Talk:Siege of Szigetvár

Pargali Ibrahim

Pargali Ibrahim is mentioned multiple times throughout this article, even though he has been dead for 30 years. Szigetvar was n 1566 yet the article makes various mentions of an Ibrahim Pasha which links me to the article Pargali Ibrahim, who died in 1536. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Whataboutery

I couldn't care less what other articles do or don't do, per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX "Pyrrhic victory" is not used in infoboxes. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read anywhere there that Pyrrhic victory can't go to the info box, those are some of your rules.93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've alreedy refuted that other strawman here. It says In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcome. You can deny it says that if you like, I wouldn't recommend it though. FDW777 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it says in the source. What will write something that is not? Then it is best to delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the World. You also have a Pyrrhic article so delete it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

More whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that anyone can edit WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX so I could too. It remains to be seen who wrote it. And he should have gotten a consensus for something like that written, so that would be fine.93.138.63.81 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a consensus, that's why it's in the guideline. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Which we will all change and delete the word Pyrrhic victory from the world. Then a lot of battles need to be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Holme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Plevna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenkins%27_Ferry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Defile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Sault ... etc Look at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Military_history93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Then Epirote Victory it does not exist, it must also be written differently here in infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum93.138.63.81 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. That references say it was is not relevant, it doesn't go in the infobox according to the MOS. Saying See article Battle of Vukovar for example is just more whataboutery, and is of no relevance. FDW777 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes in WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX "terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes" but they are not forbidden, it is not written. Here we have two sources where it is strictly written "Pyrrhic victory". First source [[1]] , second source [[2]].Without Pyrrhic this battle gives the impression that it was easily won by the Ottomans. That is why Pyrrhic is written in books and this should be taken into account what is written in the source. As in the other battles written above. "Whataboutery" is not a reason and argument for deletion.93.136.115.120 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX is the reason for removal, since it doesn't matter if reference says it the manual of style says it doesn't go in the infobox. Nothing to counter is has been presented except whataboutery. FDW777 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

But on WP: MILMOS # INFOBOX it doesn't say it's forbidden to write a Pyrrhic victory. Explain to me why this exception is deletion only on this battle and not on other battles? It’s not okay to make exceptions and let it be just this battle, because something bothers you. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need to say something is forbidden using that exact word, since saying it's inappropriate is more than enough. See WP:LAWYER. FDW777 (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Not inappropriate more than enough. It is not 100 percent that it does not have to be written or banned. Look at other battles where it says Pyrrhic victory so they are not erased. You avoid the second question, why only in this battle must it be erased and nowhere else?93.136.115.120 (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you've no argument except more whataboutery ("Look at other battles" and "why only in this battle" are textbook examples) to the guideline that says it's inappropriate, it's not going in the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have arguments, and you don't, you didn't write anything, you repeat the same thing, I showed you the sources and proved that "nappropriate for outcomes" is not a ban in the infobox. Stop repeating like a parrot “whataboutery,” and you haven’t answered the questions of why only in this battle must the Pyrrhic victory be erased, and in the others not. And the sources say Pyrrhic victory. The question is simple to which you have no answer. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, your only arguments are whataboutery. You insist this article can't be changed becuase others say Pyrrhic victory. But if you stopped wasting everyone's fucking time on this article maybe people would be able to move on to other articles and change those too. FDW777 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Again you didn't say anything, you're just selling fog here93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive439#User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned). FDW777 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you showing me now that the other IP wrote. What does it matter now, you're bypassing my questions again. Of course you need to get a consensus to delete something that was written 10-15 years here, and you didn’t say anything to make it so. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to claim you are a totally different editor to the similar IP in the similar location making the same non-arguments while making the same disruptive edits. Nobody will believe it. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop falsely accusing me and sending messages, just because you don’t have arguments on the talk page. What you do is forbidden on Wikipedia. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You opened an account 2 years ago and you're already acting like you're some kind of boss here, and you can falsely accuse me just because you don't have arguments on the talk page. 93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, this is your single and final warning: stop personalising this dispute. The only person whose conduct here is abrasive is yours, and if you keep attacking editors instead of discussing the article content, both A) others will be unwilling to listen to you even if you are right and B) you may get blocked because of it; are plausible outcomes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It is important that he did not personally attack me by falsely accusing me, but you do not see this because I am unimportant to you IP. That’s why you exercise your muscles on me because you can’t on others ,but on some irrelevant IP 93.136.115.120 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You're clearly the same person as the other IP. You editing style is similar; you've immediately focused on this page; and, even more tellingly, both IPs geolocate to the same area (Croatia) and to the same ISP. So basically this is a case of WP:DUCK, which is additionally confirmed by technical evidence. If you keep persisting, and refusing to listen to the concerns of others, then you are clearly not here to contribute to a collaborative project (which this is). Now as I said, that was a single and final warning. Feel free to disregard it as much as you want if you think I'm wrong; but I'm afraid that's going to do you no good. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

