Talk:Siege of Krujë (1450)

a army of a 100 000 otoman soldiers led by the sultan tryed to atack the capital of the league of lezha kruja and skanderbeg let only 8000 soldiers to protect the town with the comander vrana konti and skandwrbeg went on to destroy otoman camps and atacked the otoman caravan and the turkish had 20 000 casualties while skanderbeg had 100 79.106.124.178 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Article

BotushaliHow could this be an Albanian victory? All the sources I read, even the description, say that Skanderbeg's career is almost at an end. He even offers to hand over the castle to Venice. What do Albanians gain here? What path do they follow and achieve victory? This siege was broken thanks to Janos Hunyadi, that is, thanks to the Hungarians.

And the article was written based on absolutely biased sources. Hadkingson and Francione, these are Albanian sources and whichever Skanderbeg article I look at, these men are referenced. Why do you use historians who lived in the 16th century instead of using the sources of modern historians? If we look at old sources, Ottoman sources write that Sultan Mehmed won victory in Belgrade. This page is full of nonsense. Not a single page can be written based on the Albanian historians of the 16th century.

And that note is not my opinion. It is impossible for there to be 100 thousand soldiers during the reign of Murad II. Scientists say that even Sultan Mehmed gathered the largest army in the Otlukbeli war. This army is stated as 85 thousand in the archives. And it could only be reached with an army of 117 thousand people during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. The number 100 thousand refers to a non-modern, nonsense source from the 16th century. It's not even a modern source.

This page needs to be completely edited and rewritten by modern historians. We should take as reference what objective historians wrote, not using biased sources from the 16th century. And no Turkish sources were even used on the page. Were there no Turks in this war? Am I wrong? Why are Turkish sources not referenced in the war in which the Turks were involved? Keremmaarda (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Keremmaarda, hope you're well. First and foremost, let's get one thing out of the way. I did not create these article nor did I expand on them, so it would probably be best to refrain from accusing me of using anything that I have not explicitly added to the article myself. Also,'Hadkingson' and 'Francione' are not Albanian sources - that should be abundantly clear from their last names. I will now address the rest of your points in order.

In regards to this being an Albanian victory, it still counts. The Ottomans besieged the castle with the goal of capturing it, whereas the Albanians had the goal of defending it. The Albanians held the castle and the Ottomans broke the siege, whether Janos or someone else was the main catalyst for the Ottomans failing to achieve their objective or not, the Albanian side emerged victorious. This is backed by sources:

1. Counterbalancing the breaching of the walls of Constantinople in 1453 was the failure of the siege of Belgrade in 1456 and the repeated failure of Ottoman assaults against the heavily fortified Albanian fortress of Croia (Kruje). In addition to the two failed sieges during Murad Il's reign in 1448 and 1449, Mehmed himself met success only on his fourth attempt, which took place in 1478, and even on that occasion the fortress was not actually taken by force, but yielded due to lack of supplies after a year of blockade. 'Early Modern Military History, 1450-1815' - G. Mortimer (2004) [1]

2. Among other quotes in this book, you can find ... had turned his father back out of Albania in 1450. The garrison was relatively small but the fortress was built to modern designs and hard to strike at with artillery due to the precipitous nature of the surrounding ground. After several months there was still no progress and Mehemmed I resorted to destruction of the surrounding countryside and to constructing the new castle of Elbasan. He kept his army in Albania using Elbasan as a central base and, while he returned to Istanbul, it continued to press the siege of Kruje. The winter of 1466 was spent trying to raise funds in Italy from first the papacy and then the Aragonese in Naples. Upon his return to Albania, Skanderbeg began to organise troops to break the siege of Kruje. On 23 April 1467 Skanderbeg broke the second siege of Kruje and went on to attack Elbasan. He failed to take it at the first attempt and settled down to besiege it. However, the lack of heavy artillery ensured that there could be no progress. Once again Skanderbeg had defeated Mehemmed Il's forces and the sultan returned in person in the summer of 1467 to break the siege of Elbasan. Skanderbeg eluded capture and fled to the coast with his field army but Mehemmed II meted out the punishment he could not inflict on his chief tormentor on the country. Crops were burned, villagers were enslaved and Kruje was besieged again - and yet again unsuccessfully. 'Dracula's Wars: Vlad the Impaler and His Rivals' - James Waterson (2016) [2]

3. The struggle in Albania, mean-while, had not been progressing favourably for the Turks, who were obliged in 1450 to abandon their siege of Skanderbeg's stronghold Kroya (Kruje). 'Last Great Muslim Empires' - H.J. Kissling et al. (1997) [3]

4. In 1450, his defeat of a siege of Kruje by Murad's forces made him a hero in the western world and the recipient of aid from Venice, Naples, Hungary, and the papacy. 'Dictionary of Wars' - George Childs Kohn (2013) [4]

I distinctly remember you supporting the labelling of the Siege of Berat as an Ottoman victory just because the Albanians broke the siege. This case is no different.

Keep in mind that on Wikipedia, we use what sources say for inclusion on articles, and not the interpretation of editors. That brings us to my next point - your note. Your note was uncited, i.e. it is therefore your opinion. If you have sources that say explicitly what you are saying in your note, then fair enough. If not, then it just cannot be included.

I actually agree with you on your final point. These articles need to be updated, and you'll notice I have begun to do so on the Battle of Torvioll. As time goes on, I will keep working on articles. Bibliography that meets WP:RS standards can be used regardless of the nationality of the author, but they need to be reliable and of high-quality. I know that there are a number of Turkish sources that try to downplay Skanderbeg and the League of Lezhë's achievements to cope with aspects of history that they don't like, so I'd caution you against using them. Thanks, and hopefully we can cooperate fruitfully in the future without disruptive edit wars and the like. Botushali (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I mentioned that I wanted to use Turkish sources that use modern sources. Books of high and respected historians such as Selahattin Tansel, Halil İnalcık, M. Tayyip Gökbilgin should also be taken as reference. Aren't Francione and Hadkingson biased? Only these sources are used in the articles of 16th century historians and Skanderbeg. It would be better to create an article by taking as reference the books of historians who lived in the 20th and 21st centuries instead of historians who lived in the 16th century. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Francione and Hodkingson are not biased. They are not Albanian sources and they are also relatively modern, not to mention the fact that they’re both peer-reviewed academic sources. The Francione source seems to be from 2006 and the Hodkingson source seems to be from 1999, not the 16th century as you seem to be claiming here. This means that they qualify as WP:RS bibliography.

I am not familiar with those Turkish historians, but as I said, any sources which are a part of RS bibliography can be utilised on Wikipedia. Just make sure that what you’re including is accurate, unbiased and that it is not

WP:FRINGE. If multiple pieces of bibliography support a certain idea, but only a single or a few possibly-biased sources support an alternative idea, then it may not be wise to utilise it. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)