding as they'd conducted elsewhere. Here, they gained nothing. No holdings, no territory, no plunder. Otherwise successful raids amounted here to raising their flag and leaving with nothing to show.

I'd consider it Pyrrhic tactical victory, followed by total withdrawal. Lostsandwich (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the Islamic Encyclopedia source I gave. It says that Suleiman captured Guns Castle but ended the campaign due to weather conditions. The siege was not lifted, I ask you to understand this now. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Göktuğ538538, please show readable links, readable pdfs.

On the way of the big Ottoman army dozens of Hungarian castle surrendered without any fight, so it was a surprise for the sultan when Koszeg this small castle decided to fight. The Ottomans not captured the castle, it was a deal, the Ottoman flag was raised but no Ottoman soldiers entered so the Ottomans moved toward to Vienna, just the sultan realized meantime the Germans gathered enough soldiers so attack of Vienna was prevented.

Also it is not correct to remove modern academic sources because you do not like them WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT OrionNimrod (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, I accept modern sources. In the Islamic Encyclopedia source I posted, look at Suleiman's 1532 expedition and you will see that he captured Güns Castle. The source you cited also says that the Defenders Surrendered. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You still did not provide readable links to your claim. I see your source did not exist: https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&hs=cgl&sca_esv=564671357&q=Nicolae+Iorga+Invincible+Turk&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim_s_0gqWBAxUK_bsIHXBeAeEQBSgAegQICBAB&biw=1912&bih=908&dpr=1 OrionNimrod (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the book I'm talking about https://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/yenilmez-turk-kanuni-sultan-suleyman-cep-boy/248873.html

but I couldn't find it in English. In Turkish pdf; https://turuz.com/book/title/Qanuni+Sultan+Suleyman-Yenilmez+Turk-Nicolae+Jorga-Nilufer+Epcheli-2011-140s

item: 294

It's not too long, you can download the pdf and translate it. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Download the book in the link I gave as a pdf and translate Article 294. And I give you the source from the Islamic encyclopedia;

https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/suleyman-i

Read about Suleiman's 1532 campaign, he says he conquered the Guns castle but ended the campaign due to weather conditions Göktuğ538538 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks,

I made a fast translate the source what you provided, it does not contradict the others, it mentions the deal and the Ottoman retreated because the Germans gathered enough soldiers, it also say the "bad weather was further away" so it is not true when you claim the Ottomans retreated because of the bad weather:

"on August 9; He arrived at Güns (Közseg) Castle, which the Hungarians called "Köszeg" and whose defense guards were under the command of King Ferdinand. After a few rainy days, the siege of this place overlooking the road to Vienna began. Summoned by those under siege, Nikolas Jurisich, or Nikolitza as the people called him, barely threw himself into the goal. It was impossible for him to resist for a long time, because he had at most a thousand people. Just like in front of Vienna in 1529, from 21 August to 28 August, the Ottoman army showed all its war skills, albeit in the smaller and insignificant Güns Castle. “Commander Nikolas” finally consented to make a surrender agreement, and as one of King Ferdinand's ambassadors coming to Istanbul, his request was accepted. The victory created great joy in the Turkish headquarters 294 (September 27). Sultan Suleiman did not deign to advance to Vienna after Güns. Although the bad weather was further away, many German and Spanish military forces had been brought to the capital Vienna. So the order to retreat was given. Sultan Suleiman was consoled by the fact that King Ferdinand did not appear before him with a good army ready for war, on the contrary, he left his country in the hands of the enemy "like a cowardly man who left his wife to his rival", and in order to preserve the appearance of this expedition, which was actually planned to be carried out on Vienna, the return route was made through Istria."

