Talk:Russo-Turkish wars

"Multiple defeats" in Crimea

According to the source;

• Treaty of Nis (1739), Alexander Mikaberidze, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, ed. Alexander Mikaberidze, (ABC-CLIO, 2011), 647;"Peace treaty signed on October 3, 1739, at Nissa (Serbia) between Russia and the Ottoman Empire to conclude the Russo-Ottoman War of 1736-1739. Druing this conflict Russia was supported by Austria, which, however, suffered defeats and was forced to accept disadvantageous Treaty of Belgrade in September 1739. Although Russia continued the war for a couple more weeks the Austrian pullout forced it to accept the Ottoman conditions. Russia restored portions of Moldavia and Bessarabia, including the city of Khotin, to the Turks, and promised to dismantle the fortifications at Azov, which however, Russian retained as a port. Russia also agreed not to maintain war ships in the Black Sea. The Ottomans agreed to grant Russia certain trading privileges."
  

I see nothing about the Crimea. Per the article Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39)

• "On May 20, 1736, the Russian Dnieper Army (62,000 men) under the command of Field Marshal Burkhard Christoph von Munnich took by storm the Turkish fortifications at Perekop and occupied Bakhchisaray on June 17.[3] However, lack of supplies coupled with the outbreak of an epidemic forced Münnich to retreat to Ukraine. On June 19, the Russian Don Army (28,000 men) under the command of General Peter Lacy with the support from the Don Flotilla under the command of Vice Admiral Peter Bredahl seized the fortress of Azov.[3] In July 1737, Münnich's army took by storm the Turkish fortress of Ochakov. Lacy's army (already 40,000 men strong) marched into the Crimea the same month and captured Karasubazar. However, Lacy and his troops had to leave the Crimea due to lack of supplies. The Crimean campaign of 1736 ended in Russian withdrawal into Ukraine, after an estimated 30,000 deaths; only 2,000 died in battle and the rest of hunger, famine and disease.[4]"
  

I'm not seeing any "defeats" here. Nor does the article state any supposed defeats led to the treaty. Thus that information is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I cannot but agree with you on this matter. Although the Russian army did have problems in the Crimea and had to pull back due to logistical reasons and epidemics, there is virtually no way we can regard it as "multiple defeats"; apparently, the army was not defeated in battle. Also, putting the "victory/defeat" tag above the text is completely unnecessary, since the outcome of the war is already described in the text. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see any source(s) for an Ottoman victory as edit warred into the template section by Nihlus1. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

AND, the template listing of wars was to summarize the results not give an indepth report of the war(s), that information should be added to the Conflict begins (1568–1699) section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The army was defeated in the course of its campaign. It does not actually matter what killed them (and a source was posted regarding the campaign's failure and massive casualties, as well as the failure of the follow-up campaign), only that their invasion was repulsed, which it was. 93% of the deaths being due to non-combat factors is actually not too far out of the ordinary for the era (87% of British army deaths in the American Revolutionary War were due to disease/starvation/etc., for example) and by no means proof that they weren't "really" beaten. It is also dishonest to not mention that disastrous campaign when talking about the war's results (while mentioning relatively minor Russian victories), when dominating the Black Sea was Russia's war goal, and their failure to accomplish that goal ended in them accepting Ottoman terms. That it was an Ottoman victory should be obvious by the fact that the Ottoman Empire gained territory at the expense of Austria and repelled Russian invasions of their territory. This is why the books cited on the subject say "Russia was forced to accept Ottoman conditions".

Furthermore, as detailed in "Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century", pages 194-210, the Ottomans and Russians did engage in combat many times, and part of the Russian logistical issues were due to Ottoman scorched Earth tactics. Saying that the Russians were not defeated is equivalent to saying Napoleon was never defeated when he invaded Russia. Finally, multiple sources say Russia abandoned its claims to Crimea as a result of the treaty; this for example. --Nihlus1 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The army was defeated in the course of its campaign".

Source?

• "93% of the deaths being due to non-combat factors is actually not too far out of the ordinary for the era and by no means proof that they weren't "really" beaten."

Which is your opinion, unsupported by any reliable sources.

