Talk:Battle of Baia

OrionNimrod, Historia Pannonica disputed by Dlugosz

Regarding these changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Baia&diff=prev&oldid=1220433579

The battle is disputed by Hungarian and everyone else, not only Romanians. As you can see, Dlugosz, who isn't Romanian, disagrees with the Hungarian sources. In international historiography the consensus is that the Hungarians lost the battle and then made propaganda at home about how they won the battle. I believe it's fair to mention that a source is disputed, when a source is disputed, and the Hungarian sources are disputed, yet the article doesn't mention them as such. This is a biased one sided POV.

It is also important in these cases to mention that the author of Historia Pannonica was Hungarian and disputed by others to acknowledge the possible bias. Dlugosz didn't directly dispute Historia Pannonica by calling out Janus Pannonius, but by telling his version of events that contradicts Historia Pannonica. TheThorLat (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheThorLat,

What do you mean "Historia Pannonica" which book? Bonfini's Hungarian history? That was written around 1495 https://corvina.hu/en/corvina/virtual-corvinas/codlat542-en/

Could you tell me Dlugosz who died in 1480, how disputed a book which was written in 1495? Which time machine was used by him?

"As you can see, Dlugosz, who isn't Romanian, disagrees with the Hungarian sources." No, I do not see, please show me exactly what Dlugosz claims, book, page numbers.

Please read Wikipedia rules: Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia Articles written by modern academic sources not by primarly sources. Honestly the full article is poor quality and presents only the Romanian view.

"the Hungarian sources are disputed" :D So only the Hungarian sources are disputed but the Romanians always say the truth, it is correct? Like the nationalcommunist Romanian fake maps?

"Historia Pannonica was Hungarian" Please name the exact book and the Hungarian author, I do not know what are you talking about.

"In international historiography the consensus is that the Hungarians lost the battle and then made propaganda at home about how they won the battle" Do you have modern academic sources for this statement? Because Hungarian historians say the same, Stephen propaganda made a victory from this. Anyway it is fact that Stephen became vassal of Matthias soon after the battle, so Stephen victory is not so logical.

Hungarian modern academic source, 2021 https://mek.oszk.hu/22600/22639/22639.pdf "Matthias won the battle, but lost the war if we consider that he did not achieve his war goal. He could not follow his father's example, he could not put a fief voivode on the throne, and he definitely came out of the campaign worse than Stephen voivode. If only because he was seriously injured. But all's well that ends well. After all, both rulers could have died there, but the power of both was consolidated in their country. They both more or less won"

2019 https://www.libri.hu/konyv/szende_laszlo.a-keso-kozepkori-nagyhatalom-1301-1526.html The book says, the Moldavians got huge casualties, Hungarians retreated orderly because the king was wounded, and Moldavians did not chase the Hungarians. Both side claimed the victory, Matthias placed captured flag in Buda as a sign of his victory, while the propaganda of Stephen excessively magnified his victory.

2016 academic source https://epa.oszk.hu/03100/03133/00021/pdf/EPA03133_orpheus_noster_2016_01_029-043.pdf Matthias won the battle OrionNimrod (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

This book: Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495.

Dlugosz didn't directly dispute Historia Pannonica by calling out Janus Pannonius, but by telling his version of events that contradicts Historia Pannonica. He wrote that the retreating Hungarian army, on its way to Transylvania, was stopped by a blockade; there they decided to bury the 500 cannons and other treasures, so the Moldavians would not be able to capture them. According to Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495, the Moldavians were retreating, not the Hungarians. According to Dlugosz, the Hungarians were retreated chased by the Moldavians. According to Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495, the Hungarians estimated 7.000 Moldavian casualities after the battle when they made their propaganda at home, Długosz disagrees, due to it being the only one mentioning the Moldavian casualites in numbers and because the Hungarians did not have the opportunity to calculate the numbers of their fallen enemy. The entire conflict, with the Hungarian invasion and retreat, took around forty days.

Very well, I'll post modern academic sources.

How can you say the article presents only the Romanian view when it takes disputed sources that only the Hungarians agree with as a fact? That sounds a lot like presenting only the Hungarian view.

Never said that. You are putting words into my mouth. But in this case Hungarian, Polish and French sources say the Romanians won. Only some of the Hungarian sources say the Hungarians won. Isn't that dubious? Why the direct subjects of Matthias Corvinus say that he won? What else would they say? That the king had failed his objectives: removing Stephen from the throne of Moldavia and re-establishing the Hungarian crown’s (or at least Matthias’) sovereignty over Moldavia?

The book: Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495.

"Soon after battle" meaning 1 year after battle? and only in name with no real obligations? that's not very logical.

Contemporary sources:

Hungarian - Miklós Istvánffy (1538–1615) mentions in his Regni Hungarici Historia that Stephen managed to best Matthias, through cunning/shrewdness, making the latter flee after a night battle at Baia and “pushing him away from his borders”.

Hungarian - Maciej Stryjkowski (1547–1593) says about Stephen (the Great) in his Kronika Polska that he ousted Matthias, the brave king of Hungary, from both Moldavia and Szeklerland, mentioning heavy losses of the Hungarian army and referring to the Stephen's punitive mission in Szeklerland that followed Baia.

Polish - Jan Długosz (1415-1480) also mentions the Battle of Baia in his Historiae Polonicae, pointing out that the “odds of the battle kept changing until daybreak”, also focusing on the Hungarian losses and specifically on the events after the battle, him mentioning that the retreating Hungarian army had to hastily bury 500 canons to deny them being captured by the Moldavians. He also points out that the fate of Matthias was influenced by ‘benefaction of a Romanian/Vlach whom was later beheaded by Stephen for treason. He also mentions the various spoils Stephen’s army gathered from the Hungarian one (tents, carts and cannons are mentioned), the flags Stephen sent to his then sovereign, Casimir IV Jageillon, the Polish King.

French - Jean Molinet (1434–1507) - Mentions Stephen III of Moldavia and makes a reference to his relation with Matthias Hunyadi/Corvinus: basically how he did not recognize his sovereignty and how he won a battle against him. Since we don’t know of any other battle between the two except for Baia, it’s safe to assume that he is referring to that one.

Modern academic source:

Romanian - https://historia.ro/sectiune/calendar/calendar-14-decembrie-1467-batalia-de-la-baia-566958.html - Trying to prevent a reaction from the Hungarian kingdom, Stephen the Great supported the uprising of the nobility and cities of Transylvania against King Matthias Corvinus in the summer of 1467. The uprising was suppressed, and the Hungarian king decided to organize a military expedition east of the Carpathians to replace Stefan from the throne and return Moldova to his sphere of influence. (...) Moldavian and Polish sources (Dlugosz is the most illustrative) speak of a great victory of the Moldavian army, the king himself being wounded in battle three times. The same sources estimate that if the third column, led by the veteran Crasneş, had attacked together with the other two, the disaster of the Hungarian army would have been complete. After the battle, he killed, according to a Polish document put into circulation by Şerban Papacostea, 24 great boyars, among whom was the nobleman Crasneş, and 40 others of lower rank were impaled. On the other hand, Hungarian sources close to Matthias Corvinus emphasize great losses for Stefan's army, only 5,000 of the 12,000 Moldavian soldiers escaping with their lives. Baia, according to them, was an undoubted victory for Matthias Corvinus. If the battle was not a resounding victory for Stefan, as numerous other sources indicate, it could not have been a success for King Matthias Corvinus either. As he ordered the withdrawal from Moldova, the army being constantly pursued by Moldovan troops and locals.

