Talk:Battle of Grobnik Field

Is this in fact purely sourced on a poem?
If there is no evidence except the poem, either it needs to be deleted or it needs to become an article about the poem.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hunted again, I can find later poems, comments that the battle may be only a legend, but no confirmation that it was a real battle.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are acounts of king Bela IV giving gifts and land to the knights that survived this battle, and some other documents, but those are very rare and hard to track. All you need to do is read the article more carefuly:

''There are many documents in Croatia that witness many heroic defends of fortresses, oral and archaeological proofs for Croatian victory at Grobnik, Bela IV's gifts of lands to knights who proved themselves in battle, it is written about that in many Croatian history books, but it seems that international historians are for some reason not very interested in studying Croatian history and there are no international studies and books on the subject. Unfortunately to this day there seems to be no certain evidence of the battle uncovered on the battlefield, which has led some to even speculate that the battle was a legend.''

The fact that no evidence of the battle was uncovered on the battlefield is nothing new, the same thing happened at Megiddo, Kadesh, Carchemish, Cannae, Zama, Tikal... and many more. The article is not based on a poem, but a real historical event, on which we unfortunately have very little information left for us.

Egyptzo (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no evidence in the article that this is a historical event. Documents about heroic defenses of fortresses have nothing to do with a battle on the Grobnik plain, there can be no oral proof of anything that happened hundreds of years ago, etc. And others speculate that the battle never took place. It is not the role of an encyclopedia to pronounce that something is unfortunate or comment on international historians, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptzo, If you have a book on this battle, please list it (along with the page number) in the reference section of this article. If not, the Battle of Grobnik field was just a myth. Wikipedia must have sourced referenced information on articles; if not, the article may have to be deleted. I, too, googled Grobnik Field and found no reliable sources here. Almost nothing on this supposed battle! I was surprised. Leoboudv (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, I've been considering an AfD after I couldn't find anything that argued for its historicity and at least one comment that suggested it never took place. Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Egyptzo, You mention the Battle of Cannae, Megiddo, Tikal and Kadesh but these events were all recorded in various contemporary historical sources. That is the key. The battle of Kadesh is mentioned in both Hittite and Egyptian records. So we know it happened. There must be some verifiable reference for the event; if not, the 1242 Battle of Grobnik field may be just a literary embellishment on someone's part. (the fact it is mentioned "in an early romantic poem" in 1842 by "Dimitrija Demeter for the 600th anniversary of the battle" does not inspire confidence.) Surely, a medieval monk, king, or someone else from the 13th century made a reference to the Tatars sudden arrival in the Balkans and briefly chronicled the battle? That is why I ask if you can give a book and page reference to it so that viewers can confirm the information. Other people like the Admin Marasmusine has also requested firm references on this article: Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I checked E. Brittanica Micropedia and have concluded that the Battle of Grobnik field either did not occur or was not notable. (I lean to the first solution) Volume 11 of the 2003 edition of Brittanica (page 56) on the Tatars confirms that the Mongols & Tatars invaded Hungary--as is well known--and defeated Bela IV of Hungary on April 11, 1241 at the Battle of Sajo river/Battle of Mohi. The Mongols proceeded to devastate three-quarters of Hungary. However, they certainly did not invade coastal [west] Croatia since Bela fled to Dalmatia. I checked E. Brittanica's Micropedia coverage of Batu Khan (Volume 1, 2003 publication, page 965) and it does have an article on him. Brittanica records that by 1240, Batu had conquered all of Russia ; Batu defeated Henry II, Duke of Silesia (now in Poland) on April 9, 1241 and, 2 days later, defeated Bela IV at the aforementioned Battle of Mohi. Brittanica then states:
 * "With Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, and the Danube valley under his control, Batu was poised for the invasion of western Europe when he received news of the death of the head of the Mongol empire, the great khan Ogodei (December 1241). In order to participate in the choice of a successor, Batu withdrew his army, saving Europe with probably devastation. He established the state of the Golden Horde in southern Russia, which was ruled by his successors for the next 200 years." (all info. on page 965)

