Notable Battles of Medieval Hungarians

ZRINYI MIKLOS(NIKOLA SUBIC ZRINSKI) - THE GREAT HERO OF SZIGETVAR

(and my favorite strongholds-defender)

In all of Hungarian history there is only one recorded case of two men with the same name - Count Mikl�s Zr�nyi - having achieved such heights of fame and glory that each serves as an inspiration to Magyars even today.
The two Zr�nyis lived a hundred years apart. The first Mikl�s Zr�nyi attained his place in history through his heroic death, while the other his great-grandson, did so by both the pen as a poet and by the sword as a warlord reminiscent of Hunyadi.
To understand Mikl�s Zr�nyi, the poet-warlord, one has to go back to his ancestor who was the central hero of the Siege of Szigetv�r in 1566. Both were of Croatian origin.

The Siege of Szigetv�r
Szigetv�r, situated close to the city of P�cs in Southern Hungary, was never a particularly large or strong fortress. Its existence, however, had been a thorn in the Turks' side since 1556, when Ali Pasha of Buda had lost ten thousand men under its walls in an unsuccessful siege.
Ten years later Suleiman the Magnificent, the victor of Moh�cs, decided that as a preparatory step to the capture of Vienna, Szigetv�r must be destroyed. When in August 1566 he arrived with 90,000 troops and 300 cannons under Szigetv�r, he
was not impressed. To him, Szigetv�r was a "molehill."
A few hundred kilometers to the north another army, 80,000 strong, struck camp between Gyor and Kom�rom. These were the troopsgathered by Emperor Maximilian,
King of Hungary, to fend off the anticipated Turkish advance on Vienna after the expected fall of Szigetv�r. The efforts of Hungarian leaders to induce Sam Ekhard, the Imperial commander of his force, to aid the beleaguered fortress were of no avail.
Count Mikl�s Zr�nyi, who was then the Ban (viceroy) of Croatia, decided to take charge of the defense himself. With only 2,500 Hungarian and Croatian soldiers he had no illusions about the final outcome. The wives and daughters of Zr�nyi's officers refused to leave the city, they wanted to stay with their husbands and fathers until death.
After due preparations for the siege, Zr�nyi gathered his men for a meeting during which all swore to defend Szigetv�r against the infidels to their last breath. Then red flags were hoisted as a signal to the Turks that Zr�nyi was ready for battle.
What made Szigetv�r defensible at all were not high hills or strong walls, but the marshes of the Alm�s Creek which surrounded Szigetv�r, a city built on three islands. A dammed lake added to its defense potential. Szigetv�r's three islands were connected by wooden platforms built over the water. The largest island was
situated in the middle, serving as the base for the "old city." Connected to it on one side was the "new city" and on the other side the fort proper, which included a high point called N�dasdy Hill. From N�dasdy Hill, gun emplacements looked down on the plain around Szigetv�r.
The defenders were at an immediate disadvantage, because an unusually dry summer had reduced their best weapon: water, to inundate the marshes. Whatever was left in the lake and moats had been drained by the Turks, who had destroyed the dam
in preparation for the siege. As a next step, the Turks built three causeways of brushwood and dirt across the drained lake bed. The Portuguese artillery expert, Aliportug, whom the Sultan had used at the siege of Malta, devised a monster platform, made of forty-two wagons (three wagons wide, fourteen wagons long).
fastened together by tree trunks to bridge the gap between the bastion and the causeway.
The Turks took the indefensible "new city," built on the smallest island, in two days, a feat claiming the lives of 3,000 Turks and 300 defenders. But the fortress proper still stood and the guns from N�dasdy Hill continued to batter the attackers, causing heavy casualties.
In his frustration, Grandvizier Ahmed Sokolovits changed tactics. He sent envoys to Zr�nyi, promising him eternal possession of all of Croatia and Slovenia if he would only surrender. Zr�nyi turned the offer down with contempt. Next, the Turks used arrows to shoot messages written in Hungarian and Croatian to the defending soldiers to induce them to open the gate. The result was the same.
Angered. the Grandvizier ordered the fortress to be bombarded on all four sides day and night. At the same time, his men began sinking shafts to underminethe entrenchments, to no avail. The general attack on the night of August 26 was beaten back with the Turks losing Ali Pasha of Buda, and Ali Borsuk, the commander of Turkish artillery.

