# Talk:Siege of Trsat

The only useful English source I can find on any battle here is [1] and that says "It was last mentioned as a small coastal settlement in 799 when its inhabitants killed the Friulian army leader, margrave Eric, in an ambush on the road near the church of St. Lawrence. The following year Tarsatika was burned down in a raid of revenge, and the surviving inhabitants moved to a more protected hill where they established a new settlement called Trsat."
That is no siege, not even a battle.

a good Croatian source http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/0712006/podlistak.asp gives two versions: one source (Ksaver Šandor Gjalski) says, attack by the citizens (followed by the Frankish assault on them and the subsequent defeat) and another (Vita Caroli Magni, Einhard), an ambush. Both may be propaganda :) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As for " Eric himself was among the killed, and his death and defeat proved to be a great blow for the Carolingian Empire" allegedly from Einhard's Charlemagne, what Einhard actually wrote [2] was "Only two of the chief men of the Franks fell in this war - Eric, Duke of Friuli,   who was killed in Tarsatch [799], a town on the coast of Liburnia by the treachery of the   inhabitants; and Gerold,Governor of Bavaria, who met his death in Pannonia, slain [799],   with two men that were accompanying him, by an unknown hand while he was marshaling his   forces for battle against the Huns, and riding up and down the line encouraging his men.   This war was otherwise almost a bloodless one so far as the Franks were concerned, and   ended most satisfactorily, although by reason of its magnitude it was long protracted."
So why does the article claim Eric's 'death and defeat' was a great blow? Doug Weller (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

the same web site says Eric's death was shocking to the Franks. Paulinus, patriarch of Aquileia (776.-802.) even cursed the land in which he died, confirming the part in the article. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that is very helpful.  I can imagine that his death was shocking to the Franks. 'Great blow' in English idiom can imply something that damaged the Carolingian empire, maybe the article should say shocking and of course we have the quote from Paulinus?
What we still don't seem to have is a siege. The article says "Upon arriving at the foot of the settlement, Eric begun besieging and charging the city, but was repelled" but sources mention 'ambush' and 'treachery' (which could be an ambush).
We have another problem, the town was called Tarsatica at the time. We can't call the article Battle of Tarsatica either, because (besides the fact there may have been other battles) it hardly seems a battle and the important battle was the one in wich the town was destroyed.
Add to this the fact that the article on Trsat is less than one and a half lines long, pathetic compared to the Croatian wikipedia article, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be merged into the Trsat article and that should be then worked on to improve it so it includes its history from pre-Roman times onwards.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
yeah, merger would be good--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In the light of the recent GA nomination... By all means has GA potential but:

The intro is too long. Some of it might be moved into article proper. Done
Copyediting issues. Done
Vague assertions ("It has been suggested", "Some authors claim", etc.). Done
Referencing is generally OK but should be converted to shortened footnotes. Done
I'm willing to try my hand at fixing most (all, hopefully?) of the above, it's only that I can't promise a particular time frame and - since the nomination is pending - one has to move quickly... GregorB (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! Two editors=better article. Kebeta (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Very well... Done my bit for today, will deal with the content tomorrow, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking good. The intro will be slightly difficult to deal with, since the article body would need to be changed too. Will try on Saturday at the earliest. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have created new section "Uncertainty", and moved part of the intro into it. I am not sure if this is better or not. The best way is to integrate that part into the body, but I am not quite sure how to do it properly. Kebeta (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not easy, since the body has to present all viewpoints, and the intro has to summarize them - it has been vice versa. Yours is a step in the right direction - still, the aftermath section should be last. GregorB (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah,...BTW should we delete Strength & Casualties and losses from the Infobox, or leave it Unknown? Kebeta (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it. The sources clearly support the description of Frankish losses as "heavy", even if actual figures are not known. Croatian losses were probably light, but since the sources are silent on that, the best solution is to leave them as "unknown". GregorB (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but the unknown values in the infobox should be cited or not? Kebeta (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's not necessary - unless, perhaps, there is a source that states exactly that. GregorB (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, copyediting issues are solved. When I made a requests on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests on 20 September, I wasn't expecting any reaction so soon. Diannaa has done a great job. Kebeta (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! I've noticed her edits, but only now I see the extent. Copyediting is certainly not a concern any more. I will be returning to the article, but I'd like to familiarize myself with the content and the sources first. GregorB (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about that paper by Nenad Labus in the "Further reading" section? It already appears in the references - same thing, but listed with different titles (English and Croatian). Would it be OK to delete it from the Further reading then? GregorB (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - I have delete it. Kebeta (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've used the supplied English title ("Who was duke Eric?") in the trans_title parameter, although it's not a literal translation.
Did not get around to it this weekend, but the article is in good shape. GregorB (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Neither did I. I have been away. BTW, Congratulations on A1. Kebeta (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, thanks, but the accolades should go to Tomobe, he was the principal author, while I was only in charge of tinkering - same as here, I might add... :-) GregorB (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, nevertheless...:-) Kebeta (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am done with the content of the article. There is one reference left to be converted into shortened footnote. But, I just can't find it anymore. Although I have a backup citation for that sentence, so this one can be removed if asked by somebody. Also, there are six notes now in the article. If you could implement properly some of them into the article - that would be great. Kebeta (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. One possible flaw is that the "Uncertainty" section isn't summarized in the intro. A sentence or two should do: most historians agree, but sources are scarce and there are alternative views. Might do it myself if you don't beat me to the punch... :-) GregorB (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, please add a necessary sentence into lead. After that, we just have to wait. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Trsat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JonCatalán(Talk) 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments: Here is some initial commentary pertaining to the GA review of Siege of Trsat.

Lead

Note 1 is confusing, "The city of Tarsatica, where the siege happened, was probably located at the present Old Town in Rijeka, not at Trsat itself, which is found on on a hill overlooking Rijeka on the other side of the Rječina River. (Croatian Academy of America. Journal of Croatian studies (1986), Vol. 27–30)" → According to the article, Trsat was actually founded a year after the siege.  Perhaps this should be clarified here, as well.
Historians have a disagreement whether the battle happened at present-day: 1. Center of Rijeka (Tarsatica was located in today's center of Rijeka) or Trsat (castle and district of Rijeka - on a hill overlooking Rijeka). By the sources I have found, it was probably Center of Rijeka, but I didn't want to exclude other possibility from the article. Is that o.k.?
I think the lead can use some work, but I won't hold it against the article for the purpose of this review.
Ok.
Background

Does the first paragraph of the background follow criteria 3b?  I feel as if a multi-hundred year history of the region is a bit undue for an article dealing with a specific siege that occurred a few decades shy of the first millennium.  If Wikipedia needs a general history of Dalmatia between the fall of Rome and the siege of Trsat, then this should be done on a separate article.  Otherwise, this article strikes me as somewhat incomplete (the general history leaves a lot of holes, and it's hard to find relevance in the first paragraph within the context of the article's topic).
It a relatively new paragraph which I added following the peer review. If you think that this paragraph is renundant, we could delete it?
The first paragraph of the siege section should be in the background, and the siege section expanded with information dealing with the battle itself.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of primary materials the siege section can not be expanden further - there are none other informations dealing with the battle itself. If we move the first paragraph of the siege section in the background, the siege section would have only one para - it would be to small. What do you think?
There should be an explanation of events directly leading up to the battle, rather than a historical overview of that period of time.
See two previously answers above.
Siege

This section is a bit bare, and does a poor job giving an order of battle.  As such, events concerning the ambush can be seen as random.  There is no information concerning the defenses of Trsat, and where the ambush was set up and at what time, et cetera.  Is there information to fill these holes?
We can only speculate, there is no other information to fill these holes.
Uncertainty

In the preceding section you make it seem as if Eric died in the ambush, but this section suggests he was assassinated.  This should be clarified in the preceding section, or eliminated and instead elucidated only in this section.  Otherwise, this leaves room for substantial confusion.
Eric's assassination by Avars and Slavs is a theory by a Croatian historian Nenad Labus. It is an isolated theory, as most of the historians point that Eric died in the ambush by Croats, instantly after the battle. But I didn't want to exclude other possibility from the article.
Aftermath

"Tarsatica's surviving inhabitants moved to a more protected hill, where they established a new settlement called Trsat." → What happened to the original Trsat (the one discussed in this article)?
It was destroyed by the Franks. I added that info into the article.
What impact did this battle have on Charlemagne's intentions of occupying this part of Europe?  i.e. what great strategic importance does this siege have?  Or, if not great, what importance does this event have, at all?
Charlemagne wanted to extend his dominion by conquering Dalmatian Croatia. The strategic importance was for the Franks to be recognized by the Byzantines as an equal Empire, since Dalmatian Croatia was loosely subject to the rule of the Byzantine Empire.
I hope these comments help.  I will close the review in three days, or at 4PM (GMT-8) 6 October, pending edits.  JonCatalán(Talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Catalan, and thank you for your rewiev. I found the above well meaning comments very helpful. Unfortunately, due to a lack of primary materials this article can't fill all the holes that are missing. All the informations from the secondary sources are included in the article. Thanks again, Kebeta (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
While I will promote it to GA, it would prob. be a good idea to get someone to copyedit the text a bit. JonCatalán(Talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Catalan for all your help and your constructive comments. I will ask Diannaa to copyedit, as she was already involved in this article. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Background section - should we trim it down a bit?
Copyediting - given the latest comment by JonCatalán, another round of copyediting is certainly a good idea, but it makes the deadline a rather tough one. An extra day or two would be really useful, in order to allow the copyeditors to do their job once content is dealt with per GAR points. GregorB (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, doesn't matter - the article has just been passed. Another round of copyediting is pending per Kebeta's comment. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)