93.136.115.120 and 93.138.63.81 not same, the rest are the conspiracy theories you are now using. So anyone can blame anyone. But you are right here, I am some irrelevant ip address so you can do whatever you want. But I will never tell you any conspiracy theory, because that is not right, nor is it true. I have given arguments here and I know I am right, but I know that no one will accept it, because I am irrelevant IP 93.136.115.120 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Lol, I just saw you made an account 1 year ago and you're playing the boss here, you're really funny93.136.115.120 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

"The references say it was a "Pyrrhic victory" is also a non-argument. We wouldn't describe any conflict as a "Pyrrhic victory" without references to start with, so why do we have a manual of style saying not to use the term "Pyrrhic victory"? The manual of style (and the further instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict) are designed to specifically avoid time-wasting like this. We don't use "decisive", we don't use "tactical", we don't use "strategic", we don't use "Pyrrhic". We do use "x victory" or Inconclusive". The argument that "references say it was a Pyrrhic victory", if followed through to its logical conclusion, would mean every single victory described as "Pyrrhic" would have an infobox saying just that, rendering the instructions in the manual of style in direct contradiction to what actually happens. FDW777 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

My request is to change the part in the summary that says "Result Ottoman victory" to "Result Pyrrhic Ottoman victory". Pyrrhic means that a battle was won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.

Being as Count Nichola Zrinsky inflicted 10 times the casualties as his garrison suffered, Suleiman the Magnificent died during The Siege, and it was aprroximatly a hundred years before the Ottomans tried to invade Europe again, I think this is a much more accurate description of the actual result. Just plain "ottoman victory" sounds like the they won. And while they certainly captured the town, I think most people would argue that count Zrinski succeeded in breaking the Ottoman army at Szigetvár. Not unlike the way we view the Battle of Thermopylae actually. The Spartans lost, technically, but inflicted so many casualties on the Persians that we consider it a victory. Minus the Spartans, everything I have said is supported in the Wikipedia article in question, with most of it being taken directly from the summary box (I don't know what else to call it. The thing with the main picture and brief overview). I'm not trying to make any radical changes about facts. I'm just trying to help the description convey what happened better. Thanks! 107.191.2.62 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The weight of reliable sources must refer to it that way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note: In addition, such request is against WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Melmann 18:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Many sources say the victory was pyrrhic.

I do not understand what the problem with that is. ZidarZ (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In Hungarian historiography this is a great Hungarian-Croatian defender battle against the Ottomans. The 100,000 Ottoman army was halted for weeks and they lost 20-30,000 men by 2-3000 Hungarian-Croatian defenders, finally the Ottomans won but the planned full Ottoman campaign stopped. The sultan died. Zrínyi ordered a fuse be lit to the powder magazine. After cutting down the last of the defenders the Ottoman Army entered the remains of Szigetvár and fell into the trap. 3,000 Ottomans perished in the explosion. I think these things are sourced in the article.

I found a great explanation video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SilVXqdffw4 OrionNimrod (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was a "pyrrhic" victory.

I do not understand why anyone is opposed to calling it a "pyrrhic" victory. ZidarZ (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Nikola Zrinski's final speech

Is anyone interested in the full speech that Nikola Zrinski allegedly gave before the final sally in which Zrinski and his remaining officers were killed. The following version is a compilation from sources in Latin and Hungarian and then translated to English. There is no on accepted speech and this version provides a sense of what may have been said. How much of the speech is worth including?

English version of the speech.

According to Željko Zidarić, the speech is:

Zrinski steps onto a makeshift podium and addresses the crowd of soldiers.

Zrinski [Speaks loudly, with genuine conviction and strength.]

My beloved brethren, true valiant men! We can see how our Lord God harshly punishes us with these flames. Our enemy cannot defeat us by their heroism on the battlefield with a sword in hand, and thus they weaken us with this cowardly but cruel fire and the smoke that chokes us. The punishment that the Almighty Lord sends fits our sins. We must bear this punishment with a grateful spirit for we suffer not only for forgiveness and purification of our sins but also for the sins of our Homeland. Unfortunately, we can see now that staying here is not possible even if we want to, no matter how heroic we are. For this there are three reasons: first, the fire grows stronger and we will burn; even if we extinguish the fires we are few and will not be able to hold out for long, that is the second reason. The third reason is that we do not have food or water. Look at the women and children, suffering, hungry and thirsty. Do we want to stay and perish in this fire?