Romanian - https://enciclopediaromaniei.ro/wiki/B%C4%83t%C4%83lia_de_la_Baia_(14/15_decembrie_1467) - The attack took place at night, and the Polish chronicler Jan Długosz tells how Ştefan ""thinking that the moment had come when the few should beat the many, leaving the horses and baggage in the camp, he arrived at Baia only on foot and lightly, and, setting the city on fire from several sides, on the night of December 15, he attacked the Hungarians, keeping the battle mixed until dawn, and many Hungarians falling...; Matias, wounded in three places, but not mortally, so as not to fall into the hands of the Romanians, was removed from the battle. The greater part of the Hungarian army returning to the mountains and finding the roads entwined with trees that had been cut down by the Moldavians, burned their chariots and their wealth and buried 500 bombards, so that the Moldavians could not use them, fled into Transylvania ... It is said that 10,000 Hungarians perished in that battle: some military flags were also captured, which Stefan Voda sent to the Polish king Casimir IV (1447 – 1492) through his messengers, as a sign of victory"." (...) After the disaster in Moldova, Mathias Corvin probably wanted to undertake a revenge expedition, but the evolution of the international situation, especially the outbreak of the Hungarian-Bohemian war, no longer allowed him. Instead, Ştefan undertook two reprisal expeditions in Transylvania in 1468 and 1469, during which, under unclear conditions, Aron Vodă was caught and executed. The victory of Ştefan de la Baia put Moldovan-Hungarian relations on a new footing and strengthened the lord's domestic and international prestige.

American - https://history-maps.com/story/Kingdom-of-Hungary-Late-Medieval/event/Battle-of-Baia - The Battle of Baia was the last Hungarian attempt to subdue Moldavia, as previous attempts had ended in failure. Matthias Corvinus invaded Moldavia as a consequence of Stephen's annexation of Chilia—a fortress and harbour on the coast of the Black Sea—from Hungarian and Wallachian forces. It had belonged to Moldavia centuries earlier. The battle was a Moldavian victory, whose outcome ended Hungarian claims on Moldavia.

Hungarian - https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124814 - This is not true, they say, since Stephen the Great won the so much mentioned battle at Baia. Indeed, Prince Stephen did win, but later he had to pledge his vows to the Hungarian king.

Turkish - https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12812/616932 - Stefan demonstrated the same hostile attitude to Poland and Hungary as well. Among his crushing victories over Hungary could be counted the one against the Matthias Corvinus at the battle of Baia in 1467. This victory gave him a reputation in the region.

American - https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003121480-13/danubian-lands-mount-athos-mount-sinai-alice-isabella-sullivan - Saint George was deemed to have played a major role in the battle of Baia that took place in Moldavia in mid-December 1467, in the aftermath of which Stephen emerged victorious.

British - https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1322691/ - Ştefan supports a revolt against Matthias Corvinus by a group of landowners and officials in Transylvania. Corvinus crushes the revolt and then campaigns in Moldova, seizing Baia, Bacău, Roman and Târgu Neamţ. In December 1467, Ştefan defeats Matthias Corvinus at the Battle of Baia and expels the Hungarian army from Moldova. Corvinus is badly wounded but escapes with the help of a group of renegade Moldovan boyars. Ştefan conducts reprisals, executing 20 boyars and impaling 40 other lesser landowners.

Russian - https://books.google.ro/books?hl=ro&lr=&id=mP0vEAAAQBAJ - On 15 December 1467, when Stephen III crushed the Hungarian army of King Matthew Corvinus in the nocturnal battle of Baia.

I stand by my words that in international historiography the consensus is that the Hungarians lost the battle and then made propaganda at home about how they won the battle. I believe it's fair to mention that a source is disputed, when a source is disputed, and the Hungarian sources are disputed, yet the article doesn't mention them as such. Given that:

In contemporary sources:

Said Matthias Corvinus won - a part of Hungarians.

Said Stephen the Great won - Poles, Moldavians, French and a part of Hungarians.

In modern sources:

Said Matthias Corvinus won - a part of Hungarians.

Said Stephen the Great won - Americans, British, Romanians, Turks, Russian and a part of Hungarians.

It is quite clear that the Hungarian POV is fringe in this case. In international historiography the consensus is that the Hungarians lost the battle. As such, I believe it's fair to mention that a source is disputed, when a source is disputed, and the Hungarian sources are disputed, yet the article doesn't mention them as such. This is a biased one sided POV. It is also important in these cases to mention that the author of Historia Pannonica was Hungarian and disputed by others to acknowledge the possible bias. TheThorLat (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheThorLat,

I think you refer to Bonfini's work (Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495), btw he is Italian and not Hungarian. So it is clear the Dlugosz who died in 1480 did not dispute it or anything directly. I have read the work of Dlugosz, he just writes a different story regarding the battle than other contemporary authors from the Hungarian court. That is not a problem to present in an article more views, and mention by who. Also you wrote "dispute" word regarding the numbers, you even rewrote the provided numbers, based on what? Other numbers in the infobox also use exactly the same source, strange but you add "disputed" word only for 1 numbers and not the others. If you can see other medieval battle articles there are many estimations are presented by different authors, it does not mean they directly dispute each other, they just have different views, and showing the source we know what is the source from the numbers. However if you have a modern academic historian source which say "historian A dispute the numbers of historian B" you can add this content to the text in the related chapter. If you have another numbers by historians, feel free to add to the infobox. Btw the outcome of the battle is disputed not the numbers, or do you have source for this that the numbers are disputed?

Here I provided the original text of other conemporary works which say Hungarian victory:

Talk:Battle of Baia#According to contemporary Hungarian sources the battle was a Hungarian victory and the next year Moldavia became again a Hungarian vassal.

I checked Dlugosz, he wrote Matthias attacked Wallachia, however he attacked Moldavia, and I do not see the name of Baia, maybe Barni? I do not see "Moldavians chased the Hungarians" in the text, also it would be impossible burying 500 canons during chasing? How? :D

"He also points out that the fate of Matthias was influenced by ‘benefaction of a Romanian/Vlach whom was later beheaded by Stephen for treason." I also do not read that in Dlugosz

Dlugosz:

"Some years previously, the King had appointed as voivode of Moldavia a certain Stephen, a member of the Duke of Moldavia's family. This Stephen's rule has been so strict and just that no crime has gone unpunished and people now obey his every order. He has insisted that not only the knights and nobility should bear arms, but that farmers and villagers do so as well, for everyone has a duty to defend his fatherland. If the Voivode learns that a farmer does not have a bow, arrows and a sword, or has mustered without a spear, the culprit is condemned to death. The King now appoints this Stephen governor ofWalachia, promoting him over the heads of other candidates, one of whom, Berendeja, has gone to the King of Hungary, promising to restore Walachia to him. As a result, King Matthias has assembled a considerable army, which, in the middle of October, marches through the forests and mountains into Walachia, bums a town, which the troops are allowed to plunder, and continues along the foot of the mountains, burning towns and villages as it goes. When Voivode Stephen now bars its progress near Tortrusz, King Matthias, not being sure of the loyalty of his troops, avoids a pitched battle and limits his efforts to surprise attacks and ambushes, yet is himself prevented from foraging or doing further damage. When he reaches Barni, he fortifies the town with ramparts, ditches and a ring ofwaggons for he is still afraid of Stephen's army which is encamped between the rivers Moldau and Szamos. Stephen sees this as an opportunity to do battle; so, leaving the horses and baggage in his camp, he advances on Barni, sending small detachments on ahead to set fire to the town in a number of places. When, in the early evening, flames burst out, Stephen launches his attack. Fighting continues with varying success until dawn. Many of the Hungarians fall or are consumed in the flames, and King Matthias, thrice wounded, has to be carried from the battlefield on a stretcher, to avoid him falling into the hands of the enemy. When, moving on, the Hungarians again reach the hills, they find the roads barricaded with tree-trunks and, after burning their three-horse waggons and burying all 500 oftheir guns, so as to deny them to the enemy, they manage to escape. Some of the Hungarian standards are captured and these are sent to King Casimir in Wilno as proof of Stephen's victory, which has provided a huge booty of tents, waggons and guns. Back in Hungary, the King imposes a fine of 400,000 florins, to be paid in gold, on the knights and citizens of Transylvania for having deserted him. This money he uses to organize another and larger army, mainly of foreign mercenaries."

https://historia.ro/sectiune/calendar/calendar-14-decembrie-1467-batalia-de-la-baia-566958.html This is a blog, not a modern academic historian source, but you can see it mentions that the Polish and Hungarian sources wrote different result

https://history-maps.com/story/Kingdom-of-Hungary-Late-Medieval/event/Battle-of-Baia That is not an academic source, just copy paste the lead sentence from Wikipedia, from a previous stage of the article

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=124814 that is clearly a political thing not a historian work

If you see the article, almost only Romanian soruces are provided and "Moldavian victory" also presented, not mentioning at all the Hungarian view, so I do not know where do you see Hungarian one sided bias... I have no problem to show more academic views. And I do not deny that Romanian sources and others claim Moldavian victory. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Image of the Battle and Introductory Paragraph

An image of the baia battle can be found in a 1488 hungarian Chronicle/

Why does it say that the fort that Stefan took, precipitating the events that led to the battle, was a Moldavian possession for centuries prior. The Moldavian principality only appears in 14th century records. I couldn't read anymore of the article after that, because it looks like it's more a reflection of bad writing, lack of logical thinking, and 21st century politics than anything else.

