OrionNimrod, Historia Pannonica disputed by Dlugosz
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 11:08, 2 May 2024 |
| Line 88: | Line 88: |
| ::It is quite clear that the Hungarian POV is fringe in this case. In international historiography the consensus is that the Hungarians lost the battle. As such, I believe it's fair to mention that a source is disputed, when a source is disputed, and the Hungarian sources are disputed, yet the article doesn't mention them as such. This is a biased one sided POV. It is also important in these cases to mention that the author of Historia Pannonica was Hungarian and disputed by others to acknowledge the possible bias. [[User:TheThorLat|TheThorLat]] ([[User talk:TheThorLat|talk]]) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | ::It is quite clear that the Hungarian POV is fringe in this case. In international historiography the consensus is that the Hungarians lost the battle. As such, I believe it's fair to mention that a source is disputed, when a source is disputed, and the Hungarian sources are disputed, yet the article doesn't mention them as such. This is a biased one sided POV. It is also important in these cases to mention that the author of Historia Pannonica was Hungarian and disputed by others to acknowledge the possible bias. [[User:TheThorLat|TheThorLat]] ([[User talk:TheThorLat|talk]]) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
| :::Hi [[User:TheThorLat|TheThorLat]], | :::Hi [[User:TheThorLat|TheThorLat]], |
| :::I think you refer to Bonfini's work (Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495), he is Italian and not Hungarian. So it is clear the Dlugosz who died in 1480 did not dispute it or anything directly. I have read the work of Dlugosz, he just writes a different story regadring the battle than other contemporary authors from the Hungarian court. That is not a problem to present in an article more views, and mention by who. Also you wrote "dispute" word regarding the numbers, if you can see other medieval battle articles there are many estimations are presented by different authors, it does not mean they directly dispute each other, they just have different views. However if you have a modern academic historian source which say "historian A dispute the numbers of historian B" you can add this content to the text in the related chapter. If you have another numbers by historians, feel free to add to the infobox. Btw the outcome of the battle is disputed not the numbers, or do you have source for this that the numbers are disputed? | :::I think you refer to Bonfini's work (Historia Pannonica ab Origine Gentis AD Annum 1495), btw he is Italian and not Hungarian. So it is clear the Dlugosz who died in 1480 did not dispute it or anything directly. I have read the work of Dlugosz, he just writes a different story regarding the battle than other contemporary authors from the Hungarian court. That is not a problem to present in an article more views, and mention by who. Also you wrote "dispute" word regarding the numbers, you even rewrote the provided numbers, based on what? Other numbers in the infobox also use exactly the same source, strange but you add "disputed" word only for 1 numbers and not the others. If you can see other medieval battle articles there are many estimations are presented by different authors, it does not mean they directly dispute each other, they just have different views, and showing the source we know what is the source from the numbers. However if you have a modern academic historian source which say "historian A dispute the numbers of historian B" you can add this content to the text in the related chapter. If you have another numbers by historians, feel free to add to the infobox. Btw the outcome of the battle is disputed not the numbers, or do you have source for this that the numbers are disputed? |
| :::Here I provided the original text of other conemporary works which say Hungarian victory: | :::Here I provided the original text of other conemporary works which say Hungarian victory: |
| :::[[Talk:Battle of Baia#According to contemporary Hungarian sources the battle was a Hungarian victory and the next year Moldavia became again a Hungarian vassal.]] | :::[[Talk:Battle of Baia#According to contemporary Hungarian sources the battle was a Hungarian victory and the next year Moldavia became again a Hungarian vassal.]] |
| Line 94: | Line 94: |
| :::"He also points out that the fate of Matthias was influenced by ‘benefaction of a Romanian/Vlach whom was later beheaded by Stephen for treason." I also do not read that in Dlugosz | :::"He also points out that the fate of Matthias was influenced by ‘benefaction of a Romanian/Vlach whom was later beheaded by Stephen for treason." I also do not read that in Dlugosz |
:: lugosz: | ::lugosz: |
