Talk:Night attack at Târgoviște

Babinger does not say Ottoman losses were minimal

Someone, using Babinger as a source for their own claims, wrote that "some sources say the Wallachians slaughtered a great number of Turks, while others say Ottoman losses were minimal." Neither Babinger nor McNally/Florescu say any such thing. Babinger says, "The entire skirmish, in which many camels, mules, and horses were killed, had no significant results." He means it was not a strategically decisive battle in one way or another, and that statement has little to do with the losses. McNally and Florescu find that a janissary who actually witnessed the skirmish says losses were heavy on both sides. Several sources claim Ottoman losses were heavier, although that certainly isn't the case proportionally speaking and probably refers also to Ottoman wounded (who surely contributed to the process of spreading the bubonic plague). But what Babinger was referring to was that it is not certain that this battle was the main factor in Mehmed's retreat from Tirgoviste, despite his original plan to attack the capital. Babinger, who was writing in the 1950s before Romanian history was even a seriously considered subject by Western historians (he was an early exception, to be sure), notes that Mehmed's planned attack on Tirgoviste and direct conquest of Wallachia failed and forced him to rely on his backup plan of installing Radu, but without coming up with a sure answer as to the decisive factor, maintains that no particular battle was the decisive reason why. As McNally and Florescu were writing decades later and about Vlad as their main subject, their more detailed and more thoroughly researched (about this particular subject anyway) account finds that it was Vlad's germ warfare mixed with the psychological effect of his tactics that compelled Mehmed to retreat.

The reasons for the Dracula victory have been demonstrated by McNally and Florescu, but the reasons why it was a phyrric victory have not been sufficiently explored. Babinger brings up an important point when he notes that after the sultan's retreat Dracula withdraw part of his army to Moldavia and this imperiled his domestic defenses, but does not seem to realize this is because Stephen III attacked Hungarian-Wallachian-held Chilia after the sultan retreated. He mentions this skirmish as if it happened beforehand, and doesn't pay it much mind. McNally and Florescu find that this happened on June 22 (two days after the sultan decided to retreat). The combined force of several thousand (one source mentions 7000) of Dracula's men and the Hungarian garrison there compelled Stephen and the Ottoman Navy to lift the siege by June 28, or at least that is when it was reported. During this time, Dracula had to resist Mehmed with his dwindling forces as Mehmed's army was heading east to Braila. Mehmed writes of one Turahanoglu Omer Bey crushing Dracula's domestic forces at this point, but this must have been before a Dracula victory at the town of Buzau over one Evrenos Pasha, which McNally and Florescu say was the last military encounter between the two armies. The Ottoman victory therefore took place between Tirgoviste and Buzau sometime in between June 22 and June 26, and the Buzau battle was a failed siege after that.

I personally think the number of 200,000 captured Wallachian cattle and horses is two high, but it must be noted that Turkish sources seem to have exaggerated the number of Ottoman troops even more than Byzantine sources. One Turkish historian mentions 300,000 troops. Since 90,000-100,000 is a more realistic estimate, the number of cattle and horses taken (almost certainly during the above-mentioned time between the Ottoman retreat from Tirgoviste and the unsuccessful siege of Buzau) is probably closer to around 40,000-60,000. In any event, Babinger notes that the number is "said to have" been 200,000 cattle and horses, not that it was.

What neither Babinger, nor McNally/Florescu discuss, but what is important to understanding the Vlad-Mehmed battle's place in history, is that Stephen's attack on Chilia ensured that Vlad's victory over Mehmed would be a phyrric one by forcing Vlad to divert his resources to Moldavia, but the failure of Stephen's Turkish-supported siege would leave a power vacuum in the region that would not be settled until he defeated Hungarian, Wallachian (under Radu), and finally Ottoman forces in battles over the unsettled Chilia question.Shield2 04:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Catholicism

"Dracula, who had converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism in order to gain support from Corvinus, asked the Hungarian king for assistance." This is not exactly accurate. McNally and Florescu reveal that when he asked Corvinus for assistance, he indicated that he was interested in converting to Catholicism and marrying a member of the royal family. However, he did not actually do so until years later to get out of imprisonment.

Wrong numbers

Stop adding such huge Ottoman numbers! 90,000 men was a complete impossibility to gather during that age. The biggest army to gather for such battle was 20,000 or less, the Turks has always been in constant war, and their numbers were few, since they lost many soldeirs after so many battles!

All the versions are presented and a compromise is presented. The numbers are realistic. Only 13 years later, Mehmed gathered an army of up to 120,000. Please don't remove sourced material. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GAC

I have decided to pass the article. I think that is very well written and well cited. The only thing I have to say against the article is that the after math section has no cits and I recommend that it is fixed. ANyway once again well done on the article. Kyriakos 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality Concerns

There is a statement with an ambiguous reference in the article. It reads: Historians credit Dracula as one of the first European crusaders to use gunpowder in a 'deadly artistic way'. I have three objections to this. First of all, I really don't care about the deadly artisticity of using gunpowder, nor do I think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to dveleve into such fantasy. Second, the aim of this article is hardly to bring an evaluation of how artistic Dracula was in his deadly methods but to explain events surrounding a battle. And third, not only the reference itself is ambiguous, but also it is at most a personal view of someone. So I propose the deletion of that phrase. In addition, I wonder, why on Earth my remarks in th edit page are being removed?????????74.66.233.1 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That statemnt is sourced and it is in context because it described the conflict between Dracula and the Ottomans. It is not Wikipedia fantasy. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am sure there are few lunatics out there who are giving out artistic points to historic figures' use of gunpowder in a deadly way, and have those pieces of rubbish published too. I also have no doubt that Dracula would be a formidable contestant. This does not answer my question though does it? May be I should spell it for your benefit. WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARTISTIC QUALITY OF THE WAY DRACULA USED GUN POWDER? If by any chance your outlook to life is as skewed as the source you are citing, can you please also provide the list of other contestants in this noble artistic contest and how they faired so that we can see that it at least was a fair remark? By the way, is this from a schoolbook or something? That would really be something. 74.66.233.1 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Deadly artistic way" in this context can be interpreted as 'in a very efficient way." It has nothing to do with art. The significance lies in the fact that he was the first, or one o the first, to use gunpowered (not from cannons) in a very efficient way. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny. 199.219.138.254 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anittas you are a clown. Remove the line!

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 requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article as well. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. As a side note, I'd recommend that more sources be added to the "Aftermath and legacy" section, and that the long quotes in the "Battle" section be condensed some. 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does the article use 'Ţepeş' as if it was his actual name?

Reading 'Ţepeş' all over the place looks just as unnatural as if the article on Edward the Confessor should constantly mention 'the Confessor': "The Confessor was born in 1003..." Likewise, 'Ţepeş' is not a surname, and it was not even a name he ever used. His name was Vlad Drăculea, or Vlad III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.184.218.214 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath and legacy

Moved this from the article as it has been marked as unreferenced since 2008. AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Radu managed to convince the Wallachians that paying the Jizya (tax on non-Muslims) and having him as their leader would be in their best interest. Vlad Ţepeş was abandoned and fled to Transylvania, where he was imprisoned by Corvinus for 12 years based on a forged letter that described him as asking the sultan for forgiveness and for an alliance against Hungary. He was released in 1474 and was soon on his way to Bosnia with a Hungarian army, where he captured towns and fortresses and impaled 8,000 Turks. Stephen of Moldavia had managed to capture Chilia and Akkerman and managed to defend them against the Ottomans at the Battle of Vaslui. The two cousins forged an alliance and in 1476, conquered Wallachia together; however, in December 1476, Vlad Ţepeş died in battle against the Ottomans. Radu had died of syphilis a year earlier (1475).

The conflict ended all Ottoman ambitions of annexing Wallachia to the empire. The Wallachian success left its mark in Romanian tradition and literature, as well as in other nations of the time.

