Talk:Battle of Karánsebes

untitled 1
A fine little story. Real fun. Slobo 19:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

untitled 2
This "battle" is mentioned here too:. I wonder if anyone can find a more reputable source that confirms its existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tungsten (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

untitled 3
It is one of the battles that has a chapter in "The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders" -US- ISBN 157488252X (Paper cover book) Regan, Geoffrey /Publisher:Potomac Books Inc Published 2000/12 (see )  Blank  Verse  10:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Another source
"The Hinges of Battle" ISBN: 0340819782 By: Durschmied, Erik /Publisher: Coronet. He says his main source is "Geschichte Josephs des Zweiten" By GROSS-HOFFINGER, A.J. first published in Germany in 1847. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patxi (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually had a look at the main source - or rather the Google Book scanned version. Now my German isn't great, but it seems to reflect a belief in the battle's existence and course more-or-less-as-described in 1847. Short of an actual primary source being discovered (which would be nice!), what level of evidence are people looking for beyond a source published 59 years after the battle occurred? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.126.175 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How about more than one source published 59 years after the battle. This whole affair seems incredibly odd to me. A battle that supposedly left 10,000 dead and occurred in modern history and we do not possess a single primary source?!?! I looked the battle up on multiple scholarly databases and could not find a single source stating that such an incident even actually happened. I have contacted the publisher of one of the books listed as a reference and asked for a list of sources. I do not expect a reply and it should be noted that the publisher's website was incredibly shoddy. It should also be noted that the publisher for the other book referenced has already folded was was actually known for publishing "alternative" and "non-traditional" works. If nothing else is found soon this article needs to be deleted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the start of the relevant passage from Gross-Hoffinger (p.292):

The date is different; some of the details are there, but most are not; the Emperor took to his horse and lost most of his escort, but there is no mention of him being pushed into a creek, let alone 10,000 deaths as a result of the panic (another source says that, around this time, thousands of deaths were due to being harried by the enemy). It does say that the town of Karansebes was sacked by fleeing soldiers, but not that it was captured, just that a favourable position was lost. The panic seems to have been a real incident but the description currently in the article can't be defended with this. The notability is also questionable. Xanthoxyl &lt; 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And from ''History of the eighteenth century and of the nineteenth till the overthrow of the French empire. With particular reference to mental cultivation and progress'', (you can see it here page 162).

Mr Stephen (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a passage from Cust's Annals which gives high numbers, but claims it was during the retreat from Karansebes, and is unclear how many fled:

Soon afterwards the tide turns in favour of the Austrians and an armistice is concluded in November. Xanthoxyl &lt; 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My only question...
...when someone finally adds an infobox, how do you state the outcome? 68.39.174.238 20:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this whole thing is either fiction or grossly misrepresented. It is completely unmentioned on the German wiki, and I can find very few German language references to it at all. Of the few I can find, at least two question the authenticity of the article. Somewhere in the middle of the development of this article someone also threw on the Allah Allah remark (presumably Aschlag! Anschlag! I guess?) but I can't find any reference to this at all. This is a funny story, but I'm pretty sure it's just that. Qalnor —Preceding comment was added at 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Added "disputed" and "single source" templates
Since this is my first edit on Wikipedia I did not presume to alter the text itself, but I too have serious doubts about it. This article came up in a discussion on ParadoxPlaza, and two forum members pointed out several flaws. The whole article currently reads like a urban legend anyway. I added the "disputed" and "single source" templates to indicate this. LudensP (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a second source, and Google Books links to each. If it's an urban legend, it's a reasonably well documented one. --GRuban (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to an Ottoman source
An Ottoman account written on the battle argues that the Austrian army decided to retreat due to the exaggerated reports about the number of the Ottoman army. These reports wrongly claimed that the Ottoman army which was about to position against the Austrian army would reach 400,000 in number. The Austrians decided to retreat on the night of September 20th. During the retreat a group of Austrian infantry came across a group of Austrian cavalry and mistook them for Ottoman cavalry, in the ensuing battle Austrians suffered casualties. The source also confirms that Austrian losses amounted to 10,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zifir (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point me towards your Ottoman source? It sounds like it offers a much more plausible story. Both the sources currently listed seem like books that might buy into the fictionalized version of events... --Your Narrator for This Evening (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there was no indication in my first message that I was Turkish, apart form my bad english ;). So the question was a legitimate question, at least for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zifir (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) --Your Narrator for This Evening (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I read it in a master thesis done in here, Turkey. It also included the transcription of the original manuscript. The reference is: Ahmet Ustuner, Yusuf Paşa'nın Sefer-namesi, Selçuk University, Konya, 2005, Unpublished Master Thesis. I can also check for the location of the original manuscript. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zifir (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really in any position to track down a Turkish manuscript unfortunately. I'm just very curious about this story (and always slightly irked by bad history) --Your Narrator for This Evening (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then whats the point in asking for it?--hnnvansier (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not credible
I'm almost entirely sure this story is a fabrication. The only two sources cited do not qualify as professional, either. I searched on the net for a single credible verification that 10,000 soldiers mistook "halt" for "Allah" (as not-credible as it sounds) and could not find one. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What we know and Why we should probably Delete this Article
There is something very odd going on with this article. I believe that it might be documenting an event that never occurred at all. I am hesitant to say that it is a hoax as the article does provide two books that go into great detail about a supposed incident in which 10,000 Austrian troops killed one another without their Turkish enemy. It is clear that neither book in question could possibly count as a reputable source in any scholarly journal. One (The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders) does not even include footnotes or a bibliography and was published by a a small disreputable publishing house known as Potomac Books. The other book listed (The Hinge Factor: How Chance and Stupidity Have Changed History) is more professional but is certainly not scholarly and its now bankrupt publisher- Arcade Publishing inc, was devoted to non-traditional works. It is also worth noting that no such article exists in the German Wikipedia and the few other versions that exist in other languages all solely cite the same two problematic books. This article has existed for more than 6 years and was essentially created in its entirely by this anonymous user-. I have searched all the usual scholarly databases and can not find a single reference that even mentions this battle. To me it is inconceivable that an incident that claimed 10,000 lives during a well documented conflict between Austria and the Ottoman Empire in the modern era, could ever be so poorly documented. I propose deletion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore I would postulate that although "The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders" does not cite its sources, it probably uses the exact same source as the other book. The only source that seems to have been used is A.J. Gross-Hoffinger. Hoffinger was a geographer and publicist in the 19th century who is not particularly famous and was known to write under an assumed name and identity . Not exactly the best of sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There was apparently some sort of panic around September 20, but it did not itself cause thousands of deaths. Contemporary: 1928:  My guess is that it is a combination of propaganda and an embroidered story.  Xanthoxyl  &lt; 10:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So yeah, I'm in favor of deleting this article for all the reasons listed above. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed my deletion tag and simply claimed that the article was "verifiable". This is ludicrous. Even if we throw out common sense, we still have the very basic rules that WP:RS provides. The person removing the deletion tag also seems to believe that just because one of the authors of the crappy books has a Wikipedia page, he is notable enough to count as a reliable source. I can assure you that he is not. Erik Durschmied's article reeks of self-promotion and many of the claims that appear in the article seem exaggerated. The existence of articles like this is dangerous to both Wikipedia and the discipline of history.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't go building castles on sand with respect to what I "believe". This article is not prod material.  