Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)

Wrong numbers

Hungarian military experience (according to history of ottoman-hungarian wars): Turks could win only with minimum 3X preponderance. Because: 1. they are/were smaller shorter people, the tallness and lenghts of arms were important in hand to hand combats, 2. the Turkish (and other Middle-Eastern) metal/steel-technology was too backward to make similar advanced armours as european armours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone add such huge Ottoman numbers!? It was totaly impossible for the Sultan to gather such huge armies after all the previous wars. I have red about this battle in many history book, and the most common numbers were about 20,000 Turks against a total of 60,000 Hungarians and Wallachians. They obiviously outnumbered the Turks, since they were allied!

It's not true. The highest number of Turk soldiers were 100 000 in this times. Probably in siege of belgrade fought about 60 000 Turks. And I have references for this. --Vojvodaen 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep; NOBODY layed a siege with inferior numbers during the 15th cebtury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.45 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The souces from the books regarding the numbers does not cite ANY citations at all. The article is nothing but a lack of quality as long as the numbers are stated as official. It should be noted as Unknown. It is impossible to know how many forces there were. the fundamental sources are not being neutral, but they are being irrational, such as most of the battles concerning the Ottomans are.

It is interesting, every article I read about a war between western powers and ottomans, ottomans fight with too many opponents, but always ottoman armies is twice (or more) the size of opponents, and at the end ottomans have too many casualties, they lose almost all soldiers even if they won. I think the turks are growing too fast, every year they can found ten-thousands mans to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.173 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that they were not only Turks. It was the Ottoman Empire, with many more conquered nations living under their rule, not just turks. While the core of the Ottoman army was well-armed and well-trained, the majority of the soldiers were more or less slaves who were ordered to either fight or get executed. This makes a huge difference against an army which fights to defend it's own homeland. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Belgrade or Nándorfehérvár

Shouldn't we redirect this to "Siege of Belgrade"? :) --Joy [shallot] 12:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The articles on John Hunyadi and Giovanni da Capistrano talk of Belgrade, not Nándorfehérvár, although this did seem to be its official name at the time. I'll redirect the other way around for now. --Joy [shallot] 12:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article on John Hunyadi uses both alternately - Greg

And on the other hand, the Magyar name was probably phased out by the time the other sieges happened... dunno. --Joy [shallot] 12:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that Siege of Nándorfehérvár is not appropriate as Belgrade is the common english name. One constant of manny old (and new) cities is that they changed names. While the historic event the article refers to, took place in the middle ages since Belgrade is constantly populated a designation as Siege of Belgrade seems logical as it is the 'same' city. Historic events that took place at Belgrade in anticity should refer to the antique name of Singidunum, which was a different settlement at the same location. Orjen

I guess that rationale makes sense. Besides, Nándorfehérvár doesn't seem notable enough to have an article of its own (a border fort? don't think it would ever have), so there's no obvious lineage to it. --Joy [shallot] 6 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

No. Nándorfehérvár was part of the Hungarian Kingdom and the hungarians were fighting for their land. I hate this tendency about creating the history according to the nowdays borders (Slovakia existed in the 15th century and also was the greatest goldminer in the world, Transilvania was a rumanian domain,etc.) This very simple lies would not stand here so long if the Wikipedia is really chasing the truth. Alan

sultan's suicide

I think that it is historically inaccurate to state that the Ottoman Sultan was barely prevented for commiting suicide by poison after the failure of the Siege of Belgrade. It seems to me hard to comprehend that the man who Conquerered Constantinople and later subdued Bosnia and Serbia could think about commiting suicide because of losing a single battle. This does not decrease the importance of the Siege of Belgrade, but losing in Belgrade did not have dire consequences on the fate of the already exisiting Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.206.20 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 July 2005

Suicide theory isn't true but Mehmet II the Conqueror, in a point, was too close to death. He realized that his army started to escape from the battlefield so he attacked to the enemy line individually. He got injured from his arm and head. Then the fleeing Ottoman soldiers saw the condition of their emperor, they turned back and they saved both their emperor and the lives of many Ottoman troops by the hands of the enemy. With respect, Deliogul 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The "follow up" section

Who are McNally and Flerescu? Where and when were they published? Why is there no reference? The person is totally non-neutral in showing no citation of references, in the use of weasel words like 'no doubt' etc. and in the whole tone and content of especially the "Follow up" section. For example, it totally neglects facts of Ottoman succession after Mehmed II. This section needs a more knowledgable, not one sided and NEUTRAL write-up.88.104.160.81 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts that whoever wrote the last section knows what he was talking about. Raids into Hungary continued as soon as the Ottomans could do it, and large parts of Hungary were eventually conquered, culminating in sieges of Vienna. Should be reworked, there's plenty of info on the Ottoman wars in Europe in other articles.