"Turnu Severin"

It is said in the article that the Ottomans invaded the city of Turnu Severin. I'm a total newbie when it comes to Wallachian geography, but aren't those two separate cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjaroszewski (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jizya

He wasn't refusing to pay the jizya, since that is a per-head tax on non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire (or other Muslim states) proper; the Ottomans were treating Wallachia as a client state/tributary nation, not having annexed it, and thus were demanding tribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.223.218 (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Renaming?

There have been tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of attacks during the night in history. Can we rename this article to something less vague? 117.56.215.14 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this article seems to be so-named because this is how many reliable sources refer to it. Do you have a suggestion for an improved title? The Night Attack (Ottoman Wars in Europe) seems a little wonky. Plus, I don't think there are any other articles with a name like this, otherwise we'd have a disambiguation page with hundreds of thousands of articles for every nighttime raid that ever happened. But, most of those raids are in the context of other battles and wars that have their own names and are properly referenced on WP by the names of those battles and wars. By all accounts, this was THE proverbial Night Attack. Regards, <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Fear tactics claim

Hello All, The last sentence in the third paragraph, "Horrified, the Sultan and his troops retreated." is nonfactual. It certainly defies historic accounts of the events. I would like to see the evidence supporting this claim, if any exists. If not, I would like it removed as it desecrates the memroy of a great king and sultan who accomplished much thought to be impossbile till then. -Dominator1453 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the uncited statement in the lead is misleading regarding what the sources and the end of the article imply. The Ottomans retreated, but both sides claimed victory - I haven't seen any source confirming that he was actually horrified (both sides did things like impalement, AFAIK). The end of the lede (and the article itself) should put this in further perspective of the Ottoman wars in Europe, which is that while Vlad did temporarily stop the Ottoman advance, this would prove to be short-lived, and Wallachia would soon be overrun. As far as being a "great king who accomplished the impossible"... If conquering, torturing and killing thousands of people in wars for empire was the least bit impossible... well, what a world it would be! Anyway, maybe we can replace the 3rd paragraph with this:

"The assassination attempt failed and Mehmed marched to the Wallachian capital of Târgovişte, where he discovered another 20,000 impaled Turks. The Sultan and his troops sailed to Brăila, and burned it to the ground before retreating to Adrianople. Both sides would claim victory: while Pope Pius II proclaimed Vlad Ţepeş' campaign a success for Christianity, Mehmed II returned with many captured slaves, horses and cattle. The halt in the Ottoman advance would prove to be short-lived."

This is probably not perfectly ideal either, but I feel it's a start. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation Needed tag in lede

I initially removed the tag, but actually agree that it should remain. I removed it because I felt that the revision cleared up the previous reasons why the tag was placed - but I think now the main reason it should be there is that there is no context for the assertion that the "halt in the Ottoman advance would prove to be brief." According to the sources it was some thirteen years later that Vlad marched on Bosnia, resulting in an Ottoman counterattack on Wallachia ultimately culminating in Vlad's death. @Igoldste:, if we took out that last sentence of the lede do you think we could remove the tag? The rest of the lede is based on already-sourced elements within the article. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me.

Best, Ira Goldstein (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone check the sources around here?

This article has always stroke me as an unashamed hagiography to Vlad Tepes and somehow it has been a popular material for the Wikipedia's opening page for years. Out of curiosity I checked the source for the "deadly artistic use of the gunpowder" remark, which is listed as Joseph Geringer's book "Staggering the turks" in the article. The provided link by Wikipedia to crimelibrary.com is dead. A Google search on "Staggering the turks" title brings either this Wikipedia page or other sites which are copied from this page. Amazon has two books by an author named Joseph Geringer, one is "Drown the stage with tears" the other is titled "Near to me". Likewise in Google books. A search on Joseph Geringer name brings several people on LinkedIn, one of which is a person living in the Chicago area, considers himself an administrator and professional writer, lists the two books I mentioned above as his creative achievements and also states that (he) "wrote a series of deeply researched Internet books for the noted Crime Library". The only post secondary education he lists is his attendance to Saint Xavier university between 1973 and 1975. He does not mention anything about the title "Staggering the turks". So in short:

- Even if there ever was a source for the "deadly artistic" remark, it appears not to be a published book or peer reviewed historical article but just a piece written for a website.

- Even if there ever was a source for the "deadly artistic" remark it does not seem to exist anymore even over the internet.

- The supposed author of that piece neither makes a claim to nor lists any credentials to qualify him as a historian in his online vita.

Therefore there seems to be no verifiable basis to this article's statement: Historians credit Vlad Ţepeş as one of the first European crusaders to use gunpowder in a "deadly artistic way". Does such a thing matter to Wikipedia editors?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Night Attack at Târgovişte. 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/20061107091828/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107091828/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/vlad/turks_6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad Title

This article uses S-cedilla and T-cedilla, move it to S-comma and T-comma. 93.136.83.252 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, I went through and tried to fix as many of the errors in the page as I could, especially for the name 'Țepeș', but don't know how to fix the title. I'll post it to the Tea House and see if anyone can help. 2WR1 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Who was the winner?

What do reliable sources say about the outcome of the battle? Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

Bruhsmillah (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC) Result: Wallachian victory, sources: https://www.annalesfsu.ro/siteeng/Tome_XX/9IOncescu.pdf

 Note: As far as I can tell all this source says about the battle is Until the beginning of the 18th century the Romanians won, in the course of time, a series of victories against the Ottoman Empire (1394-Rovine, 1462-Târgoviște, 1475-Vaslui, 1595-Călugăreni) but winning these battles did not mean that they won the war against the Ottomans. I'm not sure if that's enough to change the infobox. What I will say, based on the pictures in the article, is that Vlad won the battle of mustaches. Leaving this open for other input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Failed verification as above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Per this version it's been described as a victory for either side, assuming the references are cited correctly. Per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict, it's either "x victory" or "Inconclusive", which is why it was amended from that version to start with. FDW777 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ElDiabloChico, please see above for the reasoning for my reverts. Please discuss per WP:BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wallachians have won, most sources claim this and also all the wikipedia pages in foreign languages. Mehmet left Wallachia so it can't surely be an ottoman victory either. Marlon1505 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marlon1505:, #1 if you make the claim that "most sources" state a result you need to produce those sources so they can be compared to what has already been considered above. #2, each language Wikipedia is an independent project and there is no particular reason or motivation to recognize what one language says about an event in another. If you want to produce the sources that those other articles use, and those sources are supportive, then they might add to the discussion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The reference cited in the version above, Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler (edited by Kurt Treptow) says In all likelihood, the unsuccessful night attack on the Sultan's camp marked Dracula's defeat . . The failure of the night attack made it clear that Dracula's forces were no match for the power of the Imperial army.

Wallachian "victory"

It was clearly a Wallachian win, Vlad the III won in the field ElDiabloChico (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@ElDiabloChico:, if you want to change the "result" parameter, we need something more than one editor's opinion. We need verifiable reliable sources that make this statement which we can cite. See above for a previous failed attempt at verifying such a change. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't the lack of references, but that the ones that do exist don't agree who won. In situations like that, the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict are to use "Inconclusive". FDW777 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

En quoi a t'il gagnait ? Il a échouer a l'assassinat de Mehmed 2 Radu devient le souverain de la Valachie Raziel1975S (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

My source is ElDiabloChico (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the last post in the thread? Victory for both sides can be referenced, therefore the infobox instructions say to use "Inconclusive". FDW777 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read the sources

ElDiabloChico (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to, since there's a reference that disagrees and says the Ottomans won. You can pretend it doesn't exist as much as you like, it does and it prevents your preferred version per WP:NPOV. FDW777 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an Ottoman victory, I agree.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Wallachia victory

🇷🇴 46.97.176.14 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have better reason than a flag? ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

restul= Walachian victory Bold text 46.97.176.244 (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Vlad killed Bulgarians and Turks not just "Turks"

Sources say: Vlad informed Matthias Corvinus about the military action in a letter on 11 February 1462. Vlad said he killed "20,000+ Turks and Bulgarians not counting those who were burned in their own house .."

