Talk:Armeno-Georgian War

message: Is this the same war that is discussed on article linked here? 
This article is not concordant with any sources I have. All the sources I have mentions that the war happened after the Turkish invasion of Gyumri(Alxendripole), and from it Javakh was taken away from Armenia. Akhalkalak, from the sources I have was part of Armenia, and is inculsive with European maps of historic Armenia, while the article quote the place as a historic province of Georgia. Is there any non-Georgian map, or non-Georgian, non-Turkish/Azeris map that show this? In fact, the Alxendripole investigation was done in the proximities of the region, where a cite of massacre happened, and as a result Armenia lost it, when the Georgians allied with the Turks to end the war. Letter Javakh was annexed to Georgia, and Karabakh to Azerbaijan as part of this policy of destroying Armenia from the Turkish part comploting with the Soviet with false promesses of joining the federation. Those are pretty much accepted versions of events, while here in this article the position is quite different. Fadix 20:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This is obviousoy taken out of context and cannot stay in the stub text. Furthermore, the quote is from an Armenian source and is POV. There are plenty of Georgian authors who would claim just opposite and describe the war as Armenia's attempt to oust the Muslim Georgian population from the region. Let's keep the text as neutral as possible. --KoberTalk 07:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine thanks. --Vonones 07:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arnavoudian quote 

message: I have beefed up the article using material from Christopher Walker and Andrew Andersen. I have also added "Armenian Phyrric victory" to the result (WP:BOLD) because land that was previously under Georgian administration became joint administration. Also if you look at one of Andersens maps, they show that part of the territory that was previously Georgian administration was put under complete Armenian administration. That's this map, see Sanain and everything south of there. Pocopocopocopoco 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a considerable success, Armenians suffered a defeat on Dec. 14. The mutual administration was the result of the British-brokered truce, not the war. Georgia and Armenia had to fight the nascent Islamic state in SW Caucasus. Therefore, they chose to make peace and agreed to the British-proposed compromise.--KoberTalk 05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good thing to add in the article that the nascent islamic state was a motivation to end hostilities. If you have a source of course. Pocopocopocopoco 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: We need a source for these recent additions as I can't find it in the website link in that section. Also, although I used Andersen myself to expand this article I have some concerns about the reliability of this source. Please see the discussion at Talk:Qazakh and the discussion at Talk:Qazakh/archive if what Mikka says is true then we might have to reconsider using Andersen throughout wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version inaccurately stated that Armenians evacuated Sanahin on December 14. Georgian counteroffensive did not actually reach that village and it remained under Armenian control at the moment of Dec 31 ceasefire. The December 14 battle took place at Shulaveri and the hostilities ended at Sadakhlo. I have not actually read Andersen's article. My sources are David Marshall Lang, Christopher Walker, and Firuz Kazemzadeh. I'll try to expand the article if I have enough time and energy. --KoberTalk 16:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got Walker and I haven't found anything about Sadakhlo and Shulaveri. It must be in the other sources you mentioned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rechecked it and you appear to be right. Walker does not provide these details, but two other authors do. Do you have any specific reason to doubt the historicity of these battles?  --KoberTalk 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said I doubted it, it just needs to be sourced as it is inconsistent with what Andersen has on his site. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DM Lang, History of Modern Georgia, Chapter X, p. 217. Kazemzadeh goes into further details but I don't have his book at hand right now. We can ask our Azerbaijani colleagues to fill the gap as I remember they once cited him somewhere.--KoberTalk 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadakhlo, Shulaveri and Andersen 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Georgian armored trains played alongside with the artillery units an interesting role by preventing further Armenian surprise attacks in that region.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.56.25 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armored Trains 

message: What statements in the background section are sourced from Walker book? Alæxis¿question? 10:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  background section sources 

message: I noticed some disagreement regarding the inclusion of a large amount of text, with a couple inclusions and deletions. I've taken the liberty of copy-editing and sourcing statements more clearly. I believe some of the text may be rather closely linked to the Andersen & Partskhaladze source so do feel free to edit the paraphrasing or order if you see benefit in doing so. In terms of source quality I was somewhat concerned but after doing some digging I've discovered that Andrew Andersen is an academic at the Centre for Military & Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, so in my view the source is acceptable in principal but some editing is still needed to ensure there is no copyvio.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *First crack at background sections complete. Footnotes and biblio detail inserted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for copyediting! Alæxis¿question? 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

