Talk:List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent

1532 campaign

According to notes editted for the fifth campaign (1532) by Kebeta (who has also created the article Siege of Güns) Suleiman led an army to besiege Vienna. Ferdinand I withdrew his army, leaving only 700 men with no cannons and a few guns to defend Koszeg. After prolonged Siege of Güns (Köszeg), Suleiman withdrew and went homeward. However, this claim is not supported by my sources. So without any reference to Güns, I reeditted the note. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I added references.--Kebeta (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Karlowitz

The contributions to this article (especially the sources and the images) are fine. Thanks. But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable. For example the last sentence in the introduction (which is sourced) is clearly incorrect. It reads The stagnation lasted to the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, in which the Empire lost much of its European territory. (I have deleted this sentence on the ground that Treaty of Karlowitz has nothing to do with Suleiman, but my delete was immediately reverted.) Anyway, much of territory may imply most (more than 50 %). However, in any map, the Ottoman losses can be found to be about 20  % of the former European territory. I didn't change the wording , but I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we have to use sources, especially if this is going to be a FL as I have planed. The same goes for names of Campaigns, which I am going to revert soon, since you deleted names of campaigns which are cited. I don't have any problem with alternative names of the campaigns, if they have source to back them. Anything within the article: notes, names, campaigns, years...and son, will have to have a citation. As for 'Treaty of Karlowitz', and everything else in the article, I made a request at Peer review, to get some help from more experienced editors. Personally, I am OK with, or without that sentence. My only concern is to make this article the best it can be, in order to achive FL status. What I can suggest to you, is that you elaborate the Treaty of Karlowitz in the article (like you did here on talk page), but you have to cite that with realible references. As far as I know, Austria received all of Hungary and Transylvania except the Banat, Venice obtained most of Dalmatia along with the Morea and Poland recovered Podolia. But I didn't write that because I didn't look for the references for all that. Because, I am expecting some feedback from 'Peer review'. Maybe all that is redundant, we will see. --Kebeta (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Names of the campaigns and Karlowitz

I don't like to revert the edits of the other editors. To me using the discussion page is a better alternative than reverting.There are two issues to discuss, the names of the campaigns and the 1699 treaty. For the name of the campaigns, I think it is best to use the name given by the campaigners and I still think 1699 treaty is highly irrevelant in this article. In particular:

1. Ottoman people never used the name Güns for the 1532 campaign. For one thing the army was big but the number of cannons was low. They were not going to capture any big fort. They were planning to defeat the Holy Roman army in an open field battle. So the name of the campaign was Great German campaign. On the way to Graz, they captured many smaller forts for the security of the army. Güns was important, not because it was the target, but because unlike the others, I resisted well and delayed the advance of the army.
2. For the campaigns against Safavid Empire, Ottomans used the names of the target rather than the name Persia. The target for the 1534/1536 campaign was Iraq and the campaign was named Irakeyn; ie., Two Iraq (Although Tebriz in Iran was also captured, unlike the cities in Iraq they didn't try to keep the city). And for the 1555 campaign, they used the name Nakhchivan (now in Azerbaijan) which was the target.
3. Suleyman died in 1566 and the treaty of Karlowitz was signed in 1699. That treaty has nothing to do with Suleyman. If it is intended to stress that the stagnation began after Suleyman's death, the treaty of Zsitvatarok in 1606 is a much better candidate for that. (Treaty of Karlowitz may be the beginning of the decline period)
4. As for the percentage of territorial lost of the European part of the Ottoman Empire in 1699, the best source is a map which shows that the loss was about 20% and not more. (The moral effect was of course greater, because it was the very first time a substantial territory was lost in the European part. But it is not called much of territory). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you. I don't like to revert the edits of the other editors also. To me also, using the discussion page is a better alternative than reverting. That is why I tryed to comunicate with you in the begining. See here and here. These are my post on your talk page which you have ignored. I was thinking that together we can improve this article. Now I see that I was wrong. As I said before, it is not what you or I think is right, but what can be verified with realible sources. Every time when I communicate with you I must remaind you that text have to be cited, and every time when you communicate with me you are speaking of what Ottoman people used or didn't use. Anyway, this is English Wikipedia, and text should be in English. Nevertheless, I am perfectly fine with Turkish names as addition, since I think that they enrich the article. Just please cite that with some reference, it is OK if the references are in Turkish (if you can't find English ones). Anyway, I will remove the 'treaty of Karlowitz' from the article, as I also think that that treaty is little redundant. My only goal was to present as much as I can, so that more experienced editors on Peer review which I requested, can help us to made the article better. You have to stop to see me as an enemy here, rather as an ally, because I am trying to bring this article to FL. Any POV based on opinions and unreferenced text will stop that effort, even if everything that you are saying is 100% correct. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents

I believe that the belligerents in the sidebox template is highly meaningless in this article. Because although Habsburgs and the Safavids were always opponents, the other governments usually changed sides between the campaigns. For example, Moldavia has been given as the ally of Ottoman empire. In fact it was the vassal of Ottoman Empire and the 8th campaign was directed to Moldovia, when Petreştu decided to end the vassal status. Venice has been given as an enemy of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, except for the 7th campaign Venice was usually in good terms with the Ottoman Empire. I plan to clear the belligerents part of the side box after seeing the feedbacks (if any). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed. --Kebeta (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Coloring

