Talk:Battle of Oltenița

Stub

I've expanded the article a bit, so I've removed the Stub tags; but if anyone thinks it's still stubby, feel free to put them back. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

‘A Personal Narrative’ written by G. Rhodes is hardly an authoritative source, given that it is biased and that its estimates regarding the battle are based on ‘personal notation’ and suggestions, as the author himself made evident on the page cited. It is clearly not in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; dubious figures and prejudiced opinions must not be included into the article. Dolchstoß (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Oltenița. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304133245/http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm to http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304133245/http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm to http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304133245/http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm to http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304133245/http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm to http://adjudant.ru/crimea/bogdan05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"both sides claiming victory"

Now the Lead claims: "The battle was indecisive, with both sides claiming victory." In fact, I did not see the Russian side talking about its undoubted victory. Now there is a link to Orlando's book (Orlando Figes. The Crimean War: A History. Metropolitan Books. 2011. P. 131.) and he, in turn, refers to the memoirs in the magazine "Russian Antiquity" (Russkaia starina). I looked at the page indicated - there is nothing about the "victory", only a mention of "the fight that was near Oltenitsa" and that their military unit was transferred to Oltenitsa after this fight, to reinforce the Russian troops who were already there [1]. In the book of Bogdanovich (Russian historian of the 19th century) I see a detailed investigation into the reasons for the defeat, although the Russians exaggerate the strength of the Turks and their losses to disguise their failure. He sums up: "Our troops did their duty honestly, and that the Turks could not boast of victory; we retreated, and were not repulsed" [2]. Since there is an obvious mistake in Orlando's book, I will remove this statement, especially since the next sentences contain everything that is necessary.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)