Talk:Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676)

Fief?!

"Poland as fief of ottoman empire"? Excuse me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.40.212.106 (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless someone posts something that supports Poland as a Fief in the next 60 days I will remove the claim. The only sources I've been able to find using google was this wikipedia page and the treaty page on Wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Treaty_of_Buchach. Both state treaty was never ratified and that the war continued. Funny4life (talk)

Result

@SebbeKg

Both sides claim victory is nonsense and clearly POV pushing; the Poles never considered this victory as stated in the article The Sejm rejected the treaty through the actions of Austrian diplomats and Pope Innocent XI. Sobieski also was forced to reduce his army from 30,000 to 12,000 men. and according to this Polish site, the treaty was met with hostility from the nobles who lost their territories in central Ukraine and Podolia. [https://www.wilanow-palac.pl/zorawno_w_oblezonym_obozie.html] (This site never claims the Ottomans lost the battle of Zurwano, like you tried to change but ended in a peace treaty.). You can talk about military victories as much as you like; this won't change the fact that the Ottomans had achieved their objectives at the beginning of the war.

Beneficial treaty? Ah yes, losing your territories in central Ukraine and Podolia is clearly beneficial for the Poles, who were already weak enough to liberate their lost territories. Stopping the tribute and regaining a small amount of Podolia is not enough to reverse their loss. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Both sides claim victory is true and you are the one that is pushing your POV, you are constantly changing the outcomes for wars and conflicts favouring the Islamic empires. In order to ratify the treaty, the Commonwealth sent to Istanbul Jan Gninski, the voivode of Chelmno Voivodeship. He stayed there in 1677–1678, but in the meantime, Polish Sejm refused to ratify the document. Soon afterwards, the Great Turkish War broke out. After the Treaty of Karlowitz, Podolia returned to Poland. So if we consider that Ottomans were defeated in the battles during that war, and the treaties were rejected by Polish sejm, than it is obvious that the war was indecisive as both sides saw it as their victory, Poles managed to defeat the Ottoman army, and Ottomans were able to keep parts of Podolia, which they lost few years later. Ottoman objective was to break the Polish dominance in the region, which they failed due to the defeats at the Battles of Khotyn, Zurawno etc. so the Ottoman objective was not realised.

As forr the beneficial treaty, there was a mistake it should be Polish-Lithuanian military victory, beneficial treaty in favour to the Ottoman Empire. Tribute was never paid to the Ottomans as the Polish sejm refused to ratify both of the treaties. And it wan not a small part of Podolia but 2/3 of the region. SebbeKg (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Great Turkish War broke out. After the Treaty of Karlowitz, Podolia returned to Poland.

What does the great Turkish war have to do with this conflict?

Ottomans were able to keep parts of Podolia, which they lost few years later. Ottoman objective was to break the Polish dominance in the region, which they failed due to the defeats at the Battles of Khotyn, Zurawno etc. so the Ottoman objective was not realised.

No, this is wrong; the treaty confirmed the Ottoman supremacy over the region of Podolia for most of it, so they achieved their objective.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

the Polish sejm refused to ratify both of the treaties

They did sign the Treaty of Buchach in 1678.[6]

And it wan not a small part of Podolia but 2/3 of the region

The exact opposite happened; they only retained Bila Tserkva and Pavoloch and the sources I sent above refute you. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Historical background:

In the seventeenth century a Cossack uprising broke out in Poland under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky the Cossacks initially won a number of victories, but defeats at the battles of Beresteczko and in subsequent years forced the Cossacks to surrender to Russia, which contributed to Russia's invasion of Poland the following year Poland was also invaded by Sweden, which wanted to subdue the shores of the Baltic Sea. This war was known as the Deluge and contributed to the complete devastation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Sultan Mehmed IV wanted to take advantage of Poland's destruction, his objective was to defeat Poland once and for all, in 1667 he supported Hetman Petro Doroshenko with several thousand Janissaries, but they were beaten at the Battle of Podhajce. The defeat of the Cossacks, Tatars and Turks in the war of 1666-1671 forced Petro Doroshenko to recognize Mehmed IV as his superior, and in 1672 a huge Turkish, Tatar, Cossack invasion fell on Poland.

First stage of the war:

In 1672 a huge Turkish army of more than 120,000 troops besieged the castle in Kamieniec Podolski which was guarded by only 1,500 Poles. The defenders bravely defended themselves for more than a week inflicting huge losses on the Turks, killing between 5,000-8,000 and wounding another 10,000 (btw. a few days ago you also vandalised this page), but due to the opponent's numerical superiority they had to surrender and Kamieniec ended up in the hands of the Turks.