And this is from the Islamic encyclopedia, it does not mention the deal that it was just a nominal victory:

"The Sultan besieged Güns (Köszeg), 60 miles from Vienna, and waited for Karl V to come to him. The imperial army, which was quite crowded, was standing in Brigittenau near Vienna. When there was no movement from them, the Ottoman army, which took Güns, headed towards Gratz (September 1532). As the season progressed, they returned from there. This operation, called the Alaman expedition in Ottoman history, was actually aimed at intimidating the other side and consolidating Ottoman domination in Hungarian lands, rather than a military expedition directly targeting Vienna "

You can mention these things in the article text, but it is not ok if you remove other sourced contents who say the time wasting siege prevented the Ottoman advance toward Vienna, as your first source admit this was the main goal and the sultan wanted to keep the apperance. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are missing a fundamental factor in the story.

That Suleiman's army was met below Vienna by a German imperial-Spanish force of 80,000 men.

Suleiman was playing a charade at Kőszeg because he didn't dare to face that 80,000 strong Christian army.

And when the Christian army under Vienna moved, Suleiman retreated at high speed. Despite this, the retreat of the Turkish army of at least 16 000 men, led by Kashim Pasha, who was acting as rearguard, was successfully cut off at Leobersdorf, and at least 8 000 Turks, including Kashim Pasha himself, were killed in the bloody battle.

The fact is that in 1532, Suleiman, wisely, did not dare to go into a large open-field battle.

There is no knowing what the outcome of such a massive battle between the main forces would have been, but the consensus is that the Ottoman army could not match the tactical combat value of the German Landsknechts, Spanish tertiaries, and of course the Western heavy cavalry of plate armour, which were much better equipped with firearms than the Turks and fought in a closed battle. Hefty-priced (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Rename the article to Siege of Kőszeg

Because it is and was always a Hungarian city and not German/Austrian. the first German minority settlers migrated to Kőszeg only since the 18th century, 200 years after that siege.--Hefty-priced (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman force composition strength

None of the linked sources show the size of the Ottoman force at the relevant siege. Some of them mention the estimate for the total Ottoman force at the beginning of the campaign (which started several years earlier). I'd suggest removing the stated figure as it is misleading and/or outright incorrect, until a better source can be found. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lostsandwich, why do you remove many academic sources? That year, the Ottoman campaign aimed to attack Vienna with main Ottoman army and this Kőszeg castle was on the way. Even the article mentions the army number.

It is not true "same campaign for several years": Medieval campaigns did not last for years, usually the winter was silent and new campaigns started at spring/summer. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Review they sources, the do not state that there were 100,000 present at this siege. This has been stated multiple times and you (and now an IP editing without comment) have continued to restore this claim. This is nowhere to be found in linked reference material as was pointed out the first time I edited and commented on this talk page which was seemingly ignored.

It seems the person you complained to says the same thing that I said back when I made the first edit and talk page. Provide proper sourcing for the claim Lostsandwich (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the December 2012 version(when it was given GA-status), the strength figure 120,000-200,000 is cited by "Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia", page 151. Also, the other strength figure 700-800 is cited by "The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and the Battle for Europe", page 59. This appears to be a good place to start.

The additional references Turnball, appears to be Stephen Turnbull (historian), who is not in his area of expertise(Mongols/Japan). Bard Thompson, this is not his area of expertise either(received a PhD at Union Theological Seminary in 1952. Before coming to Lancaster Seminary in 1961 he served on the faculties of Candler School of Theology and the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University.) --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear

As I've stated from the beginning, the source(s) do/does not say that (in this case, Conflict and Conquest). It dedicates about 3 sentences to this particular event. The only reference to Ottoman force size is an estimate for the beginning of the campaign starting in Constantinople. Since the article is not "approximate size of the Ottoman forces raised in Constantinople in 1532", and is in fact about a short siege some several months later and 1,200km away that particular factoid is not relevant and outright misleading and erroneous. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But did you do any research?

Per Conflict and conquest in the Islamic world : a historical encyclopedia, page 151:

• "But Suleiman returned in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople at the end of April. Holy Roman Emperor Charles mobilized his army and sought support from other European states. Fortunately for the Austrians, the Ottoman army did not reach Vienna, as it became bogged down at Güns (Köszeg) where Austrian garrison heroically defended the fortress for three weeks in August."