text: *A number of images are now inserted. If anyone knows of a repository of further images do please advise. I've also set all images to thumb, with the exception of two, which are set to 250. I've separately deleted a couple a couple images because the sourcing is incomplete and copy-right status is not at all verifiable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

text: *Anyone have a source for the change of town name from Uzunlar to Odzun sometime around 1967.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edit 

message: Since another edit was made without any discussion involved, this time on the strenght and casualty figures, it would be better to actualy use the information provided in the sources.
There is a reason why certain edits are made.
There are two main sources that give clear numbers and estimates on the strenght of the opposing forces:
Hovannisian claims that the regular Armenian force consisted of a total of 28 companies of infantry and four squadrons of cavalry, equipped with a total of 26  machine guns and seven mountain cannons. They were additionaly supported and reinforced thousands of local Armenian residents of Lori referred to him as partisans and insurgents. He further claims that the initial Armenian army forces were fewer in men, ammunition and supplies contradicting the Andersen stating the opposite as of theatre of action - thus leaving the impression the Armenians beat back a force superior in numbers, which is evidently not the case - far from it and that is mainly due to the lack of description and detail in his brief overview of events on that conflict. It's a fact acknowledged by both sources that the Georgians only managed to mobilise a force considerable enough ( around 3,500 men ) for a general offensive not earlier than at Shulaveri. Prior to that Mazniashvili had far less men to attack the Armenians defending Shulaveri which wasn't succesfull and all earlier major counterattacks from the Georgian side were carried out with no more than a few hundred or at very best a thousand men at a time. The claim that the Georgians were superior in numbers factualy doesn't add up and is self-contradicting, especialy with the Armenian army being supported by the local Armenian residents. Hovannian also  fails or avoids to deliver actual figures on the casualties of the Armenians throughout his work, stating only they were heavy at Sadakhlu and absolutly no information on all the back and forth between the two armies - with the only exception of 200 Armenian losses during Mazniev's final assault and capture of Shulaveri and surrounding villages. Ultimately he states the Armenians statisticaly had suffered fewer casualties. That may be true to some extent, especialy regarding prisoners, but the total number of a "thousand" POW is highly overbloated given the forces involved and also contradicts his earlier figures taken from single engagements that amount to a total of 790 KIA, WIA and POW on the Georgian side. Again something that doesn't add up and he refs solely one other Armenian source on that = one sided. Same with the claim that supposedly hundreds of POWs taken by the Georgian side were merely people arrested after the conflict - stating also Yerevan's POV on that which is not a credible basis for providing evidence. Same with a Tiflis' based POV and opposition POV and POVs in general. Either provide the casualty figures claimed by BOTH sides and not just limited to one side or stop continuesly deleting information from a more detailed source. Andersen does state that the Georgians during the Armenian first offensive lost hundreds of POW and he also refs Hovannisian on the 500 losses at Airum. However the operations around Ekhatarinenfeld for instance aren't mentioned at all, whereas Andersen goes more in depth and states the Georgians lost 100 while the Armenians around 200 before it even came to the Shulaveri operation. The Armenians were alos kicked out of several other villages and one of their army groups dispersed by Georgian cavalry when trying to regroup., not counting unsuccesful counterattacks mentioned by both authors. The most notable one with an actual figure in the Akhalkalaki theatre where the Armenians supposedly lost 100 men KIA in a single attack. With not even Andersen providing all the casualty figures and both sources have a number of dubious information and POV, it's plausible to keep the casualties "unknown" but at least use the numbers on troops provided and those of Andersen are actual numbers. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've undone your edit with the casualty figure. This is not necessarily because I believe them to be incorrect, or final, but because they are not cited. I believe the cited figures should remain for the moment and the best end result is to fully disclose the spectrum of figures.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I've reverted your edit but cited the figures this time. Those figures are cited in the article itself. I'm not holding back on using Hovannisian as source even though his work has some inconsistencies and partialy dubious POV or at least up to debate and better, more neutral research. Some of the figures from the two different major sources also match with one another. Only one provides more detailed information than the other and actual numbers on the troops part. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No issue with you reverting my edit as I notice that it now contains citations, which was the primary concern all along. I haven't read into the sources sufficiently to provide a reasonably informed position one way or the other but what is there presently seem like a reasonable and comprehensive starting point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The 3,500 figure is given just for one battle, not the entire amount of Georgian troops deployed. The 1,000 Georgians isn't described as being "far less" than the Armenians. Page 13 doesn't mention 790 KIA, WIA and POW or 500. It seems you're distorting sources to suit your own narrative again. You're dead set that Hovannisian must be unreliable and biased because he's an Armenian, although he's an anti-nationalist. The fact he met the critera for a Wikipedia article makes him by far the most notable. Andersen had his article deleted because he wasn't notable, and I cannot even find any information on Partsakhaladze. --Oatitonimly (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop numbers and casualty figures 

