Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Kolberg (1807)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sulkowski's diary

  • Quote from the article: "Sulkowski in his diaries wrote that Polish soldiers were highly excited about the prospect of taking the city, as it was part of Poland before during Piast dynasty"

This is debatable, as the sieged city was founded long after the Piast campaigns in the area. When Boleslaw campaigned there, he took a predecessor, which was not a the German city sieged in 1807 but a Pomeranian stronghold some kilometers away. The sentence is thus misleading since it suggests that the sieged city existed already during that campaign. Furthermore, the sentence is misleading as it could be read in a way that "the city" was "part of Poland" during all the time the Piasts ruled in Poland, when in fact the area was subdued/paid tribute only for a couple of years. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that all that your opinion do you have a source which says Sulkowski's diaries are "debatable"?  Dr. Loosmark  13:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So what Your explanation of fact, that bishopric of Kolberg was founded at year 1000 A.D. under polish archibishopric of Gniezno?? Njál —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.160.51 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/SYNTH/PRIMARY concerns

I put the following sentences in ref tags, so they appear as a footnote rather than in the main body:

"Aiding the siege were troops from the Polish state of Duchy of Warsaw from the 3rd Infantry Division under the leadership of Colonel Antoni Paweł Sułkowski. Sulkowski in his diaries wrote that Polish soldiers were highly excited about the prospect of taking the city, as it was once part of Poland during the Piast dynasty. He wrote "our soldiers burn with the enthusiasm to move our borders to the pillars of Bolesław", and noted that the chaplain of the Polish soldiers Ignacy Przybylski called upon them Polish soldiers. We are camped under Kołobrzeg. Since the time of Chrobry our regiment formed in Poznan and Gniezno Voivodeships is the first to show its banners here. <ref>''Napis. Tom poświęcony literaturze użytkowej i okolicznościowej'' Janusz Maciejewski Latona, 2005 pages 159-160</ref>"

The problems with having this in the main body of text are

  1. WP:NPOV/Undue weight: These are thoughts of a colonel and of a chaplain of an auxilary regiment. They are neither representative for the Polish auxilaries as a whole, nor are they representative for the siege forces as a whole: There neither is nor should there be extensive quoting from the diaries of the really important figures (Lucadou, Schill, Nettelbeck, Gneisenau, Victor-Perrin, Teulié, Loison, Mortier) and their chaplains, nor is there or should there be such quotes from the diaries of colonels and chaplains of the other auxilary troops involved.
  2. WP:SYNTH: The sentences are not directed at the siege itself, but at an envisioned connection between the siege and a Piast campaign 700 years earlier. The scholary sources cited in the article do not establish such a connection.
  3. WP:PRIMARY: The diaries are primary sources. The secondary source given as a reference is a literature journal reprinting them. Have these primary sources been evaluated by a historian? Are they factual? There remains the question of the above section, and also if it has been established in historiography that this Polish auxilary regiment was in fact the first Polish military unit advancing through the region for 700 years - that fact may be notable, but needs to be sourced to reliable sources and not to a chaplain's speech written down by a colonel of an auxilary regiment. Same goes for the note about 'move our borders' - did Napoleon ever intend to give Kolberg to the Duchy of Warsaw? last sentence added Skäpperöd (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as these issues remain unaddressed, the sentences shall remain as a footnote. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sulkowski is a reckognised patron of Kołobrzeg today, with officials naming a street after him in the city- his figure is thus important as well as statements and reflections on what role he played in the siege. What you think of him and that you don't like that he mentioned the fact that Kołobrzeg was part of Poland before is irrelevent. Nobody anyway is using his diaries as claiming that what he thought was correct. It is simply important because of his current status as patron in Kołobrzeg, and thus we need to cover his participation in more detail than others who do not have such role in the city. As long as these issues remain unaddressed, the sentences shall remain as a footnote-that's very nice Skapperod, but I don't think you are here the position to decide this, the article is not your property and your opposition is simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
really important figures (Lucadou, Schill, Nettelbeck, Gneisenau, Victor-Perrin, Teulié, Loison, Mortier-which of them is a patron of a street or monument in Kołobrzeg? It seems the city that was the object of the siege doesn't consider them as important as Sulkowski. True-they might be important historically, but Sułkowski is honourably reckognised by the city itself and thus deserves a detailed mention as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
sentences are not directed at the siege itself, but at an envisioned connection between the siege and a Piast campaign 700 years earlier. The scholary sources cited in the article do not establish such a connection. But a figure that is reckognised by the city itself does. It doesn't mean he is correct, but it is a statement of a important figure.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
nor is there or should there be such quotes from the diaries of colonels and chaplains of the other auxilary troops involved.
Except they are not reckognised by the city as patrons, Sułkowski is.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That after 1945, when the town became Polish, a street was named after Sulkowski (and for that matter, streets named after the defendants were then renamed and no streets were named after the Italian and French siege force commanders Teuliè, Loison etc) does not make Sulkowski "a reckognised patron of Kołobrzeg," neither is this relevant for assessing his or other participants' prominence in the 1807 siege or the prominence given to his diary excerpt and chaplain's speech excerpt in the article.