Remember now the oath I swore at the start of this siege, how first I pledged allegiance to you and then you pledged allegiance to me. With God as our witness, we swore to live together and die together. Thanks be to God that so far among us there has been no treachery or betrayal and there will not be any now. I advise we reject any shameful and inglorious thoughts of ignominious surrender at the end of our steadfast lives and adhere to our long-standing military honour and fulfill our duties as best we can.

Soldiers, let us go out from here into the Fortress, as only true men can. Let us show the enemy our middle finger and fight valiantly with them face to face, chest to chest, to the death, so that our deaths will be spoken of with good and honourable words. Those of us who fall will be with God, while those who survive will be celebrated with honour. The ages will not forget our heroism and virtuous deeds; they will celebrate them forever.

I have lived free and I will die free! Therefore, I want to be the first to go, in front of you, and you will follow me. What I do, you do the same. Believe me, my beloved brethren, even unto death I will never abandon you!

Source: "As Only True Men Can: Nikola Zrinski's Last Stand at Sziget", by Željko Zidarić, 2019, pp 491-492

Originals in Latin

According to Wechel, the speech, in Latin, is:

Mei fratres, et strenui milites! num re ipsa, et ante oculos simul cernimus omnes, qua ratione nos Deus igne hodie puniat, igne nos hostes nostri superant et vincunt; nec tantum eorum nobis potentia et copiae nocerent, quantum ignis et incendium damni dat, nosque pessundat. Nihilominus tamen hanc poenam a Deo Optimo Maximo immissam, patienti gratoque animo perferre nos decet; hac enim, non solum ob nostra nos peccata, sed etiam ob provinciae huius flagitia, punire voluit.

Quapropter, ignorare vos minime arbitror, quo pacto antea fidem meam vobis dederim, vosque mihi vicissum, sancte, et Deo interposito testo, per iusiurandum promiseritis: nos hic una sumul victuros et morituros esse. Et quidem ad hoc usque temptus, Deo sint gratiae, nihil mali commissum, nec ulla inter nos proditio deprehensa est: quod et nunc nulla penitus ratione accidere debet. Iam cuncti in praesentia videmus, quod hoc in loco longius moram protrahere et perseuerare, etsi vellemus, non possumus; idque tribus de causis.

Prima est, quod hic flammis et incendio consumimur; altera, quod nostrum admodum pauci sunt; tertia, quod commeatu caremus, vobisque infantes et mulieres, fame sitique pereunt. Quapropter, cur igne hic conflagrare volumus?

Sinitote, exeamus foras in exteriorem arcem, strenui milites, mediumque digitum hostibus ostendamus, et cum eis fortiter manus conseramus; ut post interitum et mortem, quisque nostrum famam sibi et gloriam comparet sempiternam. Qui occubuerit, aeuum cum Deo sine omni dubio aget: cui vero ufura vitae longius concessa fuerit, in eaque superstes manferit, is summis laudibus nunquam non celebrabitur. Atque hac de causa, ego omnium primus esse volo, vos primo foras praecendere; et quod ego facturus sum, hoc idem et vos facite. Certo mihi credite, fratres dilecti, me vos ad rogum usque non esse derelicturum.

Source: "Rerum Hungaricarum scriptores varii, ..." Wechel, Marnius, Aubrius, 1600. pp. 529-530

According to Istvanffy, the speech, in Latin, is:

“Quonam in loco res nostrae sint, commilitones, et quam duriter atque improspere nobis fortuna consuluerit, perspicue cernere potestis. En eo deventum est, ut non virtute aut, vera hostium vi, sed intempestivis ignibus ob ruamur.

Itaque ego vobis magis supremae necessitatis index, quam consilii auctor processi; neque enim ut cadentibus rebus nostris, hic manendo pertinacius cum irata fortuna ignibus ustulandi colluctemur, sed neque ut majore animi mollitie, quam Chriftiani nominis viris militibusque conveniat, subita consternatione acti, infamem deditionis conditionem amplectamur, deliberare, aut consulere in animo habeo. Verum sicuti ego nuper vobis, ac deinde vos mihi Sacramentum praestitistis, ut mutuis animis consiliisque egregie et fortiter simul vivendum, et simul moriendum statuamus: ita nunc hortor, et quantum maxime possum suadeo, ut turpi repudiata sententia, anteactae militiae et gloriae constantissimo vitae exitu satisfaciamus.

