Talk:Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855)/Archive 1

Language/bias

Shouldnt this be listed as a 'phyrric' victory? Theres a 30,000 man difference between the casualties, if that doesnt qualify as phyrric, what does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.62.87 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• This (with the less than orthographic spelling shown here) keeps creeping back into the info box. It diminishes the quality of the article to have a clumsy spelling mistake in a prominent position. The text as it stands at present doesn't support the suggestion: the last paragraph implies that the cost in lives was militarily worthwhile. Having contradictory information within the same piece also diminishes its authority. I will remove it once again, but the wider views of other editors welcome.--Old Moonraker 07:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"hurricane" → "storm"

I've changed 'hurricane' to 'storm' within the article, as it's impossible that a hurricane would have hit that part of the world. I'm assuming it refers to a storm with hurricane force winds? Annihilatenow 16:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed – well spotted!  Regards, David Kernow 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

??

Weren't England and France an enemies during this period of age ? specially after the napolionic wars ? Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Politics makes strange bedfellows". Imperial Russia at that time attempted to expand into the Middle East, easily subduing the weakening Ottomans. Also see The Great Game. 85.177.111.239 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Thanks, Chestnut ah, for supplying references for the casualty figures—these have been outstanding for a long time. However, both the allied and the Russian numbers are from a Russian source, and in Russian at that. Are there really no sources in English? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

English-language reference added Chestnut ah (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is from M.I. Bogdanovich “Eastern War”:

"During 11 months of the siege, from 27th September (9th October) 1854 through 27th August (8th September) 1855 French lost up to 46.000 killed and wounded, not counting dead from illnesses. English lost 5.000 killed, it means total loss of not less than 25.000. Losses of Turks and Sardinians are not known.

On our side number of casualties during the siege in Sevastopol was about 102.000, in battles of Alma, Balaclava, Inkerman, Eupatoria, Chernaya River – up to 26.000, in total – 128.000, not counting 8.455 dead from illnesses. But, because the number of recovered wounded was 53.862, the real number of losses was up to 83.000 – 85.000"

From the same book about illnesses:

"Illnesses in Russian and French armies. In Russian army: from 1st of November 1854 through 1st of November 1855 of 183.331 ill 101.520 cases of fever, 19.107 cases of cholera.

In French army: from April 1855 until liberation of Crimea of 217.303 ill 130.678 cases of fever and typhus, 11.382 cases of cholera" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.27.250 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Modest Ivanovich Bogdanovich (1805 - 1882), Lieutenant-General --Jkomis (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Strength and Casualty figures

---

The casualties figures, for the British at least are those for the entire war, not just the siege.

Yes, but it looks like we are treating (strength and causalties-wise) thw whole Crimean campaign as the siege. Anyway, we only need to subtract casualties at Alma to get those of the siege (also, British casualties are those of the British army, so these do not include RN casualties in actions against Petropavlovsk, in teh Baltics etc -- not that there were many)Chestnut ah (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The strength figures for the British are extremely off, I've update them presently once I've a reference.

67th Tigers (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The initial figures for British troops (October 1854 64,000) come from a very authoritative source: Richard Holmes's Oxford Companion to British Military History. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says 11,000, and includes foreign contingents which never served in the siege (arriving after Sevastapol fell). 64,000 is probably close to peak strength during the siege (52 Infantry Battalions, 14 Cavalry Regiments, over 5,000 gunners and several thousand engineers and sappers served in the trenches or guarding, with at least 10,000 logistics personnel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67th Tigers (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually said 11k British fit to service, because additional 23k were sick or wounded so could hardly be counted as Allied forces. Also 60k Turks were not beseiging Sevastopol but were garrisoning Eupatoria, and only 20k of these were moved to Sevastopol in May Chestnut ah (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dates

The article seems be using both Old Style and New Style dates, without any explanation that I can see. Is there an editor familiar with this who can put them into context? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With some trepidation I've attempted an explanation.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

File:William Simpson - Crimean War - Huts and Warm Clothing for the Army.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:William Simpson - Crimean War - Huts and Warm Clothing for the Army.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 7, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A lithograph of a watercolour painting depicting soldiers transporting winter clothing, lumber for huts, and other supplies through a snow-covered landscape, with partially buried dead horses along the roadside, to the British camps, during the Siege of Sevastopol of the Crimean War. In the winter, a storm ruined the camps and supply lines of the Allied forces (France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire). Men and horses became sick and starved in the poor conditions.Artist: William Simpson; Restoration: Lise Broer

Iskender Pasha

Allied commander Iskender Pasha is from the XVII century.... --95.244.253.164 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian Casualties?

This number seems too high considering the size of the fighting force. This must include civilian deaths in the city and surrounding area. And if it doesn't include this total, their deaths should be mentioned in the infobox. 64.134.71.74 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Siege of Sevastopol (1854–55). 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/20090709234054/http://crimeantexts.russianwar.co.uk/sources/panmure/pcont07.html to http://crimeantexts.russianwar.co.uk/sources/panmure/pcont07.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807094603/http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue5/aterriblebeauty.htm to http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue5/aterriblebeauty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)