Talk:Battle of Navarino

message: The combatant list was including countries like "Kingdom of Italy" and "Belgium" that did not exist as states at the time of battle. I removed all countries added by that edit, leaving only the states that have participating ships listed by name. Discuss on talk page if unhappy with change... Willhsmit 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries listed as combatants

message: So lets discuss it here. Kekrops, please don't decide just by yourself to redirect developed articles. At least start some discussion. At least merge them, instead of deleting completely. NPOVize the article if it is POV. I hope you haven't been always deleting relevant sourced infos. Anyways, I am not against a proper merger DenizTC 12:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Developed article? With all due respect, it's nothing of the sort. Take a look at the article history; it's a clear case of yet another POV WP:FORK by your compatriot User:Laertes d. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know the wikihistory (forks, merges, etc) but seeing the dates alone, the two have only one thing in common, they both took place in Navarino. The events described in the massacres article are dated to 1821, the battle took place in 1827. Lacking knowledge on the subject, I cannot comment on the events described in the massacres article, but those are tottaly unrelated to the naval battle of 1827. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Origin of "navarino": From ancient Gr. "naus" (ναυς) (ship), from which all the related latin-european words (navy etc), Liddell & Scott dictionary.
 
I do think that the article should be renamed "Siege of Navarino" and the massacre of some Turkish inhabitants took place following the city's capture by Greek forces. This event really had no impact on anything, and only a few families were killed, it is not really worth an article. It is not like the Chios Massacre, which had tens of thousands of victims and sent reverberations throughout Europe, or the Destruction of Psara which again killed tens of thousands and is sparked outrage and remembrance throughout Greece. If we have an article for this, we need separate articles for a million tiny things such as Ibrahim's razing of Kalamata, which certainly killed many times the victims at Navarino. I really do not think that the killings of a few families warrant an entire article separate from the siege of Navarino-- obviously what was important about the event was the capture of the city, which would remain in Greek hands until today, not the deaths of a relatively small number of civilians, however detestable their killings were.
AlexiusComnenus 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I wrote this article and strongly object to including this irrelevant material. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective resource and not a forum for nationalist propaganda. The article is about the Battle of Navarino 1827. An alleged massacre at Navarino in 1821 has no place in it. The Navsrino massacre should remain as a separate article. Andrea 27/9/07  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.44.73 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: The totals for ships and cannon in the table at the bottom do not add up. There are five ships to many on the Allied side in the smallest category: the two French ships and apparently all three English ships with 10 cannon each. Classical geographer (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship totals

message: The largest ships to participate in the battle were probably "ships of the line" in contemporary terms. A ship of the ine was designed to fire massive broadsides perpendicular to the direction that the ship was moving.
The term "battleship" generally refers to much larger, steel-hulled, steam-powered ships with large, turreted guns -- a type that didn't exist until the later decades of the nineteenth century. The "Maine" that sank at Havana was a battleship. The famous Dreadnought was a battleship. So was the Missouri. They could move their guns in any direction, and thus, were no longer ships of the line.  Scott Adler (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Technically, you are right: the full name of the pre-steam ships was "line-of-battle ships". But during the Napoleonic Wars, the press regularly abbreviated the name to simply "battleships" and this term entered common use. It is therefore appropriate to use the term for Navarino: it is used frequently in the documents of the time. EraNavigator (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed, the term "battleship" came into use in 1794, so it is not anachronistic to use it for Navarino, as it was the common term by then. EraNavigator (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Scott on this one.  I consistently see "ships-of-the-line" as the standard term for vessels in the period.  To say "battleship" is to adopt layman's terms.  Also, ships-of-the-line are ships of 64-or-more guns, and the article classifies some of  these as double-decked frigates.  While they may have been double-decked, it does not make them frigates as they mounted more than 64 guns.  To illustrate, the Leopard was a two-decked frigate of 50 guns.  No one can call the 64-gun Africa a simple double-decked frigate: she was a ship-of-the-line as follows classification conventions in accordance with rating. Auror (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronistic ship classes

message: How wise is it to base the majority of the article upon the works of James?  Roosevelt did a thorough job of discrediting his 1812 production, and I cringe to think of the potential inaccuracies James included in his writing on Navarino. Auror (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not based on James, but on original documents reproduced in James. EraNavigator (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've obtained a copy of the most recent study of the battle, C.M. Woodhouse The Battle of Navarino (1965). Using this, I've added more detail on the battle itself and on the Allied navies. EraNavigator (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: James As the Primary Source

