It's in like 10 different books. The casualties were probably exaggerated but there is evidence of a battle.
Of course, books. No-one who writes a book could make anything up, especially not when the original report surfaced 59 years after the alleged event - which also directs readers to the presumably made up Austrian Military Magazine of 1831 for a full account of the battle (not found, I might add).
The first 'source' of the battle from 1843 is considerably different to the modern version of events as well. Liars stories tend to change and become embellished.
Allegedly the Real-Zeitung reports an incident which caused 150 dead camp followers, which I wouldn't be able to read because I don't know German.
Not exactly a battle by any stretch of the imagination, if that event even happened. If the Real-Zeitung source doesn't detail anything, then that means there is no contemporary, native language documentation from a very well documented era of history.
Furthermore, battle sites tend to leave archaeological evidence, especially when we're lead to believe that the Austrian's just left the 10,000 dead and wounded on the field, and that there was a lot of blue-on-blue cannon fire, which tends to leave things like cannonballs and shells about the place.
i.e. It didn't happen. It was made up to sell some hack's book.
Who the fuck even thinks Hussars would
buy alcohol from Gypsies?
Poll
