Talk:Long Turkish War

Mathematics, people

1606 - 1593 = 13, with no remainder. So this is in fact, the Thirteen years war, not fifteen years war. And I have the proof:

Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey, 2003. Tourskin 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the war began in 1592 with Ottoman conquest of Bihac, so, from 1592 to 1606, both included, that makes 15 campaigns. That is the reason for the traditional name of "Fifteen Years War", but current historians prefer "Hungary Long War". For example:

FINKEL, Caroline, The Administration of Warfare: The Ottoman Campaigns in Hungary, 1593-1606, Vienna, VWGÖ, 1988 JAČOV, Marko: L’Europa tra conquiste ottomane e Leghe Sante. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2001.

Oh I see.Tourskin 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Also, I'm not sure if calling it a "Decisive Ottoman Victory" is accurate. The borders with Royal Hungary remained virtually the same after the war as before (but this in itself is a victory for the Habsburgs, as it represented the first full-scale war the Ottomans did not gain territory in Central Europe.

Transylvania's lords may have become more divided in their allegiance, but they were out of the reach of the Habsburgs anyway. Most significantly, the treaty of 1606 regardless as to intent, increased the standing of the Habsburgs vis-a-vis the Ottomans. I would say that as a matter of historical accuracy, the war was "inconclusive." Both sides ended the fighting due to internal exhaustion rather than any military advantage. 1706, Sept 4, 2009.

Quite right. In fact the text of the article points out that the Ottoman war aim of seizing Vienna failed, which contradicts 'Ottoman victory' in the summary. Furthermore, further down in the article the 1606 treaty resolving the long war is described as an Ottoman defeat: "The Peace of Zsitvatorok confirmed Ottomans' inability to penetrate further into Habsburg territories, which was their first geopolitical defeat". --Sdoradus (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally the assignment of victory or defeat depends on three things, the primary one being:

Did one combatant achieve its war aims?

The article doesn't present enough detail to judge the other two factors -

Which combatant suffered least, materially and in human terms?

Who controlled the field of battle at the end of hostilities?

In the absence of further information, all we know is that "the objective of the war on behalf of the Ottoman Empire was to seize Vienna", something they signally failed to do. The summary should at most read 'inconclusive', even though there was no return to the status quo antebellum (the Hapsburgs did retain control of some Ottoman fortresses along the Danube), since the Hapsburgs too failed to realize their war aims.

Bear in mind also that this conflict was not really a stand-alone war; the treaty which ended it was really an armistice (it was written as lasting for twenty years). The question of whether Vienna would remain safe from Ottoman attack was not decided for another hundred years (the Battle of Vienna in 1683). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdoradus (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

grammar corrected - need clarification?

I fixed a couple of words here and there to correct the English. However:

"The combined Habsburg-Transylvanian force of approximately 45-50,000 troops was defeated by the Ottoman army, due to the fact that at one point of the battle, while considering victorious, the Christian soldiers started to plunder the Turkish camp." [pre-correction]

doesn't make much sense. The stated reasoning doesn't explain why the Christian allies lost to the Turks. Can someone modify this to clarify? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Lack of references, citations and bias

• This article is highly biased and this must be due to lack of reputable references and of citations. Only German language reference is dated 1596 and even though Austria is the main actor in this War, no other German language source is given. There is no single Turkish reference. Turkish histories (even contemporary histories) of this period do exist and they are totally ignored. English references on general Ottoman history (say Turnbull or Shaw) and even English references specifically relating to this war exist (some even shown in "Talk" section) and there is no indication that these have been used. It depends on 2 Hungarian language and 1 Rumanian language sources and there is no way of determining how reputable or unbiased these sources are. There are very reputable English language sources of Hungarian and Romanian history. Except for just one paragraph of questionable citations, the article lacks totally in citations and, so far, the notices for need of citations that have been put into the text have been ignored. So this article, as it stands, is "not trustworthy", "non-objective" and "incomplete". Noyder (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hungary and Croatia as belligerents

In Hungary was diet and legislature, so what? Did they have their own army? Just look at the battles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Campaignbox_Long_War_(Ottoman_wars). Hungary isn't anywhere as combatant Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but your opinion is unnecessary, not know about the Hungarian history. This is a lie. Doncsecz^talk 08:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop your personal attacks Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop off at your, and searching for sources that Hungary was a disenfranchised province and not Kingdom in 1591. Doncsecz^talk 08:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I know very well Hungary's status. Just bring sources that Hungary was a belligerent in the Long War. Which are the battles where it participated? Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In the long war was not 5-6 battles, but 20 battlesa and sieges: this template is wrong. The Hungarian diet in 1593 was decieded to the organization of Hungarian army (later this restated). 20-30 thousand Hungarian soldiers fought in this war in the territory of Hungary. This war was mostly in Hungary and Croatia. Doncsecz^talk 08:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between Location (Hungary, Wallachia, Balkan Peninsula) and Belligerents

You added a source, but this is not enough. You don't expect us to search for the information in the whole book, do you? Please add the exact pages Dfsdsrsersdf (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Christian forces between 1591-1595 penetrated into the Balkan, but was intense fightings also in Hungary. After 1596 only in Hungary was battles and sieges. The Wallachians in 1600 excluded from the war (Michael wallachian ruler was failed). Doncsecz^talk 09:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox

A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies.. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

.

Long Turkish War

I would be bold and move this to "Long Turkish War" straight off, since this is what English-speaking historians call it (searches on Google Books for the terms "Long Turkish War", "Fifteen Years' War" and "Long War" are revealing in this respect); but I thought I'd check that there are no objections first. Are there? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

There is no such language as Serbo-Croatian. That was a construct of communist Yugoslavia. Continuing to use that term is an insult to both the Serbian and Croatian people.

Is this another example of "Western-splaining"? 104.158.48.139 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You should write (Serbian: Дуги рат, Croatian: Dugi rat) 104.158.48.139 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Serbian also written with the Latin script? Also, while the term might be modern and artificial, I know enough to know that it's just a difference in script, and they are in effect fully mutually intelligible varieties of the same language for our purposes here. You needn't cast aspersions on editors in any case. Remsense诉 17:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)