• "It is also dishonest to not mention that disastrous campaign when talking about the war's results.."

The wars' results were two separate treaties(sourced), which you decided to mitigate with your own personal opinion(s)(ie. Wikipedia:Original research). Your opinion that the campaign(s) were disastrous are yet again, your opinion. Any sourced information should be added to the article(s). Any sourced result can be added to the template, not someone's personal opinion/interpretation of events.

• "That it was an Ottoman victory should be obvious by the fact that the Ottoman Empire gained territory at the expense of Austria and repelled Russian invasions of their territory."

Source? Russia's invasions were not "repelled", according to the paragraph(sourced) from the article itself, their invasions were recalled due to disease and lack of supplies. No defeats, not repelled by Ottoman forces.

The result of the Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39) was two separate treaties, which if the reader wants to know more, they can click on the link and read them. Anything that would have influenced said treaties does not belong in the template, that sourced information can be placed within the article(s).

"Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century", no quote, pages 195,199-200, 204-212 are unviewable. Nothing to see here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, personal opinions and changing text supported by sources to your liking are clearly not welcome here. The only thing worth mentioning in the list of Russo-Turkish wars is a short description of the outcome of every conflict, which must be free of unnecessary details listed in other articles. Putting the "victory/defeat" tag is also unnecessary in this context, since the consequences of the war of 1735-39 are already described in the text. As for "Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century", this book is available on paper and provides a very detailed description of the war; that's quite a good source on this matter, actually. And one more thing: perhaps we should mention that the threat of a Swedish invasion also contributed to the Treaty of Niš (see: Grinevetsky S., Zonn I., Zhiltsov S., Kosarev A., Kostianoy A. The Black Sea Encyclopedia. Springer. 2014. P. 661; this one is available online. As usual, the book says nothing about the "multiple defeats"). Another source also claims that Sweden played an important role. Somel S. Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire. Scarecrow Press. 2003. P. 169: "Though Russia occupied Khotin, the Austrian withdrawal from the war and Ottoman alliance with Prussia, Poland, and Sweden compelled the Russians to enter peace negotiations" (still no mention of "defeats", of course). Eriba-Marduk (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Source?"

I already posted a source saying half of the army died and they were forced to retreat from Crimea.

"Which is your opinion, unsupported by any reliable sources."

I am simply restating what was said: that the Crimean invasion was a failure and resulted in very high losses. You're the one trying to push the opinion that most deaths being due to non-combat causes means that it doesn't count as a defeat, which I have never heard anyone argue on any military history article. You seem to be basing this on nothing other than the fact that most of the losses were non-combat, even though that was standard for the era.

"The wars' results were two separate treaties(sourced), which you decided to mitigate with your own personal opinion(s)(ie. Wikipedia:Original research). Your opinion that the campaign(s) were disastrous are yet again, your opinion. Any sourced information should be added to the article(s). Any sourced result can be added to the template, not someone's personal opinion/interpretation of events.

It's not an opinion. The Crimean invasion was objectively a huge failure, as it failed to accomplish any of its goals and resulted in 50% losses to the invasion force.

"Source? Russia's invasions were not "repelled", according to the paragraph(sourced) from the article itself, their invasions were recalled due to disease and lack of supplies. No defeats, not repelled by Ottoman forces."

The source (Tucker) doesn't actually say that the invasion failed due to a freak disease epidemic, the author made that up. The source cited after [4] does say that most of the deaths were non-combat, but you're misrepresenting it. In addition to the 2,000 deaths in battle, it says that the 28,000 other deaths due to starvation, disease, etc. were largely caused by Ottoman/Tatar tactics. They raided Russian supply lines and burned fields, contributing to the failure of the campaign. Again, by this logic the French invasion of Russia was not a "French defeat"/"Russian victory". It also notes numerous battles between Ottoman and Russian forces, though a relatively small number. While my exact wording of "multiple defeats" might have been incorrect (there just weren't that many significant engagements), I was correct to say that the campaign was a large Russian defeat and important in the overall outcome of the war.

"Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, no quote, pages 195,199-200, 204-212 are unviewable. Nothing to see here."

