Talk:Black Army of Hungary

Undefeated?

In 1467 at Baia Mathias Corvinus was defeated by Stephen the Great king of Moldavia.So it is not the only undefeated army in Europe since Alexander.Besides there are many other examples of undefeated standard armies in that period.Please delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.113 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[potentially offensive, non-helpful comment removed here. Killiondude (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)]

Vallachia Moldavia (modern Romanian) countries were vassals of Hungarian and Polish Kings, latter the turkish Ottoman Empire.

Considerations about the Black Army

1. "It is recognized as the first standing continental European fighting force not under conscription and with regular pay since the Roman Empire".

Not quite. The French Compagnies d'Ordonnace appeared during Charles the VIIth military reforms in the 1440's, almost two decades before the Black Army. Also, they were followed quickly by the Burgundian ones. Especially the Burgundian army of Charles the Bold shows the mixed unit tactics employed by the Black Army, the French Compagnies being more of a cavalry force. They are most likely results of a convergent evolution. Also, there have been several similar forces before this - Janissaries, for example, also professional soldiers ("They wore uniforms and were paid in cash as regular soldiers"). So, the Black Army wasn't such a novelty.

2. "and reputed to be the first military body to be undefeated in the field (under one ruler) since Alexander the Great in European combat history."

As posted above, Mathias Corvinus did engage in a pitched battle with the Moldavians at the Battle of Baia in 1467. And this strikes at the supposed invincibility of the Black Army, because, while some sources claim to have been a Hungarian victory (while a pyrrhic one), others clame to have been a Moldavian victory. On the other hand, even if it was a Hungarian defeat, the Black Army might have not been envolved. A large part of the Hungarian army at that battle was comprised of forces from the voivodate of Transylvania, with some royal banderies. Those royal banderies MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT have been the Black Army. Also, in the article about the battle of Baia, it states that "thereafter he (Corvinus) fined the Transylvanians a sum of 400,000 florins, which they had to pay immediately, in gold. With this money he raised an army of foreign mercenaries, which would prove more loyal to him." It cites as a source the Historiae Polonicae. Wouldn't this be the actual birth of the Black Army? Some help in clearing this would be appreciated.

For these reasons, I have changed the article to a more neutral tone, by removing these lines. Flavius T (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Flavius T

That article apparently has some issues. It uses numbers for the Moldavian army like 12 000 total with 7 000 casulties which would mean the total annihilation of the Moldavian army, while losing the same amount would mean it still has a large number of forces, so any claim of victory should be examined in that light (if the article is correct in this - we shouldnt be basing anything on other wiki articles anyway). And unless there are sources to the involvement of the Black Army, this is not even relevant to this article. Hobartimus (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Hobartimus, the Battle of Baia does have some issues. I mentioned it because of a few of points. Firstly, for some it was a Moldavian victory (not only Romanian sources, but also Historiae Polonicae). If it would have been a Moldavian victory and the BA took part at that battle, it wouldn't have been an invincible force anymore. Secondly, the present article says that the BA existed between 1458 to 1490, while Baia took place in 1467. If that is right, the BA would have existed for 9 years at that moment. Being the best force available to Corvinus, I doubt he would have left it behind. The point of the BA was that it was created as a force available to the king at any moment, not having to wait for the long gathering times needed for a traditional feudal army. Also, it was loyal to him personally, not to the nobles, and it would have been more efficient (but also more expensive) then noble-led troops. It would have been perfect for the swift, surprise winter campaign that Corvinus tried in 1467. Not using it here would have been stupid, and Corvinus was anything but stupid. Thirdly, Historiae Polonicae also mentions that, after that battle, Corvinus took a large sum from Transylvania, which he used to raise a mercenary force. Was that an improvement and enlargement of the BA, or was it actually it's birth? Those were the reasons for mentioning the battle of Baia. So, the question of the invincibility of the Black Army and/or it's birth year still remains.

Also, I still find this "It is recognized as the first standing continental European fighting force not under conscription and with regular pay since the Roman Empire" rather dubious, especially since the original article doesn't cite anyone. Has it been recognized by who? There were other professional long term, regullary paid fighting forces that appeared between the Roman army and the Black one, I gave the example of the French and Burgundian forces. The Jannisaries might have been conscripts, but the Compagnies d'Ordonnance sure weren't.

The Black Army was quite an improvement over the previous Hungarian armies. The Ottoman Empire was rather reluctant to commit itself fully against the Hungarians after the siege of Belgrade, and probably the BA had something to do with it. After Corvinus died, the Hungarians reverted to a more "normal" army for that time, which was crushed at the battle of Mohacs. So, the importance of the Black Army shouldn't be underestimated, but this doesn't mean it should become a legend, en par with Alexander's army, Caesar's legions or Napoleon's Grande Armee. Especially since the BA was never involved in any truly large battle like these forces were. I have left your modifications, but I still think they should at least have some "citation needed". Flavius T (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Black Army was defeated by George of Poděbrady in Vilemov 1469. --Yopie (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If it was defeated in 1469 then the sentence should go of course, it was not me, who originally inserted it, so I have no stake in it remaining. Can someone link to the article of the 1469 battle? Hobartimus (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no article about that battle. Yopie, maybe you could find more about it? Flavius T (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't the whole black army at Vilemov, there was was a little part of the black army. Finally, the Bohemians were defeated in the Bohemian-Hungarian war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Table 1 content

The ground of comparison could be based only on real numbers. Arguing whether they were standing armies or not is totally irrelevant since they could face each other at the same age not to mention that some of them were also paid standing armies (think of the bosnian cavalry of Milan and Venice also prefered hiring soldiers hence of its population, and the table references them as constant garrison). Taking out the armies of England and France just because they were not standing armies is also a lame step (considering that each army of Hundred Years' War shall qualify for standing army criteria). Also I decided to change the name for the table to largest armies per its source. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the total number of French and English feudal non-standing armies were fewer than medieval Hungarian armies. You didn't count forexample the total number of Feudal levy of Hungary. Hungary had the highest ratio of nobles and militant population. These armies were not contemporary. That create a false aspect