Suleiman Dead and Still "Alive"
Suleiman the Magnificent was furious. On August 29, the 40th anniversary of his Moh�cs triumph, the aged Sultan personally took charge of an all-out attack which was renewed ten times during the day. But this time it was Zr�nyi who took revenge for Moh�cs: thousands of the Sultan's best soldiers were piling up dead
or wounded in the ten futile attempts at a breakthrough. The Portuguese Aliportug was one of the first victims, felled on his wagon-bridge trying to crossover with Janissary troops. The defenders even captured the commander of the Janissaries.
The "Magnificent" was crying in shame and anger when he witnessed how his best regiments took to flight from the walls. At the end, when he was helped down from his horse, he was a dying man although he had not been touched by any weapon.
For five days a deadly silence fell upon the Turkish camp while new attempts were made to sink shafts under the fortress. This time the Turks succeeded. On September 5th a shattering explosion demolished N�dasdy Hill, fire engulfing all surrounding buildings. Through the gaps caused by the explosion thousands of Janissaries rushed in and began to sack the buildings in the marketplace,
killing women and children. They thought the fortress was already theirs.Not quite. Zr�nyi and his soldiers descended on them like avenging angels killing most of the invaders and repelling two new attacks. Turk bodies were piled up in the passages made by the explosion, blocking further attempts to enter. Those who remained alive were seen fleeing like scalded ants from an ants' nest.
Sultan Suleiman could not bear the sight any longer. When the Turkish trumpets signaled retreat again, a fatal stroke felled him.Sultan had come to kill Mikl�s Zr�nyi and ultimately it was Zr�nyi whose resistance killed him.
Suleiman died, but he lived for three more days - officially, that is.The Grandvizier believed it was essential to conceal the truth from his troops to prevent general panic. In an act of make-believe unprecedented in history, he had the Sultan dressed up in his imperial robes with a diamond-studded turban on his head and a golden war-hammer in his hand, and placed him in a chair under
his tent as if he were watching his troops in review.
This farce continued for three days to allow time for the complete capture of Szigetv�r, now practically ruined and with only 300 defenders left under Zr�nyi's command. All their cannons and supplies, except for the ammunition, had been destroyed by the flames.
Zr�nyi knew that the end was near.

Storming out into Certain Death
The defenders were all prepared to die in keeping with their oath, but first a horrendous task awaited them. Their wives and daughters were still alive in the tower. Should they fall into Turkish hands, they would suffer a fate worse than death, and so, they had chosen instead to die at the hands of their beloved
fathers and husbands.After tearful farewells the men plunged daggers into their loved ones' hearts. This was the Hungarian version of Masada. the immortal self-sacrifice of Jewish
zealots in a Roman-besieged fortress two millenniums ago.
With this tragic event behind him, Zr�nyi donned the silk and velvet garment he had worn on his wedding day, and hung a heavy gold chain around his neck. He discarded his shirt of mail and instead, stuffed his pockets with gold pieces to "provide for my funeral" and with the unsheathed sword of his father in hand he
joined his men in the tower yard. He blessed and thanked them for their loyalty.
His men, following their commander's example, also discarded their armor.Then Mikl�s Zr�nyi, with the national flag in one hand, his sword in the other, ordered the opening of the gate behind which enemy troops swarmed on a bridge.
When the gate was flung open Zr�nyi's men fired two heavy cannons stuffed with nails and sharp pieces of iron, point blank into the enemy ranks. A moment later
Zr�nyi and his 300 men stormed out of the fortress. "Like a fiery ray of lightning he cracked down on them, cutting down everybody within range to make way for himself and for the courageous men following him," wrote the German historian Wagner.
The bridge had been cleared of Turkish troops when the inevitable happened. Zr�nyi was fatally hit by two bullets in the chest and by an arrow in his eye. His officers and men also fell - all except three.
Zr�nyi's head was promptly severed by the Janissaries and his body placed on a cannon. As a sign of victory, his head was put on a plate and rushed to the Sultan's tent by troops still unaware of the Magnificent's death.
This, however was not the end of the resistance.
Booty-hungry Janissaries invaded the fortress searching for the alleged treasures of Mikl�s Zr�nyi. Thousands jammed the yard and the tower when the last holdout, a young woman hiding in the underground ammunition chamber, threw a flaming torch into the gunpowder stored in the cellar. The terrible detonation which followed buried not only those in the tower but practically everyone in the yard. Thus, it became the burial ground for 3,000 Janissaries.
All told, the Battle of Szigetv�r claimed the lives of 2,500 Magyars and Croatians and 25,000 Turks in a siege in which no stones remained unturned.
The remains of the fortress of Szigetv�r still stand as a silent memorial to a battle fought for country, faith and honor.

