Talk:Siege of Adrianople (1912–1913)

Serbian role

Do not remove the article about the Serbian involvment. The Serbs were an auxiliary, yet important contigent of the besieging force. This article needs to be expanded from Bulgarian and Turkish point of view, not deprived of Serbian. If there are any reasons for the removal, state them here first.

Veljko Stevanovich 12. 11. 2003. 21:00 Belgrade time

Nonsense sentence

Tentatives were maid to perturb the radio communications of the besieged.

What is this sentence trying to say? —mjb 19:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think someone tried to say: "Attempts for radio communication perturbation of the besieged were made."--Shisharki 04:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft

I think this is the first battle in the history where aircrafts were involved. Does anyone know about an earlier one??? --Shisharki 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Italians used aircraft in Lybia before, and also both Greece and Serbia used aircraft for reconaissance during the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.120.147 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the first battles in which the airplane was used for bombing. I think Italians were first throwing grenades, but the in the battle the Bulgarians were using hand-thrown bombs, therefore the first bombing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.5.6 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Material for translation

Считана за една от най-силните крепости в Югоизточна Европа, Одринската крепост по време на Балканската война се състои от две позиции. Предната, изградена непосредствено преди войната, отстои на 9-11 километра от града. Зад нея, на разстояние до три километра, е изграден главния укрепен пояс, състоящ се от 20 форта. Фортовете отстоят на около километър един от друг и са свързани помежду си със стрелкови окопи, артилерийски позиции, преградни ровове и вълчи ями. Пред фронта на тези две укрепени линии е изградена непрекъсната телена мрежа със ширина до 9 метра. Допълнителен, втори отбранителен пояс има и зад главната позиция, където на разстояние 1-3 километра са разположени 4 форта стара конструкция. На по-уязвимите места отбраната в дълбочина достига до 5-6 километра. Крепостта се защитава от гарнизон в състав от 59 600 войници и офицери и разполага с 524 оръдия от различен калибър и между 50 и 60 картечници, а за наблюдение на противника – с един привързан балон и 10 прожектора. Заградената от позициите площ възлиза на респектиращите 250 кв. километра и за да се улесни маневрирането на войските командването на гарнизона разполага с теснолинейка и 180 понтона. Подържа се непрекъсната радиотелеграфна връзка с Цариград. Артилерийските и стрелкови боеприпаси са в достатъчно количество.

В началото на военните действия, 2-ра армия на генерал-лейтенант Никола Иванов само блокира крепостта с оглед замисъла за бърз разгром на турската Източна армия и светкавично настъпление към столицата Цариград. Обаче по-късно превземането на Одрин постепенно се превръща в належаща необходимост.

Град Одрин е разположен на мястото, където реките Арда и Тунджа достигат Марица и се вливат в нея. Одрин е вилаетски център и в навечерието на войната наброява повече от 80 000 човека население, от които турците са, в най-добрия случай, половината. Има големи общности гърци, евреи, арменци, българи, както и други народности. След като войната започва, множество бежанци – главно мюсюлмани, но също и други, голяма част от които завлечени насилствено – се стичат в града. По такъв начин 2-ра армия поставя в положение на обсада над 170 000 човека, включая гарнизона.

Операцията по превземането на Одринската крепост се планира като открит щурм. Съответно обсаждащата я 2-ра армия е усилена с войски и обсадна артилерия и в началото на март 1913 г се състои от българските 3-та Балканска, 4-та Преславска, 8-ма Тунджанска и 9-та Плевенска дивизии, както и от сръбските Тимошка и Дунавска дивизии – всички те в непълен състав, и от други армейски части с обща численост 93 710 българи и 39 527 сърби. На тяхно разположение са 424 оръдия. Обсадата се разделя на 4 сектора: Източен – между Тунджа и Марица, Южен –между Марица и Арда, Западен – между Арда и Марица и Северозападен – между Марица и Тунджа. Най голям е Източния сектор и именно тук е предвидено да се нанесе главния удар. Източният сектор е зает изцяло от български войски в състав две непълни дивизии с 226 оръдия, които на участъка създават превес в жива сила и огнева мощ спрямо противника при съотношение: в пехота 3.57:1, в артилерия 1.5:1, в картечници 4:1, в кавалерия превъзходството е абсолютно. Командващ е генерал-майор Георги Вазов. Тъй като е доста голям, секторът е разделен на Северен и Южен отдел, като Северния отдел е определен за нанасянето на главния удар срещу фортовете Аджийолу и Айвазбаба от главната отбранителна линия. По такъв начин в Източния сектор са ангажирани 58% от всички войски, действуващи срещу Одрин, представляващи 12 пехотни и един конен полк, както и други части.

Останалите сектори се заемат: Южния – от 4 пехотни полка на Тунджанската дивизия, Западния – от три пехотни полка на сръбската Дунавска дивизия, Северозападния - от три пехотни полка на Тимошката дивизия плюс 55-и български пехотен полк.

На 10 март 1913 г. Главното командване изпраща директива, в която заповядва на другия ден Източния сектор да атакува и овладее Предната позиция на Одринската крепост при поддръжката на останалите сектори, а в по-късно допълнение се нарежда да се вземат мерки за пълното поражение на противника.

Атаката на Одрин започва на 11 март 1913 г. след обяд, когато командващия 2-ра армия генерал Никола Иванов заповядва началото на артилерийски обстрел на крепостта. Оръдейният огън се открива в 13 ч. и се води до към 23 ч. За да се заблуди противника за посоката на главния удар, единствено Източния сектор започва обстрела по-късно и го прекратява доста рано – към 18.30. Призори на следващия ден (около 4 сутринта) пехотата от всички сектори безшумно се придвижва към позициите на противника. В полосата на главния удар, не дочакали уречения час, дружините от 56 пехотен полк прогонват постовете на неприятеля по река Провадийска и „на нож” атакуват окопите от Предната позиция. Паникьосан, противникът отстъпва към Айвазбаба. Съседният им 23 Шипченски полк преодолява телените заграждения и с „ура” нахлува в турските окопи. В жесток и кръвопролитен ръкопашен бой неприятелят ги изоставя и побягва към Главната укрепена линия. Шипченци го преследват по петите, като последователно завземат позициите на 58-а, 59-а и 60-а турски батареи и се насочват към Айвазбаба и Аджийолу. Вляво от тях войниците от 10 Родопски полк в ожесточена ръкопашна схватка изхвърлят турците от окопите им и под смъртоносния огън на противниковата артилерия ги преследват към Главната позиция. Не по лошо се справят и 32 Загорски, 29 Ямболски, 57 и 58 пехотни полкове. В нощната атака, приключила към 8 сутринта, предната позиция на противника в Източния сектор е овладяна, неговите войници са избити, прогонени или пленени, голяма част от картечниците и артилерията му е унищожена или е в наши ръце. В останалите сектори резултатите са по-скромни – овладени са отделни противникови окопи. Обаче дневната атака, заради недостатъчна организация, се проваля. Турците са окуражени до известна степен, но генерал Иванов заповядва срещу фортовия пояс в Източния сектор да се предприеме нова атака още следващата нощ. Този път нощната атака започва с ураганен артилерийски обстрел, чието начало е към 23 часа на 12 март. Половин час по–късно пехотата се вдига в атака и артилерията пренася огъня напред. 10 Родопски полк, независимо от непрестанния пушечен и оръдеен огън на противника, нахлува във форта Аджийолу и в крайно свиреп ръкопашен бой съкрушава неприятеля. В 1.50 ч. след полунощ над форта е вдигнат сигнален фенер и българската артилерия преустановява стрелбата срещу него – Аджийолу е превзет! Това поставя началото на пробива на Главния укрепен пояс на Одринската крепост. Към съседните Айвазбаба и Кестенлик настъпват 23 Шипченски и 32 Загорски полк. Пред тях се движи българския артилерийски вал, подавяйки противника. В утринната дрезгавина отделения на 5 и 8 артилерийски полкове в галоп се втурват напред, за да заемат позиции по-близо до настъпващата пехота. Под плътния турски обстрел батареите разпрягат и откриват огън с право мерене срещу неприятелските линии. Шипченци, родопчани и част от 53 полк нахълтват в Айвазбаба и фортът пада. Под ударите на 56 и поделения на 54 полк пада и Таштабия. В устремна атака 32 Загорски полк овладява Куручешме и се озовава във фланг и тил на Илдъз, срещу когото упорито, вълна след вълна, се сражава 29 Ямболски полк. Турците слагат оръжие. Поделения от двата полка продължават съвместно атаката срещу фортовете Кавказ и Каик. Фортът Топйолу се предава. Към 7.30 Кестенлик е овладян от 43 пехотен полк и части от 10 Родопски.

След близо 8 часов щурм всички укрепления в Източния сектор са овладени. Комендантът на крепостта Шукри паша изпраща парламентьори едновременно при командирите на 23 Шипченски пехотен полк от 8 Тунджанска дивизия и на 2 бригада от 3-та Балканска дивизия. Но към 9 часа в образувания пробив е въведен Конният отряд, командван от полковник Гурко Мархолев. С взвод кавалеристи той пленява Шукри паша във форта Хадърлък, докато в същото време кандидат подофицер Михо Георгиев от с. Добрич, Елховско, побива българския трицвет върху джамията „Султан Селим”. Плененият паша предава сабята си на командващия 2-ра армия генерал-лейтенант Никола Иванов с думите: „Храбростта на българската армия е безподобна. На такава храброст никоя крепост не може да устои”. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantonov (talk • contribs) 13:41, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting dates

The infobox says the battle lasted 3 days: March 11–13. The article says it was a 4-month siege ending March 26. Please explain the discrepancy. —mjb (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox result field: whose victory?

Since the infobox was added, there has been an edit war, of sorts, going on in over what to put in the "Result" field.

Whose victory?

• Bulgarian (according to User:Gligan, User:Avidius, and someone at IP 84.238.147.243 in Bulgaria)
• Bulgarian-Serbian (according to User:Serbia123)
• Serbo-Bulgarian (according to someone at IP 68.149.131.183 in Canada)
• Balkan League (according to someone at IP 68.61.161.229 in Michigan, USA)
• Allied (according to someone at IP 213.137.121.7 and someone at IP 80.74.161.19, both in Serbia/Montenegro)

Was it "decisive"?

• Yes (according to User:Avidius and User:Gligan, and someone at IP 84.238.147.243 in Bulgaria)
• No (according to someone at IP 85.17.137.41, in the Netherlands)

By what criteria is "decisive" even measured, for purposes of the infobox? Is there a standard? I'm guessing not, so for now I've made be a simple "Bulgarian victory".

So far, the only thing resembling a constructive comment from anyone was an edit summary left by someone at IP 85.17.137.41 when removing the word "decisive". That user said: Decisive? The Turks took the city back a few months later.

Anyone wanting to change the result field needs to explain and justify their edit here, or I'll just revert it on the basis of no discussion taking place. Thanks for understanding. —mjb (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a decisive victory because the defeat of Shukri Pasha finally led, as direct consequence, to the Ottoman government continuing the peace talks in London and signing the Peace Treaty of London on 17.03.1913 .Which may I remind ended the First Balkan War.The town was recaptured by the turks in the Second Balkan War which is a complitely different thing.

Why the battle should be listed as a Bulgarian victory? The main attack on the fortress was made by the Bulgarian forces on the eastern sector the serbs who were fighting on the western sector had a suport role. If that is not good enough then I feel compelled to ask why is the battle of Bregalnitsa listed as a Serbian victory when an entire Montenegrin division took part in it?--Avidius (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your position. I hope this leads to further constructive dialogue on how to characterize the battle and its outcome. I'm looking forward to reading the responses from people who agree or disagree.

One thing about your statement above - if the battle precipitated the ending of the First Balkan War, then that's something that should be added to the article, with a reference cited. It seems like a rather important detail. —mjb (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Avidius fails to mention that most of the Serbian siege artillery (something the Bulgarians largely lacked) was allocated to support the decisive attack of the Bulgarian troops and we all know how the massed infantry charges without sufficient artillery support ended in Russo-Japanese War and First World War so it's impact was obviously significant. Also, at the beginning of the battle, Bulgarians lacked sufficient troops to even invest the city propperly (as they were simultaneously involved in other men-consuming operations at the time, notably the failed attack towards Constantinopole) and thirdly, Serbian infantry launched a very firece diversionary attack just before the main thrust by the Bulgarians and tied up significant Turkish forces, while suffering substantional losses (also a consequence of the aforementioned allocation of artillery to the Bulgarian sector). The battle was indeed decisive, but to label it exclusively a Bulgarian affair when the whole quarter of the troops involved were Serbian is not only nationalistic and propagandic but also immoral. Change the battlebox entry to "Bulgarian and Serbian decisive victory". It highlights the main role of the Bulgarians by mentioning them first, but also pays due respect to the Serbians. Also the Serbian strength shold read "2nd army (40.000 men), heavy artillery". While the 2nd army indeed consisted of just two divisions we should apply the same logic used on Bulgarian entry (largest unit name + number of men) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.161.222 (talk • contribs)

I'll give you my part of the answer until one of the more specialised users comes back. I spent a good 2 hours searching all publications in English on the subject. They tend to agree that Bulgarians captured the city while some of them say it happened with some Serbian help. That's the line. We agree with second-hand English sources and that's the game. I'm not going to start your game with the "immoral, propagandic (?) and nationalistic" stuff and I'd appreciate it if you don't repeat it. You'll get nowhere by reading only Serbian books sorry. Oh, and also, saying that the Bulgarians lacked siege artillery is just laughable. The whole over-exaggeration of the part Serbs took in the battle is just to justify the whole Macedonian question. So, please, no more POV, ok? --Laveol ^T 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians themselves requested the Serbian help SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING the siege artillery which was hurriedlly sent fresh from the French factories by sea via Salonika. Bulgarians did have some heavy artillery but it war not nearly enough - otherwise why the requeest? I am sick of arguing with all the Bulgarian nationalists that swarm wikipedia - your attempts to discredit whatever Serbians historians wrote just proves thet all three attributes (I'll repeat: immoral, propagandic and nationalistic) do apply to your wikipedia writings so I'm respectfully asking mjb to give his, hopefully neutral oppinnion. Hell, Bulgarians who wrote the article even left Serbia out of the "combatants" section of the battlebox and they talk about NPOV? And I don't see ANY serious neutral source quoted in this article to support your claim that this was just a Bulgarian victory.

As for "Serbian victory" in the Battle of Bregalnica i think IT SHOULD ALSO BE CHANGED TO SERBIAN AND MONTENEGRIN DECISIVE VICTORY or at least Allied decisive victory (as done in many articles about the battles of various coalitions against Napoleon for instance) regardless of the fact that Montenegrins comprised less than 1/10 of the allied strength and arrived on the battlefield only the second day (I tried to change it several times but it was always reversed most of the times by the Bulgarian users, perhaps the same ones that are now using the issue as an argument against the changes in this article's battlebox). Also, Bregalnica proved decisive because Bulgaria FAILED TO ACHIEVE IT'S WAR AIM OF TAKING THE SERBIAN-HELD TERRITORIES IN MACEDONIA THAT IT CLAIMED in this battle. The same goes for the Battle of Kilkis-Lahanas with the Greeks (although Bulgarians concentrated a far larger force against the Serbs desiring to crush the stronger foe first). Bulgarians started the war attacking but ended up barely holdind the Serbian and Greek counterattacks at which point Romania and the Ottoman Empire entered the war. In the given circumstances both battles WERE DECISIVE FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR as it was enough for the Serbians and Greeks just to hold their positions to win it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.161.203 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, Laveol, what Serbian books did you read to claim that they are used to justify the whole Macedonian question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.161.203 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things - please, stop shouting (using capital letters) - that's not very polite. And second (I'll repeat myself here), start using neutral sources. What you said is wrong and moreover reveals a rather nationalist side of yours. If you want to be takenn seriously by the other editors, stop acting like that. --Laveol ^T 13:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For anything this contentious, sources do need to be cited. However, we can say in the article that historical sources disagree on the level and importance of Serbian involvement. Examples can be given of what Serbian and Bulgarian sources (and others) say on the matter. Start naming some sources and providing quotes from them here on the talk page. I don't know what to say yet about the infobox; if there is precedent for saying "Allied" then maybe that's OK, but it should be footnoted and explained, in any case. —mjb (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is still going back and forth. Laveol - You said "I spent a good 2 hours searching all publications in English on the subject. They tend to agree that Bulgarians captured the city while some of them say it happened with some Serbian help." ... We need to get these sources cited. Can you list them here, differentiating between which ones do and don't acknowledge Serbian help? Thanks. —mjb (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was Serbian-Bulgarian victory !

Why did you erase Serbian part ? Without those big Schneider howitzers siege would not came out so easy.

So, i think Serbians did they part too. --92.37.30.81 (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I know Bulgarians hate Serbs...but as You can see, Serbs made 25 % of whole force, and all heavy cannons. So You people from Bulgaria cant say its just Bulgarian victory. Excuse me, but you are not objective. --92.37.30.81 (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What gives you the privilige to put Serbian in front of Bulgarian when you wrote it when we all know who carried out the main attack and what it achieved. Excuse me but you are not objective.Avidius (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What ? You see article...at Belligerents...there sign Serbia. Not just Bulgaria. Or you would like to erase that part too ? --92.37.2.178 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you put Serbian in front of Bulgarian can you justify that in the context of the battle?Avidius (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Exaggerated role of the Serbian Artillery

It is about time we make some clarification about this matter:

1. The serbian infantry arrived outside of Adrianople in late 1912 but their artillery arrived in the begining of 1913 just before the battle itself and had little time for preparation.

2. The Serbian artillery was on the Western sector of the besieged fortress but the main attack was in the Eastern sector where there was not even a single serbian artillery piece.

3. The role of the serbian artillery was restricted to merely preventing the Ottoman garrison from breaking the siege in the western sector.

1.) Thats is confirmation that without howitzers siege woudlnt succeed.

2.) Some of Serbian howitzers were borrowed to Bulgarian army, i got pictures.

3.) Plan was to concentrate artillery on western part, to make Turks belive there will be main offensive, so Bulgarians made surprise from East. --92.37.2.178 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

---

There will be some corrections...accordnig to Bulgarian autor, Alexandar Vachkov...50.000 Serbian. --92.37.2.178 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have his book on the Balkan war. According to him the Bulgarians were 153 700 out of which the bayonet strength was 126 000 and the Serbian numbers were 47 275 people the bayonet strength is not mentioned.Avidius (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

---

I would add that the Turks surrendered to the Bulgarian generals, not the Serbian. When Solun surrendered to the Greeks no one mentions the achievements of the Bulgarian Rila division which pushed the Turks from the north. --Gligan (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I have book about Stepa Stepanovic (Vojvoda Stepa Stepanović u ratovima Srbije 1876-1918) where there is a section who tells about actions of serbian Second army on Adrionople.