It adds to the NPOV and SYNTH concerns above that your only argument for prominently citing an excerpt of a primary source written by a colonel of an auxilary regiment, drawing a connection to events 700 years earlier which is not supported by scholary sources, is that 150 years later a street was named after this colonel when the town had become part of a completely different state and had been resettled by a different people. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That after 1945, when the town became Polish Yes, again as we know. Your point?does not make Sulkowski "a reckognised patron of Kołobrzeg" ok-a reckognised patron in Kołobrzeg and acknowledged officialy by the city. Notable and needs to be mentioned. drawing a connection to events 700 years earlier which is not supported by scholary sources Scholary sources support that Sułkowski wrote this. As he is a patron in Kołobrzeg and his deeds are reckognised in the city we are writing about, his figure and views need to be mentioned.
It adds to the NPOV and SYNTH maybe Sułkowski made NPOV and SYNTH claims in his writings. Who knows, either way it is irrelevant as he is notable person and and did describe battle for Kołobrzeg as such.
and had been resettled by a different people, well not so much different as Poles lived in Kołobrzeg before, and during the siege of it(with some trying to join Polish and French forces). In any case you haven't presented anything that would support removal of statements and information about a figure reckognised officially by the city of Kołobrzeg as one of its patrons and who was a notable figure here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have presented evidence how an inclusion of the statement conflicts with WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. You have presented a street name from centuries after the siege. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have presented evidence You presented your opinion, that was unfounded on anything besides WPIDONTLIKEIT. There is nothing WP:SYNTH about the fact that Sułkowski did write this about his troops patricipation in the siege. And there is the matter that he is now officially reckognised as a patron in the city thus making him a notable participant. There is also nothing concerning WP:PRIMARY about mentioning his description of the battle. In any case the patricipation of Polish troops needs to be expanded. I will gladly do so in within a close future.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The excerpt does not describe the battle at all, but claims that there is a connection to the Piast campaign 700 years earlier, that no Polish troops have been in the area during these seven centuries, and that a border shift of the Duchy of Warsaw to include Kolberg was imminent - all of which is not supported by scholary sources. I asked for a 3O. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No such thing is claimed by the patron of Kolobrzeg's-this is your OR. And that he made such statements is not disputed by any scholars, their validity is not the subject of discussion here. As this is a person that administration of the city decided to honour, his figure during the fighting for it must be discussed in more detail.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Kroczyhski, Hieronim

There is no such person.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that difficult to correct a typo, is it? HerkusMonte (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Worth adding about Poles from Kołobrzeg trying to join Polish and French forces

It's worth noting that Poles in Kołobrzeg tried to join Polish forces during the siege and some deserted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At that time Warsaw was part of the Prussian Province South Prussia and many Poles were probably conscripted to the Prussian Army. Please don't declare such people "local". In fact "Kolberg" soon became a symbol of Prussian resistance against Napoleonic aggression and the attempt to reform the Prussian estate-based society. A local civilian, Nettelbeck, organized the resistance against the purpose of the military commander. The idea of a compulsory military service in Prussia and the participation of "normal" citizens in the defence of their country has its roots here. Desertion always happens, that's not noteworthy unless it had a significant influence on the outcome of the battle, which is for sure not the case. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

and many Poles were probably conscripted to the Prussian Army So you don't have sources? In fact "Kolberg" soon became a symbol of Prussian resistance against Napoleonic aggression As I understand that is the nationalistic myth that Nazis used correct? Please don't declare such people "local" As I understand Kołobrzeg was for a long time a Polish city and housed a Polish minority, it wouldn't surprise me if they were local. In any case I will check sources for this. unless it had a significant influence on the outcome of the battle Local Polish support is noted in sources on this event.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be expanded about Polish patricipation

