![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article mentions the actions of Sultan as the leader of the army. As it happens, looking at the dates he must be Mustafa II, and as far as I know after around mid 1600's no Ottoman Sultan personally led an army to war. I might be mistaken, but if not then it is a big blunder in this article. Also, if he was there, he had to be mentioned by name, not just title and he should have also been put as the leader of the Ottoman forces. Cafer Pasha name being speeled Dschaafer Pasha is a whole other funny story.
This is one of the most absurd articles I have ever red! I mean, how can the one who wrote the article possibly belive that an army over 80,000 Turks would even lose against 34,000 soliders. This is obiviously a fake source, it actually makes me laught. I have studied this battle for a long time, and I am going to fix it as fast as I am a 100% sure that I am writing the correct information!
I do have 100% reliable sources, and I´ve been reading lots of theories about this(and many other) battles. These numbres are incorrect. I do not write incorrect articles, and if I do, then all books and researchers are wrong,not me, since I get the information from them. And, you also need to describe which units that fought, it was mostly mercenaries, not Turks.
(Could the Turks ever fight?)
Can you actually list your "100% reliable" sources? The mere fact that you would describe them as such suggests that you don't even have a basic understanding of history. I don't think you could censure anybody for believing them to be anything more than folk tales. On the other hand, I am using one of the definitive modern accounts of the battle, John Stoye's Siege of Vienna.
Hungarian name Zenta simply was not official historical name for this town in the time of this battle. Hungarian language was not official here before 1867, and in the time of the battle, town of Senta was still de jure part of Ottoman Empire and was mainly inhabited by Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
So, here are reasons why we should use name Senta:
Now please tell me any specific reason why name Zenta should be used? I would suggest that you use this talk page before your next revert. PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If the Britannica (and 100 more sources [1]) accepts it, we can so [2]. ♥♥♥: Gubb ✍ 2006. July 6 11:36 (CEST) 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
De facto there was a no man's land and battlefield, and there were four houses (what houses just dugouts) in five rows.
You must tell these arguments to the editors of Britannica and Wikipedia too, and they will immediatly change several thousands of articles.
Battles Austerlitz to Slavkov, Eylau to Bagrationovsk, Weissenstein to Paide, Kokenhausen to Koknese, Kircholm to Salaspils, Port Arthur to Lü-shun, Chocim to Hotin, Liegnitz to Legnica, Iwo Jima to Io-jima and Little Bighorn to I don't know etc.
Treaties Karlowitz to Sremski Karlovci, Passarowitz to Požarevac, Pressburg to Bratislava, Nystad to Uusikaupunki, Tilsit to Sovetsk etc.
C'mon Panonian you can do it. Luftburger 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no, no Panonian. Did you mean Battle+of+Senta Berger? And when you see inside you found mainly chess sides with .yu domain. And these are Yahoo hits. And Senta is a name. Do not exert yourself. I think my opinion is proved with Google search in these languages:
Russian-Битва при Зенте (completely or mainly)
Swedish-Slaget vid Zenta (completely or mainly)
Danish-Slaget ved Zenta (completely or mainly)
French-Bataille de Zenta (completely or mainly)
Portuguese-Batalha de Zenta (completely or mainly)
Spanish-Batalla de Zenta (completely or mainly)
Italian-Battaglia di Zenta (completely or mainly)
Dutch-Slag bij Zenta (completely or mainly)
Polish-Bitwa pod Zenta (completely or mainly)
+ English, German, Slovak and Czech from article. And Hungarian natürlich.
And here we are. Luftburger 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The source of this "wrongfulness" is probably here. In the Middle Ages the historians had one or two maps and one source. And they didn't know for your claims. If they knew for your claims it would be probably Senta.They knew nothing about significant Serb population in these four dugouts.Sorry.
And the first writer of the article is a guy from Brazil and not Hungarian. Let's revert again. Luftburger 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose you to see this map from 1528 but what you don't want to see, you will not see it. If you see the map you will see mainly German toponyms.Let's play with these toponyms.
Zolnok (on map) - Sollnock (in German nowadays) - Szolnok
Segedein - Szegedin or Segedin - Szeged
Zenta -Senta - Senta
Eseck -Essegg or Esseg - Osijek
Grichisch Weissenburg -Belgrad -Beograd
Debretin -Debreczin -Debrecen
And what we see? German toponyms were modified between these dates. Your lack of elasticity is amazing and amusing for me. Luftburger 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope no one has anything against me editing the article itself. -- Carl Logan 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
PANONIAN, I awarded you once with Laughing Orangutan for your contradictory edits, but you rejected my Award. PANONIAN, I explained to you (yes, in Serbian), that Austrian Emperor was crowned king of Hungary, and not Grand Mufti of Military Frontier, and he liberated Hungary and not lands later known as ... Please... Bendeguz 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman casualties are heavy? they never defeated even in crusades. sissy serbians killed them all? its a bullshit!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.12.128 ( talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hungary was spare sy the Habsburg Army 20,000 soldier, Croatia further ca. 10-15,000. Hungary and Croatia was be instrumental in the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars.
Doncsecz 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Zenta battle diorama
Can we mention in article that there was made a big diorma a unique, of the battle and it was made by modelars in Zenta to honour the battle...Here is the link if you are interested into this fact...
http://www.krilapetrovgrada.org.rs/forum/index.php?topic=2114.0 Thanks
109.93.121.114 (
talk)
19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
At least Latin handwriting on it hints without any doubt to production date in the 2nd half 20th century, until today. Whoever claims that let us say, sketch, is more than 300 years old, misleads. Obviously ! -- 88.217.98.166 ( talk) 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article mentions the actions of Sultan as the leader of the army. As it happens, looking at the dates he must be Mustafa II, and as far as I know after around mid 1600's no Ottoman Sultan personally led an army to war. I might be mistaken, but if not then it is a big blunder in this article. Also, if he was there, he had to be mentioned by name, not just title and he should have also been put as the leader of the Ottoman forces. Cafer Pasha name being speeled Dschaafer Pasha is a whole other funny story.
