Talk:Battle of Vienna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Execution of 30,000 Christian hostages??[edit]

A moment's thought would surely reveal this as an absurdity. The mere logistics of executing 30,000 people in the middle of losing a battle are implausible to say the least, leave alone the fact that it would have been one of the worst massacres in history. And no mention of it anywhere but a third-rate third-hand source?

I'm cutting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.186.222 (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following book mentions it: [1] 209.17.150.6 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found on page 267 not page 266 of Events That Formed the Modern World: From the European Renaissance through the War on Terror. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thackeray, Frank W.,and Findling, John E., eds. Events That Formed the Modern World: From the European Renaissance through the War on Terror, p.266, Published by ABC-CLIO, 2012. ISBN 1598849018

Coffee and croissants[edit]

I read that coffee was made popular in Europe (it already was in England from Quicksilver (novel) because the Turks left behind a big stock of it.

I also read that croissants were invented to celebrate one of the victories of Christendom in Vienna. Was it this battle?

Indeed, all the coffee from Kara Mustafa's camp was granted to Sobieski, who gave it to one of his officers, Jan Kulczycki. He was given a house in Vienna and opened the first coffee house there. However, there was a cafe in Cracow at least a century earlier ('though the drink wasn't popular at least until late XVIII century). One of the greatest polish poets of the period, Jan Andrzej Morsztyn even wrote a short poem about it with the words "the awful drink should never pollute christian mouth". However, the legend is nice.Halibutt 19:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had always thought that the croissant had indeed come of either this battle or earlier siege. The story as I understood it was that bakers, working early one morning in their bakeries heard the sounds of shovels beneath their floors and sounded the alarm. Because the city was saved (in either this or the earlier battle) the bakers were honored with the croissant, shaped like a crescent. To be sure, it might not have happened like that but you gotta think that there is some truth to the legend.Culmo80 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80[reply]

the 'third coffeehouse in Europe' statement seriously conflicts with the info given in that article - supposedly there were already 3000(sounds dubious as well) in England before that date! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.233.105 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=== while it is nice to see the myths about the croissant and the bagel listed under legends, it is dismaying to see suggestions that anything about them is uncertain. Quite simply, all these tales - of the invention of the croissant, the bagel and (in other sources) the bundt cake/kugelhopf, of the bags of coffee left behind - are mentioned in culinary sources, not standard histories of the city or this battle. Basically, it's all nonsense and no source cited here comes anywhere near documenting any of it in the period itself.69.228.33.130 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More info[edit]

The article is fairly short for such an important topic. Some of the additional points I'd like to cover include:

  • The appeals by both the Pope and the Austrian emperor to Sobieski for help
  • The speed at which the Polish army made it to Vienna (off the top of my head, I think it was about 60 or 70 km a day over several days)
  • Some more information about the aftermath and significance of the battle, as it is widely regarded as one of the most important in the history of Europe (and the world?).

I'll do some more research and see what I can contribute.

Is this line an error: "The main Turkish army finally invested Vienna on July 14". Seems like it should say invaded not invested —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.133.254 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other points of interest: the Ottoman retreat; the loot in the Ottoman camp; the victorious king's entry into the city; Sobieski's letter to the Pope with the famous quotation "Venimus, vidimus et Deus vicit"; Kara Mustafa's execution by the sultan for his failure in the battle
To start, I've broken up the article into sections. We still need an "Aftermath" section before the "Significance" section. The Prelude section needs work; it seems like there's two trains of thought. I'll come back to it.


Habsburg[edit]

The article sometimes refers the Austrian army, and sometimes to the Habsburg army. I'd like to make this more consistent. If no one objects, I shall change Habsburg to Austrian.

I prefer Habsburg to Austrian. At the time, Austria was just one of the fiefdoms ruled by Habsburgs and in any case the armies they assembled had almost invariably a multi-ethnic nature. The article should reflect that. Jensboot 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Jensboot, we should keep Habsburg, as there was no Austrian army on those times. ish_warsaw 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Before the 18th century the Army of the Austrian Habsburgs was usually called "Imperials" ("Kaiserliche") - refering to their position as Emperors of the HRE. There was nothing like an Austrian army at that time. Only in 1740 when the Habsburgs had lost the crown of the HRE for several years and at the same time started to centralize their realm, an "Austrian Army" came into being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.168.80 (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I So could just please somebody change "Austria" to "Holy Romanian Empire" in the "Belligerents" and the "Strength of Holy League forces"-Boxes. And in the "Commanders"-Box, Ernst Rüdiger von Starhemberg, the army commander of Vienna and imperial general of the HRE is missing as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.195.209 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, we have to keep in mind that Austria (more so than Habsburg) was up to 1804 a family name. The family name, of course, derived from the fact that this family ruled "Austria proper" (which is not modern Austria, but merely the modern Austrian länder Lower and Upper Austria plus Vienna); but it was as a family name that Emperor Francis II/I chose it to acquire a personal dignity of the "Emperor of Austria", whence the custom to refer to all the Habsburg (or, well, in that sense, Austrian) realms as Austria, even such that still belong to Austria such as Tyrol. In fact even confining the word "Austria" to the non-Hungarian possessions was comparatively late and/or inofficial (the word "Cisleithania" was preferred, and officially we would have "the kingdoms and countries represented in the Parlament of the Empire"). - In fact Habsburg itself is only another and older, but much smaller possession. The usual naming conventions however do take the most highly-ranked possession; the members of the Wittelsbach family are surnamed "von Bayern" in their passports to this day.--2001:A60:15CF:801:79AB:3FDB:4D5A:82E (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the article[edit]