Turnbull appears to hold an MA in Military History, so he could be a reliable source, but Turnbull's book make no mention of Ottoman troop numbers;

• "The town is now called Koszeg, but in 1532 the Austrians called it Güns. It was a tiny place defended by only 700 men, yet it held out against the Turks for almost as long as mighty Vienna. Its commander was one Miklos Jurisics, a Croatian by birth and a captain of great resolution and integrity. His 700 men had been intended for the general muster at Vienna but stayed behind when they realised the Turks’ immediate intentions."

The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans and the Battle for Europe states;

• "For more than twenty-five days Jurišić and his garrison of eight hundred Croats, without any artillery, held out against nineteen full-scale assaults and an incessant bombardment."

Prophecy and Politics in Istanbul: Charles V, Sultan Suleyman, and the Habsburg Embassy of 1533-1534, "Journal of Early Modern History", Robert Finlay, page 13;

• "Ottoman military action, however, was considerably less glorious than the triumphal arches and panoply that marked the sultan's progress. Impeded by heavy rain, Suleyman's army of some 100,000 men slowly made its way toward Vienna. Ibrahim Pasha committed the water-logged army to a siege of the small fortress of Koszeg (Guns), 100 kilometers southeast of Vienna, but by the time the defenders surrendered, the campaigning season was past."

History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1280-1808, Stanford Shaw, page 94;

• "Suleyman marched through Hungary in July and August, bringing together a massive force of almost 300,000 men. He crossed the Raab into Austria and sent out raiders in all directions in the hope of forcing the main Habsburg army into battle. However, he was unable to find it, and when the small fortress town of Guns (Koeszegh), on the Raab 100 kilometers southeast of Vienna, held out, his timetable was so set back that he finally decided to abandon the expedition without achieving its objective."

Thoughts? @OrionNimrod --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting the listed sources which state exactly what I was saying. None of them show the Ottoman force numbers at this siege. Stating the total force strength at some other time and place is the number present here is entirely editor speculation and assumption and has no place here. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear

There is no edit-warring going on and the material YOU posted demonstrates that the linked sources do not support the claims made. The only ones "warring" are multiple people re-adding sources which no not support the claim. Wikipedia should be very simple; provide a source for the claim- and this has not been done. You yourself even posted multiple quotes clearly demonstrating this. There is no issue, it is settled, and already was. Lostsandwich (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer more opinions, besides yours. Finlay states 100,000 men marched towards Vienna and Ibrahim besieged Koszeg, at most 100,000 men were involved. Shaw states 300,000 men marched into Austria, then Suleyman besieged Koszeg, at most 300,000 men were involved. I will wait for OrionNimrod's thoughts on the matter. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinions on what exactly? The source categorically does not support the claim. Wikipedia does not make articles formed around opinions. If an actual source is produced that makes such a claim, then go ahead and add it. Wikipedia does not and should not function in reverse; making up numbers and waiting for someone to find something to support it.

Finlay (not one of the sources that I've removed, because it was never listed) states "Impeded by heavy rain, Suleyman's army of some 100,000 men slowly made its way toward Vienna." That is the direct quote. It never once mentions that figure again, and never once mentions a number for the Ottoman force present at this siege.This article is Siege of Güns not "the size of the Ottoman forces on their way to Vienna".

Shaw, who was also not part of the source that were removed states "Suleyman marched through Hungary in July and August, bringing together a massive force of almost 300,000 men". This article is Siege of Güns , not "Ottoman forces in Hungary in July and August".

Again, you've failed to demonstrate that the listed sources (the ones that I removed that keep getting re-added) show us the size of the Ottoman forces present at the Siege of Güns .