The sources doesn't say "Christian" Bulgarians were spared. Here are book names: You can look them in google books in page no#

1. Babinger, Franz (1978). Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-09900-2. (p. 204)

2. Treptow, Kurt W. (2000). Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula. The Center of Romanian Studies. ISBN 978-973-98392-2-8. (page 124)

"Wallachian tactical victory"

The Template:Infobox military conflict says: Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. thus, it isn't appropriate to put this. Also if the ultimate goal of Wallachians were to assassinate Mehmed II, then how is this a victory since they're the attacker side? If both sides claimed victory, then it should either "Both sides claims victory" or remove it totally. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Title

Is this title a commonname? I see some sources call it a battle as well. When did the title become like this? Anyone has an idea? Beshogur (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Chronology of the background

Hi all. While digging into the history of this article, I couldn't help but notice that this article, Mehmed II and Vlad the Impaler have variations on how the war started. Curiously, this well produced YouTube video from a respected creator includes an Ottoman retaliatory raid for Vlad III's support for Steven III of Moldavia, which is put forward as the primary reason why Vlad refused to pay tribute and submit to Ottoman vassalage, and was therefore his de-facto casus belli. This info doesn't exist in the articles here, and although Youtube is obviously not a reliable source, I am interested in where they sourced that information. Does anyone have an original source? Regardless, all three articles explore the same conflict, so we should look into better synchronising their perspectives of the war. SuperTah (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Bütün Osmanlı kaynakları ve Osmanlı tarihçileri bu savaşın Osmanlı zaferi olduğunu söylüyor, Mehmed geri çekildi diyorsunuz ama Mehmed'in ordusu Eflak'ın başkenti targoviste'ye kadar giriyor geri çekildi derken neyi kastediyorsunuz? Ömür boyu orada kalacak değil ya. Mehmed Vlad'ın planından casuslar aracılığı ile haberdar oluyor ve sahte karargah kurup ordusunu düzene sokuyor. Eflak ordusu saldırdığı sırada Uzunçarşılı ve birçok tarihçi Osmanlı ordusunda sadece bir kaç at ve deve kaybedildiğini söylüyor. Vlad canını zor kurtararak kaçıyor Mehmed peşinden adamlar gönderiyor. Bu savaş nasıl sonuçsuz olabilir acaba? Keremmardaa (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"Inconclusive"

Kansas Bear You claim that the war was inconclusive. The sources I have given are Halil İnalcık (he is the greatest historian and scientist in the field of Ottoman history). And he says that Vlad was punished in their war. John Freely (an American Physicist and Historian) bluntly says that Mehmed defeated Vlad. And there are no arguments to claim a Wallachian victory. Wallachian army and Vlad's aim is to kill Mehmed, this is the plan of the war, but they cannot succeed. And the war cannot achieve its purpose. When the Wallachian army started to disperse during the night war, it began to retreat and fled unevenly. Mehmed sent Mihaloğlu Ali Bey after them and brought a lot of Wallachian captives. After the war, Mehmed enters the Targovişte castle and appoints Radu as the ruler and starts the Ottoman domination in Wallachia, which will last for 450 years. Mehmed reaches the goal of his expedition and returns to his country. I don't think any source will write that Mehmed withdrew after the war. He ended the expedition when Mehmed conquered Wallachia and left Radu as the ruler. What is Vlad's gain in this war and how can it be a victory? Keremmaarda (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Kansas Bear You claim that the war was inconclusive."

Wrong. I claim nothing. Apparently you can not read or understand English. I have said THREE TIMES this is a GA article, as such you can not change information without discussion/consensus.[1][2][3] Typical of other types of POV editors, this has nothing to do with me, which you have decided to mention, but about getting consensus for a change.

Odd how you have brought ZERO quotes from any sources to support your claim. Yet you and your friend(s) have been edit warring since 5 August to change this to what you think is proper. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that really all you're stuck with? Here I am commenting on the war and presenting my arguments. Vlad has no gains in this war. Evaluate my arguments, and if you don't believe me, you can come up with an opinion by examining other sources. Aren't you a moderator? Isn't that your job? Keremmaarda (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Is that really all you're stuck with? Here I am commenting on the war and presenting my arguments."

Oh, your "arguments" which are not supported by anything except your own opinion, as far as I can tell. Where are your quotes? Your sources? Surely one of your edit-warring friends have that ability?

• "Aren't you a moderator? Isn't that your job?"

It is not my job to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you, since you want to make a change. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You deny what I proved with sources :D. If you don't trust me, research it yourself. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

So you have no quotes or evidence. Got it. Next time, I will just report you or one of your friends for tag-team edit warring. Done here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't you read or write? You reject the quotes and sources I have given. Keremmaarda (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Last warning for the personal attack, you have provided NO quotes. Where are these quotes?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You say the same things to me, is it a personal attack when you do it, is it a personal attack when I do it? And what kind of quote do you want, because you reject the quotes I gave you. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Keremmaarda. Please self-revert yourself. You've already made more than four reverts. I don't know why this issue got overcomplicated. Just provide the quotes from the sources in Turkish here and if you cannot translate them, then we can find someone who can. By the way, you're supposed to provide direct quotes from the sources you want to cite, not paraphrased content. That will help editors verify the content of the sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I will ask one last time where are your quotes. I said, "The burden of proof is on you, since you want to change what a GA article states(to repeat what I have said 4 times now). Judging from your lack of understanding, you should not edit English Wikipedia." You have given nothing but your opinion, and continue to ignore what I have said about GA articles. If you fail to provide quotes from the sources you are using, I will be contacting an admin. Considering you have been blocked before for personal attacks, your block may be permanent. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make a personal attack against you. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If I give a source of a book, can you examine the content? Or should it be in PDF style? Keremmaarda (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just provide the quotes directly here, since I assume that you have access to the sources. Can these sources be previewed anywhere? Like on Google Books or Internet Archive? It's just so that editors can ensure that the quotes you're providing here are authentic too. By the way, I hope that you assume good faith and self-revert while the discussion is ongoing. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

When I wrote about the Ottoman victory (in the editing history), I gave references from 3 books, can you review them? Otherwise, I will know for a long time to find other quotes and I can make you wait. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The English name of the book from John Freely you're trying to cite is "The Grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II - Conqueror of Constantinople and Master of an Empire", correct? If so, I can try to gain access to that source. Since it's in English, it'll be easier to find a quote for it too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is the english version. But I don't know the number of pages in the english book. Thank you for helping. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the source then. Editors can preview it themselves. I can preview one of the Turkish books on Google Books, but it has no page numbers. For verification of those two other sources, you can ask for assistance from WP:WRE. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the source I'm talking about. He clearly says that Mehmed defeated Vlad. Can it be used as a source for an Ottoman victory? Keremmaarda (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well no and there are several reasons:

1. It's one source.

2. The reliability of the source is questionable. The source was written by a person who is best known for being a physicist. From what I can see, Freely did not have a degree in history or any other field relevant for the subject. Per WP:RS, an author can affect a source's reliability too.

3. You should have been told from the beginning, but before making changes to an infobox, you should also make changes and/or add content in the article's body too. The infobox simply reflects the article's body (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE).

