Talk:Siege of Trsat

Discussion
The only useful English source I can find on any battle here is and that says "It was last mentioned as a small coastal settlement in 799 when its inhabitants killed the Friulian army leader, margrave Eric, in an ambush on the road near the church of St. Lawrence. The following year Tarsatika was burned down in a raid of revenge, and the surviving inhabitants moved to a more protected hill where they established a new settlement called Trsat."

That is no siege, not even a battle.
 * a good Croatian source http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/0712006/podlistak.asp gives two versions: one source (Ksaver Šandor Gjalski) says, attack by the citizens (followed by the Frankish assault on them and the subsequent defeat) and another (Vita Caroli Magni, Einhard), an ambush. Both may be propaganda :) -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As for " Eric himself was among the killed, and his death and defeat proved to be a great blow for the Carolingian Empire" allegedly from Einhard's Charlemagne, what Einhard actually wrote was "Only two of the chief men of the Franks fell in this war - Eric, Duke of Friuli,   who was killed in Tarsatch [799], a town on the coast of Liburnia by the treachery of the   inhabitants; and Gerold,Governor of Bavaria, who met his death in Pannonia, slain [799],   with two men that were accompanying him, by an unknown hand while he was marshaling his   forces for battle against the Huns, and riding up and down the line encouraging his men.   This war was otherwise almost a bloodless one so far as the Franks were concerned, and   ended most satisfactorily, although by reason of its magnitude it was long protracted."

So why does the article claim Eric's 'death and defeat' was a great blow? Doug Weller (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the same web site says Eric's death was shocking to the Franks. Paulinus, patriarch of Aquileia (776.-802.) even cursed the land in which he died, confirming the part in the article. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is very helpful. I can imagine that his death was shocking to the Franks. 'Great blow' in English idiom can imply something that damaged the Carolingian empire, maybe the article should say shocking and of course we have the quote from Paulinus?
 * What we still don't seem to have is a siege. The article says "Upon arriving at the foot of the settlement, Eric begun besieging and charging the city, but was repelled" but sources mention 'ambush' and 'treachery' (which could be an ambush).
 * We have another problem, the town was called Tarsatica at the time. We can't call the article Battle of Tarsatica either, because (besides the fact there may have been other battles) it hardly seems a battle and the important battle was the one in wich the town was destroyed.
 * Add to this the fact that the article on Trsat is less than one and a half lines long, pathetic compared to the Croatian wikipedia article, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be merged into the Trsat article and that should be then worked on to improve it so it includes its history from pre-Roman times onwards.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, merger would be good-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
In the light of the recent GA nomination... By all means has GA potential but: I'm willing to try my hand at fixing most (all, hopefully?) of the above, it's only that I can't promise a particular time frame and - since the nomination is pending - one has to move quickly... GregorB (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro is too long. Some of it might be moved into article proper.✅
 * Copyediting issues.✅
 * Vague assertions ("It has been suggested", "Some authors claim", etc.).✅
 * Referencing is generally OK but should be converted to shortened footnotes.✅
 * Go ahead! Two editors=better article. Kebeta (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well... Done my bit for today, will deal with the content tomorrow, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking good. The intro will be slightly difficult to deal with, since the article body would need to be changed too. Will try on Saturday at the earliest. GregorB (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created new section "Uncertainty", and moved part of the intro into it. I am not sure if this is better or not. The best way is to integrate that part into the body, but I am not quite sure how to do it properly. Kebeta (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not easy, since the body has to present all viewpoints, and the intro has to summarize them - it has been vice versa. Yours is a step in the right direction - still, the aftermath section should be last. GregorB (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah,...BTW should we delete Strength & Casualties and losses from the Infobox, or leave it Unknown? Kebeta (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it. The sources clearly support the description of Frankish losses as "heavy", even if actual figures are not known. Croatian losses were probably light, but since the sources are silent on that, the best solution is to leave them as "unknown". GregorB (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the unknown values in the infobox should be cited or not? Kebeta (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's not necessary - unless, perhaps, there is a source that states exactly that. GregorB (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, copyediting issues are solved. When I made a requests on WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests on 20 September, I wasn't expecting any reaction so soon. Diannaa has done a great job. Kebeta (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I've noticed her edits, but only now I see the extent. Copyediting is certainly not a concern any more. I will be returning to the article, but I'd like to familiarize myself with the content and the sources first. GregorB (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about that paper by Nenad Labus in the "Further reading" section? It already appears in the references - same thing, but listed with different titles (English and Croatian). Would it be OK to delete it from the Further reading then? GregorB (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right - I have delete it. Kebeta (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've used the supplied English title ("Who was duke Eric?") in the trans_title parameter, although it's not a literal translation.
 * Did not get around to it this weekend, but the article is in good shape. GregorB (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither did I. I have been away. BTW, Congratulations on A1. Kebeta (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks, but the accolades should go to Tomobe, he was the principal author, while I was only in charge of tinkering - same as here, I might add... :-) GregorB (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, nevertheless...:-) Kebeta (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am done with the content of the article. There is one reference left to be converted into shortened footnote. But, I just can't find it anymore. Although I have a backup citation for that sentence, so this one can be removed if asked by somebody. Also, there are six notes now in the article. If you could implement properly some of them into the article - that would be great. Kebeta (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One possible flaw is that the "Uncertainty" section isn't summarized in the intro. A sentence or two should do: most historians agree, but sources are scarce and there are alternative views. Might do it myself if you don't beat me to the punch... :-) GregorB (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, please add a necessary sentence into lead. After that, we just have to wait. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the GAR
Background section - should we trim it down a bit?

Copyediting - given the latest comment by JonCatalán, another round of copyediting is certainly a good idea, but it makes the deadline a rather tough one. An extra day or two would be really useful, in order to allow the copyeditors to do their job once content is dealt with per GAR points. GregorB (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, doesn't matter - the article has just been passed. Another round of copyediting is pending per Kebeta's comment. GregorB (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)