According to Wikipedia's article on Batu Khan, Batu lingered on in Central Europe into the spring of 1242 and then left the region entirely to attend the selection of a new successor to the Mongolian Empire. Since Eastern Croatia or Slavonia is part of the Danube Valley, it is possible that Batu may have fought with some Croatians here but this definitely did not occur in Grobnik which--as the Battle of Grobnik field article states--is located in the western fringes of Croatia near the city of Rijeka on the Adriatic coast far away from the Danube/Hungary. see this map for Grobnik's location in Croatia:  I doubt that Batu stayed long into 1242 to fight a battle on the extreme western frontier of Croatia's Dalmatian coast when he had to travel back to Mongolia. If he fought a battle with Croatians, it would have been in the Danube Valley of Eastern Croatia. Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Batu Khan did try to capture Bela IV so he pursued him as he fled to Dalmatia (unsuccesully). At first Bela sought refuge in Zagreb, which was sacked by the Mongols after the king led the city. Next in attempt to warn everyone on his power Batu Khan moved towards Dalmatia (where the king took refuge in Trogir) and on his way, in Gacka field ordered that all his prisoners and war captives be brutaly tortured to death. Mongols tried to capture Dalmatian cities and forts. first they struck at Klis but Were unable to capture it as well as Trogir which they attacked later. Soon the Mongolian army war soundly defeated at the battle of Podgorica and other battles - Pag, Grobnik, Velebit etc.Egyptzo (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, no citations. None of this is historical evidence for a battle at Grobnik then. You need citations.  You can do good work and have done good work, but many of your edits are uncited and at times personal comment and speculation. And copied without attribution from other sources, as you have done on the Battle of Megiddo (609 BC) article (see the talk page).  You work hard but you need to work harder if you want to make good contributions. And when you make edits, especially reversions, you really must give reasons. No one owns a Wikipedia article, and everyone should follow guidelines and policies. I note that you have never acknowledged that you have been making copyvios, which doesn't lead me to have much faith in you. Wikipedia needs good articles and good editors, I still hope you might become a good editor. --Doug Weller (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear All, I found this 1996 book by Tim Newark titled "Warlords: Ancient-Celtic-Medieval" by Brockhampton Press. After the the Mongol's conquest of Central Europe and defeat of Hungary, Newark writes on page 138:
 * "By the winter of 1241, the Mongols stood poised to invade Germany and Italy. [Mongol] Raiders rode into the Balkans, pursuing the Hungarian King Bela. Venice and Vienna were perilously close to being pulverised by the ingenious siege machines of the Mongols. Then...hard-riding messengers brought news of the death of the great Khan. Dissension between the leading Mongols made it vital for all contenders to the succession to return eastwards, and the campaign [of batu Khan] was broken off: miraculous deliverance for the West."

Newark confirms Egyptzo's statement that the Mongols DID invade the Balkans to try to capture Bela IV of Hungary. So, the Grobnik battle would have taken place sometime in early 1242 since Batu Khan would have to make plans to return to Mongolia soon. It would also explain why Bela IV gave many presents to the Croats--because they were loyal to him and basically saved his life. What I wonder is why Egyptzo didn't place this context for the Battle? As for the Croats, I have heard of their reputation as fierce and skilled fighters; so, any clash between the Croats and Mongols would have been bloody. I wouldn't want to fight the Croats, that's for sure. However, Newark does not specifically mention a battle at Grobnik; I assume it would have been a minor battle for the Mongols--but a significant one for the Croatians who are today an independent country. Perhaps, Grobnik was a small but bloody clash then?

I also consulted Ivo Goldstein's book "Croatia: A History" which was translated into English by Nikolina Jovanovic and published in 2000 by McGill-Queens University in Canada. Goldstein never once mentions Grobnik by name. And this is a book by a Croatian writer who originally published his work in Croatian. Goldstein merely writes that "Croatia and Hungary were devastated" by the Mongols who then left Europe, Bela IV conferred city status on a number of Croatian towns. This act meant these newly recognised Croatian cities enjoyed a number of rights and priveleges under the Hungarian kingdom. So, as above, Bela IV rewarded the Croats for their loyalty. Sorry, I forgot to get the exact page number here. Maybe Egyptzo would like to make a reference to Newark's book at least? Personally, from all I have read, I would say that if the Battle of Grobnik happened, it was a minor battle or not very noteworthy. The more specific details would be in a Croatian language book which Doug and I can't read. Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit. Leoboudv (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A note on the "Battle of Tikal"
This "battle" mentioned above was a speculation and the article was redirected to the article Tikal. Thanks, Madman (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Grobnik-- graves -- inspiration for poem
1242 - 'heroic period' or whatever, important anyway. 19th century poet, hears about or visits Grobnik field, thinks 'maybe it's called that because of lots of graves, maybe there was a battle there, I'll write a poem!. That's pure speculation and doesn't belong in any article, but it is a possible explanation for a poem about a battle with no records about it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No,no. The poet describes the battle differently than it is written in this article, that is poetry. In this article I did not include what is written in the poem because I know it is the will of the poet to write things how he wants. The brief description of the battle that I included in the article was well known much before Demeter. Unfortunately there seems to be no English translations of the poem that I can show you so that you can reed it. The article has nothing to do with the poem. It is just mentioned that the poet used this historical epic event as an inspiration for his poem. Already in the 14th century there were writings that claim that Grobnik got its name because of the graves. There was also an old legend that some strange flowers with supernatural powers grow on the graves of the Mongols slain in battle.Egyptzo (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

