Talk:Ottoman–Habsburg wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ethnic bias[edit]

I feel this article needs improvement because of the many ethnic bias.

  • János Szapolyai was not puppet, but the most powerful landlord of the kingdom. His father was the Palatinus (nádor), his mother was a princess, himself voivod of Transylvania, Palatinus, commander of the largest royal army after the Battle of Mohács. In 1505 he was nominated as a king if Ulászló II dies without a heir. He wore the insignia of St Stephen, was crowned with the Holy Crown in the crowning city of Székesfehérvár by the chief representative of the Catholic Church and elected by the remains of the council in Tokaj, which are the mandatory criteria to be king of Hungary.
  • The article explicitly picks nations, such as Austrians, which lead to confusion. Indeed, Ferdinand I was the Archduke of Austria, but he is born is Spain from the Castile, his Chief of the German Mercenary Army was the Italian Giovanni Battista Castaldo.
  • "However, at Eger the Austrians achieved a stunning victory, thanks in part to the efforts of the civilians present." - Eger was not defended by Austrians at all, even Ferdinand didn't sent his army.

--János Fehér (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Still making this article. Hang on don't delete, please.Tourskin 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, while you're at it, Kőszeg was not defended by austrian forces but by varied troops. There were probably Croatians, Austrians, Hungarians, whatsoever. Nikola Jurisic was himself a Croatian-born Hungarian baron in the service of the Habsburg king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.98.148 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

POV[edit]

"The retreat of the Ottoman army was hampered by the brave resistance of Bratislava which once more bombarded the Ottomans." is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.51.75 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Russians?![edit]

At which point did the Russians get involved?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometime during Peter the Great's reign, as he attacked the fortress of Azoz. One of the main reasons he toured Europe was to secure an anti-Ottoman alliance, which he was only partly successful in doing so, if he achieved any success (1699 saw a Habsburg victory). Tourskin (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ok, I was vaguely aware of Peter's motivation for the travels, but were Russian troops actually involved in the wars? I mean usually when an article has the national flag, there is some involvement. Azov was in 1696. This was a series of conflicts with the Ottoman Empire completely unrelated to the Hapsburg wars as far as I know, never mind their lack of proximity.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, whenever Austria went to war, Venice and Russia usually went to war too, so that they could capitalize on each other's military operations and stretch the Ottomans thin. The Treaty of Karlowitz, has both Russis and Austria on one side. Granted, they did not fight together side by side all the time, but certainly they did fight together some of the time. Heres a few examples:
  • Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)
  • Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792) [Took place along with an Austro-Turk War]
  • Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) [This one is a little more complicated but Russia and Austria both gained lands]