• There were 47 275 soldiers with 72 piece of artillery, 4 132 horses and 3046 cars. (page 247)
• Timok division (strenghten with 1 bulgarian regiment) had north-eastern part between rivers Maritsa and Tunja. (p.249)
• Danbue division had west sector betwen rivers od Maritza and Arda (5 km wide) (p.249).
• Stepa Stepanovic didn't like bulgarian suplies for serbian soldiers. He wanted better quality of bread for his soldiers. (p. 252)
• Serbian artilery was borowed from Danube division (west sector) to the east sector (main attack) (p. 253)
• On 9th february 1913. Stepa Stepanovic told serbian High command that he need more artillery. So High command sent him 38 pieces of artillery (some of those are 10 guns of caliber 120 mm, 10 new howitzers 120 and 150 mm transported from Solun harboour and France. Of all artillery pieces west sector has got only 2 fortres cannons and 1 howitzer battery. The rest was distributet on Bulgarian south section.(p.254)

As for Turkish surrender there are some informations also:

• on 26th march 1913. at 8:30 AM, 2 turkish officers came to serbian 20th regiment with message that Shukru pasha wanted to talk about surrender terms with general Stepanovic. Turks didn't get answer because of bad connections between serbian HQ. Than at 11:45 AM Shukru pasha sent his personal adjutant to tell Stepanovic that he wanted to talk with him about terms of surrnder. Than Stepanovic told him that he has no authority to talk about terms of surrender and told him to talk directly to general Ivanov. Than at 12:45 PM he surrendered to general Ivanov, but on his personal request cameback in his HQ at Hadurluk, where he has ben captured 1 hour later by Serbian troops. (p.260)

I think this helps a little.--VuXman ^talk 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbianboy (talk • contribs)

Creeping barrage

Removed the following:

"During this battle the Bulgarian army employed, for the first time in history, the creeping barrage as a defensive curtain for infantry following closely behind it."

These sources do not appear reliable, and the information conflicts with many histories of artillery. See Talk:Barrage (artillery).

Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole section in English is laughable and untrue or exagerated. The Bulgarians did not use creeping barrage or at least not the way you think of creeping barrage. They used barrage artilery to conceal troop movement and to create both smoke and holes for the advancing infantry. It is not WW1 type creeping barrage but it is close. Secondly The turkish general surrenders to the Bulgarian forces. I don't need to refer to a book, please enter the same page in bulgarian language and scroll down at the bottom there is a picture of it. The battle of Adrianople or Odrin is not solely a Bulgarian victory but the Serbian divisions arrive in late October 1912 and the Howitizers even later, the artillery fire that brought down the fortress the complete siege and the succesfull assault is accomplished by the Bulgarian army. If you would like I can translate the whole bulgarian page and even more. Here is a fun facts about this battle the first airplane bombing is done here, the Italians first throw grenades, the bulgarian aviation use special hand made bombs and calls them "Odrinki" (Odrin is the name of the city in Bulgarian), on the second day on of the pilots is killed and Rayna Kasabova becomes the first woman who flew in battle. I know that most of you can't read Bulgarian but you should, at that time Bulgaria was the most modern of all the other states , we have pictures, diaries and so on. So yes our history in that matter is more accurate than all the sources of the other countries. That is of you look into authentic biographies, no history book that you can find before maybe 2010 is a viable source as the Communist propaganda in them is huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.5.6 (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Anton Panayotov

I removed the sentence about Anton Panayotov and Montana. Anton Panayotov does not appear in the article about this battle in the Bulgarian Wikipedia bg:, nor did I find his name in any of the accounts of the battle in English or German that I read. His name has no hits in Google Books, and the first 50 hits of a general Google search pulls up only modern-day "Anton Panayotov"'s. If this was a valid entry, please provide a citation to a reliable publish source. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Untitled 2015 comment

I would recommend a source to be cited in this article and all those discussions. It is a French journalist / author Gustave Cirilli Journal du Siege d’Andrinople (Paris Librairie Chapelot 1913) This is a diary of an unbiased correspondent for the Paris newspaper Le Matin and the London Reuters news agency. Gustave Cirilli emphasises cruelness of alliance forces to civilians after their victory in Adrianople. As a take on message from a war, I beleive this side of the siege is more important than the owner of the victory itself. Cem Altınel (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)