I agree and I made the corrections to this absurd revisionism based the accounts of McNally and Florescu, everything there is to read on Hunyadi and Mehmet II, and the basic facts about the Ottoman wars in Europe documented on this site. Whoever wrote that was an amatuer Ottoman Empire enthusiast attempting to discredit Hunyadi by making the ridiculous claim that the battle tipped the scaled in favor of the Ottomans. This little theory unintentionally made Mehmet (or Mehmed) the Conquerer sound like a sissy. Mehmet II is not as well-remembered by most Westerners, but he was on par with Ghengis Khan as an Asiatic conquerer. This man wanted the world, and he was not about to change his mind without a fight. He made several attempts to attack Hungary and I have explained why he was not successful. As for Hunyadi, he was far from infallable but his abilities as a military strategist and a political leader saved Europe from a man who could have otherwise conquered half the continent. 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted the contradictory sentence about Hungary being vulnerable to attack. This is where this person's little theory is not only ahistorical but does not even make sense. Even disregarding world history and well-documented facts about his intentions and character, if Mehmet II was "not in the least interested in occupying Hungary," why would he directly attack Hungary instead of using his military strength to cement his authority over the Balkan territories? This would amount to nothing but harrassing the Hungarians and making a new enemy in the militarily strong but rarely aggressive Matthias, something he certainly wouldn't have done if he only wanted the Balkans. Matthias' army was clearly strong enough to successfully defend Hungary and launch retaliatory attacks on Mehmet II (who already had Balkan resistance to deal with), so any preemtive attacks on Hungary would have been a completely wasteful and idiotic move on Mehmet's part in this fantasy where he only wanted the Balkans. And what does the loss of Belgrade have to do with him anyway? Belgrade was still threatened by Mehmet but was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman was not as capable a military leader as Mehmet was, and he conquered a large portion of Hungary. The ridiculous theory would have us believe the fearsome and ambitious Mehmet II would have left Hungary alone had he managed to take Belgrade. The question is, should the revisionist nonsense assertion even be here at all? Can whoever wrote it back it up? Does anyone have any objection to the idea of entirely deleting it? 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I realize what was bothering me about this section, and why it was a waste of time to even argue with it. It was so simple (and the claim so stupid) that it passed my eye. Mehmet did not see the Danube and the Sava as his boundry in any way. His predeccessors had already extended their influence past the Danube and into the Romanian territories or Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia). Mehmet II, the great conquerer of Constantinople, certainly had no desire to withdraw from those regions and in fact Vlad Tepes and Stephen III successfully thwarted his attempts to strenghten Ottoman authory over those two principalities (although neither actually won independence from the Ottoman Empire). So why would this person claim Mehmet's later attacks were opportunism instead of an attempt to once again live up to his his nickname? Well, for whatever reason, the writer is claiming Hunyadi actually LOST the Siege of Belgrade to Mehmet the Conquerer! I don't even think the most staunch Turkish nationalist would try to claim that with a straight face. As I mentioned before, Belgrade was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. I'm going to have to rewrite the "follow-up" section. As for whoever wrote this, I'm not sure but I think I can guess what he (and I doubt it was a woman, you never know though) was up to. I respect Muslims who have a respect for history and actually have something valuable to contribute to the history of the Ottoman Wars, but the moderators of this site should beware of vandalism such as this which falls under the category of "Jihad through deceit." 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote that part about Vlad Tepes being the reason that Hunyadi won the battle? Are McNally and Florescu really the best sources? Their book is something of a sensationalist narrative rather than scholarly history, no? At least that's my impression of what others have told me. I could be wrong. But seriously, there are no better sources? InFairness 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who ever claimed Vlad Tepes was the reason Hunyadi won the battle, but I never made such a claim or heard of it. McNally and Florescu never made such a claim either, and they note that Vlad Tepes was actually not at the battle but assigned to guard Transylvania during the battle and given permission invade Wallachia in the event of a Hungarian victory. McNally and Florescu were/are solid pioneering historians, and the only way in which they are really controversial and sensationalistic is that they exaggerated the influence of the historical Dracula on Stoker's vampire namesake. The reason Vlad Tepes is mentioned here is that he is one of the most important proteges Hunyadi was able to install in thanks to his victory at Belgrade, not because Vlad had anything to do with the victory itself. 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For Front Page