The coloring editted on the 22nd of March which represents Süleyman's 3 defeats don't reflect a historical fact, but rather the opinion of an editor. A monarch is considered to be defeated if he loses territory or if he is forced to pay reparations. Süleyman never lost territory and never paid reparations. Just the reverse, in 1529 although he couldn't capture Vienna, he drove Ferdinand back from Hungary, in 1532 he captured several forts and challanged Charles Quint. Moreover in treaties signed after 1532 and 1537, it was the opponents of Süleyman who paid the reparations. But it is true that the gains in 1529, 1532 and 1537 campaigns were less than the expectations. So these may be considered unclear outcome. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, before making any major changes in the article, try first to discuss changes here, on the talk page. This way I have a feeling that while I am trying to improve the article the best I can, you are acting like an administrator who approves some of mine edits, and deleting unacceptable edits. --Kebeta (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For example, regarding the 'Belligerents' I share your opinion that belligerents are meaningless, but I wanted to hear that from some other non involved editors from Peer review. --Kebeta (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, It's me who asked for discussions before editting. I almost never edit on the pages created by other editors (except for linking categorizing etc.) Looking back I remember a certain article Suleiman Bridge created by you. I knew that something was wrong with that article; but instead of editting, I called you. Now, I planned and created List of campaigns of Suleiman I. But you made hundreds of changes without consulting me. Even after I called you for discussion on 19th of March, you continued to make your editions without trying to discuss. You've also moved the name of the article without asking for consensus. And now you are accusing me for not consulting. Funny isn't it. But even after that, I keep calm and give you the reasons why I reject some of the coloring. Please try to be a bit more reasonable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Kebeta to Nedim Ardoğa

Hi Nedim Ardoğa, and thanks for disscusing instead of edit-waring, and please don't be offended by my reply to you, because everything that I am doing here is in the best interest of the article.

• 1.) Yes, you created the article on 14 December 2009.
• 2.) The article hasn't changed much untill 1 March 2011, when I started editing. From 2,280 bytes to 2,911 bytes.
• 3.) After I started expanding the article, I left you a message on your talk page, and asked for your help to improve the article together. See here, but you didn't respond anything.
• 4.) Then I left you another message explaining that I have made a request at Peer review, so that more experienced editors can help us to made the article better. In addition, I told you that I would like to see the article as FL, and again asked for your help to improve the article. See here, but again you have ignored my message.
• 5.) Then you started to edit the article, adding unrefereced text, and replacing mine which was referenced. Your explanation was: "But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable.". See here. Furthermore, when I started editing the article, there were none inline citations within the article.
• 6.) After that I asked you nicely several times to add citations to your edits. See here. I also told you that Turkish references are OK, if you can't find English ones. See here.
• 7.) I have moved the article because of 'List', since this is a List of campaigns, and I couldn't expect that this would annoy you in any way. I am sorry if you have seen my move as unfair in some way.
• 8.) I have removed almost everything from the article which you have asked me on the talk page. For example: Treaty of Karlowitz, Belligerents...although I told you that I would like that more experienced editors on a Peer review say something before removing anything from the article.
• 9.) After I further expanded the article, you have reverted my edits and than left me a note on talk page. This act you consider to be a discussion.
• 10.) After I reverted your revert, you are accusing me that I accused you of not discussing?

Now, I am willing to put everything of above behind us, if you are willing to do the same. I must say though, that I don't see a reason why you have a problem with me or with mine edits, since I have improved the article. I have expaned the article, and added citation for almost every sentence. The sources are highly realible. If you have some sources that are saying otherwise, I am ready to listen, and discuss them, to see what is the best way to present them in the article. There is only one thing left unreferenced, which is campaigh 11, for which I have a source, but unrealible. That is way I left it unreferenced until a realible source. If you can cite that, that would be great. Anything else that you want to discuss is fine by me, but you can't say something, revert the article and conclude the discussion without leting me a chance to say anything. You can not reject here, but we can discuss and conclude an agreement. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no reply from you? --Kebeta (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The phrase Leaving everything behind us looks like you consider our previous discussion as a quarrel. No, it was not. I see you are a serious editor and I have nothing against you. The only thing I criticize with you is that you sometimes take the opinion of the writers as factual sources. For example in 1533 Ferdinad agreed to sign a treaty with very unfavarable terms for Austria. Still you call the previous two campaigns of Suleyman a defeat. If Suleyman was defeated why did Ferdinand sign that scandalous treaty ? It was no doubt an opinion of a writer. The sources should be used if they are serious and logical. Anyway, in the future I hope we'll collaborate on other articles. Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have seen a disagreement which was growing between us, so I left the article for some time, to give us some time to cool-down. I hope that this way we avoided an edit war. Regarding the Campaignes, if Suleyman was victorious in all 13 campaignes, than he would conquered much more territory. And, for example, if his goal in campaign was to capture Vienna and he didn' succeed, than he failed or suffered a defeat in that campaign. I an involved in this article because I admire Suleyman and his campaigns, but he wasn't victorious all the time. I am not going to edit the article until we resolve campaignes 4,5,7,11,13 which are in dispute. So, I will make a subsections on the talk page for each of them. You can start first with discussion, if not, than I will.--Kebeta (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think admiration has much to do with the article. I personally don't admire Suleyman I. He killed two of his sons and a number of statesmen including two grand viziers and Piri Reis, the greatest geographer Turkey ever had. But, anyway he was never defeated in any of his campaigns.