| :::''"Some years previously, the King had appointed as voivode of Moldavia a certain Stephen, a member of the Duke of Moldavia's family. This Stephen's rule has been so strict and just that no crime has gone unpunished and people now obey his every order. He has insisted that not only the knights and nobility should bear arms, but that farmers and villagers do so as well, for everyone has a duty to defend his fatherland. If the Voivode learns that a farmer does not have a bow, arrows and a sword, or has mustered without a spear, the culprit is condemned to death. The King now ap points this Stephen governor ofWalachia, promoting him over the heads of other candidates, one of whom, Berendeja, has gone to the King of Hungary, promising to restore Walachia to him. As a result, King Matthias has assembled a considerable army, which, in the middle of October, marches through the forests and mountains into Walachia, bums a town, which the troops are al lowed to plunder, and continues along the foot of the mountains, burning towns and villages as it goes. When Voivode Stephen now bars its progress near Tortrusz, King Matthias, not being sure of the loyalty of his troops, avoids a pitched battle and limits his efforts to surprise attacks and "*****" bushes, yet is himself prevented from foraging or doing further damage. When he reaches Barni, he fortifies the town with ramparts, ditches and a ring ofwaggons for he is still afraid of Stephen's army which is encamped between the rivers Moldau and Szamos. Stephen sees this as an opportu nity to do battle; so, leaving the horses and baggage in his camp, he advances on Barni, sending small detachments on ahead to set fire to the town in a number of places. When, in the early even ing, flames burst out, Stephen launches his attack. Fighting continues with varying success until dawn. Many of the Hungarians fall or are consumed in the flames, and King Matthias, thrice wounded, has to be carried from the battlefield on a stretcher, to avoid him falling into the hands of the enemy. When, moving on, the Hungarians again reach the hills, they find the roads barricaded with tree-trunks and, after burning their three-horse waggons and burying all 500 oftheir guns, so as to deny them to the enemy, they manage to escape. Some of the Hungarian standards are captured and these are sent to King Casimir in Wilno as proof of Stephen's victory, which has provided a huge booty of tents, waggons and guns. Back in Hungary, the King imposes a fine of 400,000 florins, to be paid in gold, on the knights and citizens of Transylvania for having deserted him. This money he uses to organize another and larger army, mainly of foreign mercenaries."'' | :::''"Some years previously, the King had appointed as voivode of Moldavia a certain Stephen, a member of the Duke of Moldavia's family. This Stephen's rule has been so strict and just that no crime has gone unpunished and people now obey his every order. He has insisted that not only the knights and nobility should bear arms, but that farmers and villagers do so as well, for everyone has a duty to defend his fatherland. If the Voivode learns that a farmer does not have a bow, arrows and a sword, or has mustered without a spear, the culprit is condemned to death. The King now appoints this Stephen governor ofWalachia, promoting him over the heads of other candidates, one of whom, Berendeja, has gone to the King of Hungary, promising to restore Walachia to him. As a result, King Matthias has assembled a considerable army, which, in the middle of October, marches through the forests and mountains into Walachia, bums a town, which the troops are allowed to plunder, and continues along the foot of the mountains, burning towns and villages as it goes. When Voivode Stephen now bars its progress near Tortrusz, King Matthias, not being sure of the loyalty of his troops, avoids a pitched battle and limits his efforts to surprise attacks and ambushes, yet is himself prevented from foraging or doing further damage. When he reaches Barni, he fortifies the town with ramparts, ditches and a ring ofwaggons for he is still afraid of Stephen's army which is encamped between the rivers Moldau and Szamos. Stephen sees this as an opportunity to do battle; so, leaving the horses and baggage in his camp, he advances on Barni, sending small detachments on ahead to set fire to the town in a number of places. When, in the early evening, flames burst out, Stephen launches his attack. Fighting continues with varying success until dawn. Many of the Hungarians fall or are consumed in the flames, and King Matthias, thrice wounded, has to be carried from the battlefield on a stretcher, to avoid him falling into the hands of the enemy. When, moving on, the Hungarians again reach the hills, they find the roads barricaded with tree-trunks and, after burning their three-horse waggons and burying all 500 oftheir guns, so as to deny them to the enemy, they manage to escape. Some of the Hungarian standards are captured and these are sent to King Casimir in Wilno as proof of Stephen's victory, which has provided a huge booty of tents, waggons and guns. Back in Hungary, the King imposes a fine of 400,000 florins, to be paid in gold, on the knights and citizens of Transylvania for having deserted him. This money he uses to organize another and larger army, mainly of foreign mercenaries."'' |
| :::https://historia.ro/sectiune/calendar/calendar-14-decembrie-1467-batalia-de-la-baia-566958.html This is a blog, not a modern academic historian source, but you can see it mentions that the Polish and Hungarian sources wrote different result | :::https://historia.ro/sectiune/calendar/calendar-14-decembrie-1467-batalia-de-la-baia-566958.html This is a blog, not a modern academic historian source, but you can see it mentions that the Polish and Hungarian sources wrote different result |
| :::https://history-maps.com/story/Kingdom-of-Hungary-Late-Medieval/event/Battle-of-Baia That is not an academic source, just copy paste the lead sentence from Wikipedia, from a previous stage of the article | :::https://history-maps.com/story/Kingdom-of-Hungary-Late-Medieval/event/Battle-of-Baia That is not an academic source, just copy paste the lead sentence from Wikipedia, from a previous stage of the article |
Okumaya devam et...