Poles formed a large part of the siege force with 1.200 soldiers, even with later reinforcements the number of total French and allied troops was 12.000, so they were quite significant, and of course the city had Polish history and is part of Poland once again.Hieronim Kroczyński used in this article dedicates a whole publication to that subject("Wojsko Polskie na Pomorzu Zachodnim i Krajnie w 1807" and "Polacy w walce o Kolobrzeg 1807"- ), this important topic needs to be covered if scholars focus on it in research on siege of Kołobrzeg.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested citation

re [1]: "meldeten sich bei von Schill zahlreiche Freiwillige, die sich auch aus den Einwohnern Kolbergs rekrutierten [...] Er gewann außerhalb von Kolberg zahlreiche Mitstreiter [...]" - rough transl.: many volunteers conscribed to von Schill who also came from the inhabitants of Kolberg [...] he also won several comrades outside of Kolberg. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a full quote.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Here it is. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties figures are disputed and need to be verified

I used a Tertiary source for the casualty figures Digby Smith, The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book.The book has received a favorable review [2] and the authorDigby Smith is a noted authority on the Napoleonic wars

A word of caution regarding casualty figures derived from a Tertiary source , just because casualty figures are in print does not make them correct. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


User HerkusMonte left me this message

Hi Woogie, could you please check the source for casualties/strength once more? This book gives similar numbers, just the number of guns is (almost) exactly interchanged. Thanks, HerkusMonte (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Herkus ,I can confirm that these are the figures in the Digby Smith book. Digby Smith cites these sources for his data-

Eduard Von Höpfner Der Krieg Von 1806 Und 1807 [I.E. Achtzehnhundertsechs Und Achtzehnhundertsieben]: Ein Beitrag Zur Geschichte Der Preussischen Armee Nach Den Quellen Des Kriegs-Archivs BearbeitetOscar

Von Lettow-Vorbeck Der Krieg Von 1806 Und 1807

A. Martinien Tableaux Par Corps Et Par Batailles Des Officiers Tues Et Blesses Pendent Cuerres De L'Empire (1805-1815

All three books are available at the New York Public LibrarySince I read German & French, I will check the figures in these books and report back on the data on this talk page. It will take about one week to get the books and check them, we need to verify the data in this Tertiary source. Stay tuned.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nettelbeck himself described the situation at the beginning of the siege, when only 3 guns were operational [3] (page 219) and only in June 1807 45 British additional guns arrived (page 252) (not a RS, off course). However, a number of 41 guns for several Napoleonic Divisions, fully equipped and without a shortness of supplies would be rather low. A number of 260 guns in a military mediocre town with limited supply would be - very high. Maybe Digby Smith mixed it up. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The man may be a Colonel Blimp. I was skeptical when I saw a artillery data, the numbers seemed to be wrong. That is why I remarked , just because casualty figures are in print does not make them correct. Also I will photocopy the sections in these books on Kolberg, maybe there is material we can use to improve other sections of the article--Woogie10w (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Höpfner says on pp. 581-582 that the Kolberg garrisson received 30 iron guns and 10 iron howitzers from the British, and that one smith from Kolberg constructed an operating 43-pounder by himself. These add up to 41, the number cited above. Höpfner says that the English guns came without gun carriages, and were placed on the old mounts: "They thus preferably replaced many of the unusable gun barrels mounted on many walls by English ones, by adjusting the old carriages [...]" That indicates that there were other guns in Kolberg before, and does not make it clear whether all of them were unusable (then 41 guns would be the right number) or if only part of the old guns were replaced and other ones continued to be in use (then it could be any number above 41). Skäpperöd (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Skapperod. So it sems that Digby Smith got the troop strength right but the Nr. of guns wrong. I was at the NY Public Library today, Vol 3 of Von Lettow-Vorbeck Der Feldzug in Polen was missing and not available, maybe you can find it over there. As for A. Martinien Tableaux Par Corps Et Par they will pull it out of storage and I hope to report back soon on the French side. In any case Herkus has a sharp eye, he caught Colonel Blimp. I wonder what else is wrong in his Napoleonic Wars Data Book.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Re Losses Höpfner on pages 676-77 [4] Pussian casualties at 55 Officers, 213 NCO and 2,593 enlisted. He estimates Enemy / French losses at 7-8,000 but notes that this may be an overstatement because the casualty reports of the enemy were not reliable "ohne werth"--Woogie10w (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What we got so far

