Talk:Battle of Keresztes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Keresztes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Ottoman / Medieval / Crusades / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Ottoman military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Crusades task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Austria Mid‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages: Crusades Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Hungary Mid‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammer

Fixed some. ResMar 20:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Kinross

Too bad I only have the translation of The Ottoman centuries by Lord Kinross. Because the last sentence of the introduction is quite ambigious: "Lord Kinross said of the battle that had the Turks been defeated, they would have lost Bulgaria and part of Hungary." . I checked the above assertion. Yes it is there ; not only that, he also mentions Macedonia and Transilvania. But there may be something wrong either in the original text or in the translation. For one thing, Bulgaria is in the east and Hungary is in the west. If the allies were so victorious as to occupy Bulgaria. than they would easily occupy whole of Hungary and Serbia (which has not been mentioned at all). So I think the correct sentence must be "...they would have lost Hungary,Serbia and a part of Bulgaria." Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Wondering

Why does this battle description looks so much like a piece of propaganda ? Irrelevant details meant to glorify one side and villainize the other side are pushed into the story, while major chapters of the battle are strangely skipped. Not sure who's supposed to "guard" this section of wikipedia, but this person should have a hard look here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5803:4770:1C4C:64E1:9B17:DB7D (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be impressed with this article as is. First of all, what was "decisive" about the Ottoman victory? I believe the battle essentially a draw, especially in light of the consideration that it turned for the Turks when their enemies stopped to plunder. Secondly, under Aftermath, the article basically tells us they celebrated in Constantinople and danced in the streets. What about the Aftermath on the other side? IMO the piece has POV problems. Cutugno (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting battle and the results aren't obvious. It seems after Battle of Lepanto there is an understanding that new military tactics and major alliances can bring success against Ottoman Empire in the Battlefield. We see these novel tactics in this war from Austrian army. They deployed an infantry heavy army in square formation using earthworks. The squares were protected by pikeman and in the middle there were rifleman. In combination with the earthworks this is an effective tactic against the cavalry heavy Ottoman Army. While pikeman is holding up the cavalry the rifleman can produce devastating volleys against the charging cavalry and it seems Ottoman Cavalry had suffered heavily at the first day of the battle. The Turkish historian claims each rifleman carrying 4 to 5 rifles. Seeing that Ottomans had significant casualties the Austrians left their earthworks and started an offensive. Turkish historians points to 500 squares with 100 soldier each. This size of 50000 is about the half size of the Ottoman army. Here it get interesting. We are not sure if Ottomans were retreating as stated in the article after heavy losses or they were employing their go-to tactic in Middle Ages warfare. This tactic is based on a feint move to draw the enemy out. It is called "Crescent Formation". It is a known Turkic based military tactic. While the front of the army pulls back the wings stretch out in a crescent formation to encircle the opposing army while exposing it to a close range artillery fire. This tactic was also employed in the Battle of Mohac. Once the Austrians left their protected positions and entered the Ottoman camp, it seemed they received a disastrous artillery fire. The square formation is great at defending against cavalry but it can become a disaster against short range artillery. The Ottoman artillery was able to pick apart the condensed square formation. After this, there was a frontal assault which seems to break the squares and led to a full retreat. According to Turkish sources during these panicked retreat, the Turkish cavalry was able to outflank and penetrate broken formations which caused severe casualties. The sources claim all the artillery pieces were captured and all squares were surrounded. I am skeptical that all the squares were destroyed but I believe this is why they consider to be a decisive Ottoman victory.

- Its hard for the Chiristian Historian to belive that a 100,000 Strong with 100 old cannon Ottoman force beat the 300,000 Strong with 300 new cannons and more range Christian Army, its hard to belive that storys of Battles and History of our World are still lies these Days, I mean u sure more than 10 Nations only have 80,000 Man? (An army to destroy the Turks once and for all) I mean it was a neckbreak not a Fart for Europe. Btw for the guy above me, the Turks had lost all their cannons while the retreat to their Camp the Christian used this cannons against them afterwards. After the janissarys surrounded the Sultans Camp the christians didnt came thru also the Camp pioneers attacked with shovels and everything what they could used and then the Crime Tartars came back and attacked them from the Back, it was due to the janissarys (again) that the ottomans were Victorious. And Mehmet the III who also joined the Janissarys in the Battle. Nevermind Fake News are popular right now. Also if I open up a homepage, link it to wikipedia it is legit! Dont' belive the Internet go read a Book! And not of people whos country wasnt involved! If your that interested in this Battle you research more and better.94.114.208.146 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, numbers

Hi‎ Göktuğ538538,

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Keresztes&diff=prev&oldid=1174396757

please provide readable links, let us see your claim. Btw Joseph von Hammer is early 1800s author, we can mention him in the text if modern sources refer to him, but we need follow modern academic historians. OrionNimrod (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]