Please review the policy on [[WP:V]] paying close attention to the statement "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it" and keeping that in mind when reviewing the sources I've removed, which do not show us the size of the Ottoman forces present at the Siege of Güns . Lostsandwich (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, Lostsandwich,

As we can see, all sources write about a huge Ottoman army in that 1532 campaign which aimed to conquer Vienna, marched through Hungary, and all sources say the defenders prevented the Ottoman advance toward Vienna, because they lost many time by the siege of Kőszeg in the Kingdom of Hungary (which part of Hungary was ruled by a Habsburg king at that time). No sources say that the big Ottoman army camped somwhere else and only 100 or 1000 or 10000 Ottomans attacked Kőszeg. Lostsandwich do you have sources which say that not the full Ottoman army participated in the siege, and meantime where was the other part of the army if they were not at Kőszeg according to you? If not the full army participated in the siege why meantime they did not attack Vienna? What they did meantime for a month long? Why they waited for the end of the siege which was allegeldy carry out not by the full army? If you worry about the Wikipedia rules, I think this speculation is not so logical and also not sourced.

Kansas Bear, thanks for the quotes! I think they are clear regarding the numbers:

Turnbull: he emphasize the army was bigger than before, and he say everything as the deed of the main Ottoman army:

"Suleiman was back in Hungary in 1532 for a second try at Vienna with an even larger army than he had brought with him in 1529. He crossed the Drava at Osijek, but instead of taking the usual route for Vienna he turned westwards into the narrow strip of Hungarian territory towards the Austrian border that was still in King Ferdinand’s possession. After taking a few minor places he laid siege to a castle that was then, as it is today, the last fortress in Hungarian territory. The town is now called Kőszeg, but in 1532 the Austrians called it Giins. It was a tiny place defended by only 700 men...Suleiman the Magnificent, who still did not realise how small was the force that had delayed him for so long, offered to spare the garrison and march away if Jurisics would offer him a nominal surrender. The only Turks who would be allowed to enter the castle would be a token force who would raise the Turkish flag and keep their comrades out before withdrawing for good. Miklós Jurisics was acutely aware of the desperate straits his tiny garrison were in and agreed to this unprecedented proposal. As a result, while the rains of a miserable August continued, the Ottoman Army withdrew."

Other source: He did not write that only part of the army bogged down, but the Ottoman army which went to the campaign:

"in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople...the Ottoman army did not reach Vienna, as it became bogged down at Güns (Köszeg)"

Other source: The Ottoman army made the siege and they lost time, again it did not write not the full army participated in the siege:

"Suleyman's army of some 100,000 men slowly made its way toward Vienna. Ibrahim Pasha committed the water-logged army to a siege of the small fortress of Koszeg (Guns), 100 kilometers southeast of Vienna, but by the time the defenders surrendered, the campaigning season was past."

It is also normal that different academic historians have different opinions, so it is normal if there are listed more sourced estimations in the infobox.

That is Banlaky: "Military history of the Hungarian nation" (A magyar nemzet hadtörténelme) a massive book, quite detailed about the events in the siege and around, fast translate:

https://mek-oszk-hu.translate.goog/09400/09477/html/0013/963.html?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Bulk of the 200,000 Ottoman army arrived at Kőszeg:

"on April 25, 1532, Süleyman set out from Constantinople at the head of his army of almost 200,000 men and 300 cannons.....Departing from Belgrade on July 8, he arrived in Eszék on the 17th of the aforementioned month. From there, the army wanted to advance not towards Buda, but along the Dráva through Siklós, Babocsá, Zákány, Kanizsa, Körmend, Kőszeg, Sopron and towards Vienna....As far as Kőszeg, where Ibrahim reached with the advance guard led by Jahja pasha oglu Mohammed on August 5, and Suleiman with the bulk of the army on August 10, no significant resistance was experienced anywhere. The 17 castles and fortresses that had been in the way until then surrendered at the first call. At Kőszeg, to the astonishment of the Sultan and the Grand Vizier, this was not the case. This castle seemed rather insignificant, so the Turkish leadership did not expect much resistance."