Adeo fortuna virtuti nostrae invidit, ut jam nihil nobis praeter arma, et animos armorum memores reliqui fecerit: et perpetua ac ignominiosa servitus obeunda sit, si, plus, quam viros decet, ferrum timeamus. Honestiora igitur consilia, et magis decora sequamur, contemta omni degeneris vitae cupidine, et in media arma ruamus: ita ut nos et honeste vixisse et decoris veraeque laudis et constantiae tenaces, e vivis excessisse testemur, atque adeo apud posteros nostros totumque orbem terrarum, gratam et aeternam nostri memoriam relinquamus.

Agite milites, me modo sequimini, sicuti hactenus sequuti estis, et ceu a fronte salutaria a me exempla hauriatis, qui bus nec superbi et fallaces hostes, se nobis vincula, carceres, catenas, quod omnium miserri mum foret, iniecisse gloriabuntur, et facta virtutemque nostram nulla, quin justis laudibus efferant, unquam saecula conticescent.”

Source: "Regni Hungarici historia ... ", by Miklós Istvánffy, 1724.

NikolaZrinski (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Self-published source reverted

Kansas Bear reverted an addition that I made based on the fact that the source is "self published". What is wrong with self-published? How does self-published = not good?

This Wiki page does not say that self-published sources cannot be used.

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

So, the question is WHY?

Especially when there are few English sources that provide a depth of details and since self-publishing is growing more and more popular.

NikolaZrinski (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Željko Zidarić, does not appear to be an historian.[3] Feel free to take your concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

The previous addition was also a self-published source.

Ante Mrkonjić,does not appear to be an historian, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your comments are confusing because

Wikipedia itself says: Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used.

I look at your edit history and you have added little of value, other than delete work done by other people. It is odd considering that you are not Croatian nor are you a subject matter expert in this area. NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• "I look at your edit history and you have added little of value, other than delete work done by other people."

LMAO!

• "It is odd considering that you are not Croatian nor are you a subject matter expert in this area."

Nice battleground comment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So, I continue to be a victim of an aggressive wiki-bully.

What is YOUR level of credibility in Croatian history?

Did you not read the post that I make in this talk section? "Nikola Zrinski's final speech"

Read the Latin, and then read the English. Is it not a good translation?

Can you provide a better translation or English language source for the speech?

It almost seems like you are interested in holding back improvements rather than promoting progress. NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your comment on "Nice battleground comment." is silly.

You attack me, you act like a bully and then I am the "bad guy" because I questioned you about your credibility.

Wow - what a nice welcome I have received to Wikipedia. TY for that. NikolaZrinski (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Quote with no reference

Siroxo says that "Wikipedia works with verified sources and quotes from some reliable books, you can't just change and delete an existing source, ..."

I find this strange because the quote that is on the page has no reference to a verified source.

The quote on this page

...Let us go out from this burning place into the open and stand up to our enemies. Who dies – he will be with God. Who dies not – his name will be honoured. I will go first, and what I do, you do. And God is my witness – I will never leave you, my brothers and knights!...

According to Siroxo , this quote with NO references is more credible than a better translation of a quote originally in Latin.

If quotes need to be from verified sources, then this quote should be deleted. NikolaZrinski (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have self-reverted after mistakenly reverting what looked like content removal. The quote you reference is from a different editor's edit summary. I have no input into this content discussion. Apologies once again. —siroχo 09:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If you look at what happened, you will see that

1. I posted a better quote but with a reference that Kansas Bear did not like and so he removed my quote
2. I posted the better quote with references to old sources in Latin. The veracity of the translations can be easily ascertained as I posted the source quotes in Latin in the Talk section.
3. You deleted my second post with the credible sources

Now the article has a quote with no references being "credible" but the quote that I placed, which has references is not credible.

By Wikipedia rules, should the present unreferenced quote be allowed to stay? NikolaZrinski (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question for Siroxo.

You protect a quote that has no reference. It appears to be a popular "Internet" quote but there are no academic references for it.

Is the web blog "BadAssoftheWeek" a credible source? "HistoryNet" but there is no source. Maybe "Total War Center" is the credible source this is from?