Höpfner and Smith give about the same number for

  • strength defendants (6,000 in both sources)
  • casualties defendants (Smith: 3,000 dead and wounded; Höpfner: ~2,850 dead)
  • casualties siege forces (Smith: 5,000 dead and wounded; Höpfner: 7,000 to 8,000 seem inflated to him)

A little bit trickier is the siege force strength:

  • Smith says 14,000;
  • Höpfner says 8,000 by May, plus the 10,000 reinforcements arriving in June (1,600 Nassau + 1,600 Holland + 7,000 French). That would be 18,000 men, but given the thousands of casualties suffered in May/June, thus Smith's 14,000 would be a reasonable strength by late June.

Until here, there is no evidence that Smith's numbers are in any way out of line, since another source has numbers in the same range.

I share the concerns by Herkus Monte and Woogie10w that Smith may have mixed up the number of guns, especially since Höpfner explicitly mentions 30+10+1=41 guns for Kolberg while Smith has 41 guns for the French. Yet, Höpfner does not say that these 41 guns were the only ones in Kolberg, and you can read him as saying there were many more in the sentence where he says that they replaced "the many unusable gun barrels on the walls" ("Man ersetzte daher vorzugsweise die vielen auf den Wällen stehenden unbrauchbaren Geschützröhre durch englische.") Then, one has to keep in mind that there were vessels carrying a huge number of guns in the port: Höpfner says that the Swedish frigate was armed with 46 guns, plus the 4 guns mounted on fishing boats. I did not find a number for the guns on the British corvette though.

If we add up these numbers, we get for Kolberg:

  • an unknown number of guns mounted on Kolberg's walls, many (all?) unusable
  • one self-made gun from the Kolberg smith
  • 4 guns mounted on fishing boats
  • 40 guns from British replenishment
  • 46 guns on the Swedish frigate
  • an unknown number of guns on the British corvette

---> total guns: 91+X

To reach Smith's number of 230 guns from 91+X, one has to assume that about 100 guns were present in Kolberg at the beginning of the siege and that about 40 guns were on the British vessel - these numbers are of course unsourced and made-up and I throw them in here only to show that the number in Smith's book, which is the only total we got so far, may not necessarily be erroneous; another argument to that end is that all other numbers mentioned by Smith are more or less matching Höpfner's numbers as detailed above.