Jan Sobieski's expedition to Tatar chambuls and battle of Khotyn

However, a year later Jan Sobieski went on an expedition to disperse the Tartar chambuls with much success and recaptured some 44,000 slaves. Sobieski's troops defeated the Turkish-Tatar armies at the battles of Krasnobrod, Belz, Narol, Nemirów, Komarno, Petranka and Kalush. Sobieski's expedition was a complete success and contributed to the growth of his prestige in the country. In 1673 Sobieski at the head of 30,000 troops crushed the Turkish army at the Battle of Khotyn, in which almost the entire Turkish army was destroyed, out of 35,000 Turks only a few thousand or even a few hundred escaped. After this defeat the Ottomans had to witdrew from Poland to reorganize their army.

Internal conflict in Poland and treaty of Buchach

Sobieski's victories brought him great glory in Poland, a large part of the nobility began to seriously consider placing Sobieski on the Polish throne, which eventually led to, internal conflict between Sobieski and the king Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki. To counteract Sobieski's ambitions, Wiśniowiecki signed a humiliating treaty in Buchach in 1673, in which he handed over Podolia to the Turks. Wiśniowiecki's actions caused great outrage in Poland, which led to the non-ratification of the treaty and the war continued. (In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the king couldn't sign a treaty alone without permission from the nobles, for more informations see; ''Golden Liberty''). However, Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki died soon and Jan Sobieski took the throne.

Second stage of the war:

In 1675, the Turks invaded Poland again, but they were defeated in the Battle of Lwów, which forced them to retreat to the border of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. There, near Zurawno, Sobieski fortified himself in a camp that was soon besieged by the Turks. However, the Turks failed to capture the Polish camp and after a few week siege, Ibrahim Seytan was forced to negotiate with the Poles. A treaty was signed in Zurawno which returned three quarters of Podolia to Poland, the Turks retained only the Kamieniec Podolski fortress and the surrounding area. (And it was not only Pavloch and Bila Tserkva that Poland regained but also all surrounding areas)

As for the sources you send me, all are taken out of context and do not show the entire war and its aftermath but only small excerpts. However, link number two shows the course of the war best:

Link nr.2: ''Conflict between Russia and Poland over Ukraine during 1660s (The Deluge) had resulted in the occupation of most of the Ukraine by the Poles. In 1672, the hetman of the Zaporozhye Cossacks acknowledged Ottoman authority instead and appealed for help against the Polish forces. Koprulu marches with an army of 200,000 men in June 1672. They quickly occupied the province of Podolia (Siege of Kamenets), but this invasion inspired Polish opposition under Jan Sobieski. Althought the Polish king accepted the Polish gains (Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki), his death allowed Sobieski to invade Ukraine and defeat a larger Turkish army at Khotyn in November 1673 (almost the entire Ottoman army was annihilated during the battle, out of 35,000 Ottoman troops, up to 30,000 were either killed or captured). The Turks withdrew only to return again in 1675. Again Sobieski defeated the Turks, this time at the Battle of Lwów, yet another attempt, to invade Poland was defeated at the Battle of Zurawno in 1676 (two days ago you have been arguining with me that the battle was indecisive, and you kept vandalising this page). When Sobieski became involved with a new war against Sweden, however he was forced to sign the Treaty of Zurawno on October, 1676, This treaty confirmed direct Ottoman rule over Podolia and left the rest of Ukraine under the Sultan's suzereinty.'' (Poland regained 2/3 of control over Podolia and Ukraine was not part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since the Khmelnytsky Uprising).

So in summary, the war ended in Polish-Lithuanian military victory and Beneficial treaty in favour to the Ottoman Empire. SebbeKg (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And btw. the text was written by myself i did not copy it. SebbeKg (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know why you would write an entire detailed description of the war; our topic is the result of the war, and my sources clearly state that the Ottomans gained control of Podolia and parts of central Ukraine, which the Ottomans have achieved, so the result is Ottoman victory. Keep your military victories aside; when you enter the war and achieve your objectives, you win. You did not even attempt to refute whatever is said in the source to which I replied. You proceeded to mention the great Turkish war, and now you mention the whole conflict of 1672–76. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to rekindle this discussion. @SebbeKg @عبدالرحمن4132

The result of the war should be what happened at the very end of the war, not what happened during it. That is why the military victories during the war does not render the result of the war inconclusive. Also, the source used to describe the war as inconclusive does not mention the war as inconclusive. In fact, it asserts an Ottoman victory:

In this, though the famous John Sobieski won several brilliant victories both before and after his election to the Polish crown, yet Poland lost the strong town of Kaminiec, and the whole province of Podolia. This should be noticed, as it was the last time that the Turks won any large territory from any Christian power, as distinguished from merely winning back territory which they had held before. In this war both Sultan Mahomet and his minister Kiuprili had a share. Its issue is instructive. Sobieski won battles, but the Turks kept Podolia.