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria. Please fix the following issues and I'll pass the article:

1. "The Wallachians rushed to the scene with 7,000 men and together with the Hungarian garrison battled the Moldavians and the Turks for eight days, and managed to defend the town while wounding Stephen for life, in his foot, with a shrapnel." Consider removing "for life", it doesn't seem to flow well within the sentence. Reword to "Stephen in his foot with a shrapnel." with no commas.
2. "In 1465, when Dracula was imprisoned in Hungary, Stephen again advanced towards Chilia with a large force and siege weapons; but instead of besieging the fortress, he showed the garrison—who favoured the Polish King—a letter in which the King requires them to surrender the fortress;" All of the other hyphens in the article have a space before and after them, change this one also to ensure that the article is uniform (there's another one in the next paragraph). Also, "this they do" should be reworded.
3. "Moldavia was a Polish fief" Add a wikilink for "fief". Also, all of the single dates and years don't need wikilinks, just ones that include the month, day, and year should be wikilinked.
4. "The men were told to be prepared for battle and guards were sent to guard strategical points." Change to strategic points.
5. "there they decided to dig the 500 canons and other treasures" What does dig the canons mean? Elaborate a little more. Also cannons is spelled differently in the infobox, and in this statement, and also in the Preparations for war section. Choose one and stick with it.
6. "The Moldavian-German Chronicles say that a certain Isaia failed" Remove the bold font.

The article is very informative and doesn't have to many issues that need to be fixed. Please address the above issues within seven days and the article will be passed. If you have any questions or when you are done let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. Re issue 1: under "Foreign Relations", the severity of Stephen's shrapnel wound at Chilia reappears: "Stephen was wounded by a piece of shrapnel – an injury which would hasten his death." Stefan died forty-two years later (1462 vs 1504), which doesn't seem to merit the verb "hasten". --Scutigera (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I removed the wikilinks for the single years and dates, take a look at my change so you can see what I did. Good job on the article, and make sure it maintains its high quality by ensuring that all new information is properly sourced. If you have the time please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the large backlog. Again, good job and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot about the wikilinks for the single years. I understand this is relatively a new rule. I don't think it existed at the time when I worked on the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. For some reason, this article looks familiar... Anyway, I reviewed the recent contributions and it hasn't decrease in quality since I passed it in June. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a minor correction, but there were no major problems with the article. Just a quick note, if you can, determine if wagons is spelled that way as in the source (in "huge booty of tents, waggons and guns,"), if not it may just be a misspelling. Also, consider creating an article for Moldavian-Hungarian Wars (as seen in the infobox) if you have enough information that is properly sourced. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 04:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Annals were translated to British English, which is the reason why wagons is spelled with two "g." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anittas (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased article it VIOLATES the NEUTRALITY PRINCIPLE of wikipedia it is clearly showing only the romanian viewpoint and it was written by Romanians, maybe also only reviewed by romanians and/or people who have no knowledge about how controversial this issue is to Hungarians in Transylvania and how this was used as a nationalistic slur for example on the statue of Matthias Corvinus by the Romanians to derogate and humiliate Hungarians by distorting history. The affair in fact is simple, Matthias was beaten once by Stephen when he did not have a full army just a personal escort, and then he did not even need to return againt to Moldavia as Stephen knew he needed to be a good vassal not to be crushed by the Hungarian Army. To even mention freedom of Moldavia is ludicrous, the concept of nation states was formed 400 years later ...

All the verifiable sources cited on the issue (the ones that have ISBN) are ONLY Romanian prints ! I cannot believe Wikipedia is selecting such a controversial article derogatory for the greatest minority in Europe as a feature article. I am also apalled by the way it was reviewed, and I suggest that it be reviewed by experts from Hungary, and until then placed under the criteria: the neutrality of this article is debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.129.131.227 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian victory?

In fact it was a victory claimed by both sides ... see the Chronicles of Bonfinius and Gaspar Heltai. Corvinus was wounded and the Hungarian invasion of Moldavia was halted. The ensigns of the Hungarians were sent to Casimir, the Moldavian flags were flied in the Our Lady Church in Buda. Later the Moldavian voivode accepted the Hungarian supremacy.

• Causes: the nominal aim for the Kingdom of Hungary was to punish Stephen for his supposed interference in a anti-Matthias rebellion in Transylvania. and the campaign was undertaken to replace the unfriendly pro-Casimir Moldavian voivode with a Hungarian puppet. --fz22 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at the Night Attack, Mehmed also claimed victory and even held a festivity in honour of his victory against Dracula, but that doesn't make it true. When it comes to this battle, all sources (which are included) claim a Moldavian victory, except for one Hungarian source. I believe it was Antonius who wrote that Matthias won a great victory at Baia. He seems to have forgotten to mention the three arrows he got in his back. Still, I believe that the Hungarian source should be mentioned, so go ahead and do so; but because of so many sources describing the Moldavian victory, the subject is not deemed to be a controversial one. The cause is described very well in the article. Stephen supported the revolt because of you allowing Aron to stay there; but as the article mentions, the other cause is Stephen's agression in retaking Chilia. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several Hungarian sources: Jannus Pannonius, Bonfinius, Thuróczy, Heltai ... According to them Stefan was captured (later escaped) and the rest of the Moldavian army runaway ... The number of Hungarian army is also overestimated (numbered ~15,000 men) they lost around 4000 men, mostly Szekelys and the light cavalry. The Moldavian army lost around 7000 men. --fz22 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but have you read the article? Stephen being captured is mentioned in the article and it is sourced, but that was a prelude to the battle. The victory came afterwards and it is that which counts. You are more than welcome to add your sources and if you do, I hope you make it to fit into the context. I hope that the sources you mentioned above are contemporary sources. If they are modern sources, then they are probably based on the contemporary chronicle by Antonius. All that you have mentioned above is mentioned in the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, however rereading my last post it seems quite confusing for myself too :)) So according to the Hungarian contemporary sources, Matthias won the battle however it was a Pyrrhic victory ... The battle was tactically inconclusive but it stopped the Hungarian invasion. the hungarian army remained in Baia for three days after the battle, when they started to retreat toward Transylvania ... 500 cannons? Not even the Ottoman Empire owned such a huge artilery ...--fz22 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I will check the 500 cannons source tomorrow. Meanwhile, do you have a source for the Hungarians remaining in Baia for three days? What were the Moldavians up to while the Hungarians remained in Baia? It seems to me that if Matthias is seriously injured, then there is no point in remaining in Moldavia for three days. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.stefancelmare.ro/cronici-straine.htm#Chronica%20Hungarorum unfortunately only in Romanian ... --fz22 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in Romanian. Luckly, you speak Romanian, so you have an advantage to that. I checked the source and it mentions 500 cannons. It does sound a bit exagerated, but I can't really say. I would like to ask you not to remove sourced information about the size of the troops. I can't think of any good reason on why you would do such a thing. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more important to have an accurate military infobox raither than if it is sourced or not ... the sources, written during the Renaissance, are very exaggerated regarding battles ... eg. they speak about some 200,000 or 300,000 Ottomans in 1526 (battle of mohacs) ... But the correct number is far smaller, "only" 40-50,000 ... And there are some good estimations regarding the Hungarian forces during this campaign and considering the Hungarian military and logistical system ... --fz22 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. They also exaggerated the size of the Ottoman army during the Night Attack. In fact, even Mehmed exaggerated them; however, in this case, the size is not deemed as exaggerated. A forty-thousand Hungarian army is not unrealistic at all. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, in the Middle age, the Kingdom of Hungary - when the population of the its biggest cities numbered only around 5000, such a huge army ... it was impossible, to form ... for the simplest reason that there was not enough food to feed them, especialy in winter time. (also against the Ottomans, the main problem was not just its huge military strength but logistically was insolvable assembling an army before reaping and keeping them together for more then a month - not even in a prolific year). Moreover in the 15th century the Szekely's army numbered around 8-10,000 armed men, but only 2/3 of them could be called up in a campaign (read King Sigismund's Military Laws-Reforms from 1429-1430). The rebellion of the Transylvanian nobles had been put down recently so these banderias were missing too. The 500 cannon legend is also a joke, not just because Matthias favored the obsolete catapults over the cannons, but there was no European power possessing such a huge artillery ... First and last this is only a Polish propaganda of those times (Casimir was Matthias' "mortal enemy"). Regards --fz22 09:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes again. Let's compromise. I removed the number of cannons and mention them in the article as an uncertain number. You can add your sources to the article, saying that according to some Hungarian sources, the number could not have been higher than X, but I will not allow you to remove my sources. Please understand that. As for your estimations that Hungary could not gather 40,000 men, I say it's rubish. In 1330, more than a century earlier, they invaded Wallachia with 30,000. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove any of "your" sources this time. Funny but only sources about Hungarian victory was missing, so far, and when I started to add them to the article you've deleted them.

