Wikipedia

Talk:Black Army of Hungary

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 13, 2010WikiProject peer reviewReviewed

Undefeated?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 1467 at Baia Mathias Corvinus was defeated by Stephen the Great king of Moldavia.So it is not the only undefeated army in Europe since Alexander.Besides there are many other examples of undefeated standard armies in that period.Please delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.113 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

[potentially offensive, non-helpful comment removed here. Killiondude (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)]Reply

Vallachia Moldavia (modern Romanian) countries were vassals of Hungarian and Polish Kings, latter the turkish Ottoman Empire.

Considerations about the Black Army

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

1. "It is recognized as the first standing continental European fighting force not under conscription and with regular pay since the Roman Empire".

Not quite. The French Compagnies d'Ordonnace appeared during Charles the VIIth military reforms in the 1440's, almost two decades before the Black Army. Also, they were followed quickly by the Burgundian ones. Especially the Burgundian army of Charles the Bold shows the mixed unit tactics employed by the Black Army, the French Compagnies being more of a cavalry force. They are most likely results of a convergent evolution. Also, there have been several similar forces before this - Janissaries, for example, also professional soldiers ("They wore uniforms and were paid in cash as regular soldiers"). So, the Black Army wasn't such a novelty.

2. "and reputed to be the first military body to be undefeated in the field (under one ruler) since Alexander the Great in European combat history."

As posted above, Mathias Corvinus did engage in a pitched battle with the Moldavians at the Battle of Baia in 1467. And this strikes at the supposed invincibility of the Black Army, because, while some sources claim to have been a Hungarian victory (while a pyrrhic one), others clame to have been a Moldavian victory. On the other hand, even if it was a Hungarian defeat, the Black Army might have not been envolved. A large part of the Hungarian army at that battle was comprised of forces from the voivodate of Transylvania, with some royal banderies. Those royal banderies MIGHT, or MIGHT NOT have been the Black Army. Also, in the article about the battle of Baia, it states that "thereafter he (Corvinus) fined the Transylvanians a sum of 400,000 florins, which they had to pay immediately, in gold. With this money he raised an army of foreign mercenaries, which would prove more loyal to him." It cites as a source the Historiae Polonicae. Wouldn't this be the actual birth of the Black Army? Some help in clearing this would be appreciated.

For these reasons, I have changed the article to a more neutral tone, by removing these lines. Flavius T (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Flavius TReply

That article apparently has some issues. It uses numbers for the Moldavian army like 12 000 total with 7 000 casulties which would mean the total annihilation of the Moldavian army, while losing the same amount would mean it still has a large number of forces, so any claim of victory should be examined in that light (if the article is correct in this - we shouldnt be basing anything on other wiki articles anyway). And unless there are sources to the involvement of the Black Army, this is not even relevant to this article. Hobartimus (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree, Hobartimus, the Battle of Baia does have some issues. I mentioned it because of a few of points. Firstly, for some it was a Moldavian victory (not only Romanian sources, but also Historiae Polonicae). If it would have been a Moldavian victory and the BA took part at that battle, it wouldn't have been an invincible force anymore. Secondly, the present article says that the BA existed between 1458 to 1490, while Baia took place in 1467. If that is right, the BA would have existed for 9 years at that moment. Being the best force available to Corvinus, I doubt he would have left it behind. The point of the BA was that it was created as a force available to the king at any moment, not having to wait for the long gathering times needed for a traditional feudal army. Also, it was loyal to him personally, not to the nobles, and it would have been more efficient (but also more expensive) then noble-led troops. It would have been perfect for the swift, surprise winter campaign that Corvinus tried in 1467. Not using it here would have been stupid, and Corvinus was anything but stupid. Thirdly, Historiae Polonicae also mentions that, after that battle, Corvinus took a large sum from Transylvania, which he used to raise a mercenary force. Was that an improvement and enlargement of the BA, or was it actually it's birth? Those were the reasons for mentioning the battle of Baia. So, the question of the invincibility of the Black Army and/or it's birth year still remains.
Also, I still find this "It is recognized as the first standing continental European fighting force not under conscription and with regular pay since the Roman Empire" rather dubious, especially since the original article doesn't cite anyone. Has it been recognized by who? There were other professional long term, regullary paid fighting forces that appeared between the Roman army and the Black one, I gave the example of the French and Burgundian forces. The Jannisaries might have been conscripts, but the Compagnies d'Ordonnance sure weren't.
The Black Army was quite an improvement over the previous Hungarian armies. The Ottoman Empire was rather reluctant to commit itself fully against the Hungarians after the siege of Belgrade, and probably the BA had something to do with it. After Corvinus died, the Hungarians reverted to a more "normal" army for that time, which was crushed at the battle of Mohacs. So, the importance of the Black Army shouldn't be underestimated, but this doesn't mean it should become a legend, en par with Alexander's army, Caesar's legions or Napoleon's Grande Armee. Especially since the BA was never involved in any truly large battle like these forces were. I have left your modifications, but I still think they should at least have some "citation needed". Flavius T (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
If it was defeated in 1469 then the sentence should go of course, it was not me, who originally inserted it, so I have no stake in it remaining. Can someone link to the article of the 1469 battle? Hobartimus (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be no article about that battle. Yopie, maybe you could find more about it? Flavius T (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

