![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 22, 2006. |
![]() | The contents of the Noon bell page were merged into Siege of Belgrade (1456). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Hungarian military experience (according to history of ottoman-hungarian wars): Turks could win only with minimum 3X preponderance. Because: 1. they are/were smaller shorter people, the tallness and lenghts of arms were important in hand to hand combats, 2. the Turkish (and other Middle-Eastern) metal/steel-technology was too backward to make similar advanced armours as european armours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 ( talk) 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Why does everyone add such huge Ottoman numbers!? It was totaly impossible for the Sultan to gather such huge armies after all the previous wars. I have red about this battle in many history book, and the most common numbers were about 20,000 Turks against a total of 60,000 Hungarians and Wallachians. They obiviously outnumbered the Turks, since they were allied!
Yep; NOBODY layed a siege with inferior numbers during the 15th cebtury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.45 ( talk) 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The souces from the books regarding the numbers does not cite ANY citations at all. The article is nothing but a lack of quality as long as the numbers are stated as official. It should be noted as Unknown. It is impossible to know how many forces there were. the fundamental sources are not being neutral, but they are being irrational, such as most of the battles concerning the Ottomans are.
It is interesting, every article I read about a war between western powers and ottomans, ottomans fight with too many opponents, but always ottoman armies is twice (or more) the size of opponents, and at the end ottomans have too many casualties, they lose almost all soldiers even if they won. I think the turks are growing too fast, every year they can found ten-thousands mans to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.173 ( talk) 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we redirect this to "Siege of Belgrade"? :) -- Joy [shallot] 12:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. Nándorfehérvár was part of the Hungarian Kingdom and the hungarians were fighting for their land. I hate this tendency about creating the history according to the nowdays borders (Slovakia existed in the 15th century and also was the greatest goldminer in the world, Transilvania was a rumanian domain,etc.) This very simple lies would not stand here so long if the Wikipedia is really chasing the truth. Alan
I think that it is historically inaccurate to state that the Ottoman Sultan was barely prevented for commiting suicide by poison after the failure of the Siege of Belgrade. It seems to me hard to comprehend that the man who Conquerered Constantinople and later subdued Bosnia and Serbia could think about commiting suicide because of losing a single battle. This does not decrease the importance of the Siege of Belgrade, but losing in Belgrade did not have dire consequences on the fate of the already exisiting Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.206.20 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 July 2005
Who are McNally and Flerescu? Where and when were they published? Why is there no reference? The person is totally non-neutral in showing no citation of references, in the use of weasel words like 'no doubt' etc. and in the whole tone and content of especially the "Follow up" section. For example, it totally neglects facts of Ottoman succession after Mehmed II. This section needs a more knowledgable, not one sided and NEUTRAL write-up. 88.104.160.81 ( talk) 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts that whoever wrote the last section knows what he was talking about. Raids into Hungary continued as soon as the Ottomans could do it, and large parts of Hungary were eventually conquered, culminating in sieges of Vienna. Should be reworked, there's plenty of info on the Ottoman wars in Europe in other articles.
I agree and I made the corrections to this absurd revisionism based the accounts of McNally and Florescu, everything there is to read on Hunyadi and Mehmet II, and the basic facts about the Ottoman wars in Europe documented on this site. Whoever wrote that was an amatuer Ottoman Empire enthusiast attempting to discredit Hunyadi by making the ridiculous claim that the battle tipped the scaled in favor of the Ottomans. This little theory unintentionally made Mehmet (or Mehmed) the Conquerer sound like a sissy. Mehmet II is not as well-remembered by most Westerners, but he was on par with Ghengis Khan as an Asiatic conquerer. This man wanted the world, and he was not about to change his mind without a fight. He made several attempts to attack Hungary and I have explained why he was not successful. As for Hunyadi, he was far from infallable but his abilities as a military strategist and a political leader saved Europe from a man who could have otherwise conquered half the continent. 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I also deleted the contradictory sentence about Hungary being vulnerable to attack. This is where this person's little theory is not only ahistorical but does not even make sense. Even disregarding world history and well-documented facts about his intentions and character, if Mehmet II was "not in the least interested in occupying Hungary," why would he directly attack Hungary instead of using his military strength to cement his authority over the Balkan territories? This would amount to nothing but harrassing the Hungarians and making a new enemy in the militarily strong but rarely aggressive Matthias, something he certainly wouldn't have done if he only wanted the Balkans. Matthias' army was clearly strong enough to successfully defend Hungary and launch retaliatory attacks on Mehmet II (who already had Balkan resistance to deal with), so any preemtive attacks on Hungary would have been a completely wasteful and idiotic move on Mehmet's part in this fantasy where he only wanted the Balkans. And what does the loss of Belgrade have to do with him anyway? Belgrade was still threatened by Mehmet but was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman was not as capable a military leader as Mehmet was, and he conquered a large portion of Hungary. The ridiculous theory would have us believe the fearsome and ambitious Mehmet II would have left Hungary alone had he managed to take Belgrade. The question is, should the revisionist nonsense assertion even be here at all? Can whoever wrote it back it up? Does anyone have any objection to the idea of entirely deleting it? 