Ok, let's compromise:

1. According to CHRONICA HUNGARORUM by Ioannes de Thurocz ; EPITOME RERUM HUNGARICARUM by Petrus Ranzanus amd HISTORIA PANNONICA AB ORIGINE GENTIS AD ANNUM 1495 by Antonius Bonfinius the battle ended with a Hungarian victory with a less number of casualties.

2. Eg. In the Hungarian-Polish-Czech war the Hungarian army numbered only around 8000 men + several thousand light cavalry led by Stephen Bathory sent to attack the Kingdom of Poland; in the Battle of Breadfield (my next target to modify:)) casualties were 6000 Ottoman /3000 Hungarian soldier. And this was one of the bloodiest battle in the pre-Mohacs period.

3. It is not rubbish at all ... the KoH's ground forces had c. 85,000 troops located in three districts (Transylvania, Southern parts of the Kingdom - against Ottomans, and the Western border - against the Emperor, King Casimir, the Hussites, the Czecks). Do you really think Matthias took out of the country almost half of his power when during his rule he was engaged in campaigns -almost constantly - against two major world power?? According to Hungarian scholars he used only the Szekelys (c 6,000 out of a total of 10,000 - according to the Military Laws), Saxons and the voivode's forces + several thousands form his royal banderias. He could have come in Moldova from many directions (as it happened in 1485 against Austria + see above p2.) but Matthias did not want to split his forces, etc, etc, ... --fz22 22:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored your edits, but I'm not really pleased with how this looks. From what I understand, Regni Hungarici Historia, which I suppose was a Hungarian contemporary chronicle, claimed Moldavian victory. That is not consistent with what the other Hungarian chronicles claim. In my opinion, those chronicles lie, because all the other sources are consistent with what transpired. Corvinus himself was a liar, also. He lied on numerous ocassions, including in 1476 when a storm had sank Ottoman ships, to which he claimed to have sank. He and his court had no credibility and both Dluguzs and the Vatican realized that, but it was too late. The Pope granted him money for that. The Moldavians took chase after the Hungarians and wanted to block them in, and slaughter them; but as usual, a buta Vlach helped them escape, for which he was executed for. That is included in the article. If the Hungarians were on the run and the Moldavians were chasing them, do you think the Hungarians can claim victory? Yeah, I know about the issue between Poles and Hungarians at the time, but I don't think the Poles would blantly lie like this. When Stephen invaded southern Poland and defeated them in battle, enslaving over 100,000, the Poles didn't say that Stephen came with 1,000,000 troops. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Addentum: I'm guessing that Corvinus sent Bathory to invade Poland with only some 8,000 only to operate in Poland. They did this on other occasions, also, with mixed results: once they invaded Ottoman territory and started to pillage; and another time, in 1474, Blasius Magyar, the voivode of Transylvania, invaded Wallachia with some 6,000 troops. Those operations were meant to achieve a temporary objective; in the case of Wallachia, it wanted to install Tepelus on the throne. However, at Baia, the Hungarians wanted to subdue Moldavia completely, making it their vassal--not just on papper, but in practice, also. You don't invade enemy territory with some 10,000 troops to achieve that...Moldavia was not Bosnia. You could just as well have stayed home, if you wanted to subdue the country with only 10,000 troops. I mean, what would be the point? You must have realized that we could repell such a force. We did this many times before. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Liar? sure, but you must be naive to think that this was the most typical quality of a 15th century ruler. they were motivated by ambitions and to augment their power and lands. Moreover Hunyadi was a famous shapeshifter, a despotic (bent toward despotism), bossy ruler :) too ...

the cronicle of Istvanffy was written in the 17th century, http://www.sosantikvarium.hu/kep/konyv_5569_5.jpg ... --fz22 10:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't heard anyone accuse Stephen for making such manipulations, but anyway, I still don't get it: how can you run for your life, and claim victory? That reminds me of this infamous Monty Python sketch. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This was not a unique case. One thing is to win a battle, another to win the campaign, but there is no connection whether the leader is wounded or maybe killed. This is why i said it was a Pyrrhic victory ... --fz22 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Transylvanian rebelion vs 400,000 florins

According to Hungarian sources the rebellion (of Count Szapolyai of Szepes, and of John Szentgyorgyi voivode of Transylvania) was crushed authoritatively almost immediately, there were no hard times for the King ... and to treat the Transylvanian nobles with scorn their ransom was cut to 66 Florins ... but this happened before the Moldavian campaign ... One year later the King forgave them ... I've never heard of 400,000 florins. As far as I know It was impossible to collect such a huge amount of gold from Transylvania. (the annual revenues of Hunyadi was around 800,000 florins) ... regards --fz22 09:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is Jan Dlugozs. I will add it to the section. Here is the source for that claim and also for the claim on 500 guns. If you want to buy the book, let me know and I will refer you to a place where you can order it online.

When, moving on, the Hungarians again reach the hills they find the road barricaded with tree-trunks and, after burning their three-horse waggons and burying all 500 of their guns, so as to deny them to the enemy, they manage to escape. Some of the Hungarian standards are captured and these are sent to King Casimir in Wilno as proof of Stephen's victory, which has provided a huge booty of tents, waggons and guns. Back in Hungary, the King imposes a fine of 400,000 florins, to be paid in gold, on the knights and citizens of Transylvania for having deserted him. This money he uses to organize another and larger army, mainly of foreign mercenaries.

And just because you disagree with the source doesn't mean that we shall remove it. Perhaps you would want me to blank the whole page, but it ain't happening. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

you are wrong ... i never had the slightest intention to remove a reference to a source ... Dlugosz sources were wrong ... 400,000 florin was a fabulous wealth in the mid 15th ... I've rechecked the annual revenue of Hunyadi. It was only 500,000-600,000 florins (in a lucky year could run high to 900,000). (While the King of France had 1,8 million-4 million) The price payed by Hunyadi for the Holy Crown was "only" 80,000 (considered to be also a huge sum) ... --fz22 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, everyone was wrong. Corvinus spent his 200,000 florins that he received from the pope just to arrange or his marriage with some princess, instead of investing the money in defending the region from the Ottomans, so I wonder just how much 400k was. You keep talking about Hunyady, but that was an earlier era. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you bring me sources on this emblezzement? And what about your "anti Ottoman defence" complaint I don't think you would be pleased with it :) (IMO the only chance to stop the Ottomans was during King Sigismund, at the line of the Danube, by exterminating the Romanian wobly boiars, and establishing a buffer zone securing the Danube with free soldier elements, like the Szeklers, Cumans, and later the Serbs) ... --fz22 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I speak about King Matthias ... he never called himself Corvinus. Not even by his Hungarian fellow contemporaries. His name was Hunyadi Matyas ... But this is offtopic here, you can use Corvinus as well, i will understand it :) ... Can you bring me a source for this 200,000 florins_ It was fabulous trust me (even Matthias life worth about 80,000) ... IMO Matthias did everything possible in order to save the country. --fz22 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Split from A-Class review

Hi, as part of the A-Class review, I have a few issues.