There wasn't the whole black army at Vilemov, there was was a little part of the black army. Finally, the Bohemians were defeated in the Bohemian-Hungarian war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply


In the 15th century, the Compagnie d'ordonnance was rather a larger guard than a real army. It contained 500 men only(!!!) It had laughable size! Was it real force in large battles? No!

Table 1 content

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The ground of comparison could be based only on real numbers. Arguing whether they were standing armies or not is totally irrelevant since they could face each other at the same age not to mention that some of them were also paid standing armies (think of the bosnian cavalry of Milan and Venice also prefered hiring soldiers hence of its population, and the table references them as constant garrison). Taking out the armies of England and France just because they were not standing armies is also a lame step (considering that each army of Hundred Years' War shall qualify for standing army criteria). Also I decided to change the name for the table to largest armies per its source. Lajbi Holla @ me 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply


Again, the total number of French and English feudal non-standing armies were fewer than medieval Hungarian armies. You didn't count forexample the total number of Feudal levy of Hungary. Hungary had the highest ratio of nobles and militant population. These armies were not contemporary. That create a false aspect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.106.176 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please cite that.Lajbi Holla @ me 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

About the pictures in the article

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please stop removing the free images that were about to illustrate the actions and persons in general. It is obvious that every picture before the invention of photography is fictional and are based on the fantasy of the painter. But just because of this reasoning we can not cut them out and call them uncreditable (as we surely can not do so in every article concerned).Lajbi Holla @ me 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

About possible and real numbers

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I won't get into the details of the self-evident differences of the two. Comparing possible (!) numbers of army manpower is way too manipulative so it is inappropriate to include them in a table which incorporates real (recorded in written reports) military numbers, that happened to be gathered in the past. Their references are placed at the bottom of the table, the reliability of those are certainly beyond doubt. In the text the speculative numbers describing the army size are to represent a possible maximum and nothing else (I would also note that according to historians they are out of the boundaries generally regarded as Black Army). To prove that I'd like to insert a short preview exempt of the reference in the article here as a "quote" (no direct usage is allowed on the main page!)Lajbi Holla @ me 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Foreign author with very low rank in scholarly/academic hierarchy. He doesn't know more about Hungary than a secondary school boy. He confused the western feudal levy (supported by local english/french peasant-pedigree elements) armies with a professional standing mercenary army. The anarchical kingdom of Hungary also could raise 60,000 men strong levy in 1521. Look the Battle of Mohács article.

The references has been already checked in a recent peer review.Lajbi Holla @ me 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Holy Roman Emperors and French kings had smaller real (mercenary) armies in the major conflits of the early 16th century.

Read these main articles and the battles of HR. Empire and France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1521 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_campaign_of_1524 And read the detailed battle articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.111.254 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

And don't forget! They were only ad-hoc mercenary armies. They weren't standing armies. These little mercenary armies often caused financial crisis for France and the Habsburgs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.111.254 (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Black Army

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou22.htm This book and it's references based on the sources of MTA (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) Scholars. The arquebus became operational weapon only in Hungary Holy Roman Empire N.Italian states and Hispanian States. 1/5 arquebus ratio was only true in the 1460's (when the Matthias' letter was writen) it could reach the 1/4 ratio in 1490. It was the highest ratio of usage of arquebuses at the time. (One of the fatal mistake of your source: It mentions switzerlanders who hated and despised all ranged weapons. The credibility of your source became questionalble (Your source was written (at time) by a young boy without any higher scholarly rank) Please don't delete the sources with better reputation and higher University degrees (like professors). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.185.181 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since this is the first time you (? see next 2 lines) provided a link that mustn't be rejected per lameness so I won't delete it until I checked it. Also it is badly formatted in references and you don't sign your posts still. Although I'd like to remark that the link has been already in the External links section. Switzerland isn't mentioned in this article. And for your Jan Slota comment in the edit summary I warn you for the second time Lajbi Holla @ me 10:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) :Reply

  Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

 
The External Link (which is also the 4th Reference): As I've checked the "community" that constructed the site I found they have one person who has a doctorate (as a co-author, it's unsure whether he wrote the article) in their workgroup. That doesn't matter though. What makes the workteam ambiguous is that they express their political views just beyond the line of acceptability while acting as a scientific ensemble (the problem is not with one having policital views but to include it in an official report for example; I must add that the link itself thus could have misleading behaviour). I'm interposing self-criticism at this point, and since it's only my opinion I'm urging Hungarian-speaking editors to supervise it and check it themselves.Lajbi Holla @ me 12:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

periodical report the link in question

Done by Fifelfoo

Copy-editing

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I reviewed the article and made the (what I see as) proper copy-edits. They are far from perfect, however, so I urge a second review. Overall, the article is well-structured and probably ready for GA-review.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will update the links again when I'll have some time next year to be ready for review. I guess I need heavy language courses to improve my English but until then should I place a copyedit-tag on the main page or is it enough to add it to the to-do-list here? Appreciate that you spent your holiday time on this project and Happy New Year! Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem. I found the article very interesting. I think it would be best to submit it to the copy-editor's guild. Thank you for the good wishes and I wish you a Happy New Year as well! And good luck with the article!--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have to address some criticism at this point. Besides that most of the edits should be moved to Matthias Corvinus they are also questionable and have serious problems:

  • Words like to flourish, unrivaled, bellwether must be avoided. See WP:PEACOCK.
  • Also the transition from medieval to renaissance and the start of a so-called Golden Age and Matthias' role in those processes require references. So do the rest of the edits.


  • I really doubt that all Europe mourned him with sadness. The Holy Roman Emperor, the Polish King, the Ottoman ruler and the actual Pope surely not. Also a quote is fine at Wikiquote but adds nothing to the article (or in other words it adds biasing and one-sided information)


  • Words like to unbeatable, incomparable, celebrated, meticulously must be avoided. See WP:PEACOCK. 43/52 is a child approach to make up a statistic data, it's not a football team to have a "winning ratio". I built up a table of battles, but to count them this way suggests a lack of knowledge on the topic. These vary from month lasting sieges to small hundred-men clashes, and I must be self-critical to say that it could happen that I had missed some battles or historians haven't even covered them all yet (see Upper Pannonia battle where even its place is unsure till this very day)


  • Words like greatest, most beloved, mighty must be avoided. See WP:PEACOCK.
  • The inclusion of expressions on political views on the era should be restricted to only if they are properly referenced (in this case they are not). I guess WP:Ottoman will also have some words for that.

And as for the pictures : as I followed the events the museum photo gets repeatedly deleted for obvious copyright violation (Wikicommons lists it as being stolen from http://kultura.hu/main.php?folderID=1&articleID=267484&ctag=articlelist&iid=1). DO NOT use copyvio images and do not reload them from time to time.

All said and done I presume you haven't understood the guidelines of Wikipedia whereas the neutrality is the main goal. It's not about designing colorful, novel-like storytelling articles nor it is a self-advertisment (where self refers to one's nationality this time). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Recent Edits

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I understand why some of my edits were reverted due to peacock term usage which I will try to avoid, the rest of the material I provided were absolutely factual that anybody with a 3rd grade Hungarian education knows as concrete history from textbooks. I've extensively read Hungarian history and in fact have books on the Hunyadi age, one is a 2500page 5 volume antique set from the 19th century that that I have. I have another 2000 page 3 set volume dealing strictly with Matthias Corvinus from the 1950s.

For one the quote that I wrote:


... is absolute correct.

The Black Army was very cosmopolitan (multi-national diverse), and Cornivus did in fact usher in a Golden Age in Hungarian history unknown before -- this everybody knows from basic Hungarian 2nd grade. His kept the baronial influence in check and centralizing his power and him endeavoring to create the first major humanist-inspired Renaissance state north of the Alphs, is fact. The Black Army was one of the vehicles for this. The Black Army was absolutely the bellwether (originating leader) of the first major bona fide standing army after the Roman Empire in Christian Europe, this is also fact. Bellwether is the appropriate term. It is also fact that Cornivus was a very enlightened quasi-absolute monarch (with emphasis on centralization) in a post-medieval period in Hungary with the ebullience of Renaissance thinking and habits in high circles. This means he was the forerunner of enlightened absolutism which is also a fact.

