Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Zbarazh

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

B-class

[edit]

Passed for WPPOLAND per milhist assessment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size of armies involved

[edit]

Do we really have to take the period sources at face value? 300,000 Cossacks/Tartars besieging a single town is a ridiculous number for the time, and no doubt would have starved to death in short order had they actually been able to assemble.

Compare to, say, the Siege of Vienna - the entire Ottoman Empire geared logistically towards supplying its force mustered up an army of 120,000. 300,000 is just ridiculous in comparison. 66.180.191.190 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious numbers

[edit]

The sources obviously need to be divesified and balanced. Who is Widacki, a Polish historian, a publicist or a playwright? --178.10.15.223 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Jan Widacki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So he has no degree in history? --178.10.15.223 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what if he does not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source appears to be reliable and unless there's some serious evidence to the contrary the "dubious" tag is not justified. Having said that, the article DOES over rely on a single source.Volunteer Marek 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to put back the tag back in. I think there's a valid concern here. One, the article just relies on a single source - it should be cross referenced. Second, the above IP is right, pre-industrial armies of this size were almost unheard off, the logistics were prohibitive.Volunteer Marek 20:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a good point, we do need more sources to see if others have proposed different numbers. Please note that Widacki discusses and critiques a smaller number of 70,000. (and yes, I double checked and the numbers cited in text are correct, source-wise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]