Source: http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/history/zrinyi_szigetvar.htm

Ban Zrinyi Miklos(Nikola Zrinski):

  

The gravestone of Nikola Zrinski(Zrinyi Miklos) of Szigetvar

 

THE STRONGHOLD OF SZIGETVAR

---

Edited by The Chargemaster

I wonder what would of happened if the Sultans death was publically announced? Would the Turks consider it a bad omen and retreated or figured "in for a peni, in for a pie" and continue storming anyway?

Hi!

I had some work to do, but now I am back.

Soon I will post a new battle description again.

I wonder what would of happened if the Sultans death was publically announced? Would the Turks consider it a bad omen and retreated or figured "in for a peni, in for a pie" and continue storming anyway?

It is clear that the moral would have seriously decreased, but Sziget was a minor fortress and the siege was near to the end. It is hard to say.

 wonder in respect to which Zrinyi, one of the streets of Budapest has been named?

More than one, but the Zr�nyi Mikl�s National Defence University was named after his descendant, Mikl�s Zriny� the younger (Who wrote not just poems, but works about military science, and military policy), not him.

Chilbudios:

Well, I did not make deep research in this question.

My reference was:

Memoria rerum Sigismundi regis: J�nos H�v�ri - The Battle of Nicopolis. A Landmark in the History of the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkan in Hadt�rt�neti K�zlem�nyek 3/1998.

H�v�ri states that voivode Mircea was defeated in October 10th 1394 by the Ottomans. And at the request of Mircea Sigismund personally led an army to Wallachia in 1395. Mircea was restored and the king in the same campaign captured Nicopolis Minor/Holovnik/Turnu Magurele.

But I will look for more references.

Originally posted by Raider My reference was: Memoria rerum Sigismundi regis: J�nos H�v�ri - The Battle of Nicopolis. A Landmark in the History of the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkan in Hadt�rt�neti K�zlem�nyek 3/1998.

I know there was a trend in some historiographies to involve king Sigismund as much in the restoration of Mircea. I don't know the work you mentioned, but I know (from quotes and excerpts, didn't read the original works) similar arguments made by Alfons Huber and Janos Karacsonyi.

H�v�ri states that voivode Mircea was defeated in October 10th 1394 by the Ottomans.

I know the date of the battle - 10th October 1394 (from 17th century Serbian sources) or 17th May 1395 (from contemporary documents concerning the death of Constantine Dragash) is controversial - but I don't know of many accounts to support the defeat of Mircea. Let me browse few accounts: the account of Philippe de Mezieres (1397) - Bajezid was defeated and lost 30,000 men; Constantine Kostenetki (1431) - large battle with heavy casualties from Ottoman side; the Bulgaro-Byzantine Chronicle - the river was red from the blood, Bajezid ran in despair (and this is a similar view in many of the early Serbo-Byzantine chronicles - in the Postbyzantine chronicle from 16th century Bajezid ran being chased by Mircea to Danube and few Ottomans could escape); the chronicle of Laonic Chalcocondil (second half of 15th century) - Mircea harassed the Ottoman army, Bajazed camped, listen to one of his advisers and ran after Ister/Danube the next day; the chronicle of Pseudo-Sphrantzes (Macarie Melissenos, second half of 16th century) - the sultan withdrew because of the unfavourable place. The Ottoman chronicles of Enveri, Orujd, though not admitting the defeat of Bajezid, they don't affirm the victory, either. Ibn Kemal at the end of 15th century / beginning of 16th century describes an epic battle with heavy casualities which he credits as a victory to Ottomans, yet after this epic battle Bajezid rushed to cross the Danube back (full of spoils as the chronicle says). So except some Ottoman chronicles (as we may expect) all the others suggest only an Ottoman defeat.

