Talk:Croatian–Ottoman wars

proposed deletion

On 2012-09-30, AndreaFox (talk · contribs) wrote:

Croatia wasn't an indipendent country from 1102 until 1992. It lost its brief indipendence by becoming part of Hungary in 1102. During the Ottoman wars in the Balkans (1300-1918) it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (1102-1526) and of the Hapsburg empire, after the Hapsburgs became kings of Hungary (1526-1918). I do not understand why this article deals with the military conflicts involving these states (Kingdom of Hungary and Hapsburg empire), retelling them from a croatian point of view, considering that Croatia wasn't an indipendent state. There hasn't been a "war for Croatia" or a "Croatian-Ottoman war". There have been instead Hungarian/Hapspubg-Ottoman wars. Therefore this makes no sense. It is as irrational as creating an article "Bulgarian-Valacchian wars" to describe the wars between Turkey and Valacchia in the XVI century, only because Bulgaria was a Turkish province back then! What i'm writing should be applied to all the articles listed in this voice

The notion of the wars between the Croatian and Ottoman forces is an established concept in historiography, and not just the local Croatian one. Indeed, the overarching rule of the Kings of Hungary was effectively replaced by the Habsburg Monarchy because of these wars, and the concept persisted because the Croatian lands were still the battleground, and the Croats, under the ban of Croatia, were major, if not main, participants in the wars there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I ask you to provide sources for this two statements: "The notion of the wars between the Croatian and Ottoman forces is an established concept in historiography" and "under the ban of Croatia". Kingdom of Croatia wasn't a real state, like Kingdom of Italy during the middle age and the first part of modern age. The Kingdom of Italy existed between 1014 and 1797 only as a title sporadically given to german emperors; the same goes with the Kingdom of Croatia between 1102 and 1918, as it existed only as a title sporadically given to kings of Hungary and Austrian emperors. So there's no use in calling the Magyar/Austrian army a croatian one or in considering a war between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Sultanate a Croatian one. To make an example, it is deeply irrelevant to consider the fact that most of the soldiers of the French army in Italy during WW II were from Morocco; their army is still the French army, not the Moroccan army. And the same applies when they were fighting on the Moroccan soil. That was the French involvement in WW II, not the Moroccan one. So this argument ("the Croatian lands were still the battleground, and the Croats [...] were major, if not main, participants in the wars there) isn't valid. Maybe we should link the discussion to the village plump. AndreaFox ^{Knock here...} 10:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not near any very concrete sources at the moment, but I think you're simply off base. The military positions in Croatia during the Turkish wars weren't occupied solely by Hungarians or Austrians - at least, there are well known examples to the contrary - Siege of Szigetvár and Battle of Sisak are particularly clear examples of that. The commanders and banners that they fought under couldn't have been solely foreign in nature, because despite the foreign suzerainty, the notion of Croatia very well existed at the time, with the ban and the parliament and other elements of a country. It wasn't just a sporadic royal title.

In addition, I have to say that I find it a bit hard to assume good faith when you present a fairly condescending, 19th-century-style argument coupled with a lowercase "Croatian" typo in your writing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have sources. The first page you linked says "The battle was fought between the defending forces of the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy..." and the second one says "between Ottoman Bosna regional forces of the Bosnian governor-general,[2] or Beylerbeyi, Hasan-paša Predojević (Telli Hasan Pasha), and forces of the Holy Roman Empire". The ban was a governor, as there were others. I'm going to link the discussion to the village plump. The last part of your message is a clear example of assuming bad faith, which should be avoided. This "19th-century-style argument" is something against which you haven't provided sources. A for the lowercase: " I ask you to provide sources for this two statements: "Croatian and Ottoman forces... the ban of Croatia". Kingdom of Croatia ... Kingdom of Croatia between 1102 ... a Croatian one ... the Croatian lands ... Croats". What are you talking about? Can we stay in topic and not go personal so suddenly? Thanks. AndreaFox ^{Knock here...} 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I said I don't have sources handy for the exact phrasing, but as a broad concept article that isn't actually in conflict with other articles or sources, there's little point in proving that the sky is blue. You yourself are making an unsourced argument against this, so I hardly think it's appropriate for you to criticize me on that particular point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And, obviously, I simply disagree with your assessment of the battles of Szigetvár and Sisak as so non-Croatian that they can't be described as such. Ask someone at the Military history WikiProject. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is content fork of Ottoman–Hungarian Wars and Ottoman–Habsburg wars and should be deleted as such.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree also. Srnec (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Croatia never lost iher independence. It was always kingdom connected to Hungary and Austria only by person of king. Austrian and Hungarian kings were crowned separatley for title king of Croatia. Croatia was never ocupied by Austrians or Hungarians...Ferdinand Habsburg was invited to be king by croatian nobles. Period on wich Croatian independence may be questioned comes after ottoman wars. So dont delete article. Expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.179.85 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)