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I realize what was bothering me about this section, and why it was a waste of time to even argue with it. It was so simple (and the claim so stupid) that it passed my eye. Mehmet did not see the Danube and the Sava as his boundry in any way. His predeccessors had already extended their influence past the Danube and into the Romanian territories or Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia). Mehmet II, the great conquerer of Constantinople, certainly had no desire to withdraw from those regions and in fact Vlad Tepes and Stephen III successfully thwarted his attempts to strenghten Ottoman authory over those two principalities (although neither actually won independence from the Ottoman Empire). So why would this person claim Mehmet's later attacks were opportunism instead of an attempt to once again live up to his his nickname? Well, for whatever reason, the writer is claiming Hunyadi actually LOST the Siege of Belgrade to Mehmet the Conquerer! I don't even think the most staunch Turkish nationalist would try to claim that with a straight face. As I mentioned before, Belgrade was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. I'm going to have to rewrite the "follow-up" section. As for whoever wrote this, I'm not sure but I think I can guess what he (and I doubt it was a woman, you never know though) was up to. I respect Muslims who have a respect for history and actually have something valuable to contribute to the history of the Ottoman Wars, but the moderators of this site should beware of vandalism such as this which falls under the category of "Jihad through deceit." 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who ever claimed Vlad Tepes was the reason Hunyadi won the battle, but I never made such a claim or heard of it. McNally and Florescu never made such a claim either, and they note that Vlad Tepes was actually not at the battle but assigned to guard Transylvania during the battle and given permission invade Wallachia in the event of a Hungarian victory. McNally and Florescu were/are solid pioneering historians, and the only way in which they are really controversial and sensationalistic is that they exaggerated the influence of the historical Dracula on Stoker's vampire namesake. The reason Vlad Tepes is mentioned here is that he is one of the most important proteges Hunyadi was able to install in thanks to his victory at Belgrade, not because Vlad had anything to do with the victory itself. 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This should be on the frontpage in the "On this day..." section. The 550 year anniversary celebrations of the victory are held this very weekend throughout Hungary. 195.70.32.136 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting rid of "Mehmet" altogether, since "Mehmed" is a much more common way of writing his name. Shield2 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that Ottomans had "200 ships" to help them. Yet the battle took place at Belgrade which is an inland city. How did the ships come useful in this case? Vice regent 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As Belgrade lies at the confluence of two major rivers, ships were used to block attempts to bring reinforcments in from Hungary and encircle the city, which failed 1456 but was succesful in 1521 when Sultan Suleyman conquered the city. orjen 13:58, 01 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Vice regent 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The latter part of this section makes little sense and does not fit the first part. The last sentence isn't (a sentence, that is).
The outnumbered defenders relied mainly on the strength of the formidable castle of Belgrade which was at the time one of the best engineered in the Balkans. As Belgrade was designated to be the capital of the Serbian Despotate by Despot Stefan Lazarević. Ottoman raids were expected after they recovered from the heavy loss against the Mongols. Utilising advanced building techniques from Byzantine and Arab fortress designs from the period of Seljuk and Ottoman military conflicts of the mid-11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 ( talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It was Nándorfehérvár back then so it should be Siege of Nándorfehérvár. Just like it is called the Fall of Constantinopol and not Fall of Istanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.164.123 ( talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, In the field battle, the Turks are chasing the Hungarians back to the castle. It is common for Mehmed to be injured because Mehmed was trying to gather his army on the battlefield. Seeing that Mehmed was fighting, the Ottoman soldiers quickly united and attacked the Crusader army and pushed the Hungarians back into the castle. After this war, the Hungarians lost their former power, they could not raise such a large army even in the Battle of Mohacs (although there was crusader support). That's why I wrote the Pyrrhic victory. And İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says that he prevented a crusade from taking place thanks to the resistance of the Turks in the field battle. I would be grateful if you read and evaluate my comment. Keremmaarda ( talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I found various numbers:
Pál Engel - Realm of St. Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526
"However, this host never confronted the sultan, who began the siege of Belgrade on 4 July with an army which modern scholars have put at 60,000 to 70,000 men."