• 4th campaign: After Suleyman returned to İstanbul after his 3rd campaign, Austrians and Germans had invaded Hungary. The target of this campaign was to force the Austrians and Germans out of Hungary. This was accomplished and even the famous Holy Crown of Hungary was acquired from the Austrians to be handed to John Zapolya. The capture of Wien was never expected during the autumn rains, because there were no siege cannons in the army and the aim of the siege was just to threaten Ferdinand.

Reply: The Ottomans under Suleyman had first attempt to capture Vienna in 1529, and they failed. That is the fact. The success was that the Ottomans regained control of Buda, which was reoccupied by Charles V and his brother Ferdinand.--Kebeta (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• 5th campaign: Being close to your country, you know the route of this campaign much more than I know. There are absolutely no big cities around. So what was the reason of the big army ? The reason was that Suleyman called both Ferdinand and Charles Quint to open field battle. While western commanders concentrate on capturing forts, eastern commanders prefer open field battles to punish their opponents. But Ferdinand and his elder brother were clever enough not to accept the invitation. However the next year they signed the Treaty of İstanbul (1533) to withdraw all of their assertions on Hungary.

Reply: I partially can agree on this, but this was the Ottomans second attempt to conquer Vienna in 1532, and it failed. That is the fact. Was it because Ferdinand and Charles Quint did not engage into open field battle, maybe? Furthermore, Suleyman was stoped at the Siege of Güns (Kőszeg), and withdrew at the arrival of the August rains. The fact that Ferdinand defended without confroncting Suleyman with an large army doesn't matter, what matters is that he had successfully defended Habsburg territory, Vienna being most important, and Suleyman failed to conquer Vienna.--Kebeta (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• 7th campaign: Republic of Venice was usually in good terms with the Ottoman Empire. But it was supporting the Holy Roman Empire in sea battles. The aim of the 7th campaign was no neutralize Venice. True, Corfu was not captured; but a number of forts both in Morea and along Adriatic coast (including Klis, then an important fort) were captured. Three years later Venice agreed to sign a treaty with the Ottoman Empire, acknowledging the Ottoman gains.

Reply: When Suleyman invaded Apulia in Southern Italy, he did produced much terror, but Otranto and Brindisi held out. Suleyman them abandoned the campaign in Italy and led the siege Venetian-held island of Corfu. The Ottomans than failed to capture Corfu. So, first he failed in Italy and than in Corfu. Isn't this a defeat? I agree that Klis on Dalmatian coast was an important fort than, but capture of Klis wasn't a part of his campaign, and he didn't participated personally there. Suleyman failure in Italy was more because France failed to meet his commitment, but nevertheless, Suleyman didn't achived none of his objectivs, not in Italy or on Corfu. --Kebeta (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• 11th campaign:While Suleyman was active at the west front, Tahmasp I of Persia had invaded East Anatolia. The aim of the 11th campaign was to relieve East Anatolia. Suleyman recaptured East Anatolia including Van (capital of ancient Urartu). Present Turkey -Iran border line was more or less determined by this campaign. (The target of the next campaign towards east was Azerbaijan and Armenia, north of the 11th campaign)

Reply: Well, I guess here we agree that this was Indecisive. --Kebeta (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• 13th campaign:The fort Szigetvar, although well with in Ottoman territories, was a stronghold of the Holy Roman Empire because of its strategic position and Suleyman decided capture this fort to secure Ottoman presence in Hungary. Although Suleyman died two or three days before the conquest, nevertheless the fort was captured and the task was accomplished.