I removed your prod and you should not have re-added it; now is your chance to remove it.  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of a useless "no you're wrong," would you care to attempt to reply to the substance of the criticisms to the article above? -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Prods are primarily for articles that are such obvious crap that no-one, not even their authors, would want to keep them. Over the years, this article has had several alert tags inserted, and other editors have removed them, having consulted the sources. One of the sources is authored by someone with a WP article (here), with a couple of refs of its own.  Despite Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg's comments above, I do not see any evidence that that article was started as self-promotion.  It is perfectly possible that both the battle here and the author (here) do not deserve articles.  It is not obvious though, and so prod is the wrong way to go about it.  That is why I removed it.  If you want one or more articles gone, take them to AfD.  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm hesitant to allow this article to be deleted so quickly. Use of the word "hoax" should be reserved for content fabricated by an erstwhile contributor -- such as The Canadian-Michigan War. In this case if this never actually happened, we still have a widely-published fictional narrative -- which needs to be explained & exists independently of Wikipedia. (And if this article is deleted, it would be only a matter of time before someone re-creates this article in good faith, not knowing why it was deleted.) What I'd like to see before this article is deleted is a verifiable examination of the authoritative histories of the Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791) which show the battle never occurred. And once this is done, I'd like to see some discussion of how this story was invented & slipped into the popular consciousness before this article is restored. In any case, as notes elsewhere, "even if it's a hoax - it's clearly a notable hoax!" -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a historical narrative of the Austro-Ottoman war of 1787-91 . As you can see it makes no reference of such an incident. Furthermore, the article's analytical focus is what Joseph II did wrong in his execution of the war. I am not even sure that one can say that this battle slipped into the public consciousness since it only appears in two modern books that were published at about the same time and probably used the same problematic source (as I explained above). Furthermore, any research that we did to attempt to explain why this incident (which probably never occurred) appears in any literature would be inappropriate since it would be a clear violation of the Wikipedia original research policy. As I mentioned before this article's existence is extremely dangerous and the fact that it has existed for so long shakes my confidence in the Wikipedia process.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First, let me explain my second point, concerning how this story got started: if we can't find a reliable source which explains how it came into being, then the article doesn't get recreated. Simple as that. However, if at some future point someone creates a reliable source which documents this -- & I can't believe there is some kernel of truth here, albeit grossly distorted, because tales as good as this require a bit of work to create -- then the article will get created. My hope is that someone will keep an eye out for that possibility. As to the actual article itself, because it has been around for so long it will require a very strong case for deletion -- & proving a negative is always a challenging task. Yes, the article you reference doesn't mention this event; but it doesn't trace the movements of either the Austrian army nor of King Josef in sufficient detail to prove that it didn't happen. We need some kind of exhaustive & authoritative source which can cited in proof that it didn't happen. (See Articles for deletion/General Florentius as an example of what I did in a similar situation.) And that is what is needed to clinch this at AfD; subjecting this to CSD or any expedited deletion process will not provide the documentation needed to keep this article from being recreated close to its current form -- as a good-faith account of a horrible case of friendly fire. As for this article shaking your "confidence in the Wikipedia process", to be frank the Wikipedia process is not as perfect as some claim it is -- but it is not that much worse than how things are done outside of Wikipedia -- say, academia -- where one person's falsified, or just plain crappy, research can cause problems for generations of other people, or that the bias of one person who is widely considered an expert can keep misinformation in circulation much longer than it should be. (I can provide examples of what I'm referring to here.) The strength of Wikipedia's process over other ones is that everything is subject to critical analysis, often much sooner than otherwise. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion history
The article was deleted after an AfD discussion in September 2010. On review, it was restored in December 2010. See: Deletion review/Log/2010 December 15 for more details. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This article should at least have some lines telling that probably this event never happened. I am also in the opinion that this article should remain in wikipedia to show that Wikipedia should never ever used as a source material. 78.172.206.33 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.206.33 (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So is this article up for deletion or is it not? I see the deletion tag but the discussion page is closed. --Forgottenlord (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove "Not Factual Tag"?
Now that it is informed to the reader that the incident itself cannot be verifiable, is it alright to remove this tag now, or should it be remain until we could get access to that Turkish Masters Thesis listed above (which appears to present a more reliable version of what happened)?--ShadowScope2 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tag after "Impossible to verify"
Surely, the burden of proof is on people to prove that an event happened, rather than the reverse? Also, there isn't a single article on JSTOR, the historical database, about a battle at Karansebes under any of its spellings, even though there are articles about the Austrian campaign in question. How would one put that into the article? 71.191.28.76 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can Someone Point To Another...
Battle in Europe post 1700 (movable type, news papers etc) where 10,000 Europeans from multiple nations were killed and there are not more than one report? I'm not saying that to be incendiary, I'm a writer and I WANT this to be true. So in this time period or since are there any examples in Europe of ten thousand soldiers dying without more than a single source?