Rubicon, famous Hungarian history journal, a journal where historians publish things, fast translate:

https://rubicon-hu.translate.goog/kalendarium/1532-augusztus-5-megkezdodik-koszeg-ostroma?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Defenders faced at least against 100 times bigger force:

"As in the case of all campaigns, the size of the Ottoman army, which researchers estimate to be between 80 and 120,000 strong - in the case of a siege of a small castle like Kőszeg, it almost doesn't matter - is a constant topic of debate in connection with the battles of 1532. plus the most powerful artillery in Europe at the time, with the famous falcon cannons and the dreaded Turkish siege cannons....At that time, the castle was protected by the Croat Miklós Jurisich, who often provided useful services for the German-Roman emperor Miksa I (r. 1493-1519) and then Ferdinand: he fought, among other things, in the Italian war, then became ban of Croatia, while many Constantinople carried out a diplomatic mission. It was the personal property of Kőszeg Jurisich, which the captain protected with the help of only 46 soldiers and - during the siege - 700 peasants fleeing from the surrounding villages, so he definitely had to face at least a hundred times superior force. The Turks began the siege on August 5, when they set up their cannons at four points opposite the castle and fired at Kőszeg for days to force Jurisich to surrender."

A Hungarian map about the campaing: Research Centre for the Humanities - Institute of History:

Big line: main Ottoman army, dotted lines: raiding units

https://tti.abtk.hu/media/com_edocman/document/hadjárat_1532.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

" No sources say that the big Ottoman army camped somwhere else and only 100 or 1000 or 10000 Ottomans attacked Kőszeg. Lostsandwich do you have sources which say that not the full Ottoman army participated in the siege, and meantime where was the other part of the army if they were not at Kőszeg according to you?"

Wikipedia is not based on having sources that deny something. It is up to you to confirm it.

The listed sources do not do this.

" If not the full army participated in the siege why meantime they did not attack Vienna? What they did meantime for a month long? Why they waited for the end of the siege which was allegeldy carry out not by the full army? If you worry about the Wikipedia rules, I think this speculation is not so logical and also not sourced."

Inferences are yours and your alone. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation.

The sources I removed DO NOT STATE that 100,000 were at the siege. Full stop. Anything else is your own interpretation or assumption and has no place here. At such a point, you are inventing this claim out of whole cloth.

"Turnbull: he emphasize the army was bigger than before, and he say everything as the deed of the main Ottoman army:"

That's nice. He also doesn't say 100,000 were present at the siege.

""in 1532 when he led some 200,000 men from Constantinople...the Ottoman army did not reach Vienna, as it became bogged down at Güns (Köszeg)""

No numbers for those present at the siege are given.

""Suleyman's army of some 100,000 men slowly made its way toward Vienna. Ibrahim Pasha committed the water-logged army to a siege of the small fortress of Koszeg (Guns), 100 kilometers southeast of Vienna, but by the time the defenders surrendered, the campaigning season was past.""

No numbers for those present at the siege are given.

""on April 25, 1532, Süleyman set out from Constantinople at the head of his army of almost 200,000 men and 300 cannons.....Departing from Belgrade on July 8, he arrived in Eszék on the 17th of the aforementioned month. From there, the army wanted to advance not towards Buda, but along the Dráva through Siklós, Babocsá, Zákány, Kanizsa, Körmend, Kőszeg, Sopron and towards Vienna....As far as Kőszeg, where Ibrahim reached with the advance guard led by Jahja pasha oglu Mohammed on August 5, and Suleiman with the bulk of the army on August 10, no significant resistance was experienced anywhere. The 17 castles and fortresses that had been in the way until then surrendered at the first call. At Kőszeg, to the astonishment of the Sultan and the Grand Vizier, this was not the case. This castle seemed rather insignificant, so the Turkish leadership did not expect much resistance.""