Your best bet is to find some English-language reliable sources regarding this subject. As for the Turkish sources, you can request for assistance from the above mentioned. You should know that when you are citing sources (be it English or non-English), you should be prepared to provide quotes too, especially for the purpose of verification. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

But John Freely carried out studies in the field of Oxford history science. https://www.kitapyurdu.com/yazar/john-freely/4661.html

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vlad-the-Impaler And in Britannica it says that Vlad withdrew from the war that took place in 1462. Keremmaarda (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is another resource I found. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/11/vlad-the-impalers-thirst-for-blood-was-an-inspiration-for-count-dracula The National Geographic page writes that the Turks were victorious. The Turks ultimately prevailed because the Walachian boyars had defected to Radu, Vlad III’s brother. Radu guaranteed the aristocracy that by siding with the Ottomans, they would regain the privileges that Vlad III had stripped from them. Radu attracted support from the Romanian population, who were tired of Vlad III’s bloodlust. Keremmaarda (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

All right. I might be wrong about Freely, but point 3 still applies. You can freely contribute to the article, but if you get reverted, you'll need to discuss it. I'm sure there are plenty of sources on Google Books and Google Scholar. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So can I write Ottoman victory now? And I didn't quite understand the 3rd item. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, don't touch the infobox for now. Focus on the article's body instead, particularly the battle section. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I apologize if I made any disrespect. I will pay more attention to myself. Keremmaarda (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi StephenMacky1, Kansas Bear, please check carefully the activity of Keremmaarda on many Ottoman battle articles,

he rewrote the famous Siege of Belgrade 1456 as Ottoman victory: User talk:OrionNimrod#Siege of Belgrade and there are many similar edits by possible socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda OrionNimrod (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I never wrote that there was an Ottoman victory. Keremmaarda (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

You wrote "Turks won the field battle" and Pyrrhic Hungarian victory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1171488726

Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#Ottoman victory??? OrionNimrod (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the Turks are winning the pitched battle. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not like this in your source, Ottomans were defeated front of the castle and they fled. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

I see this battle article is a place of edit war to claim Wallachian or Ottoman victory. I suggest first we need collect and provide reliable academic historical sources about the battle. By Romanian historians, by Turkish historians, other historians.

For example I found this in Hungarian history source:

https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0011/828.html (fast google translate, so not perfect)

Mehmed wanted to counter this audacity by example, and therefore, returning victorious from Asia Minor in the fall of 1461, he prepared the most intensively for the campaign in Wallachia throughout the winter, and at the end of the spring of 1462, he suddenly with an army of 250,000 men,[7] magnificently prepared, amply equipped with siege weapons and fired up for bloody revenge attacked Wallachia, against which Stephen, the Voivode of Moldavia, advanced offensively on his orders. Having just returned from the parliament in May in Buda[8], Vlad was shocked to learn of the imminent danger to his country and, in accordance with the alliance treaty, he immediately asked for help from King Matthias, however, realizing that he could not expect it to arrive anytime soon, he divided his army of about 10,000 men, which he had quickly assembled, into two parts. He sent the smaller part against the Moldavian voivode, while with the larger part he wanted to go against the Sultan himself. But he soon became convinced that he could not successfully resist such a large force on a flat field, so he came up with another solution. He gave the order that all the cattle should always be driven up from the enemy towards the mountains, and that the food should either be hidden or destroyed, after which the women and children should also gradually move up into the mountains, while the men all grabbed weapons, he to join him. With the people gathered around him, he then hid in the woods, stalking the Turkish army from a distance, carefully avoiding a decisive clash with it, but where he came across smaller enemy groups, he ruthlessly cut them to pieces.

The Turkish army, finding no significant enemy anywhere in front of them, quickly trusted themselves and did not think much about security regulations. He wanted to use this to Vlad's advantage, and on one night he carried out a raid against the Turkish main camp with ten, others say seven thousand horsemen with the determined intention of bringing the sultan under his power. The skilfully executed raid caused great panic in the Turkish camp at the beginning, but neither the capture of the Sultan nor the definitive defeat of the Turkish army was succeeded, and Vlad had to leave as soon as possible, unless he wanted him and his men to get into the worst trouble. It was a good lesson for both of them; the Turks were more careful from now on, and Vlad allowed his opponent to go on unharmed. Arriving at Targoviste, the capital of the country at the time, he came across the place where Vlad had so cruelly executed the prisoners brought back from last year's campaign. On the half-hour-long and quarter-hour-wide field, nearly 20,000 people, men, women and children, were drawn on skewers, among them Hamza Beg on the highest pole, wrapped in crimson and velvet.

The sultan continued his advance for some time, while here and there he defeated small groups of Wallachian who acted more boldly after the departure of Vlad, who rushed to the aid of the Moldavian group, but then, in order to settle the conflict over the island of Lesbos, he began to retreat with the bulk of his army at the beginning of autumn, taking countless prisoners and taking with him 200,000 horses and cattle.[9]

A part of the Turkish army, under the command of Ali Bey, stayed behind with the Sultan's favor, Vlad's younger brother Radul. The Vlachs, who had themselves unsatisfied Vlad's abominable cruelties, slowly all defected to Radul, while Vlad, who had reached the Moldavian front and successfully confronted Voivod Stephen, who was besieging Kilia, was forced to flee to Hungary, where he was completely abandoned.[10] Before that, he sought the favor of the Sultan, to appease whom he promised to acquire Transylvania for him, from where he could easily lay his hands on all of Hungary. But the sultan didn't want to hear from the treacherous Vlad anymore, so he again turned to the Hungarians for help.[11] OrionNimrod (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying the war was a Turkish victory? Keremmaarda (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My goal to list all historical sources from many historians see what is the historial opinion about the subject, that is only 1 what I found fast. So please show us your sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I gave all the necessary sources, but it was rejected because it was a "Turkish" source. Only John Freely's source was accepted. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add readable links and text as I did, also we need the Romanian and other foreign sources as well (English, German etc historians) OrionNimrod (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Btw I see a Turkish user said that your Turkish sources are not reliable [4] OrionNimrod (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

User: Beshogur Are Halil İnalcık and Yılmaz Öztuna unreliable historians? I think Mr. Beshogur said the Netflix source wasn't trustworthy. Keremmaarda (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking for such resources anyway, so I'll edit the "war" part a little late. Keremmaarda (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• This was obviously not an Ottoman victory. The Wallachians unexpectedly attacked Mehmed II's camp and made him retreat. Vlad left Wallachia because his claimant for the throne Radu ended up amassing more political influence in Wallachia, not because he failed to kill Mehmed in this attack. The battle is already explained in detail in the article (the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article), and other articles also explain this historical period, see Vlad the Impaler#Ottoman war and Vlad the Impaler#Imprisonment in Hungary. Users attempting to show this battle as a Turkish victory have been continously reverted by several users, and the stable version is neutral and uncontroversial. Why put so much effort in cherrypicking sources to prove a point? I could find sources calling this a Wallachian victory that humilliated Mehmed II just as easily. In such a contentious topic area, we must know which sources to pick and which not. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Vlad's aim in the war was to kill Mehmed and disperse the Ottoman army. But the Ottoman army entered the Targoviste castle in the morning. You claim that Mehmed retreated after your country was captured by the Ottomans? Mehmed successfully completed his campaign and achieved his goal. In the Rise of Empires Ottoman documentary, this war was accepted as an Ottoman victory by Romanian and Turkish historians. And we are examining only this war, not a general campaign. Vlad could not achieve his goal in the war, the principality of Wallachia was ultimately annexed to the Ottoman Empire, Vlad was captured in Hungary, and Mehmed elevated his protégé Radu to the throne. Who do you think is more profitable in this war? And the person who retreats from the battlefield is Vlad, not Mehmed. Mehmed even sent Mihaloğlu Ali Bey after Vlad. And Mihaloğlu Ali Bey returned with 2000 Wallachian prisoners. After completing the campaign and conquering Wallachia, Mehmed retreated, as he was not in a position to live there for the rest of his life. There is no point in Mehmed staying there after the country is captured. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Per Vlad the Impaler#Ottoman war, the Ottoman army left for Brăila after the attack in Târgoviște and then left Wallachia. More battles followed, and eventually Vlad left for Hungary since many of his troops deserted to Radu. It is clear Vlad did not leave Wallachia after the fighting at Târgoviște, since it is stated that Wallachia defended Chilia against a Moldavian attack by Stephen the Great a few days later. Mehmed II#Submission of Wallachia (1459–1462) (read the last paragraph) does not attribute the fleeing of Vlad to Hungary to the failure of killing Mehmed II at Târgoviște either, but to his posterior loss of political influence. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This article's lead states Mehmed II's aim was to annex Wallachia, which failed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the page actually needs a radical change. Because there are so many mistakes. If Mehmed had failed, Wallachia would not have continued its existence under the Ottoman Empire. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, it did because of Radu's ascension to power. During Vlad's reign, which continued beyond the attack at Târgoviște, he did not pay tribute. Here are some sources, [5] (page 157) this one says Vlad failed to kill Mehmed II due to the betrayal of his boyars (nobles) who sided with Radu. This source says the same [6] (page 19). Read page 40 here [7], Mehmed II advanced to empty Târgoviște and then left without having achieved any decisive victory agaisnt the Wallachian army, later making an agreement with Wallachian boyars which made Vlad leave. All of these are Romanian authors, this seems to be the prevalent view.