As was as the battles lost and won, the reader has to have some basic understandg of the performance of the Black Army. That is why you included the list of "recorded battles", unremarked upon battles were too small in scale and count as innummerable skirmishes.

The version that you reverted back after my contributions have no mention of the notable campaigns of the Army, that I tried to encapsulate in the opening header. I inserted the conquests, offensive and defensive schemes of Corvinus' policy towards the Czechs, Habsurgs and Turks, you removed them wholly out. I also included the three notable encounters of the Army and plan to put them into a Campaigns section.

I plan to revise the the opening stanza of the Black Army by putting in emphasis on the centralizing Renaissance realpolitic mindset of Corvinus to explain the rise and need of the Black Army in the first place. Corvinus' policies and personality must be taken into account in the opening paragraphs to give the reader insight initial creation of the Armyy. Again you removed the summary and analysis of Corvinus' proactive defensive and offensive mindset from the opening chapters.

In short, you reverting back the article has taken gist out of what I wanted to convey as the original creator of this article. Complete removal of my additions that is drawn from extensive study of the Hunyadi age renders this article incomplete. In keeping with the standards of Wikipedia, peacock terms were the only issue in my additions. I am an expert in the Hunyadi age and desire nothing but the full expression of historical truth, facts and analysis that went into the creation of the Army as imaged by the volition of Corvinus himself. We HAVE to built out a contextual historical sketch around the time of Black Army for the reader to understand the military conditions that existed. Again, you removed that.

BTW, please link this article to the Hungary Wikipedia Project as a Class-A article, thank you for your hard work and attention. OliverTwist88 talk

No. The main issue is that all of the edits lack references. It's not a reasoning that 2nd and 3rd graders know. Try to understand that an international point of view is needed. Try to imagine how the events are taught in other countries for example. Not Hungarian "truth" is the only truth. That's why it is a must for the article to be written in total neutrality. This article has been reviewed by non-Hungarian wikipedians several times. So it's current status is reference-ready and copyedited. Do not edit it if it pushes back its quality. References are vital and English-born editors' revision is necessary. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
The better will be if you find English-language references for the Golden Age and for the other international cultural influence of Matthias (which are still out of scope of the Black Army!) otherwise you have to deprive the Hungarian sources of their "peacockness" (as they out of question are). Sentences like "international noted reputation for their enduring propensity to successfully compete" is still peacock, every word of it. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

please include the military campaigns

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article seems interesting. For military historians its important to include the notable campaigns of these forces into the article. The article over-emphasizes the evolution and technical makeup of the army, its battles and campaigns are not listed. Please include a chapter on its prominent role in military history (battles, sieges, expeditions, etc.) That should full round out the article's comprehensive nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.135 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that battles deserve their own subpages, should be included in the Matthias Corvinus article or expanded into a separate Military history of Hungary (1458-1490). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would tend disagree on this. I don't think a separate article is needed but a sub-section within the article that explores the campaigns of these forces. To leave this out of the article doesn't round out and is not doing the work justice. Since these forces have a long history of service 1458 to 1490, if I may add only notable battles, sieges and campaigns are needed to put culmination on the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.135 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Maybe to create List of battles of Black Army of Hungary or List of battles of royal army of Matthias Corvinus wouldn't be a bad idea, leaving here only the most important ones.--Kebeta (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

English usage

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A lot of the article reads as if it has been translated into English, that is, it is clunky and non-idiomatic. The peacock terms – which are really a relic of an older tradition of historiography – are a part of this, but they are not the only problem. The syntax is frequently garbled and difficult to follow. Small example, from the illustration text – is it supposed to be black on red, or white on red? Either interpretation could be defended on the basis of what is written, but, logically, they can't both be true. Theonemacduff (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't translated as a whole but compiled of a dozen sources (not counting the battles) and as you can see it's a mixture of English and Hungarian sources so occasionally translations occur but it wasn't fully translated from a single source. The article has been copy-edited by a third party English user so in its current form it doesn't reflect to what I've written (in other words it's revised thus is better I hope). I also tried to deprive the peacockness if any was found (as the above discussions on peacock terms show) . Can you please share your thoughts in detail? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fixed some suspicious peacock terms. I hope it helped. Tell me your feedback if you ever read it again. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Still suffers from a lot of garbled passages, and weasel words ("there is a theory that...", "some people think..."). Possibly the worst of the former is the section describing weapons. There is a diagram next to the section describing the parts of a sword, yet the paragraph regarding their swords makes up its own terminology that is utterly meaningless ("pinpoint" and "pin" are not known terms for the parts of a sword, and I'd like to see a definition of what the editor means by "whizzing"). He/she appears to be attempting to describe a kriegsmesser, but the invented jargon makes it impossible to be sure. His/her attempt to describe their shields is similarly useless, throwing around terms like pavise (an extended kite-shaped shield used by crossbowmen) and scutum (an ancient Roman curved rectangular shield) yet describing the shields as "short", which neither a pavise nor a scutum are. I've already deleted several inline attempts to unclearly describe weapons where the weapon is already linked to a clearly-written article that adequately describes the weapon. But I can't make any sense of what's left. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply


edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • The tablet has provocative purpose: Compraison tablets are not represented in any other medieval warfare/army/war-lord articles of English wikipedia.
  • Moreover, the tablet is not represented even in the articles about the battles & armies which are represented in the tablet(!)
  • The tablet is very misleading, because it doesn't distinguish between ad-hoc type feudal levy armies, between temporary mercenary armies and standing mercenary armies.

Forexample Black army was only a personal private army of king Matthias, the tablet not represented the number of levy / feudal units in Hungary which were far larger than the standing mecenary army, therefore it not represents the military strength and number of total soldiers of the Hungarian kingdom as a whole. --84.2.197.184 (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Even the weakest king of Hungary (Louis II of Hungary) mobilised 60,000 men strong levy army in 1521 (the fall of Belgrad)Reply

So you wait for a discussion to take place, and if consensus is reached, the table can be deleted. DVdm (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has no sense furthermore that is coming from a banned partisan user User:Stubes99 -84.2.x.x therefore this whole section should be deleted and no consensus needed. Adrian (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

equipment section not helpful

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the equipment section could be applied to any article on medieval weaponry. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Chart / Comparison of medieval armies

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I think user 84.0.193.202's comment does make sense. We can not resemble correctly a professional mercenary army with temporary recruited troops by size. The chart is well sourced but misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have just noticed there is an older section here about the same issue. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

If other source surfaces, which compares only contemporary professional armies, I'm not against replacing it. Until then just because "we feel like" it misleads others (there's no proof for that), we shouldn't remove a well-sourced table (Wikipedia is built on sources and only sources not on the editors' own knowledge). Also sorting out armies into categories and insisting to only compare them in their own "weight class" is WP:OR. Based on that one could set up several other criterias just to get his view bakced up and his opinion favored in a dispute, and could get false outcomes by manipulating the numbers. E.g. one can also say let's differentiate mixed-nationality armies from single-nationality ones, because paid soldiers are not that devoted (or vice-versa, doesn't really matter). It would make the same sense and would result in removing this table, but we can not allow such reasonings to decide here. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Also there was another discussion about this topic here, but I must note that it comes from the same user who has been reverted 20+ times already, which means many of the editors disagree with him and the removal. Each and every one of these debates ceased when I asked him to cite his claims. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I agree with the anonymous user and Fakirbakir, and also think that the table is very misleading, as it compares "apples" with "oranges". What's the point of including that table anyway? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
PS: Is there a source that contains the table or is it built up from data using several sources? In the latter case, it looks like OR. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The source compares them telling the same datas but in prose. Did you check the reference? It's all the same except that is this way it is more easy for the eye. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the tablet is misleading & unlogical and it compares apples and oranges. It is not based on a single source, it based on arbitrarily selected various sources. Because a user (Lajbi) spitefully created a missceading tablet with sources, it doesn't mean that the tablet is saint and inviolable by the wiki rules. Perhabs the help of wiki admins are needed to regulate that unlogical misleading and tablet together its fanatic missceading supporter (Lajbi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.46 (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is based on one source Andrew Ayton; Leslie Price (1998). "The Military Revolution from a Medieval Perspective" . The Medieval Military Revolution: State, Society and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Society (refs 14-17 could be removed anytime, it is not needed for the table, they are also mentioned in that one book, they only complement the taxonomy). End of accusations. Those who added more Hungarian Armies to the wikitable violated WP:OR. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 07:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, according to your (false) logic, Louis II of Hungary and count John Hunyadi were stronger in military point of view than king Matthias, because they set up large 60,0000 strong ad-hoc feudal armies. Without the classification of types of armies, it mislead the readers. The edits of user:Lajbi in Hungarian topics are worse than the edits of romanian slovak serbian banned chauvinists. He try to unfold his (often false misleading and lunatic) edits as "unbiased" and "open-minded", but the same (or worse) anti-hungarian hatred dominated his deeds as the banned chauvinist little-entente editors. I suggest to ask a wiki admin to delete his/her account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.46 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Army of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black Army of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Black Army of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Army_of_Hungary&oldid=1213283296"