No numbers for those present at the siege are given.

""Suleiman was back in Hungary in 1532 for a second try at Vienna with an even larger army than he had brought with him in 1529. He crossed the Drava at Osijek, but instead of taking the usual route for Vienna he turned westwards into the narrow strip of Hungarian territory towards the Austrian border that was still in King Ferdinand’s possession. After taking a few minor places he laid siege to a castle that was then, as it is today, the last fortress in Hungarian territory. The town is now called Kőszeg, but in 1532 the Austrians called it Giins. It was a tiny place defended by only 700 men...Suleiman the Magnificent, who still did not realise how small was the force that had delayed him for so long, offered to spare the garrison and march away if Jurisics would offer him a nominal surrender. The only Turks who would be allowed to enter the castle would be a token force who would raise the Turkish flag and keep their comrades out before withdrawing for good. Miklós Jurisics was acutely aware of the desperate straits his tiny garrison were in and agreed to this unprecedented proposal. As a result, while the rains of a miserable August continued, the Ottoman Army withdrew.""

Notice how no number for those present at the siege is given?

Was Banlaky one of the sources that I removed?

No, it wasn't.

You have failed on multiple accounts to demonstrate that the removed sources support the claim. Do not re-add these any further. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

" Finlay states 100,000 men marched towards Vienna and Ibrahim besieged Koszeg, at most 100,000 men were involved."

This article is about the Siege of Güns, not about "an army that marched towards Vienna".

" Shaw states 300,000 men marched into Austria, then Suleyman besieged Koszeg, at most 300,000 men were involved"

This article is about the Siege of Güns, not about "an army that marched into Austria".

Even more, I did not remove references by Finlay or Shaw. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

OrionNimrod, I would be fine with 100,000(lowest estimate per Finlay)-300,000(highest estimate per Shaw) for the Ottoman figures in the infobox. Unless you wanted to cite 80,000 as the low figure. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Finlay does not state 100,000 were present at the siege. Please stop making up claims. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich, that is your own speculation that the Ottoman army was divided and not the full army participated in the siege. No sources say that.

Banlaky wrote "bulk of the army arrived at Koszeg", Rubicon wrote "defenders faced at least 100 time overpower"OrionNimrod (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, I think it would be more clear if we would list the estimation separately, because in this way we would know which numbers belong to which historians. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Works for me, OrionNimrod. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Lostsandwich, that is your own speculation that the Ottoman army was divided and not the full army participated in the siege"

Actually, I've made zero speculation.

I have however, written what the sources actually say.

" No sources say that."

You know what the sources don't say?

They don't say "100,000" Ottoman troops were present at the siege.

"Banlaky wrote "bulk of the army arrived at Koszeg"

That's nice. "Bulk of the army" isn't a number. Nor did I remove any listed Balnaky material.

", Rubicon wrote "defenders faced at least 100 time overpower"

That's nice. "100 time overpower" is not a number. Nor did I remove any listed Rubicon material. Though interesting the estimate has now jumped to 700,000.

Please demonstrate that the removed (and continually re-added for some strange reason) material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege"- not "the removed (and continually re-added) sources say X people existed in some fashion at some other location" or "some other material says X people existed in some other fashion at some other location".

I'll state it again, since you have been continually ignoring it: demonstrate that the removed (and continually re-added for some strange reason) material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege". Lostsandwich (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lostsandwich, you wrote “unknown” for the Ottoman army, and we can see sources have numbers: “bulk of the army” “at least 100times overpower” are clear numbers, we cannot blame the historians that they do not use numbers in every single sentences like “100,000 Ottoman army arrived at Belgrade on 10 July” “100,000 Ottoman army arrived at Pecs on 15 July” “100,000 Ottoman army arrived at Koszeg on 3 August”…they cleary stated number of the Ottoman army, if the number would change they would say “half of Ottoman army went to Buda and other half Ottoman army went to Koszeg” but they did not say that. Banlaky wrote 200,000, and bulk of army arrived, in English dictionary bulk means “the greater part of something”, sources and map also show raiding units, which was normal in every campaign, but never the main army went to raid (light cavarly units were the raids and not 80,000 people from 100,000 went to raid), and you can see the numbers are rough estimations for medieval wars. Rubicon says 746 people defended Koszeg and the Turkish army was at least 100 times higher which means at least 75,000 and not 700,000, it also say estimated number 80-120,000. At least means in English “minimum”. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Hi Lostsandwich, you wrote “unknown” for the Ottoman army, and we see sources have numbers"

