The Battle of Moh�cs, 1526

According to the latest historical researches a ottoman cannonfire was not the decisive factor. A cannonballs flew over the heads of the charging hungarian cavalry. The key of the ottoman victoy was the discipline and the superior numbers.

The hungarian battle plan (attacking and defeating part of the ottoman army after one another) was failed before the battle, because the king delayed the attack.

"The situation of the artillery assigned to the Rumelian armydeserves special attention. Brodarics's account implies that the artillery was positioned in some kind of depression, so that when thefiring started, the cannonballs sped above the heads of the Hungarians. [468] The same fact emerges from Suleyman's diary: "they startedto fire the guns, but could cause no damage." Everything points to anunheard-of situation: the artillery had been ordered into a positionfrom which it could not fire out! Since the Ottoman artillery was inno way inferior to European artilleries, it is inconceivable that thiswas the result of ignorance or neglect. Two circumstances mayexplain the paradox: the order to set up camp and the terrain. Whenthe artillerymen received the order to set up camp they must havestopped wherever they happened to be and placed their guns infiring position. They apparently settled in a depression in front ofthe terrace, where the difference between the high and low spots wasas much as 4-5 m. Consequently, the cannons had no firing range orcould fire only in a raised position and could not sweep the area infront of them. The artillery commander was undoubtedly worried bythese conditions, but could do nothing, since it would have been mostrisky to drag the cannons further forward to the next rising, so closeto the Hungarians. The fact that they built a practically unpenetrable obstacle in front of their batteries also indicates that thesituation arose not from ignorance or neglect but because the inappropriate terrain for setting up camp."

I have writen about cannonfire. The firearms of the janissaries are another question.

A painting of Orlai Petrics Soma:

Mrs. Per�nyi had the dead buried

http://www.hung-art.hu/kep/o/orlai_pe/muvek/2/orlai207.jpg

By the way I see some similarity with the misinterpretation of the battle of Muhi. I have read on many site that this was a battle between the hungarian knights, and the mongol horse archers, what is definitively not true.

2. At that time the hungarian army was in the middle of a reform. The former horse archer style army changed into a heavier cavalry. Only a small percent of the hungarian army wore a knightly armor. (the royal bodyguard, the knights templar, and the lords.) The others wore only leather armor, with sword, spear and bow.

Correct me if i'm wrong..janissary never use volley power.. usually their place themself in devensive position at the middle of army and have strong backup from calvary at the flank and melee infantry at their back and azap at the front...azap infantry will face an enamy calvary and brough them in the line of jannissary and cannon fire...at this point their marksmanship and fast loading will destroy the enemy, maybe their act like skirmisher because their main offensive stroke ussually from calvary force...jannissary thread their arm like their bow...

Link about battle of mohac: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/warso/

30 August our holiday of victory.(Independance war)

But  I think It is just  coincidence.