Unless you can find other sources which state this war was inconclusive (and an explanation as to why it was inconclusive), this war was undoubtedly an Ottoman victory. Perast (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Perast

I have no issue believing this war was an Ottoman victory. The issue was the editor i argued about disagreed with me regarding the result, but since he's banned, i believe that can be reverted. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. Considering they were banned, I will revert the article to its original condition. If anyone disagrees, I'll @ them here. Perast (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire "Although the Polish-Lithuanian Diet rejected the treaty and the grand hetman Jan Sobieski won a brilliant victory against the Ottomans at Khotin (1673), the subsequent war proved inconclusive and ended with the truce of Żurawno (1676),"@Perast Historyk.ok (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, however this doesn't describe the entire war as inconclusive. The source you sent calls the "subsequent" i.e. second half of the war as inconclusive, not the entire war (it was talking about the 1673 Battle of Khotyn before making this statement), which is a correct observation since the second treaty was more favourable to the Poles; but overall, they could not reclaim all their lost lands.

Treaty of Buchach = Ottomans gain Podolia and parts of central Ukraine

Treaty of Żurawno = Poland regains 1/3 of lost territories in Ukraine

I had a very similar discussion about this at Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634) with another user. One of the historians if I remember correctly had suggested a Polish victory, but it was left at that. Without a reason, their opinion probably shouldn't be included only because no other historian (at least from the ones we looked at) agreed with them; otherwise, they wouldn't have to provide a reason. Also, the sources provided that describe/suggest the 1672-76 war as an Ottoman victory give their reasons (e.g. in the end, Ottomans conquer Podolia and parts of Ukraine, establishing the Podolia Eyalet). We do not look at what happened during the war, but what the result was. The final result was that the Ottomans conquered land.

Either way, the source you provided doesn't assert that the entire was inconclusive but that the second half was (refer to first paragraph and how the source states prior to the quote you sent that "In 1672 the Ottoman army, led by Sultan Mehmed IV (r. 1648–87) and Grand Vizier Köprülü Ahmed Pasha, captured the key Polish fortress of Kamaniçe (present-day Ukraine), center of the province of Podolia. According to the Buczacz Treaty (1672), the Polish king agreed to pay a tribute, Podolia was ceded to the Porte, and Cossack Ukraine was mutually recognized as an Ottoman vassal." Perast (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe you are right, but it seems to me that the historian himself stated that the last years of the war ended inconclusively and that although in 1672 the Ottomans were successful, and in 1673 the Poles were more successful, the official historian nevertheless states that the last years of the war until its end gives the result Inconclusive Historyk.ok (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, however that would not quite be the case. Although it is true that the Poles did better in the later years of the war, overall the final result was an Ottoman victory for the historians cited, mainly because the Poles only regained 2 cities (per Treaty of Żurawno) from the initial Ottoman gains, while the Ottomans established the Podolia Eyalet. Perast (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you believe that the war ended with an Ottoman victory because the treaty was more favorable, although I gave you two sources that deny this and have a different opinion Historyk.ok (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not what I believe but what historians state, I can post their quotes here again if you'd like. I've also shown how both sources you provided do not describe the war as inconclusive but parts of the war as inconclusive (which you agreed with). Perast (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

the first source may say so, but the second one simply describes that the conflict from 1672 to 1676 is inconclusive, but if you can, please cite the sources you used yourself. Historyk.ok (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see my reply to this, it does not call the war from 1672 to 1676 (i.e. the entirety of the war) inconclusive, but from 1676 as you cited, which is a single year of the war and had no bearing on the result. Perast (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

ok, but can you quote your sources if they do not clearly write that the war ended with an Ottoman victory, but yours cannot be Historyk.ok (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Ottomans were left as victors in 1676, in control of Podolia, through whose leading city of Kamaniets William Harborne had entered Turkey. Moreover the Polish leader John Sobieski (later king) had been defeated, despite his victory over the Turks at Khotyn (or Chocim) three years earlier."

"Sobieski became involved in the west with a new war against Sweden, so that he agreed to a new treaty at Zoravno (October 27, 1676) by which the provisions of Buczacz were reconfirmed, with Podolya under direct Ottoman rule and the rest of the Ukraine under the sultan's suzerainty. This marked the high point of Ottoman expansion into eastern Europe."

