 | A fact from Siege of Zbarazh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 January 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B-class
editPassed for WPPOLAND per milhist assessment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Size of armies involved
editDo we really have to take the period sources at face value? 300,000 Cossacks/Tartars besieging a single town is a ridiculous number for the time, and no doubt would have starved to death in short order had they actually been able to assemble.
Compare to, say, the Siege of Vienna - the entire Ottoman Empire geared logistically towards supplying its force mustered up an army of 120,000. 300,000 is just ridiculous in comparison. 66.180.191.190 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Dubious numbers
editThe sources obviously need to be divesified and balanced. Who is Widacki, a Polish historian, a publicist or a playwright? --178.10.15.223 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- See Jan Widacki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- So he has no degree in history? --178.10.15.223 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- And what if he does not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- So he has no degree in history? --178.10.15.223 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The source appears to be reliable and unless there's some serious evidence to the contrary the "dubious" tag is not justified. Having said that, the article DOES over rely on a single source.Volunteer Marek 23:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm going to put back the tag back in. I think there's a valid concern here. One, the article just relies on a single source - it should be cross referenced. Second, the above IP is right, pre-industrial armies of this size were almost unheard off, the logistics were prohibitive.Volunteer Marek 20:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- While this is a good point, we do need more sources to see if others have proposed different numbers. Please note that Widacki discusses and critiques a smaller number of 70,000. (and yes, I double checked and the numbers cited in text are correct, source-wise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)