Talk:Battle of Turtucaia

Incorrect account

This article describes the Flămânda Maneuver which took place 3-4 weeks (between October 1 and October 5) after Turtucaia surrendered (on September 6). Mentatus 12:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Strategic fortress?

Turtucaia had no strategic value, it was merely a strong point and a bridgehead on the Danube's right bank; its role was to protect and delay the advance of the Central Powers' forces towards Silistra. However, Turtucaia became a matter of prestige for the Romanian HQ and especially for the commander of the Romanian 3rd Army, General Aslan, who stubbornly insisted in keeping and reinforcing the garrison there: "Turtucaia, c'est notre Verdun; qui s'y frotte, s'y pique" (Constantin Kiriţescu, "Istoria războiului pentru întregirea României: 1916-1919"). Mentatus 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Some mistakes

I edited some mistakes in the text (such as the number of Romanian prisoners). Also, Gen. Aslan was not the one who insisted for Turtucaia. Quite the opposite, Aslan was the only one who actually asked for the evacuation of the fortress after the loss of the main line of forts. Aslan was named commander of the 3rd Army just 4 days before the start of the war, he had no resposability for the wrong deployement of the army. In my opinion, they just used him as a scapegoat after the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragos03 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I've reverted your change of POW's number - the 28,480 figure is mentioned in Kiriţescu's book - until you can provide another reference. You're right about the quality of the troops, most of them were mediocre at best - and especially the officers. Most of the historians blame Teodorescu for the defeat. According to Kiriţescu, the Austrian Major Frantz, liaison officer to Mackensen's army, concluded that the fortifications were well-built, but the 2 Romanian divisions (the 15th and the 17th) were deployed in a faulty manner, whereas the first lines were deployed in an advanced position, running immediately after the commencement of artillery fire, and the reserves were deployed too far back. Kiriţescu also describes Teodorescu as "[..]without initiative, shy, lacking the clear understading of the situation and unable to make quick decisions[..]". As for Aslan, maybe he cannot be made responsible for the deployment of the garrison (that was mainly General Teodorescu's job) - but it cannot be denied he could have withdrawn the troops towards Silistra instead of reinforcing an already lost battle. Aslan was Teodorescu's direct chief, so he is also responsible (albeit partially) for the disaster. Mentatus 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiritescu's figure is wrong. My source is the book on WW1 published by the Historical Service of the Army General Staff in 1935, which describes every battle of the war in incredible details, up to company-level actions. The forts were clearly not modern, since it only took a few hours for the Bulgarian artillery to destroy them. As for Aslan, he didn't control the battle, since the General Staff issued orders to Teodorescu directly over his head while the Russian general commanding the troops in Dobrogea refused to obey his orders. Aslan was the only one who asked for the garrison to be retreated, it was MCG who continued to send reinforcements to the city, hoping it would resist. The reserves were not "deployed too far back". The problem was that the incompetent Teodorescu didn't keep ANY reserves, he deployed all the reinforcements to various sectors as soon as he received them and had only 2 militia companies in reserve when the Bulgarians captured the Daidar fort, breaching the main line. But even Teodorescu is not as guilty as the commanders of the 1st and 3rd defensive sectors, who ordered their troops to retreat from the main line because they were panicked by the situation in the 2nd sector. If you want more details about the battle, you can read my article about it in this online magazine: http://transylvanian-numismatics.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=743

I don't how wrong his figure is, since it is roughly confirmed in "The Battle of Turtucaia (Tutrakan) (2-6 September 1916): Romania's Grief, Bulgaria's Glory" by Glenn E. Torrey: " Since only 3500 Romanians had been able to escape, 480 officers and more than 25,000 men entered into two years of harsh captivity. (84)", where (84) is a reference to "Boichev, "Tutrakantsi," 160; RRM, I, 552; Dabija, Armata romana, I, 245. No complete accounting of casualties exists. The Bulgarians admit 1500 killed in action at Turtucaia. Among the Romanians, the 79th Infantry Regiment alone suffered over 1500 dead; their total must have been twice that. The best estimate is that each side counted 8000-9000 men and officers dead, wounded, and missing. Cholpanov, "Atakata," 126; Dabija, Armata romana, I, 246-247. ". It's strange, since your article cites this document as a reference (?). However, I'll state both figures and add a link to your article.

PS Would you please take also the other sources in consideration whenever you make changes? Wikipedia is not a forum on a site controlled by you and Victor, you have to take the other editors' opinion into account. Naming them "mistakes" without discussing them first with the others could be interpreted as uncivil. Do not take it personally. Cheers, Mentatus 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

About any possible battle, there are many sources. However, in every case, there is just one primary source. About the WW1, battles, this source is "Romania in razboiul mondial 1916-1918", Serviciul istoric al marelui stat major, Bucuresti, 1934, a book based on official documents and internal statistics of the Romanian army. It features internal documents of the 17th Division, accurate statistics made by the divisions's staff (for example, I can tell you that the garrision had 23.100 soldiers and NCO, 440 officers, 4250 horses, 144 guns and 66 MGs at the start of the battle), as well as the original reports made by Teodorescu and the sector commanders. That's why I used the figure from it in my article and not one of the secondary sources like Kiritescu or Torrey. And the source for the 22,000 figure is not my article, but the book. Crediting the article as a source makes it look like I estimated the number of prisoners at 22,000. And btw, I guess you confuse me with another Dragos that manages a site and forum with Victor. Anyway, that's why there are so many mistakes in Wikipedia articles: because some people who read 1-2 books about one topic think they know better than others who spent months researching it, reading and comparing many sources, and choosing the most reliable ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dragos03 (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you and your important knowledge about the battle by adding other references and making those horrible mistakes. If I'd known you wrote articles in a prestigious leaflet like "Colecţionarul Român", I wouldn't have dared cite other sources. I am tremendously sorry. You should erase all the other unworthy references and leave only your own. Or better, translate your article and paste it in. I am sure that after spending months, years or your whole life researching this subject, you must know so much more than all us, the others who read only 1-2 books about one topic. Hoping that one day I'll be forgiven, Mentatus 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I realized you're not Dragos Pusca, that's why I deleted "and Victor" from my comment.

Well, insulting me and Colectionarul is just a rude gesture that will not change the poor quality of the text that you wrote, nor increase your knowledge on this subject or others. No problem, that's why Wikipedia is free to edit, to allow anybody to feel like a "real historian". I deleted all my previous edits and I'm out of here for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Dragos03 (talk • contribs)

Ad nauseam. Have a look here if you want to learn more about what Wikipedia is and what is not: Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. Regards, Mentatus 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TutrakanBattle.jpg

Image:TutrakanBattle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ce-ai mă?

User:Anonimu Nu vezi ca scrie mai jos, la rubrica "Casualties, ca Bulgarii au avut 9000 si ceva de pierderi? Aduna si tu, ca atata mate tre si tu sa stii! E bulversant sa vezi numere diferite in tebel si mai jos, in articol. Poti sa pricepi ca am avut intentii bune, sa previn confuziile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.112.28 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Turtucaia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624233518/http://www.obs.tutrakan.org:80/private/tutepopeia.html to http://www.obs.tutrakan.org/private/tutepopeia.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://transylvanian-numismatics.com/phpBB/download.php?id=343&sid=bd07d1929c0dda11891e8d3bbe42ecce
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823110710/http://ns.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3792 to http://ns.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3792
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vi-books.com/vis/vis9/vis9.23/VS-2,3-2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624233518/http://www.obs.tutrakan.org:80/private/tutepopeia.html to http://www.obs.tutrakan.org/private/tutepopeia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823110710/http://ns.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3792 to http://ns.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=3792

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)