Talk:Battle of Żurawno

Result

@SebbeKg

The inconclusive battle ended in truce; i don't see the reason to call it polish victory The poles suffered heavy losses, and their supplies were running out, so continuing the conflict would be disadvantageous for the Poles as well. The Ottomans asking for a truce doesn't mean anything.

You're clearly pushing a POV; the battle ended in truce so it should be truce. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @عبدالرحمن4132, the battle ended in Polish strategic victory, as the Ottomans were the attacker in late August 1676, a large Ottoman-Tatar army of some 50,000 entered the southern Polish province of Pokucie, the Poles fortified themself in a camp, which the Ottomans tried to conquer. The Ottoman siege lasted a few weeks and they were not able to conquer it so they decided to ask for ceasefire, which ended the battle in Polish strategic victory.

Im not pushing any POV, you are changing the outcomes of Polish-Ottoman Wars without any academic sources. SebbeKg (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to call this a tactical and strategic victory for the Poles. Whatever happened in the battle doesn't really matter; what matters is the result It ended in truce between the two armies so the result should be truce

The article states that the Ottomans were able to push the poles from the first line of defense (doesn't sound like the Ottomans were defeated) and that both sides suffered heavy casualties as usual in wars; it was only the rains that threatened the Ottomans to withdraw, so a negotiation would be better. The Poles were no better, as they were running out of food and ammunition. This shows that both sides were in a disadvantageous situation.

I hope that clears it up. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No you are wrong Polish forces withdrew to the camp after defeating the Tatars and Ottomans at Wojniłów before the battle of żurawno started (Polish article, Russian article, Ukrainian article). The truce was the outcome of the Polish victory over the Ottoman army. It was the Ottomans who attacked Poland and besieged the camp which they were not able to conquer after a few week long siege, and they asked the Poles for ceasfire which ended the war Poland regained parts of Podolia and the Ottoman expansion was stopped. After the defeat Ottoman forces withdrew from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. That is a Polish strategic victory. SebbeKg (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the battle between the Poles and the Tatars before Zurwano; I was talking about the same engagement that happened in Zurwano that the same article mentions. You're basically repeating the same things over and over again after I responded.

The treaty itself confirmed the Ottoman conquest of parts of central Ukraine and Podolia. The war itself is an Ottoman victory and a Polish defeat, which you seem to ignore and focus only on in one part. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that during the first stages of the battle Poles were pushed back during an assault does not mean anything, the battle would have ended in Ottoman victory if they would have conquered the Polish camp, but they were repelled and asked the Polish side for ceasfire, the Polish army was greatly outnumbered yet the Ottomans decided to negotiate and withdrew from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The treaty of Zurawno was more favourable to Poland as Poles regained parts of Podolia which the Ottomans conquered in 1672, the Ottoman expansion was succesfully halted.

And the Polish-Ottoman War of 1672-1676 was a victory for both sides as Ottomans could only conquer small parts of Podolia, but were defeated in every battle. Both sides saw the war as victory. SebbeKg (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)