message: (1) I see nothing wrong with using popular terms, providing they were in use at the time. The point is that battleship is much more intelligible to the general reader, than the cumbersome and obsolete ship-of-the-line. But in the text I have added ("ships-of-the-line") after "battleships" to clarify. (2) You argue that any boat with 64 or more guns should be classified as a battleship. On this basis, at least 3 more Turkish boats were battleships. But they are defined in Codrington's own despatches as frigates and I don't think we should second-guess that. Standards varied with every country and often the dividing line between classes was blurred. The point is that its fighting capability was assessed as frigate-class, not just because of its no of guns but also size, height, sails etc. It seems that by 1827, only 74+ guns were seen as battleships. EraNavigator (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warship classification 

message: As a regular reader and very occasional editor, I just wanted to say that of the hundreds of "Battle of" pages I've read on Wikipedia over the years, this is probably the best written. Excellent balance of fact, narrative and analysis.
::As the main author, I thank you for the accolade. Would you support the article for upgrading to A-grade? PS: If you are interested in battles, see also Battle of Strasbourg, also written by me, which is rated A. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: The navies, especially the British one, had ignored the new technologies that were to transform them by the 1850s: steam propulsion, ironclad hulls, rifled guns and explosive shells. All these had been invented by 1827, but their development for naval warfare, let alone introduction, met dogged resistance from senior naval echelons.
Actually, the various navies were fully aware of some of these technologies and certainly did not attempt to suppress them.  They were also aware that in 1827 none of the technologies were developed enough for battle.  Steam propulsion would be useless for warships until screw propellors became practical after 1840.  The first iron ship would not be built until 1829, while ironclad warships would not be invented until the Crimean War.  Rifled artillery would not be developed until the 1840s, and not used in battle until late in the American Civil War.  Naval guns that could fire explosive shells would not become practical until after 1840, and not used in battle until the Crimean War.  Clearly, the admirals were correct to use traditional technology [in] 1827.  See Ironclad warship. Vgy7ujm (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Technology 

message: This statement about in Ottoman Empire ethnic Turks considered "master nation" seems anachronistic. Ottoman Empire was a multinational empire and even though its official language was Turkish and core of the army consisted of Turks, there was no concept similar to master nation at that time. Ottoman state didn't oficially recognized ethnic divisions but only religious divisions. Each church or religious institution considered a "millet". That religious "millet"s were the closest things to nation Ottoman state recognized. Besides that Ottomans tried balancing different ethnicities with each other pragmatically. For example, in household troops and central buerocracy they preferred european converts, while in provincial buerocracy and troops they preferred Turks. Being a muslim was an advantage in Ottoman Empire, being a Turk wasn't, apart from cultural advantage of speaking official language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.188.115 (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Turks Master Nation?? 

message: Sorry, but I fail to see the relevance to the account of this battle of what was done with the ships' bells in Sveti Jost. This is tangential material which surely belongs to the article on Sveti Jost, and not to Battle of Navarino. Otherwise, anyone could add info on any other memorabilia e.g. Codrington's pipe or underpants?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.18.42 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left the details about the bell's weight and such out of the paragraph, because this material indeed does not have any direct relevance for the battle. It is discussed in more detail in Sveti Jošt nad Kranjem. However, my opinion is that this paragraph belongs to the article, because the inscription on the bell includes an explicit reference to this battle and shows how the battle was referenced by great poets of the time. Do Codrington's pipe or underpants include any such reference? If they do, I have no objection to including them here. --Eleassar my talk 20:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships bells in Slovenia 

message: ::There have been persistent edits by one or more contributors to place the present Russian tricolour flag in the Infobox, to replace the Romanov double-headed eagle standard. This is un-historical. The tricolour, a modified imitation of the Dutch Republic's flag, was first introduced by Peter the Great in the 17th century, but only as a maritime flag for military and commercial vessels. The official flag of the state, flown from public buildings and by military regiments, remained the Romanov dynasty's double-headed eagle banner, itself based on the standard of the Byzantine Empire. The tricolour was not adopted as the official flag of the Empire until 1896.EraNavigator (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian flag in Infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Navarino. 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/20040820112617/http://www.pylos.net:80/album/area/pylos02.JPG to http://www.pylos.net/album/area/pylos02.JPG
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201180420/http://www.ipta.demokritos.gr:80/erl/navarino.html to http://www.ipta.demokritos.gr/erl/navarino.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was Edward Codrington depicted in the famous meeting with Muhammad Ali of Egypt in 1839? 
The book does not mention him at all: link  
The book does mention Patrick Campbell (British Army officer, born 1779), Louis Maurice Adolphe Linant de Bellefonds (=Linant Pasha) and Thomas Fletcher Waghorn.
Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you are definitively right.--Phso2 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The David Roberts picture 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I have a query about the actual date the battle took place on . In the article it mentions 20 th October 1827 and in brackets beside  ‘ OS 8 th October 1827 ‘ what is the reference to 8th October about ? 
Thanks 92.40.177.93 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the old style date format of some countries (usually its Russia) Danial Bass (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Naverino article