• The Hungarian ambition of seizing control over Moldavia did not end there This does not follow on from anything and seems a bit pov ish, could you make it a bit more neutral, and relevant. Done
• divide the country between them two Not good grammatically. Done
• The Wallachians rushed to the scene with 7,000 men and together with the Hungarian garrison battled the Moldavians and the Turks for eight days, defeating them and wounding Stephen in his foot with a shrapnel[17]-an injury which would hasten his death. Can this not be split up into different sentences, the structure at the moment is not very good.
  • Not really, the structure of the sentence would become even worse. Why actually the structure is not good at the moment?
• can the See also hatnote be included in the article.
  • where?
• The background might need a subsection to split it up. Done
• and demanded Stephen to leave it over to him. This needs to be reworded. Done
• started a terrible uprising in which Corvinus had a difficult time in putting an end to Needs rewording, and remove the terrible per WP:WEASEL. Done
• so the Moldavians could not lay their hands on them. ???
  • I can't find this, could you help me please?
• Per WP:MOSNUM, individual dates such as 10 January should be linked, e.g. 10 January. Done

Generally, there seems to be a slight bias in the article, just needs a run-through. Woodym555 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

strenght2 (Hungarian army)

I think even this 15-20,000 men army is an overestimation ... pure maths:

• it was calculated that tha army of William the Conqueror (7000 men + 3000 horse) needed 4000t of nutritment / month.
• the lenght of the army (with just 10,000 horsemen x 3 horses each) was more than 20km, without wagons (how many? John of Hunyadi army's had 5000 wagons during the Long Campaign) ... impossible to supervise ...--fz22 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're doing it wrong!

I have noticed that the "result" category lists victory for both sides and for both sides of the argument it lists a series of what appears to be primary sources. In effect this article seems to have engaged in original research by quoting mediaeval documents (i.e. primary sources) as opposed to secondary sources (articles on the subject in historical journals, texbooks, history books etc.). That is violates WP:NOR in a flagrant way. I understand that the mediaeval sources do not agree on who won. But modern day scholarship probably has a more consistant view of the matter.

And actually, let me make this more clear. I expect someone to modify the section by giving an adequate source within a month. Otherwise I'll simply delete both versions. We are not historians we cannot interpret primary sources ourselves; that's original research and WP does NOT do that. Please read again WP:NOR in order to be clear on that. 79.112.59.92 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Baia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114112449/http://www.stefancelmare.ro:80/izvoare.htm to http://www.stefancelmare.ro/izvoare.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

According to contemporary Hungarian sources the battle was a Hungarian victory and the next year Moldavia became again a Hungarian vassal.

Hello,

Could I ask you why primarly sources are not important about the battle in the wikipedia page of the battle? Could I ask you why it is not possible to add these sources to the Wikipedia page?

I know well the result of the Moldavian campaign is a controversial issue between Hungarian and Romanian historians. There are two reasons for this: on the one hand, the controversial content of sources; on the other, the national interests.

I see the wikipedia page already use old sources like Długosz or The Moldavian-German Chronicles. The page is already using many primarly sources also, for example the image of the battle and the Moldavian flag is from the contemporary Chronicle Hungarorum. Why we need to ignore the text from the same document and use only the images? The contemporary text says clearly this battle was a Hungarian victory, also I can show you at least 5 contemporary documents what say cleary the same: Janus Pannonius, András Hess: Buda Chronicle (1473), Johannes de Thurocz: Chronica Hungarorum (1488), Antonio Bonfini: Rerum Ungaricarum Decades (1488-1497), Petrus Ransanus: Epithoma rerum Hungarorum (1490). I can copy-paste the text about the battle from these documents to prove my statement. It means the victory of Stephen is not clear, why many contemporary Hungarian sources say different? King Matthias fought in this battle, why we need to ignore the sources from his court about his battle? Why we need to see only secondary later sources and only from the other side? For example if a battle happens 1000 years ago and A side say 1000 years ago:"it was my victory" and B side 1000 years later write "it was my victory"? It would be fair to provide the source only from the B side? No, I think it is not fair to ignore the other side.

I would like to see a balanced wikipedia page about the battle where all sides can show their sources. Romanian sources can say it was Moldavian vitory, Hungarian sources can say it was Hungarian victory. Why it would be a problem to present the sources from both side? I think Wikipedia should be natural. I do not say we need to remove the viewpoint of the Romanian historians, I say we need to add the viewpoint for both side.

Contemporary sources: The captured Moldavian battle flags were suspended in the Boldogasszony church of Buda, as a sign of victory over the vassal, the Hungarian bishop of Pécs, Janus Pannonius, and pot dedicating three epigrammas to them.

Andream Hess: Chronica Hungarorum (1473)

Chronica Hungarorum/Buda Chronicle in Latin and Hungarian: https://oszkdk.oszk.hu/storage/00/00/18/34/dd/1/pdf/low.pdf

"Then, gathering a huge army, he marched on Moldavian land, in the province under the Holy Crown, which at that time rebelled. In a desperate battle, he won a famous and memorable victory. He brought a lot of flags from here to Buda, signs of his famous victory, and they were placed with great solemnity in the parish church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, they can still be seen today."

Johannes de Thurocz: Chronica Hungarorum (1488)

Thuróczy Chronicle in Latin: http://thuroczykronika.atw.hu/pdf/Thuroczy.pdf

Section from the Thuróczy Chronicle in Hungarian: https://mek.oszk.hu/10600/10633/10633.htm

"Again, without resting his army, he turned the bridle of his horse towards Moldova. This province, subject to the Hungarian crown, then rebelled. So he crossed the mountains, marched with a valiant army over a large part of that land, and dwelt with all his people in a town called Baia (Bánya) in that province. The lord of the country, Voivode Stephen gathered a big army from his people, and in the quiet of the night, he attacked the royal army, set fire to the city, he roused the Hungarians with weapons, who were lost in sleep and wine. Voivode Stephen chose the night to storm the royal army so that if he lost the battle, he would at least be protected by darkness. But his hopes were dashed. Namely, the king gathered all his armies with drum and trumpet, and with the light of the moon and the burnt city, attacked Stephen's troops with a furious attack. After much mutual fighting, the Vlachs suffered a great defeat, Voivode Stephen was forced to flee. The king won a memorable, great victory. From there, as a token of the victory, he brought many flags to Buda and placed them with great solemnity in the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where they can still be seen today."

Antonio Bonfini: Rerum Ungaricarum Decades (1488-1497)

Rerum Ungaricarum Decades in Latin: https://books.google.hu/books?id=8sc9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q&f=false

Section from Rerum Ungaricarum Decades in Hungarian: https://mek.oszk.hu/10600/10604/10604.htm

"After the province has been pacified, when the feast of Saint Catherine is celebrated, the king withdrew from Transylvania and leads his army to that part of Vlach land which is now called Moldavia. Here reigned Voivode Stephen, who was under the jurisdiction of the King of Hungary, and therefore he was obliged to pay annual taxes and obey his orders. With his conceited spirit, wild character, and being industrious and hard in war, refused to obey. And even he incited the Transylvanian partisans so that because of the disturbances, he himself is free to rule. So the king marches through forests and mountain passes to force the rebellious Vlach to obey again. Where felled trees and beams blocked the gorges, he made his way with fire or iron. When the road was cleared, he got out into the wider countryside and set up camp at the field town of Roman (Románvásár), which the people there interpreted as Roman marketplace (its name was taken from Moldavian Voivode Roman I of Moldavia (1391-1394)). Its walls are made of wood, reinforced with a rampart and trench. There flows the River Siret (Szeret), on its banks is a timber fortress, it is guarded rather than fortified. Here was Stephen, the prince of the province, to whom all Moldavia obeyed. The king took Roman (Románvásar) with the first attack. When the enemy saw this, he began to negotiate peace. There have been many negotiations on both sides, but nothing has been done. Matthias perceived that the enemy was trying to fool him, he moved his camp from here without making peace, but before retreating he ordered the city to be burnt and sacked. After scorching Roman (Románvásár) wherever it went, almost all the villages and field towns were destroyed by fire and iron, the army takes men, cattle, big booty.