Certainly someone informed these soldiers families that they died, or had gone missing in battle. Even with the embarrassment thats 10,000 families with some reason to either look into it or mention it in their papers.

If there's another battle where this many people died that is only noted in one or two places but is considered historically accurate, what is that example? Without it, I'd have to buy in with the detractors.

Other battles of the time have casualty counts much much lower but are well documented. And when things go wrong we tend to write more about them than if they'd gone right, especially if they are happening to our enemies. Even if the Austrians covered it up, the turks would have no reason to.

So I guess to me, if nobody can point to another event in this time period in this area of the world similar to this that is considered credible, this article should be further changed with added skeptisim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.237.50 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you scrolled up, there was a manuscript presenting the Ottoman view of this battle: "Ahmet Ustuner, Yusuf Paşa'nın Sefer-namesi, Selçuk University, Konya, 2005, Unpublished Master Thesis". If we can acquire that manuscript, then we might get a fuller understanding of what's going on, but the fact that this is an unpublished master thesis suggest that we can't really cite it. Even that manuscript claimed that this was not actually a battle, but instead a retreat.--ShadowScope2 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source in Google books from the year 1788, "Politisches Journal". http://books.google.de/books?id=PEYoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1057&dq=r%C3%BCckzug+nach+karansebes&hl=de&ei=vsjTT6aeGNDmtQa79PT1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=4&ved=0CEgQ6wEwAw#v=onepage&q=r%C3%BCckzug%20nach%20karansebes&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.143.116 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a historian, but I'm a native speaker of German and as such I'll be happy to sum up the content of the source "Politisches journal: nebst Anzeige von gelehrten und andern Sachen, Band 2". The magazine seems to provide a quite detailed account of the battle including more realistic numbers of casualties, but I'm not in a position to judge the sources reliability. Personally I think that it looks quite credible since it cites official records by the austrian court as well as personal reports by witnesses. I'll go ahead and include some of the information in the article if no one objects. Cheers, LeuschteLampe (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

'''

Summary of the German source
'''

According to the German source from 1788 the events played out as follows:

1. Exchange of artillery fire between Turks and Austrians at a location near Illova.

2. Partial retreat of Austrian artillery units due to losses and destroyed cannons.

3. Turkish artillery can now be moved in range to fire on the Austrian encampent with subsequent "siege-like" conditions.

4. Messages arrive that due to erroneous communication two other generals left their positions with the consequence that the flats are now accesible from the mountains and the Donau.

5. The Kaiser orders a retreat from their harried position via Karánsebes and Lugolch to Temeswar.

6. The retreat is enganged in the night of the 20th of September 1788.

7. The Turks harry the retreating imperial troops to the effect that troops, which where previously ordered to retreat to Karánsebes and were carrying supplies and ammunition, fled with the transportation horses and left behind said supplies.

8. At a non-specified time during the retreat the Turks break through the rearguard of the retreating Austrians and manage to drive back a hussar regiment that engaged them.

9. Consequently the Turks are free to enter the town of Karásebes where they burn some houses and do some plundering, but retreat when the Austrian army forms into battle formation.

10. In the following night the Austrian retread via Lugolch to Temeswar is resumed.

11. Some "Wallachian" elements in the Austrian army, which are described by the author as "lusting for plunder", spread the rumour among the servants carrying supplies, who are already in Lugolch as they were sent ahead of the fighting forces, that the Turks have already arrived.

12. Panic breaks out in Lugolch and basicly the Austrians drop everything in an attempt to escape the perceived danger.

13. During this turmoil and still under the veil of darkness two Austrian regiments run into each other, each taking the other for Turks and open fire.

14. Further more some 15 cannons, 64 carts of ammunition and a huge part of the luggage is lost. In terms of casualties the number 1200 injured soldiers is mentioned, who are brought to the fortress Urad.(or something that ends in "rad" I can't really tell what that first letter is supposed to be.)There is no summary of total losses, but 10.000 death seems exaggerated.

Thats pretty much all from this source, but it seems so much more plausible than the current version of the article. On another note: the word "Halt!", especially when shouted, sounds nothing like "allah" and it is hard to believe that even non-german elements of the Austrian army would mistake the two for another.

Cheers, LeuschteLampe (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the word "Halt!" being mistaken for "Allah", let me point out that it's likely one or more officers repeating the word "Halt!" -> "Halt! Halt!" -> "(H) Althal (t)" -> "Allah". Take into account that there is a lot of background noise and whenever you can't quite catch something, your brain tries it's darnest to fill in the blanks. It's basically the same concept as misheard song lyrics (of the foreign variety). Sanzennin (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No Article in German Wikipedia
There is no article on this battle in the German Wikipedia.

Is there any of it mention at all before 1847? Has anyone checked that "Austrian Military Magazine of 1831"? Even a first mention 43 years after the 'event' would, however, be utterly bizarre for something of this kind - with 10,000 men said to have been killed.