This battle simply did not cause Vlad to leave, that happened later. This was not an Ottoman victory.

As for this [8], the infobox had included that for a long time prior to this sudden edit war wave, so the burden to get consensus would fall on those who want to remove it. I am willing to discuss its inclusion. I think it is relevant. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, could you show the Romanian sources and the text about the subject?

Hi Keremmaarda Just a really fast example, we all know the Germans lost WW2 but they won many battles during the full war like Battle of Kalach.

Based on the name of the article this is just 1 battle not the full campaigns of the year, so we need present that info in the infobox which is based on the article text. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm trying to explain. But some are looking at a general expedition. And Mehmed's army enters Targovişte castle after this war. This is an undeniable fact. (I can cite many sources indicating that he entered the Targovishte castle). Keremmaarda (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was empty, and he left shortly afterwards. Mehmed II did not manage to annex Wallachia as he intended, and Vlad still paid no tribute. Nobody achieved their objectives.

OrionNimrod, I've mentioned some Romanian sources above. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was empty, and he left shortly afterwards. Mehmed II did not manage to annex Wallachia as he intended, and Vlad still paid no tribute. Nobody achieved their objectives. Mehmed didn't wanted to annex Wallachia. And no doubt the campaign was a victory for Mehmed, however this page is written in such style that it is about the whole campaign, not this particular battle. We lack about a campaign article separate from this. Beshogur (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the article, Mehmed II aimed to annex Wallachia. The campaign might be more uncontroversial to refer to as an Ottoman victory however what did they even achieve? To my understanding, the Ottomans got ambushed, entered an empty capital, sacked Brăila and took some loot from Wallachia in general. Only the last part can really be defined as a victory. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Mehmed managed to annex Wallachia to himself and left this campaign with a much larger profit. So what did Vlad gain? Keremmaarda (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire never annexed Wallachia, much less Mehmed II. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The only source is "Florescu, McNally, Dracula, p. 139". By a Romanian historian. So, doubtful. Mehmed restored the vassalage, which is pretty much a victory. Beshogur (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So why are we still arguing? Don't you think it's ridiculous to declare a whole war inconclusive based on a single source? This page needs serious study and it talks about the entire campaign, not just the battle. And the source given is not a visible source. But I am citing a visible PDF. Keremmaarda (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous to make such certain statements while being seemingly unknowledgable of the history and context of the discussed subject. I see a lack of awareness among the opposing side regarding Radu's direct role in the change of throne in Wallachia. Which is something separate from Mehmed II's campaign. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I find it unhelpful to suggest that we would not trust Romanian authors about something that happened in Romania. There's not any benefit from excluding the majority of authors researching this topic based only on their nationality. And one of those surnames is not even Romanian. Mehmed II did not restore vassalage by receiving an ambush. He left Wallachia while Radu, supported by Ottoman troops, stayed in Wallachia after Mehmed's departure, and Vlad defeated him twice until he saw himself forced to leave due to Radu's growing political influence. And then Radu made Wallachia a vassal once again. This was months after the night attack at Târgoviște. All this per Vlad the Impaler#Ottoman war.

The discussion has gotten quite lengthy yet I don't see any evidence that would suggest this was an Ottoman victory. Mehmed II was ambushed and per some sources he had heavy casualties, how is that a victory? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed victory from the infobox. Also checked the whole page, not seeing Vlad claiming any victory either. Also we need another page for the campaign, which was a victory for Mehmed. Beshogur (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest creating a separate article called Wallachian campaign (1462). Beshogur (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise move this to that page, and move the infobox to Night_Attack_at_Târgoviște#Battle section. Because it is misleading. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This battle is the only armed engagement of Mehmed II's 1462 campaign in Wallachia. Only things we could mention could be the chasing of the retreating Wallachian troops and the sacking of the Wallachian countryside and of Brăila. The current title is also much more recognisable and also more common and popular (a lot of sources use the "night attack" to describe the fighting at Târgoviște [9]). I do not believe any change is necessary. But you're free to start a RM or write an article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Academic historians such as Franz Babinger, Selahattin Tansel, İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı write that the Ottoman army lost several camels and horses. There is no mention of a large amount of military loss. If you want, I can prove these to you in 3 PDFs. And check out the source from StephenMacky above. American historian John Freely writes clearly that Mehmed defeated Vlad. Keremmaarda (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mr. OrionNimrod and Beshogur. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1047941693749592094/1059126027655315566/Osmanl_Kaynaklarna_Gore_Fatih_Sultan_Mehmedin_Siyasi_ve_Askeri_Faaliyeti_Selahattin_Tansel_z-lib.org.pdf I wonder if you can review pages 167-168 of the PDF I gave you? It is claimed in the information box that Mehmed withdrew after the war, but the source I gave says that it was Vlad and his army who withdrew from the war. He even sent an army under the command of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey to go after Vlad and bring 2700 prisoners. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus:

• Better to avoid "Inconclusive" and simply add the real intention, which is "Wallachian failure of assassinating Mehmed II". "Retreat of Mehmed II and his forces" is misleading, since the campaign continued. How could Mehmed retreat after the battle?
• Regarding Romanian historian. I don't see anywhere else that the purpose was annex Wallachia. Mehmed re vassalized Wallachia, which was the purpose. And that's only mentioned in that particular source (we don't even know if that's even mentioned in the source). + the whole article is a translation of Romanian wikipedia, which confirms my POV point. I don't even know how this is a good article. (Just checked, the article did barely change since 2007, so maybe Romanian wiki page is a copy of this one)

Beshogur (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Mehmed II did not engage the Wallachian army following the fighting at Târgoviște and left Wallachia. Read page 40 here [10]. Mehmed II failed as well in his aim to subjugate Vlad and Wallachia through military means. There was no campaign after this, there were no futher military engagements.

Beresford briefly shows how there are conflicting reports regarding this event [11] (page 88). We are reaching a ridiculous situation in the infobox [12]. Could we please stop messing around with the article until we achieve consensus? I don't even have time to respond to two separate editors' comments because I have to add content to the article because the discussion keeps being omitted. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Mehmed retreated?

Super DromaeosaurusThe source you gave does not say that Mehmed retreated after the war. Keremmaarda (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"After advancing up to Târgoviște, the country's capital, which he found empty, the sultan decided the [to*, I assume] retreat without having been able to engage in any decisive battle with the Romanian army". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

How many times do I really have to tell you? This article only mentions the "Targovishte night attack". If you want to provide this information, open another page under the name Wallachian expedition. And Mehmed is not in a position to stay there forever, he will definitely return to his own country. Keremmaarda (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The next time you use tone such as How many times do I really have to tell you? I will refrain from discussing with you. We are not in the street so do not talk to me like it.