Tamás Pálosfalvi - From Nicopolis to Mohács, A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526
"Ottoman military preparations on land were equally impressive. Although the fantastic figures preserved by the various narrative sources must be doubted, the army which set about the siege of Belgrade was large by contemporary standards. A force of between 40,000 and 50,000 fighting men, probably closer to the former figure, seems a reasonable estimate, especially since the Ottomans, having left troops to secure Constantinople, seem to have suffered further losses before Smederevo while on their way to Belgrade.410 Eyewitnesses were particularly astonished by the size and range of the Ottoman artillery, “never seen by human eye before, nor even imagined by the mind.”411 The huge guns, partly manufactured onsite, were operated by an international team of experts.412"
Tarján M. Tamás https://rubicon.hu/kalendarium/1456-julius-22-a-nandorfehervari-diadal
"Although the reports of 150,000 people are exaggerated in relation to Mehmed's strength, we can say without exaggeration that his regular troops - spahs, janissaries - put out 20-30,000 people, and this number was at least doubled by the continuously joining Akinji and Asab units."
Bánlaky https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/799.html#ref3
"Sultan Mohamed's operational plan for the 1456 campaign, as already mentioned above, consisted of flooding Hungary with his armies immediately after the capture of Belgrade. Relying on his proud sense of self that he had succeeded relatively easily in taking Constantinople, the second capital of Europe at the time, he now allegedly took an oath that he would take the Danube castle, which his father unsuccessfully besieged for six months, in two weeks and in two more months he would be in Buda will have lunch.[2] As soon as spring came out, he gathered his army of 150,000[3] at Drinapoly. In order to keep the relief army at bay, he decided to block the castle on the water side, for which purpose he had 200 ships made in the provinces along the Danube and gathered them at Viddin.[4] The cannons cast at Krusevác were made from Constantinople bells.[5] The number of cannons brought under Belgrade amounted to 300;" OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
OrionNimrod Hello Mr. OrionNimrod, Franz Babinger writes that 4-5 thousand soldiers were lost on both sides in the war, the Hungarians sank 4 ships and captured 5, and only captured 10 cannons. Is there any truth to this? Or have you seen anything like this in any Hungarian source? Keremmaarda ( talk) 23:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 22, 2006. |
![]() | The contents of the Noon bell page were merged into Siege of Belgrade (1456). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Hungarian military experience (according to history of ottoman-hungarian wars): Turks could win only with minimum 3X preponderance. Because: 1. they are/were smaller shorter people, the tallness and lenghts of arms were important in hand to hand combats, 2. the Turkish (and other Middle-Eastern) metal/steel-technology was too backward to make similar advanced armours as european armours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 ( talk) 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Why does everyone add such huge Ottoman numbers!? It was totaly impossible for the Sultan to gather such huge armies after all the previous wars. I have red about this battle in many history book, and the most common numbers were about 20,000 Turks against a total of 60,000 Hungarians and Wallachians. They obiviously outnumbered the Turks, since they were allied!
Yep; NOBODY layed a siege with inferior numbers during the 15th cebtury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.45 ( talk) 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The souces from the books regarding the numbers does not cite ANY citations at all. The article is nothing but a lack of quality as long as the numbers are stated as official. It should be noted as Unknown. It is impossible to know how many forces there were. the fundamental sources are not being neutral, but they are being irrational, such as most of the battles concerning the Ottomans are.
It is interesting, every article I read about a war between western powers and ottomans, ottomans fight with too many opponents, but always ottoman armies is twice (or more) the size of opponents, and at the end ottomans have too many casualties, they lose almost all soldiers even if they won. I think the turks are growing too fast, every year they can found ten-thousands mans to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.173 ( talk) 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we redirect this to "Siege of Belgrade"? :) -- Joy [shallot] 12:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. Nándorfehérvár was part of the Hungarian Kingdom and the hungarians were fighting for their land. I hate this tendency about creating the history according to the nowdays borders (Slovakia existed in the 15th century and also was the greatest goldminer in the world, Transilvania was a rumanian domain,etc.) This very simple lies would not stand here so long if the Wikipedia is really chasing the truth. Alan
I think that it is historically inaccurate to state that the Ottoman Sultan was barely prevented for commiting suicide by poison after the failure of the Siege of Belgrade. It seems to me hard to comprehend that the man who Conquerered Constantinople and later subdued Bosnia and Serbia could think about commiting suicide because of losing a single battle. This does not decrease the importance of the Siege of Belgrade, but losing in Belgrade did not have dire consequences on the fate of the already exisiting Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.206.20 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 July 2005
Who are McNally and Flerescu? Where and when were they published? Why is there no reference? The person is totally non-neutral in showing no citation of references, in the use of weasel words like 'no doubt' etc. and in the whole tone and content of especially the "Follow up" section. For example, it totally neglects facts of Ottoman succession after Mehmed II. This section needs a more knowledgable, not one sided and NEUTRAL write-up. 88.104.160.81 ( talk) 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts that whoever wrote the last section knows what he was talking about. Raids into Hungary continued as soon as the Ottomans could do it, and large parts of Hungary were eventually conquered, culminating in sieges of Vienna. Should be reworked, there's plenty of info on the Ottoman wars in Europe in other articles.