I am not going to post the entire 15-page description of the campaign. If you don't have that book, read pages 102-106 in the above source. It makes it clear that A. the Russian invasion was a disaster and B. it was a defeat of the Russians by the Ottomans. The war, overall, had the Ottomans gain much territory from the Austrians while losing none to the Russians, while Russia failed in their largest offensive, had to cede the territory they gained in their other offensives, had to dismantle their Azov fortifications, and had to give up claims to Bessabaria, Moldavia, and Crimea. They failed in almost every single one of their war goals, while losing 100,000 soldiers. I do not see how this can be interpreted as anything other than an Ottoman victory.--Nihlus1 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, you are required to provide proof for your edit(s), especially when you have been reverted.

Page 102 is unviewable, the rest appear to be the Russo-Turkish War (1710–11). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Stone D. R. A Military History of Russia: From Ivan the Terrible to the War in Chechnya. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2006. P. 66, the problems of the Russian army in the Crimea that forced it to pull back, despite “Münnich's success” and a “string of battlefield victories”, were as follows: “shortages of supplies and fodder, as well as the plague epidemic to the region”, “plague and short supplies” (with “Turkish screening forces”, which didn't defeat them anywhere, looming in the background). He notes that the Russians also applied a scorched earth policy and “carried out the usual ravaging of the countryside”, so it turns out that it weren't only the Tatars who used this “tactics”. That said, I believe that the current description of the outcome is completely correct and in line with the sources. Since the peace treaty “granted Oziv to Russia and consolidated Russia's control over the Zaporizhia” (Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Volume 4. 1993. P. 476; i. e. Russia gained control over certain territories, whereas the Ottomans lost it), the outcome of the war cannot be described as merely an Ottoman victory. Saying that Russia did not achieve its main goal, i. e. that the Russian victory could have been greater, is clearly not enough to conclude that Russia was “defeated”. That is, if a country waged war on another country with a purpose to capture A, B, C, D, but succeeded only in conquering A, it's hardly a “defeat”, rather a kind of limited victory. Otherwise, we'll have to change hundreds of articles about wars and battles, writing in every one of them that every military campaign which didn't result in achieving all major goals was a “defeat”. The best solution is to list the territorial gains and political consequences of this war, without making any unnecessary and childish claims about who “won” or was “defeated”, who was “killed”, how many lives were lost (that is a matter of dispute among historians), etc.

P. S.: Regarding the “multiple defeats”, there is a nice quote from Davies L. B. The Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774: Catherine II and the Ottoman Empire (2016): “The Russo-Turkish war of 1736-1739 revealed that the khans could no longer defend their own core territory. Three times (1736, 1737, 1738) Russian expeditionary armies managed to break through or circumvent the Or-Kapi Line and push deep into Crimea, driving the Tatar nobility into the hills (and on one occasion forcing Khan Fet’ih Girey to take refuge at sea). The Russians burned Gozlev, Karasubazar, and the khan's palace at Bakhchisarai and took control again of the Ottoman fortress at Azov. The sultan had khans Kaplan Girey and Fat’ih Girey deposed for their incompetence. The Kuban Horde was overwhelmed by the Kalmyks and for a while vassalized to the Kalmyk taishis”. Hence, it were actually the Tatars who suffered all those “multiple defeats” in Crimea during the war. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Eriba-Marduk, you should add all of that information and the references to the main article, Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39). Nice work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Table removed?

With over 300 years of warfare, this history of a series of conflicts benefited from having a table outlining and organizing the basic facts of the individual wars. I fail to see how the removal of the table is justified, mainly because I can find no recent documentation of the reasoning process behind it. Would Rottweiler please make a statement regarding the recent removal of the table, as I do not wish to wade through the entire Talk section in search of an explanation.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit wars

New editors should realize that it is vandalism to erase fully sourced statements. If you have a disagreement, please ADD it to the discussion, making sure that you cite your own reliable sources. Disputes have to be taken to the talk pages or you will get in trouble for edit warring. Casting aspersions on the integrity of other editors violates the rule that you must assume good faith. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary on the question of bias in sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources which states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

1676-1681 Russo-Turkish War

The result must move to Ottoman Victory.