As far as Smith's numbers regarding the French guns are concerned, yes, they seem very low for a siege army. But Höpfner on p. 634 says that more guns were deployed in late June when Napoleon wanted to force a decision, indicating that there indeed was a shortage of artillery pieces before. So maybe they only had 41 guns for Kolberg and had the other guns concentrated before the walls of Graudenz and Stralsund and with the field army? Stralsund was a larger and much more important fortress than Kolberg from a strategic POV, it would make sense to me when Mortier had concentrated many of his guns there; also, one of the reasons that the French field army east of Kolberg won at Friedland was that their artillery was superior and cut down the Russian infantry en masse. Thoughts? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Martinien Tableaux Par Corps Et Par Batailles Des Officiers Tues Et Blesses Pendent Cuerres De L'Empire (1805-1815 wiil be available on Tuesday at the NY Public Library, lets see what he said. In any case Smith is suspect and I believe he should go. IMO Höpfner seems like a reliable source for the Prussians. It is too bad Von Lettow-Vorbeck was missing in NY, I could request a copy from another library but it would take weeks--Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if Lettow-Vorbeck is able to solve the problem, since Höpfner is the source based on the Prussian Military Archives. I suspect that the Tableaux Par Corps [...] De L'Empire will turn out to be a valueable resource. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything else you need in the Tableaux Par Corps [...] De L'Empire ? If it is really good I will photocopy it--Woogie10w (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Martinien Tableaux Par Corps Et Par Batailles Des Officiers Tues Et Blesses is a compilation of officer casualties and does not provide total casualty figures.
Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6. Page 169 has the following “ Colberg besieged since March20 by 14,000 Frenchmen, fell on July 2. The 6,000-man Prussian garrison lost 3,000 killed, dead of disease or wounded; the French 5,000 killed, dead of disease or wounded. Clodfelter does not cite his source but suppose it is Digby Smith since he lists Smith in the Bibligraphy.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
re Tableaux - that's a pity.
re Clodfelter - yes, it seems likje he just copied Smith's numbers, include him as a source anyway? I think it is not necessary. I have added the Höpfner and Smith numbers for strength and casualties to the article, but for now left out the number of guns (they are listed in the infobox though). Skäpperöd (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Regular field artillery of the Napoleonic era would have been ineffective against a fortress, Napoleon had special units of siege mortars to assault fortresses. I remember reading this about thirty years ago so I don’t have a ready source on hand to back this up. This makes sense when on considers the weight of shells and velocity of field artillery in that era. (BTW I know a lot more than stats but I just want to avoid the tendentious ethnic warfare on Wikipedia) [5]--Woogie10w (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Those mortars are most probably the "heavy guns" Napoleon sent in late June which bombarded Kolberg in the final two days per Kroczyński, Hieronim (2009: 62)? Only in late June, when Wolfsberg, Maikuhle and the port had fallen, the siege force was close enough to the actual fortress to bombard it efficiently; the damage of the last days was significantly higher than the damage inflicted before. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hopfner confirms Smith re French strength of 14,000 on page 660, he then goes on to narrate an interesting account of the final days of the siege and the heavy bombardments by the French. I did not see any figures on the French siege artillery strengh. Hopfner only mentions the total nr of shells that hit the fortress on 6/30 and 7/1. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Höpfner has a detailed list about the guns present in Kolberg right before the siege, which I somehow missed before. I have added that to the article. Regarding the total of 230 guns cited by Smith, it does not seem to be completely out of range. If these numbers are added to the list I made above, we get

  • 72 guns mounted on Kolberg's walls at the beginning of the siege
  • 4 mobile guns
  • 92 bad guns re-activated
  • 12 guns from Danzig and Stralsund reinforcements
  • (4 guns mounted on fishing boats, probably the same four 3-pounders listed as mobile guns above)
  • 40 guns from British replenishment
  • 1 gun made by a Kolberg smith
  • 6 guns captured from the French and sent to Kolberg by Schill
  • 46 guns on the Swedish frigate
  • an unknown number of guns on the British corvette

---> total guns: 135 good guns + 92 bad guns = 227 guns in the fortress (231 if the fishing boat guns are included) + 46+X guns on the British and Swedish vessels

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

French guns

I created this subsection since the number of French guns (41 per Smith) is the only number that might need to be verified by a second source. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked my bookshelves User:Woogie10w# His Library and found the following on Page 254 in The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon by Gunther Rothenberg. Kolberg - French & Allies 14,000 men no data on guns- Prussians 6,000 men 230 guns Losses French “5,000 k+w ?”; Prussians “3,000 k+w? 3,000 pw”--Woogie10w (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