This is one of the most absurd articles I have ever red! I mean, how can the one who wrote the article possibly belive that an army over 80,000 Turks would even lose against 34,000 soliders. This is obiviously a fake source, it actually makes me laught. I have studied this battle for a long time, and I am going to fix it as fast as I am a 100% sure that I am writing the correct information!
I do have 100% reliable sources, and I´ve been reading lots of theories about this(and many other) battles. These numbres are incorrect. I do not write incorrect articles, and if I do, then all books and researchers are wrong,not me, since I get the information from them. And, you also need to describe which units that fought, it was mostly mercenaries, not Turks.
(Could the Turks ever fight?)
Can you actually list your "100% reliable" sources? The mere fact that you would describe them as such suggests that you don't even have a basic understanding of history. I don't think you could censure anybody for believing them to be anything more than folk tales. On the other hand, I am using one of the definitive modern accounts of the battle, John Stoye's Siege of Vienna.
Hungarian name Zenta simply was not official historical name for this town in the time of this battle. Hungarian language was not official here before 1867, and in the time of the battle, town of Senta was still de jure part of Ottoman Empire and was mainly inhabited by Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
So, here are reasons why we should use name Senta:
Now please tell me any specific reason why name Zenta should be used? I would suggest that you use this talk page before your next revert. PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
If the Britannica (and 100 more sources [1]) accepts it, we can so [2]. ♥♥♥: Gubb ✍ 2006. July 6 11:36 (CEST) 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
De facto there was a no man's land and battlefield, and there were four houses (what houses just dugouts) in five rows.
You must tell these arguments to the editors of Britannica and Wikipedia too, and they will immediatly change several thousands of articles.
Battles Austerlitz to Slavkov, Eylau to Bagrationovsk, Weissenstein to Paide, Kokenhausen to Koknese, Kircholm to Salaspils, Port Arthur to Lü-shun, Chocim to Hotin, Liegnitz to Legnica, Iwo Jima to Io-jima and Little Bighorn to I don't know etc.
Treaties Karlowitz to Sremski Karlovci, Passarowitz to Požarevac, Pressburg to Bratislava, Nystad to Uusikaupunki, Tilsit to Sovetsk etc.
C'mon Panonian you can do it. Luftburger 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no, no Panonian. Did you mean Battle+of+Senta Berger? And when you see inside you found mainly chess sides with .yu domain. And these are Yahoo hits. And Senta is a name. Do not exert yourself. I think my opinion is proved with Google search in these languages:
Russian-Битва при Зенте (completely or mainly)
Swedish-Slaget vid Zenta (completely or mainly)
Danish-Slaget ved Zenta (completely or mainly)
French-Bataille de Zenta (completely or mainly)
Portuguese-Batalha de Zenta (completely or mainly)
Spanish-Batalla de Zenta (completely or mainly)
Italian-Battaglia di Zenta (completely or mainly)
Dutch-Slag bij Zenta (completely or mainly)
Polish-Bitwa pod Zenta (completely or mainly)
+ English, German, Slovak and Czech from article. And Hungarian natürlich.
And here we are. Luftburger 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The source of this "wrongfulness" is probably here. In the Middle Ages the historians had one or two maps and one source. And they didn't know for your claims. If they knew for your claims it would be probably Senta.They knew nothing about significant Serb population in these four dugouts.Sorry.
And the first writer of the article is a guy from Brazil and not Hungarian. Let's revert again. Luftburger 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose you to see this map from 1528 but what you don't want to see, you will not see it. If you see the map you will see mainly German toponyms.Let's play with these toponyms.
Zolnok (on map) - Sollnock (in German nowadays) - Szolnok
Segedein - Szegedin or Segedin - Szeged
Zenta -Senta - Senta
Eseck -Essegg or Esseg - Osijek
Grichisch Weissenburg -Belgrad -Beograd
Debretin -Debreczin -Debrecen
And what we see? German toponyms were modified between these dates. Your lack of elasticity is amazing and amusing for me. Luftburger 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope no one has anything against me editing the article itself. -- Carl Logan 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
PANONIAN, I awarded you once with Laughing Orangutan for your contradictory edits, but you rejected my Award. PANONIAN, I explained to you (yes, in Serbian), that Austrian Emperor was crowned king of Hungary, and not Grand Mufti of Military Frontier, and he liberated Hungary and not lands later known as ... Please... Bendeguz 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman casualties are heavy? they never defeated even in crusades. sissy serbians killed them all? its a bullshit!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.12.128 ( talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hungary was spare sy the Habsburg Army 20,000 soldier, Croatia further ca. 10-15,000. Hungary and Croatia was be instrumental in the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars.
Doncsecz 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Zenta battle diorama
Can we mention in article that there was made a big diorma a unique, of the battle and it was made by modelars in Zenta to honour the battle...Here is the link if you are interested into this fact...
http://www.krilapetrovgrada.org.rs/forum/index.php?topic=2114.0 Thanks
109.93.121.114 (
talk)
19:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
At least Latin handwriting on it hints without any doubt to production date in the 2nd half 20th century, until today. Whoever claims that let us say, sketch, is more than 300 years old, misleads. Obviously ! -- 88.217.98.166 ( talk) 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |