Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Sinop

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

Expansion

[edit]

I have completed the expansion and added sources at a industry standar rate. Please note that some of them are not available on Amazon but simply because something is not on Amazon does not mean it doesn't exist, check Worldcat. Enjoy! Jkrefft May 6th, 2014


I am going to take a few days and expand this. Its a god start but we need additional prelude information and analysis. This Battle is really important in the evolution of naval weaponry as it was the first substantial battle to use shell firing guns. Please dont panic if citations and hyperlinks dont appear right away. They will, please note I have a job and needy wives. Jkrefft March 21st, 2014

Guns

[edit]

The description of Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin as having 120 guns conflicts strongly with the page it is linked to. Could they be two different ships of the same name? Kd5mdk 20:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes of course. I'm not sure how to distinguish in terms of page names... perhaps just put the launch date on each? there seems to be several different styles on wikipedia for doing this.

Order of battle

[edit]

I think Sinop order of battle should be merged here. Thoughts? --AW 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, it's not like this article is overburdened with content Modest Genius talk 23:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if the Order of Battle is added at the end. Cosal 11:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. The order of battle for an article should not have a seperate page but it should be part of the article of the battle. Kyriakos 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE MAKE IT STUPID... Just kidding, I merged it. Puddytang 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

Someone deleted a comment about the British ambassador only sending frigates to Sinope possibly in the hope that the Russians would attack Turkey. It's true that there had been some minor fighting before this battle, but nothing that would really "justify" intervention by Britain and France until this battle. So I think it's still a possibility? SpookyMulder (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a Battle or just a Bust

[edit]

someone should revise the article, because it contains some funny things like "battle with non-moved turkish ships"? damn, its not a batle. its typical bust--Orkh (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that its a typical ambush--195.174.105.53 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Massacre" of Sinop?

[edit]

I'm listening now to a history course by prof. Robert I. Wiener. He says that the Battle was called "the massacre of Sinop" by English press and a propaganda campaing was unleashed to make a pretext for invasion into Crimea. Would be interesting to find sources and add this information. --CopperKettle (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that Google search brought: "Massacre of Sinope" --CopperKettle (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this needs to be in the article, it is the major significance of the battle in the larger world historical context. Issue313 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added a brief paragraph about it. The propaganda aspect of this battle is fascinating, anyone who has more to contribute should do so. Issue313 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship or Ship of the Line

[edit]

I'm not sure that the use of the word battleship to describe some of the Russian ships is the best description. Although it may be technically acurate the word is most often used in association with post Dreadnought ships and that is the umage it conjures up. Ship of the line seems much more appropriate and acurate to me. IanOfNorwich (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed --AW (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew

[edit]

It's probably significant that the attack was launched on St. Andrew's Day - can anyone confirm this? Drutt (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

casualties

[edit]

Why is it not mentioned in the article that the Russians had 37 killed and 233 wounded and the Turkish had more than 3000 killed and wounded? Corvi cantus (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not BATTLE, its ambush

[edit]

how could it be categorized as a "battle"? its not about a naval fight, the article is about an ambush...--195.174.105.53 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source that described it as " the Ambush of Sinop", by all means bring it to the discussion. Otherwise, "Battle of Sinop" is the accepted term.
Anyway, an ambush is still a battle; the Battle of Dorylaeum was an ambush, but we still refer to it as a battle.
And Russia and the Turks had been at war for a while before it happened, so it wasn't some kind of sneak attack; the Ottoman fleet was caught unprepared, and suffered accordingly. Xyl 54 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paixhans guns

[edit]

I know absolutely nothing about this battle; I came here from the Paixhans gun article. That article claims that the Paixhans guns used by the Russians were absolutely decisive in this battle, and not only determined the outcome of the battle but heralded the demise of the wooden warship. Our Ironclad warship article seems to support this, with every major navy starting plans for ironclads within 2 or 3 years of this battle, and the first ironclads launched 6 years later. That article also includes the statement:

It is often held that the power of explosive shells to smash wooden hulls, as demonstrated by the Russian destruction of a Turkish squadron at the Battle of Sinope, spelled the end of the wooden-hulled warship.[8]

It is also notable that the description of the damage to the Turkish ships is similar to the testing of the prototype Paixhans gun against the Pacificateur.

At present, this article doesn't mention Paixhans guns, or the nature of the Russian armament at all. If it is true that the Russians used Paixhans guns, and that this was a signal moment in naval warfare, could a more knowledgeable person please add this to the article? -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there seems to be little other obvious reason why the battle was so one-sided.69.151.14.159 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Pasha

[edit]

Is this linking to the right guy? His article says he was in the infantry during 1852-53, makes no mention of this battle. I had thought the commander of the battle was actually English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.133.58 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 27 November 2014

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sinop → 1853 Battle of Sinop – There's been many battles at Sinop, Turkey; including the 1214 Siege of Sinope, so this should move to have a year attached, and Battle of Sinope should become a set index article listing battles at Sinop/Sinope, with the current title "Battle of Sinop" redirecting to it. A prose list of battles currently is found in the city article's history section. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Description of the Battle

[edit]

This part doesn't sound right to me: "Nakhimov arranged his force between the Ottomans and the shore batteries shielding his own force and exposing the Ottomans to potential friendly fire." I'm in no way an expert in naval tactics, but wouldn't it be against common sense to place yourself between the enemy an the enemy's shore batteries? If Nakhimov kept the anchored turkish fleet between himself and the batteries this would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.221.90 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Found a (possibly nearly contemporary) map of the battle and it would suggest the more logical disposition of Nakhimov to the south of the anchored ottoman fleet instead of between it and the shore batteries: "http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/63682" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.104.221.90 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Massacre of Sinope"

[edit]

If TitaniumCarbide wishes to rewrite the paragraph, which is fine with me, they need to bring something other than a source from 1869. I am not impressed with the current source;http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crimea/immcauses.html, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you are continually re-inserting obviously erroneous info that has no source at all, my dude TiC (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if you wish to re-write and/or removal said information, bring a source that was not published in 1869. I have no problems with re-writing or removal as long as the information is referenced by a modern source. Explain exactly what "obviously errorneous information" you wanted removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph:
  • "The attack was seen by external powers as unjustified, as it was believed that Russia had no need to fear the Ottomans. It was referred to in the British press as the 'Massacre of Sinope', and caused a wave of anti-Russian sentiment in Western Europe."[Marjie Bloy source]
  • "The attack strengthened the pro-war factions in Britain and France, and provided them with the justification for a war to curb Russia bellicosity. Hawks in London pointed to Russian tactics as violating both the accepted articles of war and human morality. The shelling on Sinop Harbor and attacking ships of a lower class were both considered war crimes. Several doves attempted to stem the patriotic fervor, arguing that a global war with Russia over the Ottoman Empire was a waste of British talent and treasure. Lord Palmerston resigned over the affair and numerous anti-war articles ran in Paris and London. In the end however war hawks in the National Government won out and Sinop was seen as a just cause for war."[unsourced]
Sourced by http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crimea/immcauses.html, which states:
  • "In November 1853 the Russian Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol and the Turkish fleet met at the Battle of Sinope. The Turkish fleet was sunk. It was a provocative action by Russia because she had no real reason to fear Turkey. The affair was reported in the British press as the 'Massacre of Sinope', and caused fever-pitch anti-Russian feeling among the public. It also strengthened the 'war faction' in the Cabinet, for unexplained and obscure reasons. Perhaps a combination of reasons were responsible: it has been argued that
  • perhaps the long peace — since 1815 — had created a desire for war. It provoked patriotism and expressed the British cock-sure attitude which resulted from her economic, territorial and free trade strength
  • Sinope was a naval victory: Russia clearly had a Black Sea fleet which needed to be defeated before it got into the Mediterranean. The British felt that the Russian naval threat could not be allowed to grow
  • Britain was becoming more and more dependent on trade, especially with India and the east: Sinope followed the Great Exhibition of 1851 that had demonstrated Britain's industrial pre-eminence in the world. The Mediterranean trade and the routes to India could not be jeopardised
  • In Britain, the 'war party' had been growing since the summer of 1853.
  • Even moderate papers like The Times demanded retribution before Russia over-ran Turkey: Russia could do this legitimately, since Turkey was the country that had declared war on Russia. Demands were made for a British fleet to be sent to the Straits, but the Cabinet was divided between 'war' and 'peace' factions, resulting in indecision. Clarendon, the British Foreign Secretary said that Britain was 'drifting towards war' — something that Aberdeen was trying to avoid. However, he was in an impossible position because not to help Turkey would lead to an expansion of Russian power and to help Turkey meant war. Aberdeen let events drift towards war by indecision in preventing it. By Christmas 1853, the British government was left with little choice." --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no mention of war crime here, http://www.victorianweb.org/history/crimea/sinope.html, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to your preferred version.
  • "The attack was treated by external powers as unjustified and caused a wave of anti-Russian sentiment in Western Europe. Much of the British press characterized the one-sided surprise attack as the "Massacre of Sinope" and a war crime, although there was nothing illegal or even unusual about the attack.[Marjie Bloy source][1869 source]"
The Bloy source makes no mention of "war crime", therefore it can be removed. IF the 1869 source states, "although there was nothing illegal or even unusual about the attack.", then it is not needed, much less is unreliable and outdated.
To which this part;
  • "The attack strengthened the pro-war factions in Britain and France, and provided them with the justification for a war to curb Russia bellicosity. Several doves attempted to stem the patriotic fervor, arguing that a global war with Russia over the Ottoman Empire was a waste of British talent and treasure. Lord Palmerston resigned over the affair and numerous anti-war articles ran in Paris and London. In the end however war hawks in the National Government won out and Sinop was seen as a just cause for war, although ultimately the real motivation was to curb Russian expansion in accordance with a balance of power strategy."
is unsourced. So your argument, "you are continually re-inserting obviously erroneous info that has no source at all" and "you're literally inserting entirely unsourced and obviously false claims back into the article while you complain about the source", has no basis.
Are there any other parts which, according to you, are unsourced? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is ridiculous to expect me to real all this rambling garbage. congratulations, you have successfully bluffed off a more knowledgeable editor with your passive aggressive idiot wiki bureaucrat routine. this article will continue to feature childishly ridiculously claims that it's a war crime to attack weaker forces. TiC (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since all you can do is personal attacks, I have removed the unsourced information, the unreliable source(1869), and added references to the rest of the paragraph. Next time, your personal attack will be reported. OH, and FYI, a " more knowledgeable editor" would not use a nearly 150 yr old source. LMAO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Sinop. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Last major battle between fleets of sailing ships"

[edit]

The statement above is supported only by a dubious and undated reference in Russian. According to the article, however, there were steam ships on both sides in the battle. I therefore propose to delete this misleading statistic, the significance of which is unexplained in any case. Until a more reliable reference is found, it does not belong here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Sinop&oldid=1206181978"