On the third day, he came to a town famous for its bishopric, called Baia (Moldvabánya). Here, during the first night watch, the king himself fought the perfidious, cunning enemy. Everyone witnessed the king's luck and derring-do in this battle. The king's quarter was on one side of the market and overlooked the bishopric, where two streets enclose the basilica. The high priests, lords, and lieutenants of the troops had reserved lodgings around the market, so that they could, as usual, appear before the king immediately if necessary.

During dinner, a captured Székely is brought before the king. Through an interpreter, he asked who he was, where he was coming from, where he was going, and why he was on his way. He replied that he does not need an interpreter because he is a Hungarian and from Transylvania. He came to Moldavia, unaware of what was happening, to visit his lands, which were his wife's inheritance. Not far on the way met twelve thousand Vlachs, who during the first night watch, ambush the unwary Hungarians and slaughtered them. He loves his nation, therefore he has hastened, lest his dishonest silence should cause the destruction of the Hungarians.

At first, they didn't believe him, maybe he was just fabricating to get released. The king threatened him and said: Take him into custody, if he brought false news, he should be put to death immediately. The king had the man taken into custody, and the valiant knight Drach Berthold, who was his steward at the time, was ordered by the king to keep his guests well. The king left the table without a meal. Immediately he summoned all the lords, captains, and cavalry lieutenants, and told them the imminent danger from the enemy. He orders them all secretly to take up arms, he orders guards at every road and gate in the city, he places bodyguards at the entrance to the marketplace. He places two hundred heavily armed old soldiers in front of his quarter to intercept the enemy's attack from the two streets that lead into it. The cavalry troops were scattered along the forking roads.

As soon as he arranged it all this way, the enemy arrived during the first watch of the night, the city built of wood and surrounded by stick plank was suddenly thrown from three sides and set on fire. There was a huge uproar and chaos from everywhere. The Vlachs broke into the fire-covered city. A flame fell everywhere, illuminating the blind night so much that both sides could see the fight well. There was a ruthless, large-scale slaughter, first at the gates, then on the roads and crossroads. On the two roads leading to the royal quarters, according to the plan, two enemy groups are approaching. They clashed with the veterans who had been ordered out, and a bitter and angry fight ensued. A lot of Vlachs fell here, a lot of blood fell out as they wanted to drive the enemy out of the house, and those fought for victory and their lives. Palatine Mihály Országh, Voivode Miklós Csupor and Voivode János Pongrácz from Transylvania, Miklós Bánfi, István Báthory, and other lords steadfastly defended the entrance to the market and repulsed the attacks of the invaders. There could be no doubt that if the market like a citadel was lost, everything would be destroyed with it. The battle was fierce in a shower of arrows and fires. Finally, the Vlachs beaten back on all sides of the market fled after midnight. The Hungarians are chasing them, and before the enemy had left the city, most of them were captured, others are driven into the fire in a mad dash, many into swords. And when in the headlong rush entangled in each other, they are stabbed in the back with spears, or fall down trampling each other. Barely four thousand ran out of the city, the rest were captured in the city and killed to the last. That night the king fought among the veterans outside his quarters, or went to the marketplace to keep watch, he did his duty as both a fine soldier and a leader. He was first where the fighting was most fierce, he encouraged the brave, rebuked the timid, and came to the aid of the distressed, and fought everywhere with great valor, he saved both himself and his army. The rebellious Vlachs were severely punished because they were all slaughtered. At dawn, seven thousand Vlach deads were counted. One thousand two hundred Hungarians had fallen, the rest were mostly wounded. On that night an arrow hit the king himself near his spine. When they tried to pull it out, the broken iron tip got stuck even deeper, and for four years it caused the king no small suffering. At length, as the wound gave way with purulence where the arrow had been nestled, nature itself slowly removed it and it fell out. That night the battle was fought more for life than for glory.

Neighboring towns and villages were also burned and looted. Hampered by wounds, the king decided to retreat to Transylvania after killing the enemy to the point of total annihilation, and then to Hungary, and arrived back in Brassó (Brasov) at Christmas. Here he punished the traitor sinners more severely. He executed Michael of Wallachia, who came from a noble lineage of voivodes. He ordered Mihály Székely, Aladár, and Miklós Vízaknai to be arrested by the city magistrate, dragged through the city of Kolozsvár (Cluj), torn to pieces with fiery pincers and finally beheaded. The cruel execution so frightened all those who had conspired with Veres that they secretly fled to Poland and Wallachia, leaving their children and possessions behind. Their possessions were either seized by the Treasury or donated to the few claimants. He had not even left Transylvania when he received the begging letter from Voivode Stephen. In this, he frankly confessed that he had been foolhardy and mad to take up a rogue weapon against his royal majesty, in which there is so much of the divine. He said he was punished far more than he deserved. Finally, as the atonement is to be forgiven, he asks to be forgiven. He thought it would not be difficult for him to obtain mercy, he begged for atonement for the king's soul.

The king did not wish to appear more cruel than merciful, he gave hope of forgiveness, and let it be known that he would increase this hope in him, if day by day, as it stood upon him, he proved his willingness by word and deed. If he gladly shows legal obedience, he will no longer resent him, and if he does not: bloody battle decides the strife because it is the truest avenger of human sins."

Petrus Ransanus: Epithoma rerum Hungarorum (1490)

Epithoma rerum Hungarorum in Latin: http://users.atw.hu/ransanus/pdf/Ransanus.pdf

Epithoma rerum Hungarorum in Hungarian: https://en.mandadb.hu/common/file-servlet/document/460781/default/doc_url/Ransanus_P_A_magyarok_tortenetenek_rovid_foglalata.pdf

"XXXIV About Matthias regaining rebellious Moldavia, defeated the traitor Stephen

Moldavia also rebelled, the inhabitants of this land had also previously been subjects of the Hungarian kings. To regain it, therefore he made ready an army and crossed the mountains beyond which lay the region which is itself a certain part of Magna Germania. It took a short time to take control of it again. As soon as this happened, he led his troops to the town of Baia (Bánya), where he set up camp, and he went with most of his troops to the city, where he intended to rest for a few days. At that time the whole province was ruled by a man of nonsuch daring called Stephen, he was gathering a large armed force of his people, that the second change of guard at night to set fire to many parts of the city with his accomplices, and that he digests with fire the king and all his men who had fallen into a deep sleep from wine, and he meanwhile goes to the royal camp, and thus winning the victory, to get rid of the sovereignty of the Hungarian kings.

But as soon as the fire began to glow and crackle, the king awoke from his sleep and noticed that betrayal occurred, immediately alarmed his men with a trumpet from their beds, ordered them to attack the traitor, the same happened in the camp. The King's men so, already aware of the act, with great courage attacked Stephen and his men, who committed the crime of betrayal by his command. And both the help from the fire that digested the city and most of all from the moonlight, they killed many enemies, though they resisted them hard. The struggle with dubious results lasted for almost four hours, finally, the Hungarians are fighting with incredible perseverance encouraged by the king, Stephen, and his men who survived the killing were forced to flee, many of them were captured, weapons were also looted. Returning to Buda, the king placed these war badges in memory of the glorious victory in the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please check WP:PSTS. Primary sources have to be cited by secondary sources, please provide a modern academic source claiming a Hungarian victory. 77wonders (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The anonymous editor is right that only the position of the Romanian historiography is presented in the article – the main reason for this is that while Romanian historiography discussed this campaign and the battle in detail, in Hungarian historiography it was mostly a neglected topic, as the campaign did not achieve its goal. In any case, it is certain that there was no "decisive victory for Moldova", with all sources reporting heavy losses on both sides. Only a single Hungarian modern academic paper deals with the campaign and battle, trying to bridge different points of view and contradictory statements from contemporary sources: Szokola László: Mátyás király 1467. évi moldvai hadjárata, which is listed as a source in this article, although not referenced. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The above quotes are indeed intriguing.