This should be on the frontpage in the "On this day..." section. The 550 year anniversary celebrations of the victory are held this very weekend throughout Hungary. 195.70.32.136 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mehmed" or "Mehmet"

I'm getting rid of "Mehmet" altogether, since "Mehmed" is a much more common way of writing his name.Shield2 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mehmed.--Vojvodaen 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ships

The article mentions that Ottomans had "200 ships" to help them. Yet the battle took place at Belgrade which is an inland city. How did the ships come useful in this case? Vice regent 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As Belgrade lies at the confluence of two major rivers, ships were used to block attempts to bring reinforcments in from Hungary and encircle the city, which failed 1456 but was succesful in 1521 when Sultan Suleyman conquered the city. orjen 13:58, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Vice regent 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

confusing section

The latter part of this section makes little sense and does not fit the first part. The last sentence isn't (a sentence, that is).

The outnumbered defenders relied mainly on the strength of the formidable castle of Belgrade which was at the time one of the best engineered in the Balkans. As Belgrade was designated to be the capital of the Serbian Despotate by Despot Stefan Lazarević. Ottoman raids were expected after they recovered from the heavy loss against the Mongols. Utilising advanced building techniques from Byzantine and Arab fortress designs from the period of Seljuk and Ottoman military conflicts of the mid-11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fall of Istanbul VS Siege of Belgrade

It was Nándorfehérvár back then so it should be Siege of Nándorfehérvár. Just like it is called the Fall of Constantinopol and not Fall of Istanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.164.123 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Turks won the field battle"?

Hi, In the field battle, the Turks are chasing the Hungarians back to the castle. It is common for Mehmed to be injured because Mehmed was trying to gather his army on the battlefield. Seeing that Mehmed was fighting, the Ottoman soldiers quickly united and attacked the Crusader army and pushed the Hungarians back into the castle. After this war, the Hungarians lost their former power, they could not raise such a large army even in the Battle of Mohacs (although there was crusader support). That's why I wrote the Pyrrhic victory. And İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says that he prevented a crusade from taking place thanks to the resistance of the Turks in the field battle. I would be grateful if you read and evaluate my comment. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1171488726

I see you have some alternative history about this, you can study this, that siege is very popular, none of them claim your fringe claimes, you need to study them:

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=siege+of+belgrade&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=siege+of+belgrade

"After this war, the Hungarians lost their former power"

? Really, that is why King Matthias Corvinus occupied huge part of the Holy Roman Empire? :D And Hungary defeated Ottomans again in 1478. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2On5JAMuu4A

"Pyrrhic victory" the siege of Belgrade in 1456"??? Article itself say that victory stopped for 70! years the Ottoman adavance. Noon bell came from that victory. "Turk won the battlefield"? How? Hungarians defeated the Ottomans at battlefiled, the sultan wounded the Ottomans retreated fast. That siege is the most famous Hungarian victory against Ottomans.

It start to be boring the defacing of all Hungarian-Ottoman battle articles with many similar probably sockpuppet accounts. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The Kings And Generals page is not a safe source. It contains a lot of wrong information about Mehmed. https://youtube.com/eOxQhnqMfp4

From the link I gave you, if there are subtitles, you can watch the video in detail and understand what I'm talking about. I can give you a lot of sources that the Turks won the field battle. You once told me "we use academic resources given by historians". So why don't you use it now, Mr. OrionNimrod? Keremmaarda (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The link I gave is briefly "Harp Tarihi-Belgrad kuşatmas" You can reach it by writing. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That links were examples that the battle is well researched, you can find many academic sources about the battle. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Historians has different POV that is why "4000-34000" include more sources, we need use what is in the academic historical documents not by our opinion. I added additonal Hungarian sources from the biggest and detailed Hungarian military history book." You gave me this argument for the Kosovo war. Tansel, Uzunçarşılı and many Turkish historians say that the Turks won the pitched battle. Now why not stick to your own argument? Keremmaarda (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That is valid. I doubt you have sources which say that siege of Belgrade 1456 was not a Hungarian victory or pyric victory :D You know the flat earth theory has followers but it is fringe because mainstream academic has different opinion. I added just estimations and I did not rewrite complete the battle as you want. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not deny that the war was a Hungarian victory. I'm just saying that your Hungarians are war-torn. That's why I wrote the Pyrrhic victory. The battle in front of the castle, which took place in the victory campaign I mentioned, and the Turks here prevent the crusader army. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says that he prevented the crusade from taking place. Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı is a historian, isn't he? Keremmaarda (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not know what the Turks prevented, they retreat hasten when they were defeated front of the caslte, the sultan was wounded and faint.