Demonstrate that the removed (and continually re-added for some strange reason) material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege

You have continually failed to address this.

"and we see sources have numbers: “bulk of the army” “at least 100times overpower” are clear numbers"

Then state the number.

"we cannot blame the historians that they do not use numbers in every single sentences"

We also don't use numbers that are made up.

"they cleary stated number of the Ottoman army"

so go ahead and state the number.

". Banlaky wrote 200,000, and bulk of army arrived, in English dictionary bulk means “the greater part of something”,"

State the number. Nor did I remove any listed Balnaky material.

"Rubicon says 746 people defended Koszeg and the Turkish army was at least 100 times higher which means at least 75,000 and not 700,000, it also say estimated number 80-120,000. At least means in English “minimum”. "

State the number. Nor did I remove any listed Rubicon material.

I'll state it again, since you have been continually ignoring it: demonstrate that the removed (and continually re-added for some strange reason) material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege"

Please address this statement before disrupting this discussion any further.

Lostsandwich (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

So as an update, no one has been able to demonstrate that the removed material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege", as I'd pointed out over a week ago. At this point it is clear those sources should be removed. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I usually like and I suggested here also to separate the estimations by sources, so we know that more historians have more views, this is quite common that historian A estimate 10K army and historian B estimate 50K army regarding medieval battles.

The Ottoman army started its campaing from Istanbul against Vienna, (we can see the different historical estimations from that starting army), and Kőszeg was on the route to Vienna, that is why the city was besieged under the leadership of Suleiman the Magnificent. Of course it was raiding units for more directions (only light cavalry units), but I think this is the speculation to claim that not the main army led by the Sultan himself was not at the siege but just a small part, and those historian sources mention the campaign and starting army regarding siege of Kőszeg. It is not true claiming the number of army is unknow, that is why we have more or less estimations.

A Hungarian map about the campaing: Research Centre for the Humanities - Institute of History: Big line: main Ottoman army, dotted lines: raiding units [1] We can clearly see the main Ottoman army arrived at Kőszeg.

I found more Hungarian historian work about this: [2] here I can see, it mentions "entire army" even the army composition, google translate: "Seeing that the Turks were coming with their entire army, Jurisics set fire to the two suburbs, which were difficult to defend anyway, and moved the inhabitants to the city center. On Saturday, i.e. the 10th, Ibrahim raised eight cannons to the vineyards surrounding the city and fired from there throughout the day. The actual siege did not begin until the following day, the 11th; On the 12th, the battle was interrupted due to the arrival of Suleiman. Overlooking an army of 12,000 Janissaries, 20,000 Spahis, 26,000 Rumelians, 30,000 Anatolians, and 15,000 Tartars, the Sultan ordered a general assault on the following day, the 13th."

Another Hungarian history book, mention that contemporary Ottoman sources boosted how big was the army under Kőszeg: [3] page 296, google translate: "On August 10, the army led by the sultan arrived under the Kőszeg castle, which was already very close to Vienna, where the Glorious Padisah [the Sultan] ordered an encampment, thereby postponing the siege of Vienna until he made a decision about the campaign in the divan. Spies and travelers took the news of our huge army to the main enemy of Muhammad's people, the Habsburgs. It was very important to make our army's strength known, so that they wouldn't think of invading Hungary"

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please address the topic at hand. Lostsandwich (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this silly semantic issue concerning CONTENT was taken to ANI(not the proper forum), let's hear the excuses for this;

• "At one small fortress on the Austrian border, Günns (modern Koszeg, c.100 km south-east of Vienna), the entire Turkish army, some 100,000 regular troops, was held up by a garrison of less than 800 men. --"The Turks and Islam in Reformation Germany", Gregory J. Miller(Professor of History at Malone University), page 36.