It's interesting that nobody has mentioned that Gross-Hoffinger was a republican and may have invented this story in order to make fun of the Habsburg monarchy. Norvo (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a German article. And it says, that the story is not accurate: the reportings to Austrian court wrote about 150 victims. Not more. No primary source talks about that many victims. The article itself uses literature that refer to other literature which not even called numbers. So the number of victims seems to be a modern myth. Just think about the weapon technology then. It's just unbelieveable taht somethng like this could happen by using musketry... -- 178.24.201.14 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed
This page is being repeatedly linked with the impression that it is historical fact. I do see that it is noted to be possibly apocryphal but even then I can see how others are getting the impression it is factual. The link on the Austro-Turkish War (1787-91) only furthers the confusion. I feel it should be deleted. The sources are poor. There is nothing academic about it. It has nothing going for it. Jortberg (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Cracked Source
This article's main section seems to be an almost line-by-line replication of a cracked article: http://www.cracked.com/article_17123_the-5-most-retarded-wars-ever-fought.html. Probably needs to be cleaned up and brought more in line with what's stated by the actual sources --Forgottenlord (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Cracked.com can hardly be the source as this article was first written (and very much with its current content) in 2004. The cracked.com article you linked is from 2009. So... this wiki article deserves a lot of criticism, but it is not copypasta from cracked.com. Thankfully.

Cheers, LeuschteLampe (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Austrian Military Magazine?
Has anyone located the supposed 1831 article about this battle in the Austrian Military Magazine? I assume that this may refer to Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift, which has been in publication since 1808, so it is possible that the article may in fact exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I found in |this index of the magzine an entry that might be useful: "Thielen 1831/2, S. 167, 239 ; 1831/3, S. 3, 196, 333 ; 1831/4, S. 58, 155 ;Geschichte des Feldzuges 1788 der k.k. Hauptarmee gegen die Türken" The title translates as "History of the military campaign 1788 of the Main army against the Turks" So in issues 2, 3 and 4 of the year 1831 we could find something about it. Anyone access to it? It should be in the Library in Strassbourg (France) see http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=no%3A868062247 IKKe37b (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I did some searching and came upon | this, which quotes many of the infos supposedly also given in the year 1831 issue of this magazine (and gives an exact reference). It also gives an explanation of how the number 10.000 originated (its in fact an attempt to critically respond to this): an early French account | Voyage du maréchal duc de Raguse... gives this number (page 89, not 108 as mentioned in the German source, might be a different edition). Also the Allah-Halt confusion is mentioned on page 88 (which is perhaps more believable in French...). The Austrian military magazine quotes an official army "diary" for the losses of that day, which included, apart from materiel (a.o. 3 cannons, certainly not the 15 mentioned above), 563 men. But mentions also most of them came back later (i.e. they either deserted or lost their way), but it is mentioned that some men where killed in confusion). This military diary would be a primary source I guess, and seems to what is referenced in the section below (Tagebuch der Haupt-Armee). At least there seems to be good evidence for quite some confusion happening, but the losses (and also total army strength) have been vastly overstated, and the story has been a bit embellished with Schnapps and communication problems.


 * I think currently the article is too much giving the "fictional" version from the above cited French source (though it clearly mentions the apocryphal nature). But, there is likely a real basis for the story, which is far less interesting and described in the Austrian sources (the 1831 I did not find yet and the 1837 cited above). Obviously the latter may also be somewhat biased (but seem more realistic and cite primary information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.27.97 (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The text from the OMZ is here http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015062372258;view=1up;seq=65 I had rewritten the item to reflect the OMZ account, but someone decided to revert the article back to the original nonsense. I have contacted Wiki to see how I can change it back again. DaveHMBA (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and understanding sources
After my note above about the location of the original OMZ article, I also received some guidance from Wiki's Murph9000 on dispute resolution. Essentially, I should say here why my version is better and place a note on the other editor's page asking him to resolve the matter. There is an unfortunate belief in military research that all sources are equal - well, they are not. This can be for obvious reasons, such as where he story comes from with Chinese whispers etc. - but also can arise from a failure to understand the background to both the event itself and the later account of them. In this case, as several people here have queried the tale, I flagged up the original OMZ account. It is important to understand that, starting in 1808, the OMZ was a military magazine issued by the Kriegsarchiv in Vienna for the education of Austrian officers. Its authors had direct access to the archives and so, to documents, which no longer exist or more importantly, written in the Kurrent handwriting (which is very hard to read).