In this, though the famous John Sobieski won several brilliant victories both before and after his election to the Polish crown, yet Poland lost the strong town of Kaminiec, and the whole province of Podolia. This should be noticed, as it was the last time that the Turks won any large territory from any Christian power, as distinguished from merely winning back territory which they had held before. In this war both Sultan Mahomet and his minister Kiuprili had a share. Its issue is instructive. Sobieski won battles, but the Turks kept Podolia. Perast (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

when it comes to your sources, in the first one it does not write that the entire war was a victory, it only writes that in 1676 it was a victory for Turkey, it does not say precisely that the war from 1672 was victorious, only from 1676, so similarly the sources are quite similar to mine and when it comes to the second one, it describes As a result, it is not written anywhere that the Ottomans won only the benefit of the war Historyk.ok (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I assumed you were going to object to the first source, so I prepared a rebuttal: While your source described events in 1676 specifically, not the result of the war, the source I provided describes the result of the war because just after it talks about 1676 (the last year of the war), it talks about the provisions of the treaty of Zurawno (e.g. Podolia remaining in Ottoman hands).

As for your objection to the second source, "This marked the high point of Ottoman expansion into eastern Europe" doesn't sound inconclusive to me. Perast (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

as for the first one, it simply describes one result of 1676, which is the same as you indicated to me, that it is the result of only one year and it is the same with this source, and the second source, I rather mean that the Ottomans got the lands and not result of the war Historyk.ok (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No offence but all you have done is repeated yourself. The first source does not only talk about the events of 1676 but mentions the provisions of the treaty of Zurawno i.e. the result of the war, which is confirmed as an Ottoman victory as the Ottomans retain Podolia and other lands. This is further reinforced with the sources I've presented. Perast (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you just acted like a hypocrite by citing a source that also writes that the Turks won in 1676, just as my sources write that this year is undecided. and how a treaty can be a victory for you? Historyk.ok (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That is not the case as the source you provided says: "inconclusive conflict took place from 1676. It talks about conflicts that took place from 1676 being inconclusive, and nothing else. The source I've provided, however, states: "The Ottomans were left as victors in 1676, in control of Podolia, through whose leading city of Kamaniets William Harborne had entered Turkey. Moreover the Polish leader John Sobieski (later king) had been defeated." It does not talk merely about conflicts in 1676, but that the war was a victory as directly after mentioning the year, it talks about Ottoman gains and how the Polish king was defeated. It should not be this hard to understand. Either way, other sources confirm the war as an Ottoman victory and I'd prefer that we end the conversation on this note after the insult; I've provided enough on my part. Perast (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

However, it is difficult to say how the Turks still won the victory because the war had different stages and for this source, which does not state that the war of 1672–1676 is directly this victory, it means that Turkey won still in 1676 . but it does not write whether the point is that these victories have been going on since 1672 and the fact that Turkey occupied these lands does not mean that Turkey won, but rather that it was a political victory, but I would give the result as See Aftermath, because I see that we probably won't find a common language, maybe one day someone will find more accurate sources, but if you think it's worth continuing this discussion, then ok Historyk.ok (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with what you wrote and won't bother repeating myself for the dozenth time; we aren't finding common ground. Perast (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You've already sent this message. Perast (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I sent it by mistake Historyk.ok (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

you can undo my change, I won't repeat myself 10 times why I disagree with your source but thank you for your time Historyk.ok (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

o and another source explaining that the war was Inconclusive. Magill's Guide to Military History: Tro-Z "1672. When Polish king John III Sobieski balked at paying tribute, war was resumed until Fazil Ahmed's death in 1676... inconclusive conflict took place from 1676..." Historyk.ok (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, as you cited, it says from 1676 the war was inconclusive; it doesn't refer to the war as inconclusive but "inconclusive conflict (taking) place from 1676". Perast (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

however, he writes that the war ended inclusively Historyk.ok (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That the war from 1676 was inconclusive, yes. Not the war itself but that specific year of the war. I keep repeating that what happens during the war is irrelevant compared to the result because the result is what we are talking about right now; not what happened during the war, that is for the main body of the article. Perast (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

However, he claims that the final year in which the war ended is inconclusive Historyk.ok (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. This does not refer to the entire war but 1 year of the war. We do not write the result of a year of the war in the result section of the infobox but the result of the war in general. Perast (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

maybe you're right, but I think that since the last year of the war had no winner, it shows how unresolved the war is, and I'm still waiting for your sources. Historyk.ok (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing the results of the war in the article, we are still discussing. Perast (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok Historyk.ok (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You are still making changes when a consensus has not been reached. The next time you do this you will find yourself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I've told you multiple times in a civil manner that consensus has not yet been reached, but you continue to make the changes. Perast (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

ok, but if I also see you citing controversial sources, you'll be there too Historyk.ok (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)