In many battles both parties have great losses and it does not mean all of them was pyrrhic victory, in the case of Belgrade the Hungarians did not loss full their army. I do not your historian you do nor provide any link to any academic book. I doubt you have any historical source which say that Belgrade battle would be pyrrhic victory. Wiki is not a personal blog. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr. OrionNimrod, only Hungarian cavalry 12 thousand how can there be 4 thousand trained soldiers? Is the situation dire enough for the Hungarian king to land only 4,000 soldiers? Were the Hungarians such a bad kingdom? And the pope is declaring mobilization, and soldiers come in droves from almost every state.The number of untrained soldiers (beggars, peasants) consists of 10 thousand people. King John Hunyadi is sending them ahead anyway. Keremmaarda (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1173032611

I see your Hungarian history knowledge is quite weak, John Hunyadi was not a king and Hungarians did not have "spahi" units.

you removed the sourced content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=next&oldid=1165150469

Anyway I will check the data in the biggest Hungarian military history book. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, the Turkish translation of Andre Clot said in his book that there were 12 thousand horsemen and 1,000 spahi. And I never wrote that there was an Ottoman victory. I said that the Turks won the pitched battle, which is true. https://683701.site123.me/yaz%C4%B1lar/fatih-sultan-mehmed-in-bat%C4%B1-seferleri Examine the page. When the Grand Viziers offered to retreat to the Sultan, Sultan Mehmed took his sword and knocked down the three people who came upon him and started to counterattack. This move rallied the dispersed army and prevented a possible defeat. Sultan Fatih was injured in his forehead and calf during this battle. While this would have been a terrible defeat for an ordinary ruler, it was just a bad experience for the Great Turk. Because a few months would be enough for him to gather the army he lost again and make up for his deficiencies. The human resources and economic power of the Ottoman Empire were the most obvious indicators of this. While the new preparations were made, Fatih Sultan Mehmed organized a magnificent circumcision wedding for his sons Beyazıd and Mustafa to fix his deteriorated image. Big Turk, He says that Mehmed prevented the defeat and that he recovered in a short time.If the Turks stopped advancing for 70 years, how was Bosnia invaded and captured? And only Mihaloğlu Ali Bey has more than 100 influxes to Hungary.While Mehmed was rapidly gathering large armies before 1 year passed, the Hungarians could not raise armies as large as before.Keremmaarda (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I checked by google translate: https://683701-site123-me.translate.goog/yazılar/fatih-sultan-mehmed-in-batı-seferleri?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

By the way, is this an academic source?

"When the Grand Viziers offered to retreat to the Sultan, Sultan Mehmed took his sword and knocked down the three people who came upon him and started to counterattack. This move rallied the dispersed army and prevented a possible defeat. Sultan Fatih was injured in his forehead and calf during this battle. While this would have been a terrible defeat for an ordinary ruler, it was just a bad experience for the Great Turk. Because a few months would be enough for him to gather the army he lost again and make up for his deficiencies. The human resources and economic power of the Ottoman Empire were the most obvious indicators of this. While the new preparations were made"

It says " this would have been a terrible defeat for an ordinary ruler, it was just a bad experience for the Great Turk. Because a few months would be enough for him to gather the army he lost again and make up for his deficiencies." which means the sultan was defeated but the empire was strong, so he could gather again a new army for the future, which means the defeat was not a fatal for him.

In your source, I do not read any Turk victory in the battle or any Pyrrhic victory as you rewrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1171488726

The Ottomans advance in Europe was stopped for 70 years = they did not enter in Hungary. Bosnia was south from Hungary. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgrad_Ku%C5%9Fatmas%C4%B1_(1456) And look, the outcome of the war is ambiguous in the Turkish wiki. Because the Turkish sources of the period call Mehmed the victorious sultan at the end of the campaign. In other words, Turkish sources also claim a victory. Turkish historians of the period, on the other hand, say that the Turks won the pitched battle, it is mentioned in almost every Turkish source. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It is strange that Turkish wiki claim that Hungarian loss 55 000 men and Ottomans only 24 000, even the Hungarian army was not as big there :) English and Hungarian wiki say different than the Turkish one https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nándorfehérvári_diadal