The second of the above list had Austrian and Russia troops fighting the Ottomans at the same time. The Austrians and the Russians did not fight each other to the best of my knowledge and in fact the Russian empire saved the Habsburgs from internal revolution at one point. Tourskin (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the history lesson, but is this true in the case of these wars? If the inclusion of Russia is by "historical association", then I would suggest this is insufficient grounds on which to base such an inclusion, and will remove the reference to Russia unless this can be properly sourced, and cited in the text which currently does not mention Russia at all.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what you are asking for. Russian troops and Austrian troops took part together as de facto allies in the war against the Ottoman Turks. This is not disputed. Anyways, the rest does not mention Russia because I have not come round to finishing the article off. Tourskin (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking, at which point did the Russians get involved in the Ottoman-Habsburg wars? It may have been a good idea to mention them at least in the introduction if they did take part in the wars because I am somewhat sceptical you will find a source for this participation given Russian commitments around the Azov while watching the Swedes--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well as the article states, the start of and the nature of the war is sketchy. Its an on and off war. But I would have to argue when the Azov camapign began, since although the war lasted until 1696, the Austrians and Russians concluded the same Traety of Karlowitz in 1699. Its quite subjective, since the Russians had been at war with various Turkish Khanate allies of the Ottomans before Peter the Great. I'm not saying that the Russians got out of their way to send troops south to the Danube and help their "fellow Christians". That is not ncessarily being an ally. You don't have to do this, and this what you seem to be asking for, right? Well no, Russian troops never in my knowledge fought side by side with Austrian troops against the Ottomans. They may have slightly at some point fough side by side in 1848 against the Revolutions but Russia's de facto anti-Ottoman alliance with Austria is established by a common enemy amongst other things. Tourskin (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So I'll remove the flag from the infobox. As a matter of fact Russians did not conclude the Treaty of Karlowitz, but were only present there. They had attained nothing from it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Not true, the treaty of Karlowitz was the treaty that de jure ended the Azov campaign. Besides, the treaty is not all, the war from 1787 to 1792 and the Great Turkish War saw both powers working. The Pope accepted Muscovite Russia in the Holy League. Stop making fun of me by saying "interesting history lessons", its facts and thats that. Tourskin (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if you though I was making fun of you, though I did not appreciate the lesson. I can be somewhat sarcastic on occasion, which is not to be taken personally.
It was in fact the Treaty of Constantinople (1700) that ended the Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700) in the Azov and Black Sea area.
My problem is that Russian had five wars with the Ottoman empire between the reign of Peter I and that of Alexander I, of which only one can be considered to have been waged by Russia and Austria as direct allies. The joining of the coalition that resulted in the Treaty of Karlowitz was really one of belated convenience then anything else, but served Russia later in their war with the Swedes.
The secret alliance of 1781 was largely to serve Catherine's desire for Crimea, so the Ottomans played into her hands as it were in 1787. I find it hard to say that Russia was a participant in the Hapsburg conflict with the Ottoman Empire since they shared neither cause, nor objectives, not even operations (from memory). Leopold II even signed a separate peace!
What do you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you seem to have gone into it alot more than I have. And you seem quite determined to remove Russia. Let us reach a compromise then. How about a little footnote for Russia explaining their limited role; you can edit this footnote since you have the greater knowledge. If you are still vehemently opposed to this compromise then do as you will, though I prefer a compromise.
Note: I understand that you may be more knowledgable than I in this topic but appreciate it or not, I had to put forward evidence for my case; it was not meant as a lesson. Tourskin (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know much except that I don't know a lot more then I do know ;O)
Its our article, so you can add the footnote if you decide to leave Russia in there so future readers and editors will not ask the same question. You can use the information in the discussion which is enough to create a footnote linked to all the other articles. By the way the article on the Russo-Ottoman war of 1787 needs to be vastly expanded also as it is currently a copy of the 1911 Britannica entry.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To do list[edit]

  • Fill in the sections with more details
  • Include information about the Thirty Years War and how it made the Emperor depend more on Austria
  • Talk about the Spanish War of Succession and how it meant that Spain was no longer friendly to Austria's war against the Turks.
  • Add references for these.
  • Add section for end; conclusion of war, overall strategy and tactics between the two sides, etc.

Tourskin (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

War conclusion[edit]

the infobox says the wars ended with the Treaty of Sistova, but the lead paragraph says the wars ended only before the World War I because both empires are allied with the Germans. Which one is true? What are the provisions of this treaty? Arkwatem (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholics, not just Christians.[edit]

The articles writes things such as this:"In 1663, the Ottomans launched a disastrous invasion of Austria, ending at the Battle of St Gotthard. The battle was won by the Christians, chiefly through the brave attack of 6,000 French troops led by La Feuillade and Coligny."

Well, the Ottoman's foes weren't not just Christians. They were also Catholics. Instead of calling the Otttoman's foes as "Christians", the article must call them as Catholics. Agre22 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

The great turkish war was from 1683-1699 not from 1663 thats wrong look at turkish and german wikipedia has to be corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.4.119 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated section[edit]

In this article, one of the sections is Rise of Russia. Why do we have this section ? It is true that Russians allied themselves with Habsburgs in 1683-99, 1735-1739 and 1787-1792 wars. But the section Rise of Russia deals with the events of 16th century and has nothing to do with Habsburgs. So it is completely unrelated to the main theme of the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mamluk image in European war.[edit]

The image in the side bar is quite meaningless. This 2007-downloaded image by Gabr-el seems to be taken from a 2005-downloaded imege by Xosé used in the article Mamluks. Well Mamluks lived in Egypt and had nothing in common with the wars in Europe. This image should be replaced by a more appropriate one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The multinational nature of the Ottoman Empire is self-evident in all historical sources. To say that the Mameluke did not participate in Ottoman conquests is to say that a soldier fights with no weapon. At the least, the Mamelukes were used to crush the Greek War of Independence, in which they failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.6.56 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)