I'm currently expanding especially the prelude and the military engagements just preceding the siege. Jensboot 20:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good job. Plz add some references if you can. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I put comment marks for the pictures of paintings by Kossak, Matejko and Brandt. If exists, I would second putting pictures of paintings rather contemporary to the siege. Jensboot 21:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the strength numbers[edit]

I wonder where these strength numbers originate. Someone (83.76.87.200) has came up and changed the Ottoman strength from 140.000 to 200.000 without giving any reference or at least a minor comment on the discussion page. Can anybody confirm this change?roktas 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to insist on a citation for any changes like this. In this case it does not look like vandalism, but we cannot just take the word of anyone who drops in. Later I'll look in the appropriate Cambridge modern history and see if I can find a number. Until then, I'll add a citation request. If anyone has reason to think 140,000 is better, feel free to change it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the numbers to 138,000 turks vs 70,000 combined forces, including 30,000 of Sobieski's. The reference is cited on the page. I welcome other references. It would be good to have a few more so we could put a range on the figures. Tom Harrison Talk 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now, we at least have a citation available. BTW, I've made a few search on the web, but couldn't find any consistent data. roktas 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t understand, I´ve red in lots of books that they were equal in numbers. The european side were allied with many nations, so they could have afford with at least 180,000 men! Only 10,000 during siege is a complete impossibility!

I have edited the Ottoman numbers based on Simon Millar "Vienna 1683" and Rhoads Murphey "Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700" The Ottoman primary source for the battle is Silahdar.

--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment numbers seem not consistent to me: box states 150.000 or 300.000, but 300.000 is nowhere in the text, that gives just 150.000, with some breakdown. Also according to text states Janissary paper strength 12.000 (so real numbers presumably less) and box gives Janisarry Strength 20.000. ABMvandeBult (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strength numbers of Polish forces[edit]

I can see that there was "citation needed" in the table near the number of Polish forces (37,000). I already provided the source for this number long time ago and explained the nature of these figures (why 37,000 and no less, no more). Just check the old version of the article after my old edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vienna&oldid=210112665#cite_note-0

The numbers come from this website - http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/siege_of_vienna.htm - precisely from scans of the book "Wieden 1683" by Polish historian Jan Wimmer, where he provides the exact Order of Battle for Polish forces at Vienna. Here are scans of these pages from Wimmer's book which contain the exact Polish Order of Battle:

The last column of the table (6) show strength of each unit (either in portions or in factual numbers of soldiers) on 01.08.1683:

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob218.jpg
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob220.jpg
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob222.jpg
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob224.jpg
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob226.jpg
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob228.jpg
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/AquaImages/ob230.jpg

The actual strength of units strength of which was reported in "portions" (of soldier's pay) was about 9% lower than the number of portions "on paper" (because officers received the same amount of money as several soldiers). Other units however - which were not organized according to the "portions system" - had real strength the same as reported strength in this Order of Battle.

In total this data shows that Polish army numbered ca. 37,000 (including 16,300 infantry, 150 artillery crews and 20,550 cavalry and dragoons).

Hope now everything is clear.

Peter558 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers - 37,000 - refer to total forces mobilized, not only those sent towards Vienna. At Vienna there were 27,000 Poles. Updated.
Peter558 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the church is on Leopoldsberg[edit]

the reference to "Kahlen Berg" in the first para below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna is correct. The reference to "Kahlenberg" in the second para needs some clarification. The text in the third para below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldsberg explains why: Since the time the church was built the mountain has been known as Leopoldsberg.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna: "The Holy League forces arrived on the "Kahlen Berg" (bare hill) above Vienna, signalling their arrival with bonfires. In the early morning hours of 12 September, before the battle, a mass is held for King Sobieski."