A very interesting source is the letter send by Bajezid to Sigismund, letter which reached Buda in November 1395, letter which basically says that the king of Hungary credits himself for the victory on the battlefield while Bajezid threatens him to stop praising himself and that other situations were those who drove him away. So from this source we know that Ottomans were previously defeated north of Danube and that Hungarian king, seemingly unworthy, was praising himself for their defeat.

I don't know the full context of this letter, could Bajezid refer to the campaign of Sigismund which sieged Nicopolis Minor? To me seems unlikely, as Bajezid didn't participate himself in the events, why would have he taken it so personal? So I think it's about the previous battle, the battle from Rovine.

There is one interpretation which says there were two battles - one won by Wallachians, one by Ottomans. Yet, no written source mentions two battles, and as you can see most of them mention Ottoman defeat or insuccess to a degree.

 

I assume a Wallachian defeat is a pretext for further scenarios. I guess the modern trend was started by Alfons Huber who opposed Konstantin Jirecek (whose arguments were based on the testimony of Kostenetki and on the Chronograph of Michael Moxa). Huber's arguments (probably reissued by Karacsonyi and your source, Janos Hovari) were based on some diplomas of Sigismund of Luxemburg which he interpreted as an aid given to Mircea to regain his throne. I think the interpretation of other events surrounding this battle should be revised to their own meanings as the striking majority of sources identify an undebateable Ottoman defeat.

And at the request of Mircea Sigismund personally led an army to Wallachia in 1395. Mircea was restored and the king in the same campaign captured Nicopolis Minor/Holovnik/Turnu Magurele.

As I've said, the usurper was still in reign in 1396, as the documents prove. From the Hurmuzaki collection of documents, here's a document from this usurper Vlad addressed to Sigismund: "In nomine domini amen. Wlad Woyewoda Bessarabie necnon Comes de Seuerinio etc. Significamus vniuersis quibus expedit presencium noticiam habituris, [...] Harum quibus Sigillum nostrum presentibus est appensum testimonio literarum. Datum in Opido Argisch Ipso die sancte et individue trinitatis. Anno domini Millesimo Trecentesimo nonagesimo Sexto.". However one may suggest, Mircea was restored and then he was usurped again

 

Let's see some of those diplomas who were analysed to construct this scenario:

The diploma issued in 1397 for two brothers Nicholas and John, mentions the campaign for Nicopolis, but no restoration in throne. This diploma is reissued in 1406 and 1408, having some modifications (and I won't get into their details right now). A similar account can be found in the diploma issued for John of Maroth in 1403, reissued in 1404 and 1408. Another similar account is in the two diplomas for John and Stephen of Kanisza (1397 and 1401). These latter two diplomas (unlike the other ones!)however mention masses of Ottomans and Wallachians who were damaging the Hungarian interest. No reference for an usurper, no reference for a restoration though.

A Romanian historian, Al. V. Dita, claimed that Huber and other historians created an argument from a formula who occurs in the diploma from 1406 given to Nicholas and John:  "laudabiliter reobtinendo et fideles castellanos in eodem reliquendo, eorundem fidelium nostrorum tutaminibus Merche voyvodam Transaplinum per Turkos de suo dominio depositum, suo restituit pristino dominio", yet the paragraph refers to the castle of Nicopolis Minor (castle about the previous version of this diploma, the one from 1397, it doesn't say it was given to Mircea, it only mentions "fidelles castellanos in eodem reliquendo" , but also "et nostrorum castellanorum manibus prorsus duximus applicandum et reliquendum").

I would like to add, that these diplomas also helped Johannes de Thurocz and Antonio Bonfini to construct similar hypotheses like Huber.

note: I don't have the entire original text of the diplomas only quotes which were used as arguments by various historians. If you have larger excerpts from their text I'd appreciate it.

But there is a point that disturbes me. You said that in 1396 Vlad still ruled over Wallachia and was deposed in the Spring of 1397. But the Battle of Nicopolis was September 25 1396 and we know that Mircea took part in the battle with a Wallachian army. If he was exiled how could he lead the army of Wallachia? (The restoration of Mircea is generally seen as a preparation of the Crusade by Hungarian historians.)

