Talk:Long War (Ottoman wars)

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)