"In honor of Sobieski, the Austrians had erected a church atop a hill of Kahlenberg, north of Vienna...."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldsberg: "Modern-day Leopoldsberg therefore had the name “Kahlenberg” (it was the “bare” or kahl of the two) until 1693 when the baroque church was built on top, at which time the name was transferred to the neighboring mountain (modern-day Kahlenberg). In 1683, modern-day Leopoldsberg was the meeting point of King Jan III Sobieski’s Polish-Austrian troops, who defeated the Turkish invaders and liberated the city of Vienna during the Second Siege of Vienna (Polish veterans consider Kahlenberg as the setting of the famous battle)."

Clarification?[edit]

Could somebody please clarify the statement, "Also, the behaviour of Louis XIV of France set the stage for centuries to come"? It is unclear as to what stage is being set. European conflicts? Politics? Fighting wars on two fronts? Ruthlessly annexing territory? It is unclear to me. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11/1683 vs. 9/11/2001 vs. 9/11/2012[edit]

It is hard to believe that the battle of Vienna began on 9/11. I strongly doubt that Osama bin Laden picked this date by sheer coincidence. The date was one of many messages. -- 62.245.160.188 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they choose 9/11 instead of 9/12? 2600:1700:B4F0:4C20:EC6B:8D93:A218:DC73 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 249 of "The 9/11 Commission" lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was the one who chose the date. Whether it truly was just coincidence or if he had knowledge of the date of this battle is never mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz pot (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course the date is significant. 9/11/2001 and 9/11/2012 are considered "revenge" for 9/11/1683. Art Cancro (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


FYI: this theory is in the article for 9/11 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Planning Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Reference[edit]

I suggest adding a reference to John Stoye's excellent book from 2000 "The Siege of Vienna." Timosh1313 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant removal of encyclopedic content[edit]

I am tiring of Nostradamus1 who constantly deletes the content I am trying to provide, along with their citations in several books for which I have provided ISBN numbers and even the page numbers. There is nothing more I have to say than what I already said here on my talk page. If the community here is sufficiently interested in the facts please reinstate them, because I am unwatching this page now. Sorry, there are just too much other things to do that are actually productive. Bye.-Glst2 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing this before? WP:DR, or posting a request for input on WP:MILHIST, is advisable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Glst2 for the reasons of his/her translating and including two quotations -only from one side of the battle- that strikingly ended with sentences alleging threats against women and children. The response in his talk page includes the following paragraph:

What value does this add? Simple: it adds first-hand evidence of Ottoman "conversion or annihilation" attitude towards Vienna and its population at this precise time immediately prior to the Battle of Vienna. It is therefore justified to include it in the respective article, just as it is not only perfectly justified but actually essential for the completeness of the article on Heinrich Himmler to illustrate his organized extermination of the Jews by providing translations of selected sections of his Posen speech.

This demonstrates this user's POV. The above sounds like an original research or thesis that has no place here. The article gains nothing by this user's selective translation and quotation other than pushing for his/her POV. I will remove these quotations that have no encyclopedic value.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Combatants[edit]

Was there olso Moldova and Wallahia on the Turkish side, or only Crimean Khanate? All were Ottoman vassal so needed to assist Turks in the time of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.100.60 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification of date of battle[edit]

I have read many sources that list the date of the Battle of Vienna. Some say September 11th, some say September 12th. I have noticed the changes have been made numerous times. Certain scholars say September 11th, others say September 12th. I would like some clarification, but until then, I would suggest not allowing alterations of the page by unregistered or new members. --Farmer88 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the subject matter of the article. But, if you are interested in reading more about the suggestion you made, I suggest reading about the types of protection and requesting page protection. Hope the links help.--Rockfang (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The battle had been going on for months. It was decided on 12 September 1683 by Sobieski's attack. Look at the photo of the monument to him in the article. I'd think the people of Vienna would know what date it took place on. 65.190.40.193 (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map?[edit]

Is there any map showing what was the extend of Ottoman empire and Holy roman league during the battle? --gppande «talk» 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, but it needs redrawing since it's not so old to be PD. --Alex:D (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another one --Alex:D (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very late reply but I think a simple map is essential. I'll add an internal link shortly. JRPG (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian in intro?[edit]

If the intro contains the name of the battle in Ukrainian language, why is Crimean Tatar, Hungarian and Romanian missing? The Polish, German and Turkish can be justified, because of main victors/the place/the main loosers. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above (point 7)[edit]

I added info and references on the strength numbers of Polish forces (as of 1 August 1683 - on 11 September strength could be slightly different but I don't think it differed significantly).