You claim that This article only mentions the "Targovishte night attack" (Mehmed II left Târgoviște one day after the night attack, you're implying the next day is not within the scope of this article) yet still argue that it was an Ottoman victory because Vlad ended up leaving Wallachia. Which he did in November (read Vlad the Impaler#Imprisonment in Hungary). Please clarify your position. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• "The latter manages to provoke chaos in the enemy camp through a night attack, but betrayed by some of the boyars he withdraws to Transylvania." [13] (page 19). "The famous "night attack" on the Ottoman camp did not succeed in spite of the prince's bravery because of the betrayal of the great boyars who had decided to side with the new prince Radu "cel Frumos", Vlad Țepeș's brother, brought and supported by Sultan Mehmed II" [14] (page 157, further supported by two authors). Vlad left Wallachia for political reasons, not because of any military engagement. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're still telling me about the general expedition. I am only dealing with the issues that took place during the war. Do you claim that Mehmed and his army retreated after this war? Keremmaarda (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The attack at Târgoviște was the only military engagement between Wallachians and Ottomans during Mehmed II's campaign in Wallachia. They're largely synonymous. Yes, I claim Mehmed II left Wallachia after the attack at Târgoviște. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keremmaarda, I am thinking of restoring Beshogur's far simpler version of the infobox [15]. It does not talk of victory or defeat. Would you agree to it? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes this will be better. Keremmaarda (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Does this conclude the dispute? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Super Dromaeosaurus

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_attack_at_T%C3%A2rgovi%C8%99te&diff=prev&oldid=1191740981

I have a remark of your edit. I see that a tendency by certain users who are using 500 years old Ottoman propaganda sources (never mention lost battles, the sultan is the “God”, enemies like Hunyadi depicted by a very bad image, enemy armies are very big, etc)

If a battle lost by Ottomans they pretend that the are not lost “just went home after a friendly picnic because of the bad weather” and if Ottomans won they claim that was very heroic because the enemy was much bigger. Like 200,000 estimation of the Hungarian army at Mohacs which is quite irreal:

Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army

Turkish wiki use that source which say Ottomans had only 100,000 soldiers but Hungarians had 200,000 overpower which source is from the court of thr sultan 500 years ago to make more boastful of his victory. I tried to remove that irreal Hungarian army number but Turkish wikipedian said that is good source :)

https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moha%C3%A7_Muharebesi_(1526) OrionNimrod (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I would let it go. Wikipedias in a certain language can be very impartial for topics related to the country the language is spoken in. It could be like expecting neutrality from Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias in articles about the Russo-Ukrainian War, which is often not the case. Turkey in particular is a very nationalism-prone country. Most Wikpedias do not have the amount of users English Wikipedia has to do appropriate quality and neutrality control, and they're also less cosmopolitan than the English one and the majority of people may have a heated opinion regarding a certain topic because it's about their country. For one's own mental health I would advice against trying to cover topics related to one's country in all Wikipedias. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

) yes, you are right. I am not intend to do, just I shared my experience. This was also a strange experience Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"? (And this is not an event which debated by historians who had different view like in many other well known topics) OrionNimrod (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that sources typically use the term "night attack" in lowercase. Alternate proposals did not achieve consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Night Attack at Târgoviște → Night attack at Târgoviște – Virtually no sources capitalize "night attack" [16]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the name of the page should be simply "Battle of Târgoviste" Keremmaarda (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's barely used [17], so probably not the best alternative. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Move simplification, however I'm not sure if "night attack" is an actual title or a wiki influence (that some authors use), since this page is very old and popular the same time. Not sure how it appears in Romanian sources, maybe it could be a translation. I'm still in favor to move this to a Wallachian campaign (1462), and move the infobox below at "Battle" section, and maybe change the section title to "Night attack" or create a separate page for the campaign. See google books for the name "Wallachian campaign", not so popular but used by many people. Also it is known as Eflak seferi in Turkish. Beshogur (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also there is a fact that every other wiki page was copied from this, so we can't get a good example. Beshogur (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Again I am opposed to the splitting proposal since the only significant military engagement of the campaign was this battle. Also notice that this article was originally based mostly in one source [18], which already used "night attack" to name this incident [19] (open edition from 2009, the original appears to be from 1989 and cannot be accessed [20]). It is a fair assumption that this article might have popularised this name but it did not originate it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support either Night attack at Târgoviște or Battle of Târgoviște. The original title in 2006 was The Night Attack. Sources about it usually have "night attack" lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 23 September 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.

Casualties

Frankly I cannot understand just why is this article so continously problematic.

Keremmaarda, you reverted me [21] invoking WP:WPNOTRS over primary sources. No primary sources are cited on the article, they are secondary sources. We aren't for example citing Leonardo Tocco's letter to the duke of Milan, we are citing an author who is analysing the letter and its contents, that constitutes a secondary source and they're the most desired source in Wikipedia. You claim that It is a political tactic to show your own army as strong to the enemy army. This is speculation of yours unless backed by a source describing this as a possibility, and in any case this would need to go attributed ("X person said that...") unless it is proven that this is the majoritary view in academia, which I find unlikely. May I also note you're removing reliably cited information from the infobox. The source you've cited seems inferior to the ones currently present in the article. We have contemporary figures citing certain numbers, including Mehmed II himself but not only, and Akyol İbrahim and Eliaçık Muhittin take priority? They do not mention the so-far speculation you've mentioned. They also do not cite any source, other than "Osmanlı Ansiklopedisi", which I doubt is particularly exhaustive on this period of Ottoman history considering it likely covers the totality of it. I also doubt that İbrahim and Muhittin are the only people having recently (as in, the last two centuries) talked about this so as to mention their one particular source as "Modern source" in parentheses in the infobox. Finally, currently the article states that the Ottomans 10,000 to 15,000 losses. If we were to stick by the source you've cited, we would be implying the Ottomans lost 66%-100% of their army, which is clearly not true.

I find your apportation unexhaustive and highly problematic. You've replaced several secondary sources citing primary ones for a single secondary source which does not cite any primary source. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, İbrahim Akyol and Muhittin Eliaçık are being discussed because one of them is a professor and the other one has a doctorate. Tursun Beg and Mehmed's own claim are counted among period sources (I have not seen Mehmed's own claim of 150,000 in any primary Ottoman source). Tursun Bey claims that there are 300,000, but these are period sources. And it is not your place to reject the source I gave. You are not a historian or an expert in the field of history, you are just an editor here, you cannot remove the source I gave you because it does not match your own view and opinion. This is just your interpretation, not any historian's. Keremmaarda (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what period sources are. I can also find sources giving random numbers for the Ottoman army. In fact, none of the ones I've found give such a low figure. I've looked up "Night attack at Târgoviște" in Google Scholar [22], here is what sources that I could access not written by Romanians (I shouldn't even be excluding them because I have no reason to, but seemingly you have a problem with them) say. Kaplan 2011 says 250,000 (p. 34), Treptow 2022 says 250,000 as well, Light 2016 also says 250,000 (p. 42). Miller 2005 describes the Wallachian army as "badly outnumbered" (p. 95), very different from the fringe claim that the Wallachian army was somehow twice as big as the Ottoman one. I've gone through 5 result pages, with 10 each, and not a single source is even close to 15,000, which I remind contradicts all contemporary sources.

So which ones do we use? Your random sources or mines? How about sticking to what people living at the time said? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, for example that Hungarian source mentions 250,000 Ottoman and 10,000 Wallachian army in that 1462 battle [23] OrionNimrod (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That Hungarian source does not say number just that "Vlad himself must have been under no illusions about the purpose of the Ottoman mobilization and so, as his forces were much inferior to those of the sultan"

2018, Pálosfalvi, Tamás – From Nicopolis to Mohács: A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526

