Talk:Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal Siege of Sevastopol (1854-1855) is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force French military history task force

Contents 1 Language/bias 2 "hurricane" → "storm" 3 ?? 4 Casualties 5 Strength and Casualty figures 6 Dates

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit]  ??

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)