message: Strenght of the Armenian army
:In Lori:Three infantry regiments(28 infantry companies) & four cavalry squadronsSupport from the local Armenian population and partisansIn Georgia proper:12 infantry companies at Sadakhlo
Strenght of the Georgian army
:In Lori:Fewer, two armoured trainsIn Georgia proper:Two infantry regiments1,000 troops and 1 armoured train at Sadakhlo3,500 troops at Shulaveri
Commentary: the figures are mentioned on the respective pages.
Armenian casaulties
:HeavyLess than 100 taken prisoner(Hovannisian)
Georgian casaulties
:HeavyAbout 1,000 taken prisoner(Hovannisian)
Commentary: besides concrete numbers for the Georgians, Hovannisian also mentions heavy losses on the Armenian side, pp.113–119.
Despite incomplete data on Armenian losses and the claim they suffered fewer casaulties in total, particularily the contrast of POWs taken, it is implied that both sides sustained heavy casaulties. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about mentioning heavy casualties in the infobox for both sides. If all we have is the two excerpts you quoted, the most that can be said is that Armenian casualties numbered at least two hundred. In the first quote, the words "heavy losses" are used to describe the outcome of one raid. What might be considered as heavy losses in that context does not automatically mean that the total losses can be described as such. Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  From Hovannisian's side, yes. He mentions only few details on the combat, almost no concrete figures for the Armenian side.  provided me some Georgian sources that go more in debth on the military aspects of the conflict, that I need to sort out. They indicate that casaulties were in fact heavy on both sides and provide conrete numbers. I can already put s fears of an unbalanced narrative to rest, because most of those sources are very objective and balanced, netural in their description of the event. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, let's add those. Alaexis¿question? 11:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that just saying "heavy" is very vague and subjective. I think only real figures should be included. And also, going by the Mamatsashvili source, the only source Kober gave you I can read because it's not written in Georgian, it's definitely not objective or balanced: "They had been conditioned by the colonial policy of the Russian Empire and it was not the result of the natural development of these parts of the country." I will try translating the others later. --Steverci (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, Kober provided me several Georgian sources and also two international ones that I plan to sort out, it's a lot of material and right now I have other matters to attend as well. I didn't say all but most of them were fairly objective. I am not sure what you expect. Just as some Armenian sources are very dramatic and subjective in their language, statements and conclusions regarding this conflict, naturaly contradicting positions from some of the Georgian sources are to be expected too. Hovannisian's analysis isn't exactly the most objective source either, but we still use him as the primary one regarding military events and I am Okay with that. However it is lacking quite a bit of depth. My primary focus on this topic is the subject of warfare. If there are further details from the Georgian side, those should be included as well. There is a reason I take my time for this, so not to include subjective nonsense and journalist hit pieces ... and besides, since we are getting to some compromises I also don't see a reason to rush anything. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Inclusion of the entire section "Russian revolution"
:After the February Revolution, the Russian Provisional Government installed the Special Transcaucasian Committee to govern the area. However, following the October Revolution, the Special Transcaucasian Committee was replaced on 11 November 1917 by the Transcaucasian Commissariat centered in Tbilisi. The Commissariat concluded the Armistice of Erzincan with the Ottoman Empire on 5 December 1917, ending localized armed conflict with the Ottoman Empire. The Commissariat actively sought to suppress Bolshevik influence while concurrently pursuing a path towards Transcaucasian independence from Bolshevik Russia. This included establishing a legislative body, the Transcaucasian Sejm, to which the Commissariat surrendered its authority on 23 January 1918, following the dispersal of the Russian Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks. The secessionist and anti-Bolshevik agenda eventfully brought Transcaucasian into conflict with the central government. On 3 March, the Russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk marking Russia's exit from World War I. In the treaty, Russia agreed to return territory gained during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), giving little care to the fact that this territory was under the effective control of Armenian and Georgian forces. The Trebizond Peace Conference, between the Ottoman Empire and the Sejm, began on 4 March and continued until April. The Ottomans offered to surrender all the Empire's ambitions in the Caucasus in return for recognition of the re-acquisition of the east Anatolian provinces awarded at Brest-Litovsk.
