Talk:Battle of Echmiadzin (1804)

A query
"The Iranian army subsequently proceeded to disband for the incoming winter." Whilst this is sourced, can I seriously doubt the plausibility of any army disbanding for winter in June ? In the Caucasus the campaigning season will have barely begun. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the author just made a fast-forward without saying anything explicitly. It seems that disbandment for the winter was something customary to do;


 * "The Iranian forces were, as customary with them, disbanded for the winter with instructions to reassemble in the spring for a new campaign. The Following year (1805), in spite of (...)" -- Tapper, Richard (1997). Frontier Nomads of Iran: A Political and Social History of the Shahsevan. Cambridge University Press. p. 152
 * "The able Abbas Mirza with 20,000 men forces the Russian army of 5,000 men led by General Paul Tsitsianov (Sisianoff) to withdaw. The Persian army then disbands for the winter." -- Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2009). A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East.'' ABC-CLIO. p. 1036
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. What do you think of my revision then? It was mostly based on guesswork. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It needs a bit of tweaking, per the sources above. I will do that now. Edit: double-checked the sources, turns out the information belonged to Siege of Erivan (1804). Just moved it. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Outcome
I am about to change this to a Russian victory. It seems that in June 1804 the Russians advanced, withdraw, regrouped, advanced, decisively defeated the Iranians and captured Echmiadzin. I fail to see how any part of this is an Iranian victory. I would welcome your thoughts on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this up. I just made another dig; Atkin (1980) describes it as an Iranian victory on one page, but as an indecisive clash on another. Cronin, ed (2013) describes it as "inconclusive", whereas Mikaberidze, ed (2011) describes it as a Russian victory.


 * "After some battles around the monastery of Echmiadzin in which there was no clear victory for either side, both armies turned their attention to Yerevan City (...)" -- Atkin, Muriel (1980) Russia and Iran. p. 76
 * "His first objective was the Armenian religious center at Echmiadzin, where he encountered Abbas's army of 18,000. While the Russian artillery inflicted heavy damage, the Iranians showed that they were effective soldiers in their own way. The battle was an Iranian victory in that the Russians failed to take the monastery and had to withdraw." -- Atkin, Muriel (1980) Russia and Iran. p. 120
 * "After an inconclusive encounter at Uch Kelisa (Echmiadzin), the Russians laid siege to Iravan accompanied by heavy bombardment as the forces of the khan of Iravan, Muhammad Khan Qajar (...)" -- Cronin, Stephanie, ed. (2013). Iranian-Russian Encounters: Empires and Revolutions Since 1800''. p. 56
 * "(...) while Tsitsianov scored a victory over Iran's Crown Prince Abbas Mirza not far from the Echmiadzin Monastery (near Erivan) on (...)" -- Mikaberidze, Alexander, ed. (2011). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia (vol. 1)'' p. 764
 * "The able Abbas Mirza with 20,000 men forces the Russian army of 5,000 men led by General Paul Tsitsianov (Sisianoff) to withdaw. The Persian army then disbands for the winter." -- Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2009). A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East.'' ABC-CLIO. p. 1036
 * I therefore suggest changing "Iranian victory, strategically inconclusive" to "indecisive/inconclusive, or Iranian victory, or Russian victory". Looking at the sources, I think its safe to say that the the Russians failed to take Echmiadzin, but that the battle itself was one that could be interpreted as having several outcomes. Looking forward to your response. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! Land me with the decision would you? You have certainly got a lot of sources. I think that it depends what time scale you look at. The first clashes certainly went the Iranians' way, but over June as a whole the Russians met all of their objectives. It seems artificial to draw a line in the middle of the month and say "the Iranians were doing quite well at this point" ignoring the fact that it was about to all fall apart for them. So I am going to boldly edit. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We should go with what the reliable sources states. Only one source claims a Russian victory. Similarly, only one source claims an Iranian victory. The later surprise attack is only mentioned by Atkin, and it wasn't even related to the main clash. Not even a single source mentions a Russian capture of Echmiadzin, which would be a mandatory prequisite of claiming this as a Russian victory. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I shall have a go at representing that. But what about the sack of Echmiadzin and the damage to the Arminian churches. Is that wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think everything looks good now. In line with due weight, chronology, and WP:VER. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think everything looks good now. In line with due weight, chronology, and WP:VER. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks ok to me. A pleasure to work with you. Now for Siege of Erivan (1804). Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise! - LouisAragon (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Assessed
For information, Rupert assessed this as C class, commenting: "Looks like a solid C-class article to me as the coverage seems a bit light for B class. For instance, the relative strengths are covered in the infobox, but not in the body. A discussion of the various assessments of the results could also be coverd in the Aftermath."