In contrast, the mythology has arisen from various sources with an axe to grind - Gross-Hoffinger was a poet and popular writer, who preferred sensationalism over historical research (in complete contrast to the military authoprs of the OMZ) http://www.biographien.ac.at/oebl/oebl_G/Gross-Hoffinger_Anton-Johann_1808_1873.xml. In 1847, there was a powder keg under the Empire and Europe in general, so we can see the nationalism in g-H's remarks about certain nationalities in the Empire. Likewise, another mention appears in the French work by Marshal Marmont, dated 1847 "Voyages du Maréchal duc de Raguse en Hongrie etc." is just repeating an anti-Austrian myth from a man, who fought in the Napoleonic Wars. I shall flag up this recent change on its editor's page and suggest that a combination of the OMZ and the near contemporary "Politisches journal: nebst Anzeige von gelehrten und andern Sachen, Band 2" mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveHMBA (talk • contribs) 12:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualty and losses
How about merging the tabs for losses of each "side"? It appears now that 10 thousands were lost from "both sides", making total as 20 thousands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.228.27 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary (1788) German source
German Wikipedia's article regarding this incident — Rückzug von Karánsebes (retreat from Caransebes) — mentions an article, "Zur Kriegsgeschichte" (On the history of the war), in the Real Zeitung (Real News) of Erlangen, Germany dated 7 October 1788, issue no. 80, relevant pages: pp. 726–728. That article is available (in German) from Google Books here. Here is my translation of the relevant section of that article, starting at: " — Seit vorgestern, sagt ein Schreiben aus Temeswar von 25sten Sept., … " :

"Since the day before yesterday, says a letter from Timișoara of the 25th of September, the office of supplies, the paymaster, the field war office, and the field post office have been here; headquarters is 3 hours away. The pavement has already been dug up in various areas, and all preparations made to be able to withstand a siege.  Whether one believes with reason that the Grand Vizier is too clever to still undertake in this season the besieging of a place like Timișoara, yet the confusion and fear is very great because incidents occur which one would have regarded as impossible a little while ago.  On the 21st during the night, the following scene occurred near Lugoj.  In and nearby this place stood the baggage and about 1,000 wagons.  Around midnight came many Wallachians with loud shouts:  "The Turks! The Turks!" Frightened by this false alarm, all awoke with a start and thought to save themselves.  A few houses that were set afire by just these Wallachians multiplied the fear.  Thus many hundreds of wagons, riders, and pedestrians [continued onto p. 727] caused in their confusion a risk of death with every step.  Now the Wallachians began to rob, there was shooting, and this was the signal for the Turks, who attacked the [baggage] train.  On our way in the darkness, our unit came upon another regiment.  The officers of the first cried:  "Halt! Halt!" Those of the second believed that they'd heard the Turkish call, "Allah!", fired, and shot many of their comrades.  During this night, it was supposed that Emperor Joseph was in danger of being captured by the enemy.  Finally the Hungarian grenadiers and cavalry regiments were compelled to repel the enemy.  The Prince of Würtemberg received a contusion from a cuirassier's horse that came rushing down from a height.  On the 22nd, 8 Wallachians were hanged.  The Emperor's adjutant, Prince Philipp von Liechtenstein, brother of reigning prince, shall be taken prisoner.  General Brechainville must withdraw as far as Denta.  General Aspremont was dismissed, and Major Orelly transferred to a garrison regiment.  The Turks advance ever farther; the Grand Vizier shall have destroyed the bridges on which he passed over the Danube, so that his Asiatics cannot run away.  Thus our private report from the Banat! In the court report

from the field camp of the main army near Sacu on the 23rd of the month, it reads: On the 21st the army left its camp near Illova in 2 columns [and headed] for Caransebes. When the rear guard of the 2nd column fell back, there arose a false alarm, and when the pickets fired, such confusion gripped the army's baggage train that had been sent ahead towards Caransebes that the teamsters, packers, and grooms hurriedly fled, the lashings of the pack horses slipped off, loads and baggage were thrown, and other such disorder began. Because some wagons had become lost [and were] out of sight of the column, not all of the lost baggage could be collected, but order was re-established and the march resumed. Meanwhile, the other column had traveled as far as Caransebes in complete order, and its rear guard had held off the advancing enemy with every step. The cavalry, supported by the infantry, often attacked [the enemy] and always drove it back with losses. Near Caransebes the Turks attacked a hussar regiment, and as this [regiment] fell back, [the Turks] reached Caransebes. Their infantry crept up to the first houses, [continued onto p. 728] began to set them afire, but our infantry drove them [back], whereupon the Turks returned to Armeniș. Our losses among the rear guard may amount to 150 men, dead and wounded. The enemy's losses are considerable. Our cavalry captured 3 banners. On the 22nd, our army moved into camp near Sacu, without seeing the enemy."

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)