According to the wikipedia "credibility" rules, this quote should be deleted. NikolaZrinski (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I returned it because you deleted this source [[4]] , and what is written before. Which you say has no source may be written in Shelton 1867, page 82-83 the source below the quote. Put sources where it says so that everyone can read what you wrote just has to be a source to read. Please @Silverije: I hope that you will get into editing the page, you understand history. I won't edit anymore when I don't really know it.Bye83.131.65.132 (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to tell you that I was wrong back. He put the sources, but I don't know what exactly is written in those sources, let someone check it with a historian, I just made a mistake. My mistake. Please @Silverije: @Joy: edit the page. I don't know, I won't mess around anymore, do what you want and check the sources, Bye83.131.65.132 (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the page from a few days ago you will see that the original quote does not have a reference, If you read the reference for Shelton you will see that it is not a source for the original quote. It is appreciated that you admit you made a mistake, but why make such a "mistake" when you do not read references (talking about Shelton) or understanding other languages? For verifying quotes in other languages, Google Translate will give you a reasonable translation to check the veracity of the translation presented.

If you do not like the quote that I placed, maybe you prefer this quote

… Sinitote exeamus foras in exteriorem arcem ſtrenui milites, mediumq̃; digitū hoſtibus oſtendamus, & cū eo fortiter manus conſeramus, vt poſt interitū & mortem quiſque noſtrûm famam ſibi & gloriam comparet ſempiternam, qui occubuerit, euum cum DEO ſine omni dubio aget: cui vero vſura vitæ longius conceſſa fuerit, in eaq̃; ſuperſtes manferit, is fummis laudibus nunquam non celebrabitur.  Atq̃; hac de cauſa, ego omniū primus eſſe volo, vos primo foras præcedere.  Et quod ego facturus ſum, hoc idem & vos facite.  Certo mihi credite fratres dilecti, me vos ad rogum vsq; non eſſe derelicturum.  Pofthæc ter IESVS exclamat, atq; …

Source: Historia Sigethi: Totius Sclavoniae Fortissimi Propugnaculi quod a Solymano Turcarum Imperatore nuper captum Christianisque ereptum est, ex Croatico serone in Latinum conversa, by Ferenc Crnko, translated to Latin by M. Samuelem Budiman Labacensem, 1568.

This is a translation to Latin of the original work by Ferenc Črnko, who was a participant in the defense of the siege. Črnko's book was "Posjedanje i osvajanje Sigeta"

The modern Croatian version is:

»Hodimo, vitezi, van iz toga grada u veliki grad i ondi se pobimo na lice (prsa o prsa) s našimi neprijatelji i ondi pomrimo da nam bude po našoj smrti dobar i pošten glas! Ki umre, oće z Bogom biti, a ki ostane, oće vazda dobar glas imati. Zato ja oću biti prvi i ja oću najprvo pred vami pojti. Ča ja budem činil, to i vi činite! Verujte mi, moja bratjo i vitezi, da vas do smrti nigdar neću ostaviti«.

Source “Podsjedanje i osvojenje Sigeta i popratni tekstovi” by Ferenc Črnko, 1971

English translation

Freely (by our consent), let us go out into the outer citadel, strong soldiers, and show the middle finger to the enemy, and join hands with them with strength; so that after destruction and death, each of us may have everlasting fame and glory for himself.  He who has died will live forever with God without any doubt; but he who has been granted a longer life, and remains alive in it, will be celebrated with the highest praises of all times.  And for this reason, I want to be the first of all, to precede you first outside; and what I am about to do, you do the same. Be assured of me, my beloved brethren, that I will not forsake you even at the end.

The information has been presented and I will let the experienced editors do what they want. NikolaZrinski (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I put back what I removed because I deleted the sources and that the user Siroxo is not his fault but mine. Let more experienced historians check this, that's why I invited them to join the conversation and edit the page. I don't want to comment on the rest of what you wrote, I don't know.83.131.65.132 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Nikola Zrinski is a personal hero of mine and thus my username is NikolaZrinski. I have researched and read many books to get a full understanding of what happened at Szigetvar in 1566. The Wikipedia article is a mere shadow of the full glory f the story. If you are interested in more, read “Podsjedanje i osvojenje Sigeta i popratni tekstovi” by Ferenc Črnko, 1971. This is a translation into modern Croatian from the original. Another good source is Matija Mesić's biography of Nikola Zrinski - "Život Nikole Zrinjskog sigetskog junaka" in the three book collection "Opsada Sigeta: edited by Milan Ratković. Brne Karnarutić, 1971.

Obviously few people will be able to read these books. Anyone that is interested in the full story of the Siege of Szigetvar, and does not mind reading "self-published books" which on Wikipedia have no "credibility", read this: "As Only True Men Can: Nikola Zrinski's Last Stand at Sziget" If someone took this story and turned it into a TV series it could be better than Game of Thrones - IMHO. NikolaZrinski (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)