The article Matthias Corvinus refers to the events as follows: Suspecting that Stephen the Great had supported the rebellion, Matthias invaded Moldavia.[91][118] However, Stephen's forces routed Matthias's at the Battle of Baia on 15 December 1467.[91][118] Matthias suffered severe injuries, forcing him to return to Hungary.[118][119].

Source 91 (Engel, Pál) and source 119 (Kubinyi, András) belong to the Hungarian historiography, but I don't know how to access the book contents. 77wonders (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that we have another section above that debates the same topic: Talk:Battle_of_Baia#Moldavian_victory?. 77wonders (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP is not based on our own interpretation of primary sources. If there is a debate about the results of the battle among modern historians, this debate could be presented based on their works as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If we look at Battle_of_Baia#Footnotes, we see several primary sources. This is quite surprising for an article classified as "good". I would expect to see there only secondary sources that are based on the analysis, evaluation, interpretation of the primary sources. 77wonders (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The article was granted GA status in 2007. At that time, the quality directive was less developed. I don't think this article will hit the GA standard by now, but no one has yet initiated its withdrawal. I won't either, rather, enlargement and a balanced presentation of different perspectives would be a priority. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I see in that page there are many primarly sources mentioned. It is very strange that you delete my sources but you have no problem with the others. Some examples from the current Wikipedia page:

Hungarian flag at the battle of Baia according to the Chronica Hungarorum + the picture of the battle

In the Annals of Jan Długosz, the Polish chronicler wrote the following on Władysław's reply to Sigismund: Wladislaw replies that it would not be right to wage war on the Moldavians, who confess the Christian faith and have given him and his kingdom obedience and submission; indeed, to do this would be an act of savagery. Though some may live by brigandage, they cannot all be tarred with the same brush, nor can they be blamed for not helping King Sigismund against the Turks, because they had gone with the Poles to the given rendez-vous on the Danube and got there on time, yet had to waste two months waiting there, and then return home. Rather does the blame for this attach to King Sigismund, who failed to turn up at the appointed time. The squabbling continues for several days, at the end of which Wladyslaw stubbornness compels Sigismund to abandon the plan and seek other ventures.

Długosz recalls that in the beginning of his reign, Stephen reformed his army by extending rights for men to bear arms: This Stephen's rule has been so strict and just that no crime has gone unpunished and people now obey his every order. He has insisted that not only the knights and nobility should bear arms, but that farmers and villagers do so as well, for everyone has a duty to defend his fatherland. If the Voivode learns that a farmer does not have a bow, arrows and a sword, or has mustered without a spear, the culprit is condemned to death.

Source: Historiae Polonicae The Hungarians recruited an army of 40,000,[4] many drawn from Transylvania. Many knights and Hungarian aristocrats joined, one of them being Stefan Báthory,[14] bringing 500 cannons

Source:Długosz, p. 566 Corvinus ordered the city to be fortified with "ramparts, ditches and a ring of wagons",[11]

According to Długosz, Corvinus escaped the Moldavians due to the assistance of another Vlach (Romanian), whom Stephen found and had executed because of treachery

The Moldavian-German Chronicles say that someone named Isaia failed to launch the cavalry attack which would have blocked the path for the Hungarian retreat

Source mention Bonfini, but this is not true: Descriptions of the battle say that the fire made the night equally light as the day and that many Hungarians were consumed by the flames.[3]

Bonfini writes this: (I copy pasted above the full script from Bonfini) "Finally, the Vlachs beaten back on all sides of the market fled after midnight. The Hungarians are chasing them, and before the enemy had left the city, most of them were captured, others are driven into the fire in a mad dash, many into swords. And when in the headlong rush entangled in each other, they are stabbed in the back with spears, or fall down trampling each other."

So I can see many primarly sources. Could I ask you why do you have problem if I mention the other primarly sources? I know well the result of the Moldavian campaign is a controversial issue between Hungarian and Romanian historians. But a Wikipedia page should be neutral and present the sources from both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Secondary non-contemporary source:

Gáspár Heltai: Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds (1575)

Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds in Hungarian: https://maghon.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/0/3/20035969/heltai-gaspar-kronika-az-magyaroknak-dolgairol.pdf

"Chapter XXII

...

On the third day the king went to Baia [Hungarian: Moldvabánya], where the bishops had their house, and there the king had to fight with the false enemy in the night before his sleep. There, the king had great fortune in the battle. The king's lodging was in the marketplace, which was against the house of the bishops, where two roads compassed the church. The rest of the lords, bishops, and lieutenants were around the market in their quarters, that they might be present for the king at all times. And when the king dines, they bring a prisoner front of him. When they asked him by an interpreter, who he was, whence came he, and in what province was he? I do not need - said he - an interpreter, because I am Hungarian from Transylvania, and I have come to Moldavia to see the rest of my wife here. On the way I found twelve thousand Vlachs, they are coming to strike the camp of the Hungarians and to beat them when they are in dream. And I hastened to come to tell them this, because I pity my nation.

When the king heard this, he began to threaten him to see, that he should not tell a lie. The Székely said: I tell the truth.

If you doubt my words, keep me in custody until then, I believe you will see afterwards whether I have spoken the truth or not. The king allows the Székely man to be kept under guard. And he order to Drach Berthold - who was the king's secretary - that he would keep the guests happy. And the king himself do not eat dinner, but he rises up, and he calls straightway the lords and lieutenants together, and tells them the present danger. And he ordered them, all should to prepare secretly, and to take up arms, and to take watch in every street of the city, and at every gate. He puts soldiers on the corners of the market. He puts two hundred brave armed veterans in front of his lodging, to watch the two streets, and to attack the enemy if they would rush through these. He puts more armies in other streets.

Just barely issued the orders, and as if he were in his first dream, the enemy appeared, and set fire to the city on three sides. A great start begins on both sides and a great shout. The Vlachs set fire to the city everywhere, rushing in first at the gates at the light of the fires. The king's people were waiting for them, and they attack them from all sides, and a great battle begins between the both sides. The Vlach Voivode has two armies on two sides, and they want to enter the king's quarters from two streets. When they come, they are immediately confronted by the waiting army, the armed men who are standing in front of the king's quarters. A great battle will begin there, and many Vlachs will be killed in this battle, because there are chiefmen in this battle. It is worth knowing Mihály Ország, the palantir, the two Transylvanian voivodes Miklós Csupor and János Pankrátz, Miklós Bánffi, István Báthori and other lords. All of them fought hard, and they pushed the Vlachs out of the market, because in the market they would be like in a castle. After midnight the Vlachs retreated, and the Hungarians fired on them, and drove many of them into the fire, and cut down many of them, and took many of them. About four thousand people run away from the city, the rest are all slaughtered in the city.