Reply: Here, Suleyman's objective was Vienna again. His objective was not Szigetvár. Learning of the Zrinsky's success in an attack upon a Turkish encampment at Siklós, Suleiman decided to attack Zrinsky's fortress at Szigetvár. Suleiman died in his tent from natural causes, a day or two before the Ottoman victory. Even if we are talking only about Szigetvár, Suleiman died before Ottoman victory. So, this was Sokollu Mehmet Paşa victory, not Suleiman's. But, we are not talking here about one single fort, but about whole campaign. Again, Suleiman's objective was not achieved. Furthemore, the prolonged resistance at Szigetvár delayed the Ottoman push for Vienna that year, and even if Suleiman had lived his army could not have achieved much in the short time that remained between the fall of Szigeth and the onset of winter. --Kebeta (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In all campaigns political aim was realized. In most campaigns there were territorial gains as well. How can we define these campaigns as defeat ? At most they can be called undecide or a tie . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you still want to discuss this...? --Kebeta (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything? --Kebeta (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Creating new articles is much more productive than engaging in endless discussions.Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to hear that. I will than restore the article to my version, and in the next several days I will try to integrate as much information from your version. I will also invite you than to see the result and maybe to get some feedback from you. Regards, --Kebeta (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I am glad to see that we are coming to a certain consensus and I hope this discussion will end soon. In the 4th campaign (1529) Suleyman succeded in forcing the Germans and the Austrians out of Hungary. He was victorious. But he also tried to threaten Ferdinand by sieging Wien. Although it was not the target of the campaign, because of this last step, the otherwise highly successful campaign can be classified as unclear outcome. On the other hand, calling Suleyman's 5th campaign (1532) as a campaign on Wien is just an urban legend. Please refer to nearest atlas (or google map). Güns and Wien are roughly the same distance from İstanbul. Güns is 90 km south of Wien, bird's flight, which makes a road distance of probably 120-130 km. Süleyman had no panzer divisions of Hitler. He had camels and horses at his disposal. He could cover this distance in no less than 15 days. If his decision was to capture Wien why didn't he campaign directly on Wien but chose a route which would delay him 15 days ? Also please note that although Suleyman invaded whole Hungary during the 3rd and 4th campaigns, he didn't even try to annex the Buda (until the 9th campaign after Zapolya's death ). If he was reluctant to annex Buda, why was he eager to annex Wien which was 220 km west of Buda ? The fact is that Suleyman prepared for an open field battle just like his 3rd campaign (1526) on Mohach but he couldn't find any opponent on the field. You can also call this campaign as a unclear outcome. But what was the result ? The result was that the Holy Roman Empire agreed to acknowledge Ottoman suzerainty on Hungary. If Holy Roman Empire withdrew all of its assertions on Hungary how can you call this Suleyman's defeat ? Oh please don't change the definition of the word defeat. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather that we stick to campaigns above (4, 5, 7, 11 and 13), because it's more likely that we will finish the discussion. Thanks! --Kebeta (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi Nedim Ardoğa! I know that things weren't perfect between us, but we didn't engaged in edit war and we discussed our concerns the best we could. You may noticed that I have changed campaign 5 from 'defeat' into 'Indecisive or unclear outcome'. Some minor work is still needed, but I am happy to announce you that I have made a request at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. I hope that more experienced editors will contribute with thear "small" remarks (I hope), so this article can be future FL. I hope that you are willing to participate as well. Regards, --Kebeta (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself. I thank you for your contributions. But I am not thankful for your stubborn insistence for calling Süleyman's campaigns a defeat. According to you Süleyman was defeated 3 times (with 2 unclear outcomes). But somehow everytime his realm, power and wealth increased. What a miracle! But anyway if you really want to show how Ottoman Empire was defeated I suggest you try a lengthy article about the war 1683-1699. (I noticed that at the present this war has been presented as a section in another article and it certainly needs an article of its own right.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about Süleymans defeat, it's about greatest Ottoman military accomplishmentes under Süleyman. And there were only 2 defeats, 3 unclear outcomes, and in 8 campaignes he was victorious (see the article). Süleyman in 1529 laid siege to Vienna (pinnacle of the Ottoman Empire's power), and from 1529–1566 (when he died), he didn't done much more progress into West. If he was victorious in all campaignes from Mohács forward, he would capture Vienna for sure. Clearly, he was stoped at Vienna (although still superior). We are looking here only campaigns which Suleiman personally led and thear outcome. If some Grand Vizier achieved a victory a year latter and than Suleiman signed a good peace treaty (in his advantage), that can't be mixed with Suleiman's personally led campaign. I am sorry if you got an impression that I like to write about Ottoman defeats, all I want is to present this list in NPOV supported by references. Just look at the facts (or a map): in 1529 Suleiman was under Vienna (ready to sack the city), and in 1566 he was under Szigetvár (far more to the East). Is this an increase of his realm to the west? --Kebeta (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why you act like this

Can you explain you recent edits, especially because of this. I practically beg you to discuss any problems, and I am not hard to discuss. I have removed almost everything from the article which you have asked me on the talk page before. Why are you being disruptive now?--Kebeta (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is Why am I acting like that ? Is this a joke ? I certainly want to present correct information in an encyclopaedia. Suleyman had 7 campaigns to Hungary or Austria. But up to 1541, the only territory he annexed to his realm was Belgrad and vicinity. Austrians were expelled from Hungary. But in contrast to popular belief, Hungary was not annexed, let alone Vienna. (Even Mohács was not annexed) As I have commented before, siege of Vienna was a commination. If he were able to capture Vienna what would he do with a big city two hundred kilometer far from the nearest Ottoman garrison ? So don't think the Ottoman border line was at Vienna in 1529; it was not.The conquest of Hungary began by 1541. Although much of Hungary was annexed in 1541, a few forts remained out of Ottoman control and both 1544 and 1566 campaigns were aimed at unifying the Ottoman portion of Hungary which was clearly achieved. As for Ottoman grand viziers, the grand viziers were always present in the campaigns and they were vice commanders of the army (For example in the campaign of 1532 which we discussed before, Güns was sieged by the grand vizier and Suleyman was never in the siege line) . The presence of grand viziers doesn't curtail Suleyman's achievements in the campaign. Please don't rush to revert the truth. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must say that I didn't expected this from you. Now you have started a discussion??? And edit-war??? After you have dismiss discussion, and after I have notified you of submission to FL? This is very sneaky of you.--Kebeta (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal

To Kebeta: You have disappointed me. I used to picture you as a serious contributer. But it turned out that instead of discussing and trying to reach an aggrement, you prefer accusing. I can't image how we can collaborate after this rootless accusation. The only suggestion on my part is to delete the color scheme and defeat-success opinions. After all, unlike names, dates, routes, etc., defeat and success decision more or less depend on the personal opinion of the authors. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, after you refused to discuss I can understand why you feel disappointed. You thought that I will not continue improving this article? It's really sad that I had to bring this problem to ANI (my first ANI since I am on Wiki) for you to start communicating again. I am sorry for accusing you and for reporting you to ANI, but you gave me no other choice. Anyway, I am glad that you accepted my proposal for discussion, and started using talk page instead of edit-warring with me and user Takabeg. The problem is that I don't think that we will agree, and that's way I proposed that we invite some more experience editors from Military history WikiProject, or to open RfC, or a mediation to solve this problem. Anyway, I am willing to try. I see that you have only one suggestion (delete the color scheme and defeat-success opinions). I have more suggestion on how to improve the article, so here they are:

• your proposal (I think that it's better to discuss this and solve the problem once for all, but if consensus will be hard to achive, I am willing to accept your way - deleteing).
• section "Suleiman's opponents" - this section does not represent the real Suleiman's opponents in his campaigns, thus it's misleading (either we put there his real opponents or we remove it)
• section "Total duration of the campaigns" is redundant - in the section "Campaigns" there is a time perion for each campaign (Opening and terminal dates), so why do we need to repeat this? What's the point in this?

What do you think of my proposals? --Kebeta (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Counterproposal to Kebeta

You accused me of sabotaging an article created by me. What a logic ! But what do you expect from me ? A collaboration ? I called you for discussion and coming to mutual aggrement on 16 March. (See above) You didn't mind and continued to make hundreds of editions without consulting. Now it seems you have changed your mind. I hope this is a genuine attitute change. I prefer to create new articles. But now I take time to list my suggestions

1. Images of the opponents: Almost no monarch fights in the battles with a sword in hand. It's true that Suleyman's monach-opponents didn't actually fight in the battles. But the same thing is also true for Suleyman. The only case when he was near to fighting was in the 3. campaign during a charge of Hungarian nobles to his tent. In most cases he wasn't even in the siege line. But since we attribute the campaigns to Suleyman, rather than to his generals, with the same logic, the opponents should also be the monarchs rather than the generals. I think that the images of the opponents should be kept.
2. Images in the table: Images in the table was good idea of yours. But unfortunatelly for some campaigns, you couldn't find appropriate images. We need better images for the table.
3. Defeat-victory colors: Timeline, names and events are properly sourced. But the.same thing is not true for the opinions. My major source is Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall who doesn't see the result of any campaign as defeat. I understand that your references are of different opinion. So what is the need of showing the conflicting opinions of the authors ? In my original table there was no coloring legend for the defeat and success. We must delete the coloring scheme.
4. Duration table: Although I spent some time on the table I admit that this table isn't very important. It can be deleted. But why ? Will deleting the table improve its FL status ?

If we come to a certain understanding, the rest (some sentences) wouldn' t be much of a problem. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What did Hammer write exactly ? Please tell us the volume and pages where he mentions to Suleiman's victory and/or success at the Siege of Vienna. I have a set of his books that I got with coupons of the Sabah newspaper. :)) I want to read it after going back home. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta's replies

You have my answers to your 'Counterproposal' above in italic, just below your proposals.--Kebeta (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Kebeta - Not quite. We are talking here about campaigns led personally by Suleiman, not about campaigns led by his viziers and admirals. I am not talking that he had a sword in hand in every campaign, but he was near by and he issued the orders. On the other hand, the oppenents that you have listed didn't participated in this way (in most of the cases).

I beg your pardon but that is NOT the name of the article. I do not see "led by..". Maybe it is best to clarify this in the first paragraph. Maybe one can include the information in the table, as it is very relevant. At any time there is one ruler and he/she is responsible for the victories and defeats, we are not talking about field generals here, but sultans and kings. Though it was the custom for many to lead literally in battle, not always. Regards. Murat (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just read the article first - "In addition to campaigns led by his viziers and admirals, Suleiman personally led 13 campaigns".--Kebeta (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did. The name of the article is still "..campaigns of Suleiman..", not "led by". Murat (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we rename the article into List of campaigns personally led by Suleiman the Magnificent? --Kebeta (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just the opposite. I am suggesting that this list should include all the campaigns, ones he led as well as the ones he authorized. My impression above was that there was an argument against it. Murat (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Kebeta - Thank you for a compliment. If you can find some better images which can illustrate the point clearer, feel free to replace some of them.