At the end of April Mehmed ii left Istanbul in order to take personal com­ mand of the army that was to punish Vlad and remove him from power alto­ gether.86 As usual, however, the news flowing through the various channels to Buda was manifold and difficult to check: some maintained that the sultan’goal was Wallachia, others thought he would attack Transylvania, while still others feared a campaign against Belgrade. Indeed, the diet that had been con­ voked to provide the money needed for the practical implementation of the agreements made with Frederick iii and Jiskra began to dissolve as the lords and nobles with lands in the southern regions left to protect their estates.87 What was certain were the impressive preparations made by the Ottomans on both land and water, with hundreds of river vessels heading for Vidin.88 Vo­ evode Vlad himself must have been under no illusions about the purpose of the Ottoman mobilization and so, as his forces were much inferior to those of the sultan, he resorted to the traditional scorched earth policy and relocated much of the population of his principality into the densely­forested areas of Wallachia. Because of a lack of money, all Matthias could do was send rein­ forcements by water to Belgrade,89 but it was evident that he would be unable to give Vlad much help. Besides imploring all the prelates, barons, and nobles of the realm to take up arms and go to Szeged, designated as the point of con­ centration, he also ordered the voevode of Transylvania to gather all nobles and non­nobles capable of taking the field and hurry to the help of Vlad, al­ though it is unlikely that major forces crossed the border.90 Some of the king’s councillors went so far as to state that it was a grave error not to have accepted the peace offer made by the Ottomans earlier. Despite some minor successes, Vlad proved unable to thwart the Ottoman invasion. By the beginning of July Mehmed ii had left Wallachia, entrusting its government to Vlad’s brother Radu as a vassal prince, under the supervision of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey. As rumours about the sultan’s intention to turn against Belgrade as soon as he had finished his Wallachian venture persisted,91 Matth­ ias finally went to Szeged in the first days of August. Then, evidently learning of the sultan’s departure for Istanbul and thence to Anatolia,92 he proceeded to Transylvania, where he was to spend the entire autumn. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia does not attach importance to period sources. And the historians you gave use period sources as references. It is not possible to provide logistical support for 250,000 people. It is an obvious fact that the number 15,000 is more modern and reliable than the sources you gave. Where will you march 250,000 people? They need food, and Franz Babinger says that the Ottoman army reached 72 thousand people in 1476. Considering these, it is certain that the sources you gave did not emerge as a result of modern research. Keremmaarda (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That is true that contemporary Chalkokondyles mention 250,000, and Dukas and Fessler mention just 150,000. (Hungarian source says that) But Palosfalvi is a modern historian and clearly say without any number that the Ottoman army was bigger. I suggest to list all estimations by historians.

In the other way I think if is funny that "Turkish wiki say based on the contemporary Ottoman sources" that at the battle of Mohacs the Hungarian army was 200,000 and the Ottoman just 100,000. That huge number for the Hungarian army is very irreal.

Btw in all Ottoman battles the Ottoman army was much higher than the Christians, the Ottoman empire was big and had good organization skill to gather huge number of army in the next year even if they lost battle, but the Kingdom of Hungary was unable to do this if they lost a battle. Just later in the 17th century the Chirstians were able to build same high number of armies and that time they have superior weapons and tactic so they were able to defeat the Ottomans.

Super Dromaeosaurus has right, the Wallachian forces cannot be higher than the Ottomans. Morover the Wallachian army cannot be 300,000 if "allegedly they were twice as the Ottomans" if you accept 150,000. Perhaps Wallachia could have total 300,000 population at that time. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr. OrionNimrod, our topic is not the Battle of Mohács or the Ottoman wars with the Crusaders. Keremmaarda (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Keremmaarda, your personal analysis is completely irrelevant. It is not possible to provide logistical support for 250,000 people is your personal opinion. It is an obvious fact that the number 15,000 is more modern and reliable is not only your personal opinion but also not an obvious fact. They need food, yes and Franz Babinger says that the Ottoman army reached 72 thousand people in 1476 we are discussing the 1462 night attack though. You need sources explicitly saying that these higher estimations are unrealistic for X and Y reason. You cannot use a source for 1476 to talk about 1462. All of these violate WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

You also have a clear misunderstanding on what primary ("period") sources are. They are the indispensable sources historians use to write and analyse history. Without them there'd be nothing at all. Secondary sources consist on experts and specialists analysing these primary sources, which may have been written for example by a peasant unaware of many things, and see what is true, what is right, what can we draw from it. In a volunteer-based project like Wikipedia is, in which anybody can write, these secondary sources are the indispensable ones, we write what the experts say instead of writing whatever we want from the original. If you cite the primary source directly, such as the letter to the duke of Milan, that is not appropriate here. If you cite Florescu and McNally talking about the letter to the duke of Milan, that is a perfectly valid secondary source. If you cite İbrahim and Muhittin, who cite a number that contradicts all sources including contemporary ones, apparently out of nowhere and not based in any primary source or explanation of it, that is also not appropriate.

I will give you some time to find more appropriate sources to substantiate this so-far fringe and contradictory 15,000 army claim. I will revert you if this is not possible. I urge you please not to prolong this unnecessary dispute because of your misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It is your own interpretation to reject the source I gave. And no, you can't delete my source, I provide the necessary reference there, you can't remove it because it doesn't fit your idea. Since you keep adding your own interpretation, I presented an argument by adding my own interpretation. And the primary sources I'm talking about are people like Tursun Bey. It is not Mcnalley. Modern historians examine period sources and write works by determining what is true. The source I gave belongs to a professor and has academic credibility. If you claim that it should be deleted because it is a single source, I would remove the military losses of the Ottoman army and add that "military losses were insignificant, but many supply animals such as horses and camels died", which is accepted by many historians. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The source you gave talks nothing about primary sources and gave this figure out of the blue. I would remove the military losses of the Ottoman army and add that "military losses were insignificant, but many supply animals such as horses and seves died" you would then be POV-pushing because it is becoming apparent you're trying to belittle the losses of the Ottoman army. Chalkokondyles, Tursun Bey, Schiappa and Tommasi are all superior sources to the random source you've provided by virtue of being contemporary. In addition to that they're cited through several authors with just as much legitimacy all of which contradict this low number. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Tursun Bey and Chalkokondyles are primary sources. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia does not care about primary sources and is not used. The reason why we came to Ottoman losses is that you rejected my source because it did not match other sources, so I said that Ottoman soldier losses did not match other sources. And my source is not a random source, it is the work of a Professor and people with academic success who have completed their doctorates. Do not be confused with historians who give exaggerated numbers like period sources. Wikipedia receives comments from historians. Not ideas that editors dismiss as "random." Keremmaarda (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. Wikipedia does care about primary sources. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Read what primary and secondary sources are. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it requires secondary sources for primary sources. My claim remains valid. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Pls read wikipedia:WPNOTRS Keremmaarda (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, I am getting tired. The sources you're removing are secondary sources based on primary ones. The single source you're adding is a secondary source not based in any primary one. This goes against the very definition of secondary source. You also didn't bring any other source justifying 15,000. Not a single person living at the time gave a number this low. Stop wasting editors' valuable time. Half of your edits are reverted and you've been brought to ANI before. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

When modern authoritarian estimates refer to army numbers, they do not use the army quoted in period sources. They examine the military number, economic power and economic situation at that time. As a result, they estimate the army to be deployed in the campaign with an average data. Do not delete my source unnecessarily again. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys! It would be not easier to make a compromise than edit war? I see several medieval battle articles have many estimations by different historians, because this is the nature of the historiography, that not every single thing is clear. I think the easier way would be just list all estimations one by one in the infobox which are in modern academic sources. What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Keremmaarda is POV-pushing and I will seek formal dispute resolution methods. I do not have any intention of accepting a number six times smaller than the smallest contemporary estimate. Thank you for your useful participation in this discussion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of accepting a number that is 6 times exaggerated. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, people living at the time, and not 700 years later, gave them. Another problem is you have no sources calling them exaggerated. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Historians who give modern authoritative estimates should be used. It would be better than taking as a reference the exaggerated army numbers given by contemporary sources. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be better than taking as a reference the exaggerated army numbers given by contemporary sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You have no sources calling them exaggerated. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

They examine the military number, economic power and economic situation at that time. As a result, they estimate the army to be deployed in the campaign with an average data. there is none of that in your source. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

They may have come to this conclusion by doing some research. That resource is a university resource. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and in that case they should have disclosed it for that source to be even considered seriously. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Alesia, Battle of Issus, Fall of Constantinople Examine modern estimates of these battles. These are numbers that are not mentioned in period sources. But these are figures given by examining the economic situation at that time. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I see what Super Dromaeosaurus mean, that is irrealistic that the Sultan would make a campaign such a low number (15,000) of soldiers. Also all Christian sources in all battles always emphasize that the number of Ottomans were always superior, even in many Hungarian-Ottoman related battles which was led not by the Sultan the Ottoman army was much higher than 15,000.