Your Turkish source clearly say it was a defeat, I do not see any "pitched battle" there. This is not an Ottoman victory at Belgrade, if the Turkish source write that the Ottoman empire was enough strong that in future, in the next years they could gather again a big army. Hungary lost the Battle of Varna in 1444 and Hungary was enough strong to make again an army for the battle of Kosovo in 1448, does it mean the Hungarian won the battle of Varna? No OrionNimrod (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In the source I gave, he says that the Turks prevented the defeat. How many times shall I say that the general campaign was a defeat? The Belgrade campaign was a defeat, but the Turks won the pitched battle in front of the castle. The page I gave says that if you read carefully, the soldiers coming out of the castle are attacking the Ottoman headquarters, but Mehmed prevented the defeat by gathering his army. I won't tell you 40 more times. The siege and general campaign was an Ottoman defeat, the campaign did not reach its goal. But the Turks won the pitched battle in front of the castle and prevented the crusade from taking place. And after the Battle of Varna, they are regrouping in the Ottoman Empire, even gathering larger armies. But the Hungarians are landing their last big army in Belgrade. Even in the Mohaç pitched battle, they manage to land 45-50k armies. (All strength 45-50k in life and death battle) Really interesting. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr OrionNimrod, do you have an Instagram account or any other social media account? I want to talk to you in more detail there. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Biggest Hungarian military book written by a Hungarian historian-army general: (fast google translate)

The last events of the siege:

https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/799.html

"The bloodiest fight took place around the bridge, because it was the most convenient, and perhaps even the only way, by which the Turks could get to the Upper Castle from the city, which was already completely under their control. Slowly, the ramparts also fall into the hands of the janissaries, who now, towards dawn, irresistibly start climbing up the ruins of the walls.[37] Now Hunyadi and Kapistrán are resorting to the last resort. At their command, the flint rolls prepared to fill the gaps are dipped in oil, pitch and sulfur, ignited and thrown from the castle walls into the densest masses of the enemy. From these the ling-flag dresses of the Turks caught fire, which, being further ignited by the sudden movement and running, soon enveloped the whole besieging army in a great sea of flame. This excellently successful battle soon caused the greatest embarrassment to the pagans, which Hunyadi even increased by the fact that at this most favorable time, in the company of Mihály Szilágyi, László Kanizsai and Sebestyén Rozgonyi, followed by a large group of Capistrán's crusaders, breaking through the gate with the largest part of his army, with heroic determination he attacks the startled enemy, wreaking havoc in their ranks. The resistance of the alarmed Turks soon ceases, everyone runs wherever they can to save their lives by getting behind the ramparts of the Turkish camp; after such a short period of time, there were no longer any living Turks between the Upper Castle and the city walls, which is why they once again fell entirely into the hands of the Hunyadis.[38] With this fact, the siege of Nándorfehérvár actually ended."

About the day of the last battle on 22 July:

https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/801.html

https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/802.html

map: https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/images/banlaky-big_hadtortpic_1010.jpg

About the last battle: the source mention that Hunyadi broke into the Turkish camp, it was heavy fights and later the returned 6000 Turkish spahi pushed the Hungarians out of the Turkish camp, but the fighting countinued and the Turks resigned and fled and the sultan was unconscious because he was wounded heavy and the Turkish camp burned down. Is this a victory?

"Now Muhammad himself stood at the head of the janissaries, taking the further leadership of the battle into his own hands, but the pressure of the Hungarians became stronger, occupying one parallel after another, and finally broke into the fortified Turkish camp. Due to the possession of this, both sides fought the most desperate battle for a long time, until finally in the evening the Christians were pushed out of the camp by the fighting of 6,000 Spahi returning from raiding. However, this only temporarily improved the position; the bulk of the Turkish army soon resigned from the service in the resurgent battle. In this last fight, the sultan himself was wounded in the left side by a spear, [3] which caused him to be brought back half-dead to the camp of his own, according to others, the European corps. Now then the Turkish army finally broke up and during the night began to run in the most disorderly manner, taking with it the sultan who was still in an unconscious state, after first giving the camp over to the ravages of the flames."

I see the same on many youtube videos about the events:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coXYgzYUhvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzEe07d_J7o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3kaWhkcJqM OrionNimrod (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, one of the greatest Ottoman historians, describes the pitched battle as follows; Keremmaarda (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you send me link, readable text,

book name, date etc? If the Turks won in the field why did they retreat fast left all equipents with the unconscious sultan? In Bulgaria the sultan wanted poison himself because the defeat. OrionNimrod (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course.https://www.booktandunya.com/2021/03/ismail-hakki-uzuncarsili-osmanli-tarihi-1-2-3-4-5-6/#google_vignette On this page are the Ottoman historical works of İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. Download volume 2 as PDF and go to the siege of Belgrade section (must be on pages 16-18) http://www.mediafire.com/file/q7r4f44sqtbauhj/%C4%B0smail+Hakk%C4%B1+Uzun%C3%A7ar%C5%9F%C4%B1l%C4%B1+-+osmanli-tarihi-cilt-2.pdfKeremmaarda (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked, it is almost same the Hungarian sources, it was really hard to get that text from that pdf, so it is just a fast translation:

"oplar doktiiriip bunlan Tuna nehri kenanna naklettirerek Hirso- va?ya yolladx ve toplar orada Rumeli beylerbegisi Dayi Karaca Pa§a’ya teslim edildi. Biitiin hazirhklar bittikten sonra Osmanli hiikiimdari ordu- sunun basinda olarak Sofya iizerinden Sirbistan’a girdi. Sirp des- potu, Macaristan’a ka<?ti; Belgrad oniine gelen ordu karadan orayi ku§atti. Belgrad kalesi, bir yarimada vaziyetinde Tuna ve Sava nehirlerinin birle§tikleri mahalde nehirlerin girdabindaki yiiksek ve sarp yerde olup iyice tahkim edilmi§ oldugu gibi kara tarafindan da i?i su dolu geni§ hendekler ile gevrilmi§ti; Belgrad, Tiirk istilasma kar§i Orta-Avrupa’mn kapisi oldugundan muha- sarasi Orta-Avrupa’da onemle kar§ilanmi§ti. Papa, buranm dii§- inemesi i^in gali§iyor ve Jan Hunyad’i tahrik ve te§ci ediyordu. Muhasara esnasmda Rumeli beylerbegisi Dayi Karaca Pa§a bir kisim kuvvetle Macaristan tarafina gegerek kaleyi kurtarmak i<jin gelecek olan Macar kuvvetlerini kar§ilamayi teklif etti ise de Rumeli akincilari ile sancak beyleri bu fikre muhalefet ettiler1; Vidin'de toplanmi§ olan Osmanli donanmasi Segedin'den gelecek yardima kar§i koymak i$in Belgrad online geldi ise de Hunyad’in donanmasina maglup oldu. Kara tara- findaki hendegi doldurmu§ olan Tiirk muhasara kuvvetleri §iddetli bir hiicum neticesinde Belgrade girdikleri sirada diger taraftan da §ehrin yardimina yeti§en Jan Hunyad igeri girmi§ ve iki taraf arasinda §iddetli bir miicadele olmu§tu. Jan Hunyad, Tiirk kuvvetlerinin dagimkligindan istifade ile ansizm iizerlerine atila- rak onlan bozmu§ ve daha sonra Osmanli karargahina kadar hiicumu ilerletmi§ti; bu tehlikeli anda vezirlerden biri bir zarar gelmemesi i?in padi§ahin karargahi terketmesini teklif etti ise de Sultan Mehmed “Dii§mandan yiiz dondiirmek singm ni§amdir” yani bozgunculuk alametidir sozleriyle bu teklifi reddetmi§ ve iizerine hiicum eden iig dii§mani bizzat kendi eliyle oldiirmii§tiir. Bu sirada cesareti artan asker ve zamamnda yeti§en suvari kuvvetleri mukabil taarruzla diifmani karargahtan Qikarmaga mu- vaffak olmu§lardir; bu sava§ esnasmda Sultan Mehmed kahja* sindan yaralanmi§tir1. Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in karargaha hiicum eden dii§mana kar§i gosterdigi sebat ve mukavemet korkung bir bozgunu onlemi§ ve sonu belki de biiyiik bir Hagli Seferi viicuda getirebilecek olan tehlikeyi bertaraf etmi§tir; bu miicadelede dii§man da fazlaca yipranmi§ oldugundan §ekilmi§ ve Osmanh kuvvetleri bu sefer de ba§arisiz donmii§lerdir (1456 Temmuz). Bu Belgrad muhasarasi esnasmda Dayi Karaca Pa §a §ehid oldugundan Rumeli beylerbeyligi Mahmud Pa§a’ya verildi; Belgrad muhasara ve muharebesinde Hammer’in kaydina gore ihjyiiz top ve yirmi dort bin asker kaybedildi; bu sava§ta yaralanmi§ olan Jan Hunyad galebesinden yirmi gun sonra 11 Agustos 1456’da bu yaradan miiteessiren vefat etti. 1455 senesinde Gelibolu sancak beyi Kapudan-i derya Yunus Pa§a kumandasindaki Osmanli donanmasi Akdeniz’de dola§tiktan sonra avdette padi§ahdan aldigi bir emirle Yeni Foqa Cenevizlilerinin ileri ge- lenlerini celbederek padi§ah’in fermanmi gostermi§ ve Kasim ayi ba§inda orayi sulhen i§gal ile muhafiz kuvvet koyup Gelibolu’ya d6nmii§tiir 2. 1456 Aralik ayinin yirmi dordiinde Midilli haki- mine aid Eski Foqa kalesi de alinmi§tir. Yeni Foga’nin almmasi Osmanli kuvvetlerinin Belgrad’tan gekilmelerin- den sonra sira tekrar Sirbistan’a gelmi§ti. Yorgi Brankovi? ile, Jan Hunyad’in kaym biraderi bulunan Belgrad valisi Mihail arasmda munaferet oldugundan"