Reply from Kebeta - I have to agree here with Takabeg. Please show us exactly, where and what did Hammer write.

Reply from Kebeta - I still think that 'Duration table' is redundant, but I am OK with keeping it in the article if this issue is not reased on submission for FL candidates.

What do you think of List of imperial campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent ? They called the campaign commanded directly by sultan, Sefer-i Hümâyûn (سفر همايون, imperial campaign).

Takabeg (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think that name is more appropriate and I see that you have Turkish sources for that, I am OK with your proposal.--Kebeta (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead

The lead needs work. I couldn't get past the first sentence. It should not be about Suleiman, but about his campaigns. 216.8.143.149 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly if you search for earlier versions of the page in history, you'll see that the introduction was much shorter and was about the campaigns. But lately irrevelant material was added. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kebeta

Have you ever realized how much time I’ve lost in answering you ? I’d rather use this time to be more productive. I hope this will be my last long message in this page (Mean while please note that I moved your reply which was all mixed in my previous message to a separate section for the sake of clarity.) As for the images of the opponents: In most war articles in Wikipedia names of the monarchs have given given as the commander of belligrents (see for instance Long War (Ottoman wars) In this war Murat III andAhmet I were never out of İstanbul and yet they were given as the commanders. Probably the same is true for Rudolf I, Holy Roman Emperor.) So there is nothing wrong to show the monarchs in the picture gallery of the opponents. On the previous defeat discussion; no Suleyman was never defeated. An Austrian chronologist who eyewitnessed Suleyman’s failure in capturing Vienna may call it a defeat. But campaign was not solely directed to Vienna. The purpose of the campaign was to capture Budin and repulse Austrians from Hungary, a task which was easily accomplished. Remember even the Szent Korona ( the historical crown of Hungary ) was seized from the Austrians by Suleyman’s soldiers. Extending the campaign to Vienna was explained in Pargalı İbrahim Pasha’s letter to Austrian commander (written in Italian, it was to translated to German and then to Turkish and now a I try to translate it to English) It reads “...We didn’t come to conquer your city, We came here to defeat your archduke. Failing to find him here, we lost too much time” (source: Hammer, section XXV (XXVI), subsection heading Conquest of Buda and siege of Vienna, in my book Vol 1, p.322) In Halil İbrahim İnal’s Osmanlı Tarihi (History of Ottoman Empire, ISBN 978-9944-174-37, 217) the campaign was explained as “After staying in Budin for 6 days, Suleyman decided to move to Vienna to face Ferdinand. On the way he captured Mosonmagyaróvár . ...It was understood that Ferdinand was not in Vienna.” According to Prof Ali Sevim and Yaşar Yücel, ( Türkiye tarihi Cilt II, AKDTYKTTK Yayınları, İstanbul, cilt 2, p 271 ) 60 000 POW accompanied Suleyman on his way to home. What kind of defeat is this.  ? Now look at Encyclopaedia Britannica : … carried out great offensives designed not so much to achieve the conquest of Austria for it is doubtful that the Ottomans could have held Vienna even if it fallen to them, as to convince Archdukee Ferdinand that it would be wise to renounce all hope of gaining the Hungarian kingdom…(Expo 70 ed., St book no 85229 135 3, Vol 22 p 370). This is almost exactly what I have written in this page.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, primary sources are not preferred in Wikipedia. Maybe we can use it in the footnote.

I think these books are acceptable as identifying reliable sources:

• Ali Sevim and Yaşar Yücel (ed.), Türkiye tarihi Cilt II, AKDTYKTTK Yayınları, İstanbul, cilt 2, p 271. (in Turkish)

And I have a question about Halil İbrahim İnal. Is he a professional historian ?

Takabeg (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nedim, and sorry for a delay with an answer, but I was sick (I still am). As for "images of the opponents", I still think that they do not represent the real Suleiman's opponents in his campaigns, but I am OK with his nominal opponents in these campaigns. Maybe one day we can have both "real" and "nominal" opponents listed here. As for "defeat discussion", yes Suleiman was defeated at Vienna, and Hammer-Purgstall doesn't say otherwise. Of course, defeat can be heavy, tactical, nominal or total defeat (for a victory goes the same thing). That's why we have a description of this campaign which explain what realy happened. As for sources on Turkish language, I can't really say what they are saying, but I am sure that they do not claim that Vienna was captured (I hope that Takabeg will look further into this). Anyway, Suleiman had big losses, not only in the siege itself, but also in his retreat (from sickness, attacks from today's Bratislava...) Even if we take a look at the primary source which you wrote "...We didn’t come to conquer your city, We came here to defeat your archduke. Failing to find him here, we lost too much time" - that would suggest double defeat: 1.) to defeate archduke-not done, 2.) to capture city-not done. And, what about his 7. campaign (Corfu) - Suleiman abandoned the campaign in Italy, and than he led the siege of Corfu, and failed there also. And we are talking here about Suleiman's personally led campaigns, it doesn't count that he sent his generals the year or two after to conquer some forts on some other place, since these are not related to Suleiman's campaigns. But I agree that they (two separete campaigns) can be seen as a success in a wider picture in a longer time period.--Kebeta (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Klis was not a part of 7. campaign