Summary of this war: The 1676-1681 Ottoman-Russian War, or Muscovite Campaign, was the first great war between the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Tsardom. During this war, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha became the grand vizier. As a result of the 5-year war, the Russian Tsardom, which could not be strengthened was defeated, and with the Treaty of Bakhchisarai on January 31, 1681, Chyhyryn Fortress and the rest of the Ukraine were left to the Ottomans.

according to the treaty Chyhyryn Fortress and rest of the Ukraine were left to the Ottomans. Aftermath capturing Chyhyryn fortress, in the continuation battle in the near from Chyhyryn Russian Army breakaway and retreat from this battle to Kiev. Ottoman army march 140 km into Russian territory and captured Kaniv

Notes

Davies, Brian L., Warfare, state and society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700 " page number 172 is written Victory for Ottoman and Moscow loss Chyhyryn.

In Rhoads Murphey "Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700" book is written; "In the decades preceding the Ottomans’ attempted siege of Vienna in 1683 Ottoman armies had successfully prosecuted single-front wars in Hungary (the sieges of Varad [Oradea] in 1660 and Uyvar [N. Zamky] in 1663), Crete (the siege of Candia [Heraklion] between 1667 and 1669], Poland (the siege of Kamanice [Kamanetz-Podolsk] in 1672 and Russia (the siege of Çehrin [Chyhyryn] in 1678)" page number 9.

Brian Davies, Empire and Military revolution in eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the eighteenth century page number 9.

Sources

Brian L. Davies, Warfare, State and Society on the Black Sea steppe, 1500-1700, Routledge, 2007. 172.

Rhoads Murphey Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700, UCL Press 1999. 9, 196.

Brian Davies, Empire and Military Revolution in Eastern Europe: Russia's Turkish Wars in the Eighteenth Century, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. 9.

History of the Ottoman Turks,1288-1918, The library of University of California Los Angeles, 1868. 506, 507.

Davies, B. ‘The Second Chigirin Campaign (1678): Late Muscovite Power in Transition,’ in The Military and Society in Russia, 1450–1917, ed E. Lohr and M. Poe (Leiden 2002)

Dimitrie Cantemir, History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire Volume IIIJ. J., and P. Knapton., 1734.

Danishmend, Kronoloji, Türkiye Yayınevi, 1972.

C. Heywood, Kara Mustafa Paşa, In: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Leiden, 1954-2004.

John Paxton and John Traynor, Leaders of Russia and the Soviet Union, Taylor & Francis Books Inc, 2004.

Hasan Karaköse, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Merzifon Vakfı, Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001.

Blochet, Catalogue, Suppl.,1909.

Яфарова, Мадина (2017). Karakeçi24 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Chigirin did not belong to the Russians, like Kanev, the only Russian territory on the right bank is Kiev. The main goal in Russia in this war is the capture of Doroshenko, and subsequently the protection of the left bank, both goals were fulfilled, then we can state the victory of the Russians. But since there are sources claiming otherwise, we will not change this. I'll probably give you the quotes that I added to that article myself.

The Cambridge History (edited by Davis): It could therefore be argued that Muscovy won its first great war with the Ottoman Empire. It had secured its position on the left bank, eliminated for some time the danger of a rival right-bank hetmanate, and further reduced the Crimean Tatar threat.

From Rus to Russia (Gumilev): Russia, which supported Poland in the war, condemned itself to the invasion of 100,000 Turkish-Tatar army, but was still able to defend the left bank and Kiev.

You can also see a lot of quotes directly on the war page, I won't bring them here, but I think I explained clearly why we can't change the outcome. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it here if there are similar attempts to change the outcome again. Dushnilkin (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Casualties in infobox

The figures given for casualties in pretty much all of the wars are too contradictory and often inaccurate to warrant a spot in the infobox. For example, it is impossible to know how many Russian soldiers were killed specifically by Ottoman soldiers in the Crimean War (and vice versa) because of the involvement of other countries. Ottoman soldiers killed in the 1737-39 war also includes casualties inflicted by Austria. The WW1 casualties for Russia is only inclusive of the Caucasus front till September 1916 (excludes other fronts, months of 1916 after September, and the remaining years of the war). It should most definitely be removed from the infobox asap. I wanted to lay out my rationale here specifically for @Vbbanaz05. Lenovya (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx

The Russians withdrew from the Caucasus in 1916. 95% of the Ottoman losses were from the Russians (throughout the campaign). The data on the losses in the war in 1735 is completely correct. The 44,000 were losses in the war with the Russians, not the Austrians. You can look into this. You may be right about the Crimean War. There were 3 countries on the side of the Ottomans. The allies lost a total of 165,000. We can write this off with the Ottomans. So I don't see any problem Vbbanaz05 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vbbanaz05 You are correct about the 1916 campaign. However, the figure for the 1737-39 war is incorrect. It contains WP:OR if you look at the note which lists only some of the battles of the war and their casualties (which are disputed, by the way). I'm going to try to find casualties for that war for the Ottomans, but if I can't I'm going to remove it soon since it is original research and is uncited. As for the Crimean War, it is inaccurate to provide the total losses of the Allies as the Ottoman loss; it is also inaccurate to provide the total losses of the Russians since other countries were also involved. You must only involve the casualties inflicted by Russia on the Ottomans and vice versa; this however is impossible, which is one of the reasons why the casualties section should be removed.

Furthermore, casualties from multiple other wars are also missing. You can't just list the casualties of a few wars and leave the others out; either you give a casualty estimate for all of them, or none of them. Either way, with all these problems and contradicting numbers, the casualties section should 100% be removed. Lenovya (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx

the casualties of the war in 1735 were taken from all Russian and Ottoman battles. I just looked at it. Moreover, in the Crimean war, the allies, together with the Ottomans, suffered 165,000 casualties. In this Infobox, there are already UK, France and Italy as the allies of the Ottomans, so I do not see it as a problem. You are right that there are no casualties in many wars (1568-1570) (1768-1774) (1828-1829) I believe that if we bring the casualties in these 3 articles to light, we will solve all the problems. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vbbanaz05 Like I said, the casualty figure for the 1735 war is original research and would have to be removed unless a citation can be provided. As for the Crimean War, I can see your point but nevertheless, the title of the article is "Russo-Turkish wars" and thus it would be appropriate only to include casualties inflicted by both sides on each other (which I acknowledge is impossible, which is one out of many reasons I'm vehemently supporting the removal of the casualty estimates).

If you can find a casualty estimate for the remaining wars, that would be helpful. However, I'm still advocating for deleting the information from the infobox as these wars are too expansive to provide an accurate number of casualties, especially when there are a lot of contradicting figures given by historians. Lenovya (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx

There are already sources on the casualties in the 1735 war and they are all about the Russian-Ottoman battles and all of them have sources, only the battles with Austria do not have sources. As I said in the Crimean War, the Ottomans suffered casualties as well as the Allies, so the Ottomans' casualties are also written there. Since there are UK, France and Italy in the Supported by section in this infobox. I am against the removal of this, I think our biggest problem is the 3 articles I mentioned. If we find the casualty data in those 3 articles, we will solve the problems. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vbbanaz05 Pretty much all of the battles of the 1735-39 war have contradicting figures, and these are major differences. e.g. in the Battle of Stavuchany you have 13 to 1,000 Russians killed, 1,000 to 15,000 Ottomans killed. By the way, it is still original research even if you add up all the sourced casualties; the total figure must be sourced too. Either way, as I've said, there are too many contradicting estimates of casualties to warrant a place in the general infobox of the wars. Lenovya (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx

Rather than doing research, all the sources are written there, but anyway, I started to understand that it is ridiculous, for example, in the wars of most countries regarding each other, there is no Casualties section in the (Polish-Russian) (French-British) (Spanish-French) wars, so I am starting to agree with you. Anyway, we wouldn't be able to find casualty data in the 3 articles I mentioned. Even if we did, datas wouldn't be very reliable. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Vbbanaz05 Yeah for countries who warred with each other a lot, their articles almost never contain a casualties section in the infobox for the reasons I've outlined. There's just too many contrasting numbers given by historians, and you could never fit that into the infobox. I'll remove the section seeing that we've come to an agreement.

If anyone can provide sufficient objections to the change, they can reply here. Lenovya (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Zenzyyx