''Not long after thoose successes, the Croats totaly defeated and routed the Mongolian army at the Grobnik field. Their horeses even crushed some fallen and wounded Mongols that have tried to escape from the battlefield. After this disaster, and upon hearing that the great Mongolian Kan Ogotaj is dead, the Tatars retreated to their homeland, never to riturn'' - translated quote from the book. Egyptzo (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, isn't that just from the poem? What's his source, or does he just call it a legend? I was hoping the quote would include where he got it from, but if he doesn't say, that doesn't help.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The poem says almost nothing abou the battle, it is called Grobnik field, not Battle of Grobnik field. Do not confuse the battle with the poem. The poem sayes just this little about the battle: the Great khan Batukan was unable to penetrate the pillars of Heracles. The writer Hitrec does not call it a legend. He got his information from some medieval works dated from the 14th century, but does not specify. Egyptzo (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then please quote what Hitrec says about his sources. And the article says the battle was the focus of the poem, now you say it scarcely mentions it?--Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It tells mostly abou the bravery of men who defended theih homes and country, in fact, the real focus was bravery and the Grobnik field itself. He describes the field not the battle. Egyptzo (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor of History Ivo Goldstein at the University of Zagreb says it never happened
- this talks about the use of history in the Yugoslav area for political purposes by historians, and I quote "it was said that the Croats defeated the Turks on the battlefield at Grobnik in 1242, which also never happened. That quote is from Professor of History Ivo Goldstein at the University of Zagreb.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people say Noah is fictional character. Let's delete the article! Even better, let's delete all articles about bible characters. All of them might be fictional. Yeah, delete, delete, delete...! --Ante Perkovic (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want to just ignore WP:RS and WP:Verifiable then? Not just guidelines but policy? Articles about Bible characters make it clear that they are not real, and all they require is a source from the Bible. Articles about alleged real life events need something better. Even an article about a legend would need reliable and verifiable sources. I'd say the same if the article was about a battle in China, the US, Britain, etc. I don't think either Professor Goldstein or I are denigrating Croatia by suggesting the battle never took place.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I say batle took place? No, i didn't. I just say that battle is well known fact/legend/whatever and article about it is needed. Feel free to include references that say the battle might be just a legend. But, deleting the article is very bad idea.
 * BTW, Morcic (hrv. little Moro) is traditional earring in Rijeka area. It represent the heads of the Turks killed in the battle (I never heard of version with Tatars). Tradition might be based on the Battle of Grobnik field (or on the legend of it). So, Grobnik Battle is quite important part of croatian folklore, regardless of whether it is real or not. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But we still need sources. My problem is that the present article is a synthesis, and you probably know that that is not allowed. And the editor who created the article seems very possessive, I'm not convinced he'd wouldn't fight edits that portrayed it as a legend. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So was the Battle of Grobnik Field fought against the Mongols or the Turks?? I'm confused
 * As Doug Weller states, if this "battle" was important as a legend, then the article should be about the legend and not portrayed as fact. Madman (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of grobnik was fought with Mongols(Tatars). The Turks arrived also at the same place centuries after, but they were driven back, not by battle, but by people wearing the heads of killed cows and other animals. That is the origin of Zvončari. Most people confuse and mix those two things.Egyptzo (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can take your word over a Croatian professor of history. We have to rely upon reliable and verifiable sources, not people's personal knowledge.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You wil take a word of a single scolar, because it siuts you better, over many other words of scolars and years of sources that veryfy. Egyptzo (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not insult other editors. I have not yet seen a source that says that there was an actual battle while at least two professors (both now cited in the article) state that this is a legend.  Madman (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the templates?
I think the article looks much better now. Should we remove the templates?

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, take a look at it now. It's got the infobox back (which suggests a real battle) and he's inserted "The first documents about this battle are mentioned in the 14th century," in the text, which I don't think is acceptable without a source at this point. His comment "You wil take a word of a single scolar, because it siuts you better, over many other words of scolars and years of sources that veryfy." doesn't reassure me linked with his lack of sources for the statement he just inserted. He is asking us to trust him that there are sources he can't find, and that's not Wikipedia.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Egyptzo
Egyptzo has edited the infobox to say legendary, that is certainly movement in the right direction, thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Egyptzo, please state your concerns
Egyptzo, I don't understand your continued reversion of my and Doug's and Leithp's edits. The basic information within the article is the same, except that mention of the so-called "Second Battle of Grobnik Field" (against the Turks) is moved from the end into one of the lead paragraphs and the article's lead "image" is the morcic earring instead of the infobox. To my mind, the infobox is very misleading since the consensus is that there was no actual battle.

Please state your objections so we can discuss. Thanks, Madman (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus is that it was legendary, not that it never happened, although bsome scolars are persistant in their negative claims. I do not see a point of discussing it any further, because you keep inserting some wrong things again and again, though thank you for your work and attention. Infobox is a usefull summary and it tells that it was legenday.Egyptzo (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, "legendary" means that it never happened, or at the very very least it was a minor skirmish that grew over time into a large battle. What does "legendary" mean to you?


 * Please tell me what "wrong things" I am saying. Let's discuss.  Madman (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And stop removing the AfD template. Note also that I will remove the reference to 14th century documents in a few weeks if no sources for this claim are found. Doug Weller (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there should be some source for those. If nothing else, the original material.  I think it would serve as verification. Interesting subject.  Trippz (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ante, did you write the article? If yes, you used some sentences I wrote on myarmoury forum in it. I would have been polite if you have contacted me and told me about your intentions. It's pure copy paste, not just using informations. Luka Borscak