Talk:Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Serbian reentry
Serbia renewed the war with Turkey in 1878 (a few days after the fall of Plevna) and liberated Pirot, Nis and Vranje. Serbia was reluctant to help the Russians earlier because of the unpleasnat experiance of recent defeat at the hands of the Turks (at the battle of Djunis in particular) and because of financial difficulties caused by the previous war (it redeclared the war only after substantial financianl aid from Russia).
Veljko Stevanovich 7. 12. 2005. 17:15 UTC+1
A Counter-attack would have allowed the Ottomans to the destroy the bridge over Danube
Something similar is being said on this page http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/modern/russoturk.htm
- ...Again Osman failed to pursue. He was weak in cavalry, but he had sufficient to keep in touch with the enemy, who were utterly demoralized, and could have followed on with his whole force. He was but 35 m. distant from Sistova, and the result of the demolition of the bridge would have been incalculable.
This is supposed to be from John Henry Verrinder Crowe, 11th edition Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 23, ppg 931-936
I don't think that destroying the bridge would make much difference. In fact, the bridge even got damaged by the ice that winter. The only way such a maneuver would succeed would be if there were enough troops to prevent passing the river, and to achieve this Osman Pasha needed the support of the other troops in the area, mainly those commanded by Mehmet Ali. So basically if there were no communication and no coordinated actions between Osman Pasha and Mehmet Ali, it was probably wiser to stay in the trenches around Plevna.
As for the repressions against civilians and POWs, they were the standard behaviour in that part of the world at the time, and were routinely executed by both sides. For example, little of the several thousand Ottoman POWs from Plevna, survived. They were all sent to Russia, and none of them were equipped or fit to endure such a journey.
Rebellions during the Balkan Crisis inaccuracy
This sentence should be corrected in the first paragraph of the Balkan Crisis of 1875-1876. The waves of rebellion were by the Christian population, not by the Muslim population (the hyperlink correctly goes to the Herzegovinian Uprising of 1852 by the Serbs as evidence).
Here is how it reads currently: Reforms imposed by European powers did little to improve the conditions of the Christian population, while managing to dissatisfy a sizable portion of the Muslim population. Bosnia and Herzegovina suffered at least two waves of rebellion by the local Muslim population, the most recent ending in 1862. 68.104.235.94 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Commanders and leaders in infobox
I noticed there are several commanders/leaders that are mentioned in the infobox, but never even named in the article body. In particular, none of the 10-15 commanders whose names are listed in the infobox on both sides are mentioned by name in the article. According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I do not recommend adding commanders to the infobox who are not already supported by the article. Also, per template:Infobox military conflict: commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted. The † and (POW) templates may be included immediately after the names of commanders who were killed in action or surrendered and were taken prisoner, respectively. The commander3 field can only be used if the combatant3 field is set. Kajmer05 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- The Template:Infobox military conflict is looking rather bloated. Do we need a long list of commanders? seven or ten each should be enough. Opinions? Regards. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)