Btw I checked the provided source [24]. İbrahim Akyol is not a historian, but Turkish literature teacher, document title: "CULTURE IN THE PERIOD OF CONQUEROR SULTAN MEHMET AND LITERATURE"

KIRIKKALE UNIVERSITY / SOCIAL SCIENCES INSTITUTE DEPARTMENT OF TURKISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE / STUDENT'S NAME AND SURNAME: İBRAHİM AKYOL : CULTURE IN THE PERIOD OF CONQUEROR SULTAN MEHMET AND LITERATURE / PhD THESIS THESIS DIRECTOR: PROF. DR. MUHITTIN ELİAÇIK / KIRIKKALE-2012

RESUME: İbrahim AKYOL was born in 1967 in Şabanözü district of Çankırı. He started primary school in his village and finished in Ankara. At Çankırı Imam Hatip High School After completing his secondary education, Marmara University, Faculty of Science and Letters, He graduated from the Department of Turkish Language and Literature in 1990. After completing his military service at Trabzon Maçka High School, he worked as a teacher and teacher at Eskişehir Han High School. administration, teaching and administration at Çankırı Central Ovacık Primary School, He worked as a teacher at Çankırı Anatolian High School. Currently Çankırı Anatolian Imam Hatip He was a Turkish Language and Literature teacher at High School. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources that say that the Ottoman armies were superior to the Crusaders in every war are also Crusader sources. If we look at Turkey's official National Defense page, we see that the Crusader armies were twice as large as the Ottoman in the Varna and Kosovo battles. The Ministry of National Defense is the special military region of the Republic of Türkiye itself. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a "crusade" when Christian countries defended themselv from the Ottoman expansion. Most of the battles were defending battles far from the Ottoman land and deep in the territory of the countries which were attacked by the Ottomans.

I know that tendency that Turkish sources say always irreal high numbers of Christian armies, and always much lower Ottoman losses and very high Christian losses. That is why I mentioned the Battle of Mohacs example with the very irreal 200,000 Hungarian army by Ottoman sources. Like you did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Varna&diff=prev&oldid=1190913342 In the modern Turkish TV series "Suleiman" the Hungarian king is old and fat, however he was just a 20 years old boy :) OrionNimrod (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You claim that Turkish sources are exaggerated, but what if the exaggerations are Christian sources? Did you personally attend that war and count the armies? And I never claimed that there was an army of 200,000 in the Battle of Mohacs, I don't understand why you tried to accuse me of this twice. I told you before that I did not know Suleiman the Magnificent and his era very well. But why not the 200,000 figure? Because it doesn't fit your idea? I see that there were not only Hungarian people in the battle, but soldiers from 5-6 states participated. Can't 5-6 states raise an army equivalent to 1 state? And the Battle of Mohács is now a life-or-death-destruction-liberation battles. If we calculate this, are all forces 25,000 people? Keremmaarda (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I just say examples. Hungary was much smaller than the Ottoman empire. Ottoman empire had much more income. War=money. Ottoman empire was able to build big armies in every year while Hungary not. The battle of Kosovo 1389 was inconclusive, both side had great losses, but Ottomans was able to make a new army while Serbs not, so Serbia became under Ottoman occupation.

It is very logical the Ottomans not with "small army" attacked continously all the time and conquered such a big areas in Europe and that allegedly "big European armies" were so impotent to defend themselv from a "small Ottoman army". That is why in many battles when the much bigger Ottoman army was defetated, those defender people become national heros like Hunyadi.

It was also a blood tax, when Chrisitan countries needed provide countless of children to became professional Ottoman Janissary soldiers: Devshirme, and not inverse, so Ottoman army had much more human supply. Regarding Hungarian kingdom, not only just the killing and massacres, but the countinous enslavement of local people of Hungarian populated areas was a reason why Hungarian population highly decimated during the long centuries 3 ways Ottoman-Hungarian-Habsburg wars.

The richest Hungarian king at time who was really rich, but Matthias income was much lower than the Ottoman one, he had a professional Black army, max 30,000 at height, it costed huge money. The next king disbanded them because it was no money to maintain them. Outside this the Hungarian army was not a standing mercenary army but a standard medieval noble army.

I think Hungarian historians clearly know better the Hungarian history, economy, food, weapons, supply, logistic, money, military organization, (economy for makeHussar soldiers) etc than the personal propaganda writer of the sultan who wrote the 200,000 Hungarian army in 1500s much later than the battle. That number such irreal cannot be true. There are also no evidence that other states sent to Hungary super huge army to join to Hungarian army. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Night attack at Târgoviște. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  The author is İbrahim Akyol, he is not a historian, but Turkish literature teacher . Other name, the director of the PhD, so he did not write that book: PhD THESIS THESIS DIRECTOR: PROF. DR. MUHITTIN ELİAÇIK

  I checked the other name what Keremmaarda sent. He is also not a historian, a professor, but Turkish Language and Literature

  https://kariyer-kku-edu-tr.translate.goog/akademik/default.aspx?sicil=A-0212&_x_tr_sl=tr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp OrionNimrod (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  There are many historic novel by Hungarian writers, but we cannot use them as historical source. The Turkish author is not a historian, he made a Turkish language, literature document based on history, but he is not a historian, he could make mistake, so he is not reliable in the subject, but he could be reliable in the history of the Turkish culture, literature and language.

  ABSTRACT In this study titled “The Culture and Literature in the era of Fatih Sultan Mehmet”, the influences of the conquest of Istanbul, which was a milestone for the Ottoman State in the transition period from Beylic to Empire, to the intellectual, cultural and the literary life of the Ottomans were studied.The scientific and cultural life was especially taken into consideration as a source feeding literature. The periods of Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Bayezid II constituted the transition period between the establishment of the Turkish literature and the classical era. As well as being a great statesman, Fatih Sultan Mehmet was a person protecting scholars and poets. There were a lot of scholars and poets around him. Istanbul became a significant culture and art center of East and West in the XV century as a result of his interest to science, art, culture and literature. In this study the importance given to science and scholars by Fatih Sultan Mehmet was discussed while the scholars of the period were being researched. Furthermore, education and educational institutions, libraries and Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s private library were all examined and so the richness of his library and his profound knowledge were introduced. The richness of Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s scientific and literary life accelerated the process of becoming classic of the Ottoman Turkish language. The Sufis, who made significant contributions to the Conquest of Istanbul, were under protection of Fatih Sultan Mehmet. In addition, they initialized to be institutionalized after the Conquest. During this period the cultural and literary relations with the Central Asia were developed, and scholars and poets were invited to Istanbul. In this period, the most important element making the literary life developed and enriched was literary surroundings. The gatherings of poets around Fatih Sultan Mehmet and the Grand Vizier Mahmut Pasha in Istanbul, Şehzade Bayezid in Amasya, Cem Sultan in Karaman and Ahmet Pasha in Bursa made the literary life active and enriched. More than 80 poets living in this period have been identified. 5 Moreover, compared to the previous periods there were significant increases in the translation and the compilation of scientific, intellectual, religious, literary, mystical works etc. All these great advances have been regarded as the preparatory phase of the great development of the Ottoman-Turkish culture and literature in the 16th century. Keywords: Ottoman, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Istanbul, culture, literature, poet, work.OrionNimrod (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As we can see, history is not the focus of the thesis. And Keremmaarda couldn't even cite the source properly. There is just one author and not two and he is not a historian. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Dispute ended in Keremmaarda being topic banned and the source removed. Future editors, please find something better to do than starting days-long disputes over minute details in this article. I can't understand why does it happen so often in this one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Stoicescu

Does he have an academic background in history? Dr. or Professor? Super Dromaeosaurus Keremmaarda (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that author is Nicolae Stoicescu. Medievalist, former diplomat and government minister, and honorary member of the Romanian Academy, the most prestigious Romanian academic institution. Pretty authoritative. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)