:By this point, leading Georgian politicians viewed an alliance with Germany as the only way to prevent Georgia from being occupied by the Ottoman Empire. Consequently, the Georgian National Council declared the independence of the Democratic Republic of Georgia on 24 May and two days later signed the Treaty of Poti with Germany, placing itself under German protection. The following day, the Muslim National Council announced the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. Having been largely abandoned by its allies, the Armenian National Council declared its independence on May 28. On 4 June, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Batum with each of the three Transcaucasus states, bringing the conflict with the Ottoman Empire to an end. The treaty awarded the southern half of the ethnically-Armenia Lori Province and Akhalkalaki district to the Ottomans but did not firmly delineate the borders between the new Transcaucasus states. In response, and to deny the Ottomans a direct route to Tbilisi, Georgian units supported by German officers took possession of northern Lori and established outposts along the Dzoraget River.
Commentary: important background information sourced with various third party academic material.
Inclusion of the entire section "Initial clashes"
:In early October 1918, the Ottomans pulled back from southern Lori, which eliminated the territorial buffer between Armenia and Georgia. The Armenian military quickly filled the void by taking control of much of southern Lori on 18 October and in the absence of any resistance probed further north. The first incident between Armenia and Georgia occurred the same day when an Armenian army detachment seized the railway station in the village of Kober near Tumanyan, refusing a subsequent demand from the Germans that they withdraw. Another village Korinj was also seized. The Armenians withdrew when Georgia sent a detachment to confront them, but later returned to Korinj and also occupied Tsater. Armenia's ambassador to Tbilisi, Arshak Djamalian insisted that Armenian claims over Lori were indisputable, but his government wished and amicable solution "in the name of the century's-long brotherly relations of the two peoples".. The Georgian government agreed with a peaceful settlement in principal. However Armenian troops had to leave recently occupied villages and further operations within the Tiflis Governorate would be considered an act of war. The commander of the German military expedition reminded Djamalian that Germany was obliged to defend its protectorate. On October 24 the Georgian government declared martial law in Lori and deployed general Tsulukidze, ordering him to deal with armed formations behind Georgian lines. He was however instructed to avoid direct confrontation with Armenian troops that were occupying Korinj and Tsater. On October 26 the invading Armenian forces were ordered to return and left the two villages amidst the deployment of a Georgian contingent in the area.
Commentary: filling in important details of military activities and diplomacy before the imminent outbreak of war, according to Hovannisian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talk • contribs) 
: I agree that this is relevant background information. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: I've finally come around to start looking through the sources ( partialy updated as of 2022 ) provided to me by Kober, in order to add more information and details from academic Georgian and other sources. Particularily and in the first place on military events, which I am interested in most. I will eventually, probably, look into the other sections as well, because some of them are plagued by the same issue. Lacking other or non-one-sided assortment of sources.
For now though, it's all about the armies and battles. I've added a sub section and changed some headers, because the detail, complexity and scale, turns out to be much greater than I initially thought, about such a largely obscure and forgotten event. I'm dealing with over a thousand pages and more. So it will take some time. 
Most of the sources I am currently using are unfortunately only in Georgian, but they can be easily viewed and simply translated. 
https://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/bitstream/1234/389841/1/Somkhet_Saqartvelos_Omi_Nawili-I.pdf 
https://openscience.ge/bitstream/1/946/1/MA%20Thesis.%20Pichikyan%20%20nac.pdf 
https://digitallibrary.tsu.ge/book/2019/wignebi/sakartvelos-damoukidebeli-respublikis-entsiklopedia.pdf 
I'll also look into Eric Lee's "The Experiment
Georgia's Forgotten Revolution 1918-1921" that partialy covers the war. 
TheMightyGeneral (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of details provided by Chachkhiani, Lee and others. 

message: Both Georgians and Armenians consider this war as their own victory, but a neutral point of view is needed in English Wikipedia.Since this article is constantly being edited, I ask you to protect it. 5.152.106.148 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kober 5.152.106.148 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't think a protection is warranted at the moment. It would help if you could find sources - ideally not associated with the sides of the conflict - that discuss the outcome and describe it as inconclusive. Alaexis¿question? 21:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I take the same view as Alaexis. The use of any protections for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint isn't appropriate. The talk page exists to facilitate constructive resolution.-Labattblueboy (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected edit request 

message: Someone please explain why it is labeled as "both sides claim victory." Peachy1621 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't the Armenians gain the province of Lori? Armenian victory?