Talk:Siege of Plevna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old section[edit]

Someone should add a link (in the "languages" section) to the Russian version of this article, here it is: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0 . Asharidu (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Something's wrong when there are more casualties than troops in the army

I believe the Turks were reinforced beyond 30k before the town was fully surrounded TMLutas 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this source [1] which is horribly biased in favor of the turks but it puts the peak end strength @ 45k effectives on the Ottoman side due to reinforcements arriving on the 22nd.

TMLutas 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Seigo Yamazawa[edit]

A Japanese samurai by the name of Seigo Yamazawa was also part of the battle of Plevna and was actually instrumental in the third attack's success. He commanded a platoon of russians of Western Division and without the ability to communicate he instructed them via gestures to only use bayonettes according to the Romanian and Bulgarian sources. According to same sources he was in charge of 100 men and he managed to capture a key position. He was decorated by Romanian and Bulgarian side. He has been oddly forgotten by history with no mentions of his name anywhere in the English world but he is mentioned in Bulgarian, Japanese and sometimes Romanian accounts as being very important for ex https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сейго_Ямадзава . For Bulgarians he is so important that every couple of years an official diplomatic mission from Bulgaria is sent to Japan just to visit his grave in Tokyo and thank him. I believe someone should verify this account and add his name in the third battle since is quite unique situation to have a Samurai present and participating in an European war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.3.17.86 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other links[edit]

http://www.el-soft.com/panorama/en/07_mavzolej.html

Abuse of prisoners and other matters[edit]

The following was recently added; I believe it should either be cited for, or removed:

They were subjected to a death march comparable to the Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad. Only a handful of them returned to Turkey after the war. Turks rarely took prisoners and chose to kill and mutilate any russians they captured.

- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problems with the recently added uncited "story" added by Calengurth, who also (without citation) nearly doubled the number of casualties on the Russian/Romanian side. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Khoikhoi reverted[2] the insertion of the Battles involving Romania category. May I ask what was wrong with adding that to the article? Mentatus 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I get it - Petre Bolea became an unperson. Mentatus 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confusion of the dates[edit]

Maybe there is a confusion of the dates? On the new calendar the fist attack was 20th July (old calendar: 8th July); the second attack was 30th July (old calendar 18th July); as far as I think the third attack was 11th September (old calendar 30. August). It lasted 3 days and the battle of the left wing is depicted on the Pleven-Panorama-Picture. I cant imagine, that the third battle lasted from 30th August till 11th September - as written in the articles. The Ottomans gave up at 10th December (old calendar 28th November) - Stefan, Germany --84.137.63.195 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Takabeg (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper search. These are the actual results:
Kostja (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus(talk) 03:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Siege of Pleven → Siege of Plevna — Google books results:

  • 2,330 results for Siege of Plevna: [3]
  • 143 results for Siege of Pleven: [4]

(79.117.198.211 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose Pleven is the current name of the town, Plevna is the historic name. Unlike e.g. Battle of Stalingrad, the historic name is not particularly well known. PatGallacher (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There certainly appears to be a difference between the Google Books result and a general Google web search (see the section above). Both uses appear to be used in English. Not so sure a move to the former Turkish name is all that helpful, given that there is a redirect in place anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The former Turkish name of Pleven is not Plevna but Plevne. Plevna is historical name of Pleven in English, French etc.... Takabeg (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Further discussion[edit]

Since so many opinions are gathered here, shouldn't Siege of Shkodër be moved to Siege of Scutari for similar reasons? — AjaxSmack 01:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not support or oppose here. This talk page is for the discussion of this article. If you wish to move Siege of Shkodër, then please create a move request. warrior4321 03:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is currently under discussion at Talk:Siege of Shkodër. — AjaxSmack 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PLEVEN. Period. That's the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.15.40 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Carol as 2nd in command and other problems[edit]

I ask the editors who revert my version of Prince Carol being 2nd in command not to change this. If we go by rank, the Prince comes after the Tsar. If we go by the Russian-Romanian agreement, which stipulated that Carol would be given command of both armies, then he ought to be listed first. As a compromise, I can agree with him being listed 2nd, since the Tsar outranks him and because Russia was the leader of the war. However, he should certainly not be last. In fact, the article is incomplete, since we are missing the Romanian generals who also had a significant role in the battle, and who might be worthy of being listed also, perhaps before several Russian generals. If there's any argument as to why Prince Carol should be listed last instead of second, I'd like to hear it. I want to point out that Romania joined the conflict in the second battle, so Carol commanded the siege for 3 out of the 4 battles. --Cei Trei (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted you by mistake. I didn't want to revert your edits. Gala should reliase that it was a decisive victory for Russians and this isn't related to the later battles.Philppioi (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A thought[edit]

The name of the article should be changed. The Turkish version is referred to as a defence where as the Russian version is referred to as a siege, it should be called a battle or something along those lines. Don’t tell me that most sources call it a siege because the population of Russia and other countries which refer to the battle as a siege significantly outweigh Turkey’s population, naturally there are more sources referring to the battle as a siege. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 15:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siege and defense are not mutually exclusive. A siege has an attacker and a defender. Therefore, it was both a siege and a defense for the Turks. The difference is is that the "siege version" is more complete, because it implies a fortress was attacked. But the "defense version" doesn't imply that a fortress was attacked. I would argue that the Turkish version doesn't wish to call it a "siege" because it implies that the defenders had an advantageous fortified position, which they had. The Turkish sources are not denying this, but by not mentioning the battle as a "siege" they are simply omitting it. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is must be many sources for Strength,Casualties and losses section.[edit]

There is must be many sources for Strength,Casualties and losses section. But certainly there is no any sources for casualties. This must be changed. And generally accepted thing that Russians and Romanians have more forces and casualties than Ottomans. Because of the loss of the Shipka Pass Ottomans didnt have many reinforcements.

Capodeturkiye (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021[edit]

Add a country on the side of Russia Principality of Montenegro since King Nichola I helped during the russian-turkish war Nikoizgradjana (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Information on Montenegrin participation in the Russo-Turkish War is given in the article on the war. There is no mention within the article of participation in this specific part of that war. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Plevna&oldid=1210372393"