More accusations of WP:SYN? WP:OR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear was this one of the sources that I removed? Lostsandwich (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich, those sources which you removed clearly write the army numbers of the campaign in the starting point, and the main army led by Sultan went againt Vienna and Kőszeg was on the way besiged by the Sultan, which was part of that campaign (and it was no battles before Kőszeg, the other castles on the way surrended whitout fight), why do you expect that all historians should say in every single sentences that on August 20 the army number was 10000 and on August 21 the army number was still 10000... anyway the numbers are just estimations, not strict numbers. The showed other sources also confirmed those sources that the main army arrived at Kőszeg. So why the numbers would be "unknown" as you claim?

Anyway in the background section we can mention the campaign starting army which are in the sources, and would you remove or not the other sources (which are not in the article at the moment) from infobox which mention clearly the army at the siege? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Face it OrionNimrod, this sad affair has more to do with personal feelings than factual basis. Instead of a productive dialogue of editors providing information concerning this siege, it has been one editor simply denying any evidence that is provided. The latest source provided is all in one sentence, should be interesting to see why that source is not "reliable", "WP:OR", "WP:SYN", etc, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear

What personal feelings exactly? I am following wikipedia's rules, as should every editor. That includes not inventing things entirely. May I remind you that the other editor involved in this nonsense has used "It is well known" as a source? The same editor has spoken about some supposed campaign of disinformation they are "tired" of which that same editor has accused me of being a part of? All simply for removing sources which did not make the claim listed in the infobox. There is only one editor here whose "personal feelings" are getting in the way. I have asked time and time again to demonstrate a very, very basic thing, that very basic thing is core to wikipedia's sourcing policy, and time and time again, it has not been.

it has been one editor simply denying any evidence that is provided.

By all means, please demonstrate that the removed material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege. Lostsandwich (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Lostsandwich, those sources which you removed clearly write the army numbers of the campaign in the starting point

Was the article about "the campaign in the starting point?" No, it was not. It is about a particular battle. I'm not sure why you continually refuse to engage with this discussion.

Demonstrate that the removed material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege

A source stating something is the lowest bar that needs to be passed in order to be used and you've continually refused to do this.

which was part of that campaign (and it was no battles before Kőszeg, the other castles on the way surrended whitout fight), why do you expect that all historians should say in every single sentences that on August 20 the army number was 10000 and on August 21 the army number was still 10000.

Please answer the question instead of conducting Original Research and/or synthesis.

The showed other sources also confirmed those sources that the main army arrived at Kőszeg. So why the numbers would be "unknown" as you claim?

Again you refuse to engage with a basic tenet of wikipedia, and of citation in every other form.

Demonstrate that the removed material says "100,000 Ottomans were present at this siege Lostsandwich (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lostsandwich, we presented many other sources which clearly say the army at the siege, if I would add those to infobox, would you remove or not those too? OrionNimrod (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Correctly using sources and adhering to wiki's citation rules (as well as those common across virtually every platform and medium) poses no problem. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rename

Hi, I think renaming the article from "siege of Güns" to "siege of Kőszeg" would be better.

Kőszeg is a Hungarian city 1000+ years long, Güns is the German name of the city. Before the siege the city was part of Kingdom of Hungary, and at the time of the siege, Kőszeg still belonged to Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), which ruled by Habsburg king at that time.

Even German wiki use the Hungarian name: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belagerung_von_Kőszeg

Hungarian wiki: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kőszeg_ostroma OrionNimrod (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)