Peter558 (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy League[edit]

We can´t call coalition holy leauge because it was created in 1684. Also Cosaccks don´t fight in this battle. If they been there it was part of Polish-Lithuanian army. --Swd (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Karlowitz[edit]

I added the date of the signing of the Treaty of Karlowitz. Although it says the Ottoman Empire battled for another 16 years, I think it is important to explicitly state the year of which the treaty was signed, as the wording in this section continues on from the previous one in terms of forming an actual date from the '16 years', and it should be assumed that one reading the article will not be reading it cover to cover. Broden (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional desciption[edit]

In Poland, a novel by James A. Michener, there's s description of the battle from the perspective of Jan Sobieski and some of his men. I wonder if this should be mentioned here? __meco (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Events during the siege / War of the Reunions[edit]

Beautiful article. This comment is just intended to suggest clarification of a minor point. The last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in section "Events during the siege" states: "Louis XIV of France declined to help its Habsburg rival, having just annexed Alsace." The words "annexed Alsace" are linked to the article War of the Reunions. The sentence and link are confusing for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether France or Habsburg annexed Alsace. Second, the linked article, War of the Reunions, does not state that Alsace was annexed by anyone. Instead, the linked article seems to suggest that no significant change in land occurred during the war. The article states: "While Louis refused to send aid to the Empire and even dispatched envoys to secretly encourage the Ottomans, contemporary accounts indicate that it would be unseemly for him to continue fighting the Empire on its western border. Thus Louis agreed to the Truce of Ratisbon, guaranteeing twenty years of peace between France and the Empire and asking his first cousin, Charles II of England, to arbitrate the disputed border claims." As I have no expertise in this area, I do not feel competent to suggest any particular changes myself.--Rpclod (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The War of the Reunions articles does seem to mention Louis XIV annexed Alsace. It says "These territories generally consisted of small towns and villages, and for the most part Louis's annexations went unopposed. The territory seized mainly came from the Spanish Netherlands and the western parts of the Holy Roman Empire, especially Alsace." That's the contradiction cleared up I think, but the wording still may need to be improved. Tomh903 (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the figures come from?[edit]

Can anybody explain where the Figures of Troops etc. in the Table come from? The reference to a Polish homepage and information on bottom of that page does not seem to give these figures. Best regards Rmir2 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the battle.[edit]

There is an inconsistency in this article in that in the introduction it is stated that the key battle took place on the 11th September. In the detailed section it states that the battle began by an attack of the Ottoman forces on 12th September. All other authorities agree on the 12th. This is an important issue given that the coincidence of the 11th has stimulated all sorts of 9/11 theories. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliderhaugr (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears that some people simply insist on the 11 September date for numerological purposes. No serious historical source supports the 11th as a significant date, save that it was the day before the 12th when the battle proper occurred. It should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venimus, vidimus et Deus vicit[edit]

Afterwards Sobieski paraphrased Julius Caesar's famous quotation (Veni, vidi, vici) by saying "Veni, vidi, Deus vicit" – "I came, I saw, God conquered" --- I'm not sure it is a good form. In Poland we know his words as "Venimus, vidimus et Deus vicit", what means -"We came, We saw, God conquered". But like i said before - im not sure.

Unreliable Sources[edit]

This article substantially cites books by Andrew Wheatcroft and Alan Palmer. These people are not scholarly historians, but pop-history writers. They can't be considered reliable sources. All citations of their work should be checked against the work of academic historians and replaced with better citations. Chamboz (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Vienna. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Vienna. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman juggernaut[edit]

The Ottoman's were like a superpower their impunivie attack at Vienna is hard to unfold and criticize. Fjgdh5 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)\Fjgdh5 (talk)\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.2 (talk) [reply]

Editorializing[edit]

The seeds of Protestant freedom, especially in Hungary, were crushed by Catholic powers.

Trleith (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Zdeněk Kašpar count Kaplíř of Sulevice to the list of Holy League commanders[edit]

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zden%C4%9Bk_Ka%C5%A1par_Kapl%C3%AD%C5%99_ze_Sulevic Count Kaplíř was an Austrian imperial marshall. He was a chairman of Vienna emergency government during the Turkish siege and deputy commander of Vienna garrison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.111.77.141 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Poland at the top of the infobox?[edit]

As I understand it, the majority of the coalition troops at Vienna came from the Habsburg Monarchy and Bavaria. Why then, is Poland at the top of the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preußenistgross (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Pilsudki was overall commander of the league Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sobieksi was elected as supreme commander because He was most experienced commander who fought against Turks. However, German and Polish troops were commanded separately. The fact that Poland is written at the top contributes only to the continuation of the myth that Poland alone saved Vienna, and it does not reflect the truth. During the entire campaign, Turkish army lost three-fourths of its number until Battle of Vienna (my source claims it decreased from 250.000 to 65.000. There was sources that it decreased to 50.000 as well). Although Poland promised to come to help Austria with 40.000 troops, it came to the aid with 18.000 troops weeks after its promise. I am not saying this information to disparage Polish Army. There is no difference between writing the Crimean Khanate on top of Ottoman Empire and Poland on top of Austria. 78.162.213.165 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Wording[edit]

Much of the article is written with unacademic, unnecessary, and sometimes biased language. I will begin the process of rewritting several sections to better meet wikipedia standards. Ashemus (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Vienna&oldid=1216947160"