False claims

I am surprised to see somebody calling Poles rising against Prussian opressive rule as "French clients", the uprising was made on Polish initiative although of course they had nothing against Napoleon. Now-the claim that Duchy of Warsaw was a client state perhaps is used by some, but it was not part of the fighting here, but Polish forces from the uprising. To name them "French clients" is POV. I added the dispute tag--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The French client in the Prussian partition was created long before the Duchy of Warsaw was formalized in Tilsit. Sources are
  • Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (2007). A history of Eastern Europe (2 ed.). p. 280. ISBN 0415366275.
  • Davies, Norman (2005). God's playground. A history of Poland. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. p. 218. ISBN 0199253404. (who also points out that before Tilsit, Napoleon was ready to give this territory either to Prussia or Russia in turn for a favourable peace - so much for an independent state)
These sources had already been provided in the article, but were deleted by you.
Another source, also in the article, says that the Poznan regiments were raised on Napoleon's behalf
There is no dispute as long as you do not present quality sources stating that, in contrast to what above sources say, the later Duchy of Warsaw and the 1st infantry regiment from Poznan participating in the siege had nothing to do with France. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources presented support your claim that there was some unnamed "French client" from Poland during the siege. I didn't delete any source Skapperod-I simply moved them to correct date of formation of Duchy of Warsaw. During the siege the Polish forces were the ones from Polish uprising in Wielkopolska, as DoW wasn't yet created. You actually confirm this above by saying that Napoleon was ready to give away these territories--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Of course they do - they deal with the time before Tilsit, not thereafter. Napoleon could bargain with these territories only because they were under his control, I don't know how this is an argument that tehse territories wqere not under French control?! And how would Napoleon establish a Ruling Commission and have his officers raise regiments if he was not in control?

Another source in line with the sources above is Grab, Alexander I. (2003). Napoleon and the transformation of Europe. European history in perspective. p. 179. ISBN 0333682742.:

"Shortly after his victories over Prussia, Napoleon invaded Prussian Poland. The emperor invited Dabrowski and Wybicki to appeal to the Polish people to revolt but made no commitment to support Polish independence. [...] Wybicki and Dabrowski called on their countrymen to rise up. Many Poles [...] supported the proclamation and welcomed the French. [...] An insurrection quickly liberated western Poland from Prussian rule. In early November 1806, Marshal Davout seized Poznan and soon Dabrowski entered the city. He ordered conscription and assembled an army of 30,000 men. On 2 January 1807, Napoleon triumphantly entered Warsaw. [...] Aware of the enormous power of the Polish nobility, Napoleon intended to acquire its support rather than rely solely on the masses. Indeed, rallying the Polish nobility around his rule was a major characteristic of the Napoleonic government in Poland. [...] For the time being, the Emperor delayed his decision on the establishment of a Polish state. He did set up a provisional government, however, to organize the war effort and run the Polish areas conquered from Prussia."

Note that Dabrowski (also spelled Dombrowski), who raised the regiments in Poznan (Posen) from which the 1st regiment was detached to reinforce the siege of Kolberg, was a French officer acting on direct order of Napoleon, as already linked above ([6]) Skäpperöd (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually this proves my point that the forces were Polish rebels that fought for freedom from oppressive Prussian rule allied to Napoleon.It seems your term is completely original and awkward creation that doesn't show up anywhere else besides Wiki. Also it's Dąbrowski and Poznań Skapperod if you want to write it correctly in the future :) As you provided a source that states clearly that the forces in questions were Polish allies to Napoleon who fought against Prussia this description will be the correct one in the article.
And how would Napoleon establish a Ruling Commission and have his officers raise regiments if he was not in control?
Hah, that actually a quite interesting statement-, making whole regiments and units in Poland was always the job of the people not rulers see pospolite ruszenie. You really didn't need a authoritarian ruler in Polish areas who would control everyone, for formation of Polish military units back then. Poles often did it on their own. Of course in this case they were aided by Napoleon who helped them in liberation from Prussia(as your source confirms)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And here it is. Pospolite Ruszenie was called by Józef Radzimiński on 2 December 1806 after which Poles mobilised to rise against Prussia, although uprising was declared on 13th November already. Units gathered in Łowicz responding to this mobilisation were organized later by Dąbrowski into formations you speak of. Of course all of this doesn't need to be in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nafziger, George F.; Wesolowski, Mariusz T.; Devoe, Tom (1991). The Poles and Saxons during the Napoleonic Wars. Armies of the Napoleonic Wars Research Series. pp. 3–4, 6. ISBN 0962665525. :

"[pg. 3] After western Poland was liberated from Prussian rule in 1806, General Dombrowski was [pg. 4] recalled from Italian service and directed to establish the new Polish army. He began on 16 November 1806. On 29 November, Napoleon directed him to form eight regiments of infantry, each with two bataillons. Four were to be raised in Posen, four in Kalisz. [...] [pg. 6] The Posen (Dombrowski) legion. [...] Regiment[:] 1st[,] Colonel[:] A. Sulkowski[,] Major[:] S. Jakubowski" (emphasis added)

The source unambiguously states that the Sulkowski regiment participating in the siege of Kolberg was part of the regiments raised on direct order of Napoleon.