"He poured ops and transferred them to the side of the Danube river and sent them to Khirsova, and the cannons were delivered to Rumelian beylerbegi Dayi Karaca Pasha. After all the preparations were finished, he entered Serbia through Sofia as the head of the Ottoman sultan's army. The Serbian despot fled to Hungary; The army that came to Belgrade besieged it by land. The Belgrade fortress was well fortified in a peninsula at the junction of the Danube and Sava rivers, on a high and steep place in the whirlpool of the rivers, and was surrounded by wide ditches filled with water from the land side; Since Belgrade was the gateway of Central-Europe against Turkish invasion, its siege was welcomed in Central-Europe. The Pope was trying to get this place out of the way and was provoking and promoting Jan Hunyad. During the siege, Rumeli beylerbegi Dayi Karaca Pasha offered to cross to Hungary with some force to meet the Hungarian forces who would come to save the castle, but Rumelia raiders and sanjak lords opposed this idea1; The Ottoman fleet, which had gathered in Vidin, came to Belgrade online to resist the help from Segedin, but was defeated by Hunyad's fleet. While the Turkish siege forces, who had filled the trench on the land side, entered Belgrade as a result of a heavy attack, Jan Hunyad, who had come to the aid of the city from the other side, entered and there was a fierce struggle between the two sides. Jan Hunyad, taking advantage of the dispersion of the Turkish forces, smashed them by attacking them and then advanced the attack as far as the Ottoman headquarters; At this dangerous moment, one of the viziers offered the sultan to leave the headquarters in order to avoid any harm, but Sultan Mehmed rejected this offer with the words "It is a sign of defeat," that is, it is a sign of defeat, and the convicted labor enemy himself he was killed by his own hand. Meanwhile, the brave soldier and the cavalry force that grew up in his time they succeeded in attacking Qikarmaga from the foreign headquarters; During this war, Sultan Mehmed was injured by his kahja1. The perseverance and strength of Mehmed the Conqueror against the enemy who came to the headquarters prevented a terrible defeat and averted the danger that might have brought a great Hagli Expedition to his mind; Since the enemy was too worn out in this struggle, he retreated and the Ottoman forces were unsuccessful this time too (July 1456). During this siege of Belgrade, since Dayi Karaca Pasha was a martyr, the Rumelian governorship was given to Mahmud Pasha; According to Hammer's record, no artillery and twenty-four thousand soldiers were lost in the siege and battle of Belgrade; Jan Hunyad, who was wounded in this war, died from this wound on August 11, 1456, twenty days after his victory. In 1455, after the Ottoman navy under the command of Kapudan-i derya Yunus Pasha, the sanjak chief of Gallipoli, circulated in the Mediterranean, he sent the sultan's edict by summoning the notables of the Genoese in New Foqa, with an order from the sultan, and the beginning of November. Then he peacefully occupied the place and put a guard and returned to Gallipoli. The capture of New Foga After the Ottoman forces had retreated from Belgrade, it was Serbia's turn again. George Brankovi? and since there was a conflict between the governor of Belgrade, Mihail, who was Jan Hunyad's brother-in-law."

The Turkish source clariy say it was Hungarian victory: "Jan Hunyad, who was wounded in this war, died from this wound on August 11, 1456, twenty days after his victory. "

Btw according to Hungarian sources Hunyadi died from plague which broke out due the lot of dead body not by wound.

Sorry I cannot see that Turks won any field battle.

"The perseverance and strength of Mehmed the Conqueror against the enemy who came to the headquarters prevented a terrible defeat and averted the danger that might have brought a great Hagli Expedition to his mind; Since the enemy was too worn out in this struggle, he retreated and the Ottoman forces were unsuccessful this time too (July 1456)"

"prevented a terrible defeat " = which means it was not a total annhiliation of the Turks because Hunyadi did not chase them. It does not mean the Turk won any field battle. Also the Turkish camp burned down.

