Talk:Siege of Adrianople (1912–1913)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Aircraft

message: 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)
thread_title: Conflicting dates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  It was Serbian-Bulgarian victory ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exaggerated role of the Serbian Artillery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creeping barrage 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anton Panayotov

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 2015 comment