Campaign 7 or Corfu or Apulia (Turkish: Pulya) started on 17 May 1537. Klis was beset from 1515 until 1537, and was not personally led by Suleiman, and certainly was not a part of his Corfu campaign. See here. The siege of Klis resulted in an Ottoman victory 2-3 months before the Campaign 7 even started.--Kebeta (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Get well soon. As for the topic at hand; why are we discussing? I had a sourced contribution last night and now I see you had deleted one of my contributions (campaign 7) and the recolored red the other one (campaign 4). Is this what you define collabroration ? In our previous discussions, you asked for sources. After I present the sources you still continue with your prejudiced attitıde. Once again, defeated commander loses something. (territory, city, money, political right etc.) Exactly what did Süleyman lose ? Nothing, even in his most unfortunate campaign he gained something albeit less than what he had expected at the beginning . But that is no reason to call these campaigns defeat. Unclear outcome is a more balanced opinion. Now I'm going to insert what you have deleted last night. And one thing more, you are free to call other users to check the sources. But you should realize that I am respectable person and your mistrust in my words is as bad as your prejudice. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am better, thanks! Regarding your contribution (campaign 7), what can I say. 1. Klis was not Venetian at that time, 2. Solin was Venetian but didn't have any fort to conquer, 3.) both, Klis and Solin have nothing to do with Corfu campaign, 4.) siege of Klis resulted in an Ottoman victory 2-3 months before the Campaign 7 even started, 5.) none of this was personally led by Suleiman, 6.) text in campaign 7 was written transcendentally, with no way to figure what inline citation belongs to what sentence. Can you explain all this please, or you will just start another section on this talk page with something else?--Kebeta (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you don't have to lose something (territory...) and you can stll lose campaign. Please, just tell me are you going to stop with this, if not, please suggest how you want to resolve this (to invite some more experience editors from Military history WikiProject or throughout Mediation WP:M).--Kebeta (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The antonym of the verb to defeat is to lose. (source Webster) If somebody is defeated he/she loses something at the end of the operation. Otherwise, it is not a defeat. Since Suleyman never lost anything in his operations, he was never defeated. As for Klis and Solin, you are right when you point out that Süleyman was not present in the sieges. So what ? As it is true with most of the chief commanders, Süleyman wasn't present in most of the sieges. But his subordinates actively participated in the sieges within the scope of the campaign. (I suggest you check World War II in Wikipedia. In the sidebox you'll read the names of commanders and leaders . Which one of them was at the battle line ? ) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article, we are talking about "Suleiman's military failure", so you can as well define "failure".

As for Corfu campaign, you are pushing your POV (see WP:NPOV), and that's way I have reverted you. You are trying to explain your POV by original research (see WP:NOR). You are using sources which have nothing to do with the camapign itself. You combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and while doing that you leave that part in total mess (grammar, style,...). Klis and Solin is sometnig which happened before Corfu campaigh.

• Turkish: Bu sırada Bosna beyi Gazi Hüsrev Bey, Venediklilere ait Solin, Kilis ve diğer kaleleri fethederken ikinci vezir Lütfi Paşa, donanmadaki kara kuvvetlerine kumandan sıfatıyla, Barbaros kumandasındaki donanma ile birlikte Adriyatik denizine hareket ettiler. Bir hafta sonra (Mayıs 1537) padişah, Adriyatik'teki Osmanlı kuvvetlerine yardım ve Delvine ve yörelerinde genişleyen isyanı bastırmak amacıyla oğullarından Selim ve Mehmet ile birlikte İstanbul'dan hareket etti.

• English: In the meantime, when Gazi Husrev, who was the sanjakbey of Bosnia, conquered Solin, Klis and other strongholds that belong to Venetian loads, Second Vizier Lutfi Pasha, with the title of "the commander of the land forces in Navy", left for the Adriatic Sea together with the Navy under the command of Barbarossa. A week later (May 1537), the sultan left Constantinople together with his sons Selim and Mehmed to support the Ottoman forces in the Adriatic Sea and to supress rebellions expanding in Delvine and regions.

• cf. Bosna sancakbeyi Gazi Husrev Bey'in Solin (Soljani) kalesine vaki taarruzda ve Kilis kalesi kuvvetleri tarafından esir alınarak görürülen reâyanın eski yerlerine gönderilmesine delâletleri hakkında, Venedik beylerine gönderdiği mektup.

• Gazi Husrev conquered Solin, Klis and other fortresses. This campaign is concerned separate from Sulaiman's campaing. Sulaiman's campaign was named "Sefer-i Pulya ve gazzâ-yı Körfös" or "Sefer-i Pulya ve Gazâyı Korfos" (Campaign for Apulia and Corfu). In some sources, the campaign for Pulya and the campaign fo Korfos were concerned as two separeted campaigns, but traditionally they (Apulia and Corfu) are concerned as one campaign.

