Talk:Battle of Achelous (917)

110 000

The numbers of the opposing forces, which are given in the article, are incredible. Even if there was a medieval source or modern assessment that claim such figures (there are no references in the article to any source), it would have been unreliable in my opinion. Dobrin 16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this absurdity. Theres no way even the stupidest Byzantine commander could have wasted 2/3 of all their manpower in one disastrous battle. How did 110,000 men lose to 70,000 anyways... Tourskin (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the contemporary sources it is stated that the empire gathered all its theme troops from Asia Minor and the European themes. They were defeated with heavy casualties which is evident even from the quote about the bones. Not to mention that this is not the first time the byzantines have lost almost their entire army in battle.--Avidius (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"How did 110,000 men lose to 70,000 anyways" - easy,for example read about the battle of cannae Ispor (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is not fair that you wrote that the Bulgarians were affraid of the Hungarian and Pecheneg forces, when it is known that Hungarians and also Pecheneges took part in the battle on the Bulgarian side (Miracula Sancti Georgii). Hungarians and Pechenegs were not traditional Byzantine allies, they were allies of who payed them better. It is well known that for example, in the Bavarian - Moravian war the in 892 the Hungarians fought in alliance with the Bavarians against Moravians, but in 894 they fought with the Moravians against the Bavarians, and in 896 again they changed sides allying themselfs with the Germans, and attacking in 899 Northern Italy. In 900 they started war against the Bavarians and occupied Pannonia. So, Hungarians were traditional allies of no one, just to those who payed them for their military help. And the sources say that in the army of Symeon the Great at Archelous were Hungarian and Pecheneg troops as well. Please add these informations to this article. Thanks. Sylvain1975 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

another greatly un-referenced article

This needs to be addressed ASAP. No citations for great swaths of this article - and it has been tagged many times. Editors, this sort of thing should never have happened in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.22.29 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)