Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Valea Albă

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.215.95.208 (talk) at 19:22, 19 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Data

Anybody knows anything about the strength of the armies or the reasons of this war? This article is important because it marks the Ottoman victory over resisting Moldovia. This war also has a respectable part in the European effort against Turks. Deliogul 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha, the one who wrote 100,000 Ottomans and 12,000 Moldavians must have been on something while writing it. I will edit the most common numbers from sereval history books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.177.189 (talkcontribs)

Please bring some serious references, not George Cornwell Second Edition(2006);History through Europe, a book which I seriously doubt even exists . Axi 11:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is even more bad to edit sources of Romanaian origin, since the Ottomans waged many wars against them, and took their lands. Of course they will write that the Ottoman army was larger, and describe cel mare as heoric. It is not possible to use sources from countries that possess Anti-Turkish thoughts and analyses!

Also, I wonder why you think I´m not using reliable sources? This book is not very known, but it´s a new book which is written by a Irish-British author. Romanian(probably Anti-Turkish) sources say that the numbers were 100,000 Ottomans against 20,000 Moldavians. Turkish sources claim that it was 30,000 Ottomans against 150,000 Moldavians. This book I´ve red say 50,000 Ottomans against 90,000 Moldavians, and so I see that as more logical than both the Romanian and the Turkish

sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.78.122 (talkcontribs)

Pathetic how turks always try to come with their,rather unique, history perception.Anyway their goverment support this stupidifying thinking system.They still today denies the genocide of the armenians ex,and the kurds are a kind of animals in their thinking system.Funny is that these people lived in these areas before the turks,but that is probably also a anti-turk lie....

"Turkish sources claim that it was 30,000 Ottomans against 150,000 Moldavians. This book I´ve red say 50,000 Ottomans against 90,000 Moldavians" - 150,000 or 90,000 Moldavians? You really must be joking, because the estimated population of Moldova in the times of Sthepen the Great was around 450,000 - 500,000 people. How can you logically recruit an army of 150,000 or even 90,000 people from a population of 500,000 (including children, women, old people)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.21.59 (talkcontribs)

Could you at least post the ISBN code of that "not very known" book ? -Axi 12:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


---Single combat between King and Sultaln cowardly refused? Sounds like propaganda or, overt romanticization at least. I'm assuming that these 'eager historians' are Turkish? Just as the '100,000 Ottomans v. 20,000 Moldavians' guys hailed from the Balkans?


- who wrote this article i dont know but jannisarries really very powerfull troops especilly in time of Mehmet II. and he is very clever commander i think this battle has got some of mistakes about number of soldires. with 100,000 soldires i suppose ottomans would smash all moldavia very easly.And please think in tihs period of time ottomans use excenlt thecnology about guns. jannisarries was using muskets and ottomans was using powerfull cannons even open field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.105.20 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-about the "enthusiastic history researchers" These individuals are, most likely, Turkish historians who, like the user 78.176.105.20, cannot comprehend how a numerical inferior Moldavian force had the capacity of putting up such a fierce opposition. To overshadow the Moldavian defenders, one could easily forge a story, as these "enthusiastic history researchers" did, in which the apparent impotence of the Ottoman army is a little less obvious. Such a story is not only unconfirmed by historians who discussed the battle, but the supposed behavious of the Moldavian leader is in clear contradiction with his character, a character noted by many non- Romanian historians. Until someone can bring a valid source (non-recent, non-Turkish) to confirme this "story", it will remain out of the article, as it is nothing more than a fantasy.