There were numerous other campaings during the rule of Suleiman, but they are not listed here (aren't they?), as they do not belong in this article. You can't made a synthesis of published material just becouse you don't like something. Next time I will report you!--Kebeta (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Solin and Klis were not included in the imperial campaign of Suleiman the Mangificent. If you want you can refer to them in the footnote. Takabeg (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

To Kebeta

• I got a message from you which claims to be the last warning message. We both are users at the same level. What gives you the impression that you are free to threaten me ? I created this article and you made edits. I thanked you for most of the edits. But then you insisted to show defeat-succes data (which I was careful not to show in the original table) . I called for collaboration (16 March) and you continued editting without trying to reach a consensus. But whenever I tried to edit something you immediatelly reverted my edit. Anyway at the risk of repeating my self I 'll explain once more. In some campaigns, unlike events, defeat success data is not an indisputable fact. For example in 1529 Süleyman defeated Austrians and conquered most of Hungary (including Budin) in a few weeks. His soldiers seized the the Szent Korona, the royal crown and one of his aides enthroned Zapolya as a vassal king. This is one of the most brilliant victories of Süleyman.Then he continued to Vienna and although he sieged the city he soon lifted the siege. Nevertheless he returned home with a great amount of loot and POW. Now what do we call this campaign: defeat or succes ? Some historians may call it succes and others may call it defeat depending on their personal opinions. According to a very reliable source (Encyclopaedia Britannica Expo 70 ed., Vol 21, p 388 ) The campaign can be viewed as a success, since John Zápolya was to rule thereafter most of Hungary as a vassal of Ottomans' until his death. So you see that defeat succes data is debatable. Now I have two alternative solutions to stop time and energy consuming edits.

1. Lets clear all succes defeat colors and don't remark about defeat and succes in any of the campaigns
2. If you still insist on coloring, then let's call the two campaigns as undecided. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Support to clear all succes/failure colorings. It's helpful aslo for making a featured list. If necessary, in place of succes/failure colorings, we can introduce the colorrings with other criteria, for example, Suleiman's campaigns against the Muslim world or countries Suleiman's campaigns against the Christian world or countries etc... Takabeg (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead of this article can be improved. Maybe unnecessary imformation can be removed. If you make reference to Sefer-i Hümâyûn (imperial campaign), I'll be happy :) Takabeg (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa - I am not threatening you, that was a friendly warning. I had no other choise since you were edit-warring and pushing POV and OR. From the day I started editing I have followed almost all your remarks, yet you continue to disrupt my editing, thus you disrupt the article also. In the begining I reverted you since you were adding unsourced data, and lately because you were adding the battles that have nothing to do with these campaigns. I am willing to remove coloring (and section 'Total duration of the campaigns' as it is redundant), but I lost 'good faith' when it comes to you and your editing here. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that you will stop at this, and I think that you will continue to disrupt. For example, adding Klis and Solin here and things like that. I just don't trust you any more. I hate complaining to the administrators, and you made me to do something like this for the first time since I started editing on wiki. Now, since I already told you that I hate complaining to the administrators, I am willing to remove coloring (or as Takabeg suggested, to replace it with campaigns against the Christian-Muslim world). Are you willing to stop then (is this your final remark)?--Kebeta (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Takabeg - I dont think that lead has any unnecessary information that can be removed. In fact, I would like to add one more information - I found somewhere (I can't remember where) how many new territory Suleiman conquered during his rule, and I would like to finish the lead with that sentence. As for reference to Sefer-i Hümâyûn (imperial campaign), I would like to include that also. Takabeg, maybe you can do this, since you know where to look?--Kebeta (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You feel I am not trustable. OK, I am not in a position to dictate whom to trust. But please note that in collaboration you should take your partner's views into consideration. In certain campaigns and battles it is impossible to determine who was defeated. (See the sidebox in the article Battle of Kadesh) In NPOV the first rule is Avoid stating opinions as fact. Since there are conflicting opinions on the succes of some of Suleyman's campaigns it is best to clear success-failure data. As for the suggestion to use colors to indicate campaigns directed to Christian and Moslem countries, I find religion based classification somewhat superfluous. (But if you insist I won't revert it) There is one thing more, the introductory paragraph is too lengthy . After all this article is about the campaigns and not about Suleyman. (By the way, last year the article Suleyman I was a featured article) I hope we'll come to a common understanding. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

By removing colors (success, failure & unclear outcome), I presume it means that you will not have any more new remarks? I certainly hope so. The lead describes the campaigns just fine, and I don't think it's too lengthy. It summarise all 13 campaigns into one story, while campaigns itself are described in more detail in section:'Campaigns'.--Kebeta (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope that everybody is happy now and that all issues are resolved.--Kebeta (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

This article relies on some unreliable sources. In particular it cites the works of Kinross and Wheatcroft, who are both pop-historians and cannot be cited as reliable sources. It also relies very heavily on the work of Turnbull, who is not a scholar of Ottoman history. These citations should be checked against scholarly works produced by historians who actually specialize in the Ottoman Empire. Chamboz (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)