Chapter XXIV

That night King Matthias was in great diligence. Where he fought hard with the Vlachs in the army before his quarters, where he turned about in the streets and arranged the armies, where he encouraged the soldiers, where he criticized the feared ones, where he helped those in need. And so he kept his people. And when it was dawned, behold, all the city was strewn with dead bodies, and they found seven thousand dead Vlachs. And twelve hundred Hungarians, the other larger parts were all wounded. And King Matthias himself was wounded, because an arrow was shot in his back, not far from this spine. And when he had drawn the arrow, the iron was left in his body. For four whole years afterwards he had all his troubles, until to take it out of him. Surely the Hungarians had to use their hands that night to protect his life, for great fortune had befallen his affairs. And when they had burned all the villages and cities around, and they had all destroyed the land, the king went back suffered with the pain of his wound, and began to go towards Transylvania and coming to Brassó for Christmas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to refer to peer-reviewed works written by modern historians and published by respected publishers instead of quoting lengthy text from 16th-century chronicles. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I do not intend to copy long text from old sources (btw I can see some quotes in many many other pages from old texts, but only some, but I think these thing could add an extra info about the topic), just I would like to mention some things what these old sources say, so this is not my own point, just I would like say "For example Bonfini say this...". Btw If you read above I copied text from the current page and the current page are using many many old sources already "like Dlugosz say this..." "like Polish chronicle say this...", so the site has already many primarly sources, so I do not understand why it would be problem if I extend these sources with some other info and of course I always write "this info" from "this source", so everybody know this is primarly and not by modern historians. What do you think? (Btw I am new in Wikipedia, but I would like to follow the rules) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and apply it. WP is not an encyclopedia covering everything that we "would like to say", but an encyclopedia presenting scholarly views. Without referring to peer-rewieved sources no editor can edit articles. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I see what you meant, just why this page the battle of baia has already many this kind of things what is not allowed? And why other pages has many of these things? So for example if a modern historian states something and this historian refers to an old source, then can we use them together? Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I found a book by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the book says the same as above, the battle was a Hungarian victory, but the king returned to home due his wound, and Stephen accepted his lordship: Page 312: https://militaria.hu/hadtorteneti-intezet-es-muzeum/hadtortenelmi-kozlemenyek-letoltes/1895m.pdf

A work from the 19th century hardly counts as a reliable source. 77wonders (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In the article List of wars involving Hungary the presented result of the battle of Baia is "Hungarian victory". For consistency, I think we should have the same result on all articles, because now wikipedia virtually self-contradicts. I'd like to ask Super Dromaeosaurus, Borsoka what they think. 77wonders (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think modern scholarship describe the battle as a Moldavian victory over Matthias' army. Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not too knowledgable in this topic. Super Ψ Dro 11:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I found a huge Hungarian military history from Jószef Bánlaky, he also do not write Moldavian victory, but he writes that Hungarians drove the enemy out of the city, then the Moldavians retreated to a suitable distance, casualties: 1200 Hungarians, 7000 Moldavians, he writes all parties demanded the victory, both sides boasted of having taken possession of several enemy flags, arriving in Buda, Matthias hung them in the Church of St. Mary. Because of the injuries, Matthias ordered his retreat immediately after the battle, but on the other hand, Moldavians did not dare to attack him anymore, and there is no source about the persecuting the Hungarians. And finally Stephen became the vassal of Matthias. https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0011/840.html

Also there is some new book of the Hungarian military history, need to check them: book from Veszprémi László, and Hermann Róbert: Magyarország hadtörténete I. A kezdetektől 1526-ig

If this arcticle is marked "good", still I do not understand why only the viewpoint of the Romanian historians are presented, and the viewpoint of Hungarian historians are ignored, why not both side? Because in this battle both side were participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just I checked this today (modern scholarship) published history book in a big bookshop: (A késő középkori nagyhatalom 1301-1526 - A vegyesházi királyok Magyarországa / The Late Medieval Great Power 1301-1526 - Hungary of the Mixed House Kings)

Author: Hungarian historian: https://mnm.hu/hu/munkatarsak/dr-szende-laszlo

https://www.libri.hu/konyv/szende_laszlo.a-keso-kozepkori-nagyhatalom-1301-1526.html

The book says, the Moldavians got huge casualties, Hungarians retreated orderly because the king was wounded, and Moldavians did not chase the Hungarians. Both side claimed the victory, Matthias placed captured flag in Buda as a sign of his victory, while the propaganda of Stephen excessively magnified his victory.

Also I will check this modern book, this is more massive about Hungarian military history: https://bookline.hu/product/home.action?_v=Hermann_Robert_Magyarorszag_hadtortenet&type=22&id=293448&gclid=Cj0KCQjwgYSTBhDKARIsAB8KuksPuQPMiQ5wSY4GmYAGSMCKMStKWbNjEOQvi4c1VC6bLPofh39P5TMaAoCYEALw_wcB

So the page would be correct to write: both side claimed the victory OrionNimrod (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hungarian academic source, 2021 https://mek.oszk.hu/22600/22639/22639.pdf "Matthias won the battle, but lost the war if we consider that he did not achieve his war goal. He could not follow his father's example, he could not put a fief voivode on the throne, and he definitely came out of the campaign worse than Stephen voivode. If only because he was seriously injured. But all's well that ends well. After all, both rulers could have died there, but the power of both was consolidated in their country. They both more or less won" OrionNimrod (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Battle of Baia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Clear consensus to delist based on missing citations and poor quality of sources. It has also been alleged that the article is biased, which would be a fail on the neutrality criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

With multiple CN tags and most of the sourcing before from the 1400s, I don't see how this meets the sourcing requirement of the modern GA standards. Primary author was indeffed in '07 for "Racism, hatespeech" so I don't think we're going to get any help from that front. Hog Farm _Talk 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delist. Poor and ancient sources plus missing citations do not a GA make. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Delist: The article is quite biased. It does not present the Hungarian viewpoint only the Romanian one. Many times it also rewritten "decisive Moldavian victory", which is nonsense, because it is not "a decisive victory" when the Hungarian army move back home after the battle, morover the king was wounded, the Moldavian army did not pursuit the Hungarian one, and when Matthias was in Transylvania he got begging letter from Stephen according to contemporary sources, and Stephen became his vassal. At least 6 contemporary Hungarian sources (what I know) from the court of King Matthias claim that the battle was Hungarian victory and the attacker Moldavians were killed and fleed (I presented quotes from original sources in the talk page above). Hungarian historiopraphy claim many things depend on historians: it was Hungarian victory, Stephen's propaganda boosted with "victory of Moldavians", it was a draw, etc, none of them presented in the article. It is also biased that the article use image from a Hungarian chronicle which say it was Hungarian victory, which means using image from the book is ok but using the content is not ok, strange. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The neutrality of this section is disputed ?

Do you mean "this section', the lead, or the whole article? Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is quite biased. It does not present the Hungarian viewpoint only the Romanian one which claim it was a Moldavian victory.

This battle also used in many anti-Hungarian context by Romanian nationalists, for example Kolozsvár/Cluj (which had 80%+ Hungarian majority before 1920 when became part of Romania), that city was the birth city of King Matthias of Hungary, there is the famous the king’s statue front of the Catholic church. In 1992, Gheorghe Funar (who said "the Hungarian is the language of the horses"), this notorius anti-Hungarian Romanian mayor placed a board illegal on front of the statue of King Matthias: "He was victorious in the battle, he only suffered a defeat from his own nation at Baia, when he went against the invincible Moldavia."

This article many times was rewritten "decisive Moldavian victory", which is nonsense, because it is not "a decisive victory" when the Hungarian army move back home after the battle, morover the king was wounded, the Moldavian army did not pursuit the Hungarian one, and when Matthias was in Transylvania he got begging letter from Stephen according to contemporary sources, and Stephen became his vassal. At least 6 contemporary Hungarian sources (what I know) from the court of King Matthias claim that the battle was Hungarian victory and the attacker Moldavians were killed and fleed (I presented quotes from original sources in the talk page above). Hungarian historiopraphy claim many things depend on historians: it was Hungarian victory, Stephen's propaganda boosted with "victory of Moldavians", it was a draw, etc, none of them presented in the article. It is also biased that the article use image from a Hungarian chronicle which say it was Hungarian victory, which means using image from the book is ok but using the content is not ok, strange.

Example modern Hungarian historians (but there are more, probably this article is not in the focus of Hungarian editors as Hungarian history had many more important battles):

2019: https://www.libri.hu/konyv/szende_laszlo.a-keso-kozepkori-nagyhatalom-1301-1526.html The book says, the Moldavians got huge casualties, Hungarians retreated orderly because the king was wounded, and Moldavians did not chase the Hungarians. Both side claimed the victory, Matthias placed captured flag in Buda as a sign of his victory, while the propaganda of Stephen excessively magnified his victory.

Hungarian academic source, 2021 https://mek.oszk.hu/22600/22639/22639.pdf "Matthias won the battle, but lost the war if we consider that he did not achieve his war goal. He could not follow his father's example, he could not put a fief voivode on the throne, and he definitely came out of the campaign worse than Stephen voivode. If only because he was seriously injured. But all's well that ends well. After all, both rulers could have died there, but the power of both was consolidated in their country. They both more or less won" OrionNimrod (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)