Hungarian sources admit that the sultan did a great job in his planning to prepare the siege, those big efforts what he did was uncommon at that time, the sultan's father lost the siege of Belgrade in 1442 after 6 months of siege, and he knew that he need more preparation against the Hungarians, 300 canons which were made in a near place (including 22 super big mortar cannon) (it was unable to transport very heavy canons from far) (foreign people handled the cannons, even traitor Hungarians), many food supplies were providing by the Serbs, bakeries, nice slave girls for bribing Christians, dogs for eating dead bodies, building ships, 100,000-160,000 men, etc. the sultan planned to won the sige in 2 weeks, drink a coffee after 2 months in Buda, he wanted occupy Hungary, he was very confident because the siege of Constantinople was easy (btw he used the Orban cannon which designed by a Hungarian engineer, just the Hungarian king and the Greek emperor did not want pay for his service, but the sultan paid him). The political situation in Hungary was not good in 1456, Hunyadi had many enemies, the biggest traitor was Ulric Cillei who brought the young naive king with him to Vienna at the news of the Ottoman army arrival, with this they desctructed the Hungarian moral and Hungarian lords did not call for the duty which was ordered by the king. Only Hunyadi and Christian priests gathered an army. But the majority of the peasant army was not a professional army just some units there, also Hunyadi had own professional army and he trained them, and his commanders led the peasants. Hungarian sources admit the sultan was a fearful enemy, so Hunyadi did not risk the chase with the unprofessional peasant, because if they Turks gather himself the open field battle would be not favor of the peasant army. Hunyadi did not chase them with his professional army because they were exhausted. However letters went to the kings, Hunyadi asked army to chase the Ottomans, because he thought it is the best time to push the Ottomans out from the Balcan just he died in plaque and the political situation in Hungary was not good. Hungarian historians claim that the professional army of Hunyadi would be enough for chasing but he was probably too careful. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's the source I wanted to offer. The rest is up to your judgment. Thank you for your arrangement about army numbers, it is more detailed and beautiful. Good day, Mr OrionNimrod. Keremmaarda (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! Now checking the sources I will update more things later. You know many historians has many different estimations. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Strenghts

I found various numbers:

Pál Engel - Realm of St. Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526

"However, this host never confronted the sultan, who began the siege of Belgrade on 4 July with an army which modern scholars have put at 60,000 to 70,000 men."

Tamás Pálosfalvi - From Nicopolis to Mohács, A History of Ottoman-Hungarian Warfare, 1389–1526

"Ottoman military preparations on land were equally impressive. Although the fantastic figures preserved by the various narrative sources must be doubted, the army which set about the siege of Belgrade was large by contemporary standards. A force of between 40,000 and 50,000 fighting men, probably closer to the former figure, seems a reasonable estimate, especially since the Ottomans, having left troops to secure Constantinople, seem to have suffered further losses before Smederevo while on their way to Belgrade.410 Eyewitnesses were particularly astonished by the size and range of the Ottoman artillery, “never seen by human eye before, nor even imagined by the mind.”411 The huge guns, partly manufactured onsite, were operated by an international team of experts.412"

Tarján M. Tamás https://rubicon.hu/kalendarium/1456-julius-22-a-nandorfehervari-diadal

"Although the reports of 150,000 people are exaggerated in relation to Mehmed's strength, we can say without exaggeration that his regular troops - spahs, janissaries - put out 20-30,000 people, and this number was at least doubled by the continuously joining Akinji and Asab units."

Bánlaky https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0010/799.html#ref3

"Sultan Mohamed's operational plan for the 1456 campaign, as already mentioned above, consisted of flooding Hungary with his armies immediately after the capture of Belgrade. Relying on his proud sense of self that he had succeeded relatively easily in taking Constantinople, the second capital of Europe at the time, he now allegedly took an oath that he would take the Danube castle, which his father unsuccessfully besieged for six months, in two weeks and in two more months he would be in Buda will have lunch.[2] As soon as spring came out, he gathered his army of 150,000[3] at Drinapoly. In order to keep the relief army at bay, he decided to block the castle on the water side, for which purpose he had 200 ships made in the provinces along the Danube and gathered them at Viddin.[4] The cannons cast at Krusevác were made from Constantinople bells.[5] The number of cannons brought under Belgrade amounted to 300;" OrionNimrod (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

OrionNimrod Hello Mr. OrionNimrod, Franz Babinger writes that 4-5 thousand soldiers were lost on both sides in the war, the Hungarians sank 4 ships and captured 5, and only captured 10 cannons. Is there any truth to this? Or have you seen anything like this in any Hungarian source? Keremmaarda (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)