Talk:Siege of Maribor (1532)

Result

Yes, can you give me a source stating that the Ottoman Empire was defeated? To explain the event briefly, the Ottomans went on a campaign to fight a field war with the Germans. The Germans did not come to the field war and Suleiman conquered more than 20 castles, including this castle. The Ottoman army ended the campaign due to weather conditions. So this city could not defeat the Ottomans. The Ottomans withdrew due to weather conditions. This is not an Austrian victory. If you claim otherwise, give your source. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Was Maribor taken by the Ottoman Empire or did it remain in Austrian hands?

The answer is; it remained in Austrian hands. The Ottoman Empire failed at their objective. You cannot win a siege you have walked away from. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The city did not remain in Austrian hands. The Ottoman army conquered the regions up to Vienna. And then the Istanbul agreement was signed. You can research and also the Ottomans withdrew due to weather conditions. So the city of Maribor could not defeat the Ottomans. Give logical and sourced answers, otherwise it will remain an Ottoman Victory. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

>The city did not remain in Austrian hands.

Completely and entirely unsupported statement. Following the failure to take the city, the Ottoman Empire withdrew. Maribor remained in Austrian hands.

>The Ottoman army conquered the regions up to Vienna.

The Ottoman army conquered locations along the route to Vienna. They were unable to conquer Maribor.

>. So the city of Maribor could not defeat the Ottomans Lostsandwich (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

>. So the city of Maribor could not defeat the Ottomans

The City of Maribor was not conquered by the Ottomans, and remained in Austrian hands.

>Give logical and sourced answers, otherwise it will remain an Ottoman Victory.

A battle you fail to win is not a victory. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you give a source that supports what you say? Göktuğ538538 (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that Maribor fell to Ottoman hands following the brief siege, since it was *your* edit that stated it. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let me give you the source immediately;

"A few days later, Suleiman led his army near Marburg. Here a fierce battle began. The commander of the fortress was Sigismund Weixelberger. But in the end Suleiman captured the city, and the army continued its way along the Drava, passing through the Vinica valley."

Source: Joseph von Hammer, Ottoman History, Volume 5, p.132

Hammer did not go into much detail, but says that the Ottomans achieved a victory as a result. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry there may be a problem with the translation Göktuğ538538 (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

And yet according to the already listed source, Mr Weixelberger wasn't even in Marburg, but fighting elsewhere.

So how exactly does an army that does not capture a city, from a person who wasn't even there at the time, constitute a "victory"?

This surely can't be another case of Mr von Hammer-Purgstall fumbling his notes again, as he did with his fantastic explanations of the Hashishians, could it? Lostsandwich (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The person Hammer is talking about may or may not be the castle commander, I don't know. However, no source is given about the Austrian Castle commander used on the page. But as a result, Hammer says that this city was captured by the Turks. As an Ottoman historian, I do not see anywhere that Suleiman was in this city. I didn't see him being defeated. I don't think there is such a resource. If there is such a resource, I would be happy if you could give it. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

>The person Hammer is talking about may or may not be the castle commander,

No, we know he wasn't the castle commander.

>I don't know

And as has been stated *numerous times*, perhaps you need to find better sources and this wouldn't be an issue. We've established your reliance on one poor, unreliable and possibly unverifiable source isn't providing us with very good information.

>However, no source is given about the Austrian Castle commander used on the page.

We know it from Arthur Steinwenter's work.

> But as a result, Hammer says that this city was captured by the Turks

Again, is wrong. He can't even get his names right.

>I didn't see him being defeated.

Your misguided reverence is inappropriate and lending you towards violating NPOV Lostsandwich (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I request you to give me a page or source that I can read. Because for the first time I saw from you that Solomon was defeated in the Siege of Moribor. Give me a source that supports your claim of defeat, otherwise this discussion will continue until the morning. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lostsandwich,

Joseph von Hammer is from 1800 clearly not a modern academic source, and Göktuğ538538 never show us a readable links to check his sources. So it is very doubtful that Hammer wrote those things. Modern historians could use Hammer in their work, but we need use reliable modern historian sources, so only this way we could use Hammer if a modern historian refers to him. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced force comparisons?

200 against 140,000 sounds outrageous and should make anyone question where they came from. I don't recall ever reading about such an absurd force disparity, and those numbers are not given a source. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)