I agree and I made the corrections to this absurd revisionism based the accounts of McNally and Florescu, everything there is to read on Hunyadi and Mehmet II, and the basic facts about the Ottoman wars in Europe documented on this site. Whoever wrote that was an amatuer Ottoman Empire enthusiast attempting to discredit Hunyadi by making the ridiculous claim that the battle tipped the scaled in favor of the Ottomans. This little theory unintentionally made Mehmet (or Mehmed) the Conquerer sound like a sissy. Mehmet II is not as well-remembered by most Westerners, but he was on par with Ghengis Khan as an Asiatic conquerer. This man wanted the world, and he was not about to change his mind without a fight. He made several attempts to attack Hungary and I have explained why he was not successful. As for Hunyadi, he was far from infallable but his abilities as a military strategist and a political leader saved Europe from a man who could have otherwise conquered half the continent. 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I also deleted the contradictory sentence about Hungary being vulnerable to attack. This is where this person's little theory is not only ahistorical but does not even make sense. Even disregarding world history and well-documented facts about his intentions and character, if Mehmet II was "not in the least interested in occupying Hungary," why would he directly attack Hungary instead of using his military strength to cement his authority over the Balkan territories? This would amount to nothing but harrassing the Hungarians and making a new enemy in the militarily strong but rarely aggressive Matthias, something he certainly wouldn't have done if he only wanted the Balkans. Matthias' army was clearly strong enough to successfully defend Hungary and launch retaliatory attacks on Mehmet II (who already had Balkan resistance to deal with), so any preemtive attacks on Hungary would have been a completely wasteful and idiotic move on Mehmet's part in this fantasy where he only wanted the Balkans. And what does the loss of Belgrade have to do with him anyway? Belgrade was still threatened by Mehmet but was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman was not as capable a military leader as Mehmet was, and he conquered a large portion of Hungary. The ridiculous theory would have us believe the fearsome and ambitious Mehmet II would have left Hungary alone had he managed to take Belgrade. The question is, should the revisionist nonsense assertion even be here at all? Can whoever wrote it back it up? Does anyone have any objection to the idea of entirely deleting it? 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I realize what was bothering me about this section, and why it was a waste of time to even argue with it. It was so simple (and the claim so stupid) that it passed my eye. Mehmet did not see the Danube and the Sava as his boundry in any way. His predeccessors had already extended their influence past the Danube and into the Romanian territories or Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia). Mehmet II, the great conquerer of Constantinople, certainly had no desire to withdraw from those regions and in fact Vlad Tepes and Stephen III successfully thwarted his attempts to strenghten Ottoman authory over those two principalities (although neither actually won independence from the Ottoman Empire). So why would this person claim Mehmet's later attacks were opportunism instead of an attempt to once again live up to his his nickname? Well, for whatever reason, the writer is claiming Hunyadi actually LOST the Siege of Belgrade to Mehmet the Conquerer! I don't even think the most staunch Turkish nationalist would try to claim that with a straight face. As I mentioned before, Belgrade was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. I'm going to have to rewrite the "follow-up" section. As for whoever wrote this, I'm not sure but I think I can guess what he (and I doubt it was a woman, you never know though) was up to. I respect Muslims who have a respect for history and actually have something valuable to contribute to the history of the Ottoman Wars, but the moderators of this site should beware of vandalism such as this which falls under the category of "Jihad through deceit." 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who ever claimed Vlad Tepes was the reason Hunyadi won the battle, but I never made such a claim or heard of it. McNally and Florescu never made such a claim either, and they note that Vlad Tepes was actually not at the battle but assigned to guard Transylvania during the battle and given permission invade Wallachia in the event of a Hungarian victory. McNally and Florescu were/are solid pioneering historians, and the only way in which they are really controversial and sensationalistic is that they exaggerated the influence of the historical Dracula on Stoker's vampire namesake. The reason Vlad Tepes is mentioned here is that he is one of the most important proteges Hunyadi was able to install in thanks to his victory at Belgrade, not because Vlad had anything to do with the victory itself. 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This should be on the frontpage in the "On this day..." section. The 550 year anniversary celebrations of the victory are held this very weekend throughout Hungary. 195.70.32.136 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting rid of "Mehmet" altogether, since "Mehmed" is a much more common way of writing his name. Shield2 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that Ottomans had "200 ships" to help them. Yet the battle took place at Belgrade which is an inland city. How did the ships come useful in this case? Vice regent 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
As Belgrade lies at the confluence of two major rivers, ships were used to block attempts to bring reinforcments in from Hungary and encircle the city, which failed 1456 but was succesful in 1521 when Sultan Suleyman conquered the city. orjen 13:58, 01 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Vice regent 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The latter part of this section makes little sense and does not fit the first part. The last sentence isn't (a sentence, that is).