There are few points which maybe should be issued in a clearer form:

- Vlad was indeed deposed in 1397, but it is likely he lost some part of the control he had over Wallachia since 1396 when voivod Stibor defeated him the first time. In 1396 there seems to be a battle, in 1397 only a siege. This action (from 1396) can be correlated with Hungarian Kingdom's effort to wage that Crusade against Ottomans.

- As we know from other documents, at that time (1390) Mircea was not only voivod of Wallachia, but also duke of Amlas/Omlas and Fagaras/Fogaras (geographically in southern Transylvania), was ruling Dobrogea/Dobrudja, perhaps even the southern parts of Moldavia. With Mircea still alive and still having Hungarian support Vlad surely had difficulties to receive the full loyalty (of the boyars, of the administration, of the army, of the population) and control over the entire state. That's why is not hard to imagine a recruiting ground for Mircea. He could also benefit from the help of rebellious elements to the ruleship of Vlad.

- In the act from 1396 signed by the usurper Vlad there are some interesting things to note (and one to correct, I made a mistake earlier due to a rushy reading): he thanks and supports Vladislav and Hedwiga, the king and queen of Poland (not Hungary like I earlier wrote!). Vlad is grateful to Polish crown for the support he received from them to obtain the voivodate of Wallachia and possessions in Hungarian kingdom. He also recognizes Hedwiga as the only true successor of Hungarian crown and declares his full support and loyalty to them and their successors as kings of Poland and Hungary. It looks like the usurpation of Wallachian throne was not only a Hungaro-Ottoman question but is also (I would say rather, but the diplomas of Sigismund say Vlad was supported by Ottomans - it could have been an Ottoman-Polish coordonated action against Hungary) related to the death of queen Mary, married to Sigismund, sister of Hedwiga and both daughters of the great king Louis, king of Poland and Hungary.

- And one thing I missed to say - Huber and others used also another piece of text from the Byzantino-Bulgar chronicle, which although states an unquestionable defeat of Bajezid, after battle the sultan ran south of Danube, but he appointed a "vlastel" over Wallachia, and Mircea had to run to Hungarians. This is the only chronicle which makes that menton (a bizarre mention - after the battle both the winner and the loser have to run!), it may be a reference to Vlad but also may be some later interpolation.

1) It makes a difference if they reached the same conclusion coming from different sources or using different arguments. If they all follow the same source then it's only a historiographical trend, nothing more.

2) I don't know of any historical evidence to corelate this hypothesis with a real place but I can help you with different "Stanca/Piatra Corbului" (Romanian for Raven's rock) locations, though before that we should check what was their name in 14-15th centuries. All of them so far are in Carpathian mountains.

Edited by Chilbudios - 25-May-2006 at 11:02

I'm not informed about the Hunyad family.

I heard that Voicu was coming from Wallachia but I know that the fortress in Hunyadvar/Hunedoara is existing from 14th century. Who was the ancient owner?

Originally posted by Raider Originally posted by BigL "A southern army attacked Transylvania, defeated the voivod and crushed the Transylvanian Hungarian army" any info on this battle? "The Tartar casulties were so large that Batu didn�t wanted to pursue the Hungarians" ,Where did you get this from, i know the mongol casualties at the bridgehead were high,but werent the other mongol divisions relatively untouched.  "A camp of 100 000 or even  60 000 horsemen would be simply too large to this actions." mongol bow can shoot roughly 300m ,the mongols surrounded the camp so shooting from all directions,does this mean the camp has a diameter of 600meters/ How many of the hungarians are horsemen? 1. My reference do not give details, because it concentrates to the Mohi battle. I will search for further information. 2. According to the footnotes of my reference the primary source was The History of the Yuan dinasty - Biography of Subodai. 3. There were no infantry only cavalry in the Hungarian army, but there were the servants and other camp followers.

Originally posted by Chilbudios AFAIK both the battles of Santimbru and of Irongate (Waskapu) occured in the year 1442. Bonfini describes Hunyadi and Lepes leading the Hungarian army at Santimbru. He also suggests that the Ottoman forces surrounded and trapped Hunyadi's small army. The geography of the place and the flow of events allows that, now only matters how reliable is Bonfini's account.

Well, I used more than one references (Engel, Krist�, P�losfalvi, Winkler), plus Bonfini and the Thur�czy chronicle. As you might find out all of them contained a different reconstruction. I tried to write an own version what I thought the most likely. (I do not really trust Bonfini's account.)