Talk:Siege of Zaragoza (1809)

Stalingrad comparisons
Firstly it was a massive streetfighting siege, far more brutal than such scenes in the Napoleonic wars. Secondly i quote from David Gate's 'The Spanish Ulcer'

"Amidst scenes suggestive of a later battle at a place called Stalingrad, the defenders maintained fantatical resistance despite fearsome losses. Heroic struggles for individual buildings took place, notably the San Augustin Convent where, at one point, the French held the Altar end of the chaple and exchanged shots for hours on end with Spaniards entrenched in the navy and belfry."

Which is VERY suggestive of stalingrad.

Hence i am reverting the reference. The siege is never compared with Borodino. Warmaster

Stalingrad was the most brutal battle ever seen. There can be no comparison. The numbers are so different the hatered is not the same and the size of the battles are not the same. What you are doing is saying that a rowboat is the same as an aircraft carrier.

I say this is a better way to go

and is widly considered one of the most brutal battles in the history of Napoleonic warfare, and where extremely brutal street fighting which occoured in both sieges.

(Deng 11:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

As far as I'm concerned, the Siege of Sevastopol (1854) was the most brutal (and the most famous) siege of the 19th century. I believe this comparison is much more appropriate. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how much controversy one fairly innocuous phrase can generate. The subject of the comparison with Stalingrad was obviously not the size or outcome of the two battles. Rather, it was meant to address the few qualitative features the battles have in common (i.e. the extent to which defensive operations were pursued by quasi-civilians despite the loss of physical infrastructure and human and material resources). In other words, comparing a rowboat to an aircraft carrier is problematic if you're highlighting similarities in size, propulsion, or destructive capability, but it's perfectly valid if you're only describing how well they float.


 * Saying Saragossa was "one of the most brutal sieges of the Napoleonic Wars" is weak, and doesn't even begin to address the battle's importance to military thinking. Nothing had even come close to Saragossa since antiquity. Saragossa became a sort of Clausewitzian ideal&mdash;an absolute siege&mdash;and for over a century featured in the writings of every military theorist of every nationality, from Foch to Verdy.


 * I agree that the comparison to Stalingrad isn't perfect, but neither is the current size of the article. In the future, I imagine there should be several paragraphs explaining the significance of the battle. But until this arrives, I see no reason to remove or screw around with the content that's there because it rubs you the wrong way. Comparing Saragossa to Stalingrad may not be perfect, but I think it gives the reader the right idea of what happened. Albrecht 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Then use your own sentance use this

Nothing had even come close to Saragossa since antiquity. Saragossa became a sort of Clausewitzian ideal&mdash;an absolute siege&mdash;and for over a century featured in the writings of every military theorist of every nationality, from Foch to Verdy. (Deng 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC))


 * I concur. It is quite misleading when the article is a stubby stub and all it basically says is that the Siege of Saragossa was similar to the Battle of Stalingrad. Such an approach is both misleading and unencyclopedic. Was Saragossa *totally* destroyed as Stalingrad was? I doubt it. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: I didn't write the stub, nor do I necessarily object if you change things (I haven't, and won't, change it back). The best solution, as previously stated, is to expand the article, which I'll probably get around to doing. I just fail to see what the big deal is; why you'd start such an aggressive campaign to remove a tiny phrase that really shouldn't be too controversial. And yes, as far as I know, Zaragoza was almost destroyed, sector by sector, with over 88% of its civilian population falling to disease or French guns. Albrecht 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't wage an "aggressive campaign", I just want factual accuracy. I may compare any siege to the greatest battle in the human history - but what's the use? Are you sure than the Stalingrad may be termed as a siege? Hardly a building was left standing in the city after that battle, whereas in Saragossa... well... let's see what EB1911 says:
 * One of its two stone bridges, the seven-arched Puente de Piedra, dates from 1447; there is also an iron bridge for the railway to Pamplona. Beside the river there are public walks and avenues of poplar; the suburb on the left bank is named Arrabal. The two most important buildings of Saragossa are its cathedral6, to each of which the chapter is attached for six months in the year. La Seo is the older of the two, dating chiefly from the 14th century; its prevailing style is Gothic, but the oldest portion, the lower walls of the apse, is Byzantine. The Iglesia Metropolitana del Pilar is the larger building, dating only from the latter half of the 17th century; it was built after designs by Herrera el Mozo, and owes it name to one of the most venerated objects in Spain, the pillar of jasper on which the Virgin is said to have alighted when she manifested herself to St James as he passed through Saragossa. It has little architectural merit; externally its most conspicuous features are its cupolas, which are decorated with rows of green, yellow and white glazed tiles. The church of San Pablo dates mainly from the 13th century. The Torre Nueva, an octangular clock tower in diapered brickwork, dating from 1504, was pulled down in 1892; it leaned some 9 or 10 ft. from the perpendicular, owing to faulty foundations, which ultimately rendered it unsafe. Among other conspicuous public buildings are the municipal buildings, the exchange (Lonja), and the civil and military hospitals and almshouse (Hospicio provincial), which are among the largest in Spain. The university was founded in 1474, but its history has not been brilliant. To the west of the town is the Aljaferia or old citadel, originally built as a palace by the Moors and also used as such by its Christian owners...
 * It does not look like a description of the city razed to the ground to me. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, so a handful of medieval churches remained? Please. A survey of the city's architecture will list those few buildings that were spared or rebuilt over their foundations, not the thousands lost during a siege a hundred years prior. I am not going to debate an interpretation of a paragraph out of a British encyclopaedia&mdash;if you want to discuss the destruction of Zaragoza, go sate your desire for factual accuracy (so far limited, apparently, to "Krasny Bor was made up" and "Stalingrad was too AWESOME to be mentioned here") and find a book on the sieges. Albrecht 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh. It's not necessarily a bad comparison per se, but it is startling enough that it really must be cited to the historian making it.  Once that's done, it becomes merely a point of leaving a not-fully-discussed point until the article can be fleshed out, which I think would be more acceptable to everyone.
 * As far as "since antiquity" is concerned: what are you referring to here? I'm not terribly familiar with any sieges in antiquity that involved massive street fighting (at least beyond the usual massacre of the remaining defenders after the walls were breached, which is, of course, quite common). Kirill Lok s  h in 11:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with comparing a battle to another battle is that no matter what, you are probably going to see some similarities. For instance, I could say that Saragossa is like the battle of Chapultapec of fame here in North America, due to the face that it featured dug in, fanatical, nationalistic but poorly-trained, armed, and equipped soldiers defending against a superior force that had advantages in firepower, moral, training, armarmant, and equipment, with the defenders fighting for every centimeter, taking far more losses than the attackers but still putting up a valient show. However,Chapultapec is also one that is dodgy, as it is quite different, as it was assaulting a single building, and the war had pretty much been decided by that point, and not to mention that it happened in pretty much one day's time, and size does not even come close. I could compare Stalingrad to Zama because a long, bloody struggle in the center was decided by a seperate force coming in and smashing one of the sides, but even then that is not appropriate, as Zama also happened in one day, it was a straight field battle, and it is also quite small. I could also say that Stalingrad is unlike Saragossa because the former took seven months more or less, Saragossa took two, there was a lack of supporting field battles around it, there was a much higher emphasis on Bayonet action than even Stalingrad, as the muskets and rifles fired more slowly and were less accurate than their 1942 descendants, and that the French suffered remarkably fewer losses than the Spanish, while in Stalingrad, losses were relatively even. The fact is that we could draw comparisons to Stalingrad to ANY battle of relative intenseness. Why is this even an argument? ELV

"War to the knife."
This expression took Place during the first siege of Saragossa.--Tresckow (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)