The outnumbered defenders relied mainly on the strength of the formidable castle of Belgrade which was at the time one of the best engineered in the Balkans. As Belgrade was designated to be the capital of the Serbian Despotate by Despot Stefan Lazarević. Ottoman raids were expected after they recovered from the heavy loss against the Mongols. Utilising advanced building techniques from Byzantine and Arab fortress designs from the period of Seljuk and Ottoman military conflicts of the mid-11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 ( talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It was Nándorfehérvár back then so it should be Siege of Nándorfehérvár. Just like it is called the Fall of Constantinopol and not Fall of Istanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.164.123 ( talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, In the field battle, the Turks are chasing the Hungarians back to the castle. It is common for Mehmed to be injured because Mehmed was trying to gather his army on the battlefield. Seeing that Mehmed was fighting, the Ottoman soldiers quickly united and attacked the Crusader army and pushed the Hungarians back into the castle. After this war, the Hungarians lost their former power, they could not raise such a large army even in the Battle of Mohacs (although there was crusader support). That's why I wrote the Pyrrhic victory. And İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says that he prevented a crusade from taking place thanks to the resistance of the Turks in the field battle. I would be grateful if you read and evaluate my comment. Keremmaarda ( talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I found various numbers:
Pál Engel - Realm of St. Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526
"However, this host never confronted the sultan, who began the siege of Belgrade on 4 July with an army which modern scholars have put at 60,000 to 70,000 men."
Tamás Pálosfalvi - From Nicopolis to Mohács, A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526
"Ottoman military preparations on land were equally impressive. Although the fantastic figures preserved by the various narrative sources must be doubted, the army which set about the siege of Belgrade was large by contemporary standards. A force of between 40,000 and 50,000 fighting men, probably closer to the former figure, seems a reasonable estimate, especially since the Ottomans, having left troops to secure Constantinople, seem to have suffered further losses before Smederevo while on their way to Belgrade.410 Eyewitnesses were particularly astonished by the size and range of the Ottoman artillery, “never seen by human eye before, nor even imagined by the mind.”411 The huge guns, partly manufactured onsite, were operated by an international team of experts.412"
Tarján M. Tamás https://rubicon.hu/kalendarium/1456-julius-22-a-nandorfehervari-diadal
"Although the reports of 150,000 people are exaggerated in relation to Mehmed's strength, we can say without exaggeration that his regular troops - spahs, janissaries - put out 20-30,000 people, and this number was at least doubled by the continuously joining Akinji and Asab units."
Bánlaky https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/799.html#ref3
"Sultan Mohamed's operational plan for the 1456 campaign, as already mentioned above, consisted of flooding Hungary with his armies immediately after the capture of Belgrade. Relying on his proud sense of self that he had succeeded relatively easily in taking Constantinople, the second capital of Europe at the time, he now allegedly took an oath that he would take the Danube castle, which his father unsuccessfully besieged for six months, in two weeks and in two more months he would be in Buda will have lunch.[2] As soon as spring came out, he gathered his army of 150,000[3] at Drinapoly. In order to keep the relief army at bay, he decided to block the castle on the water side, for which purpose he had 200 ships made in the provinces along the Danube and gathered them at Viddin.[4] The cannons cast at Krusevác were made from Constantinople bells.[5] The number of cannons brought under Belgrade amounted to 300;" OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
OrionNimrod Hello Mr. OrionNimrod, Franz Babinger writes that 4-5 thousand soldiers were lost on both sides in the war, the Hungarians sank 4 ships and captured 5, and only captured 10 cannons. Is there any truth to this? Or have you seen anything like this in any Hungarian source? Keremmaarda ( talk) 23:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)