The sources cited above unambiguosly state that there was no independent Polish statehood, but that it was the (bulk of the) Prussian partition of Poland, with the French army standing there and Napoleon tempoarily present himself, which was governed by a commission appointed by Napoleon (cf. Grab (2003: 179): "Napoleonic government in Poland. [...] For the time being, the Emperor delayed his decision on the establishment of a Polish state. He did set up a provisional government, however, to organize the war effort and run the Polish areas conquered from Prussia." ; Bideleux et al (2007:280): "He [Napoleon] gave the main portfolios in Warsaw's new Governing Commission to aristocrats."; Davies (2005:218): "Napoleon's first visit to Warsaw on 19 December 1806 led to the formation of a Ruling Commission"), and that Napoleon was able to bargain with this territory as he liked (Davies (2005:218): "After [...] Gneisenau's brilliant defence of Colberg, Napoleon was quite prepared to hand the whole of his Polish conquests back to Prussia. Even after his final repulsion of the Russians at Friedland in June, he entered negotiations with the Tsar with the clear intention of trading Poland in exchange for concessions elsewhere.") Skäpperöd (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The source unambiguously states that the Sulkowski The source mentions nothing about Sulkowski Skapperod. His unit was formed later and not part of the units your source writes about.
The sources cited above unambiguosly state that there was no independent Polish statehood-that's why the forces should be described as Polish units fighting against Prussia. Again you confirm and agree with my statements. The Duchy of Warsaw after all was created only after peace in Tylża. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
re Sulkowski: I cited the source above, of course it mentions Sulkowski. Please re-read.
re statehood: that there was no independent statehood does not mean that it was a rebel country. It was governed by a commission appointed by Napoleon, cites and quotes are provided above. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

question

Can someone clarify how this source: Bideleux, Robert; Jeffries, Ian (2007). A history of Eastern Europe (2 ed.). p. 280. ISBN 0415366275. supports the claim that "French occupation had resulted in the creation of a French client state in part of partitioned Poland." (the sentence also contradicts itself). The given portion of that source are about the rise of the Hapsburgs and deals mostly with the 13th century! Why is that in there? I also fail to see how the other sources, including the long quotes provided, support this wording in the text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, how does the phrase "Napoleon invaded Prussian Poland." support the use of the term "occupation" above? Or the phrase "An insurrection quickly liberated western Poland from Prussian rule."?

And in the second source we have "After western Poland was liberated from Prussian rule in 1806" - again, why is this cited as supporting text which appears to say just the opposite? If you're "liberating", you're not "occupying", at least not in the sense that the word is being used here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Liberation" is always a matter of POV, in general Napoleon's campaigns are not considered an attempt to liberate Europe. Please note that Bideleux, for a good reason, puts the term in quotation marks ([7]) HerkusMonte (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait, I can't where in Bideleux you're talking about. The page given, as I state above is about 13th century and Hapsburgs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Liberation" from Napoleon's POV was to rid a country (Italy, Netherlands, Spain) of the old guard and to replace them with members of his family. The concept of Polish nationalism was not relevant to Napoleon, the Poles followed him in order to gain "independance" as a satellite in his empire--Woogie10w (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Liberation" is always a matter of POV, in general Napoleon's campaigns are not considered an attempt to liberate Europe

Except we are not talking here about whole Europe but Poland, which was an exception as it was one of the willing allies of Napoleon, both in terms of country and people. The end of oppressive Prussian rule was liberation for Poles and they gladly took place at the side of Napoleon. One of the first things after Poland regained independence from the quasi-apartheid German Empire was to build a monument to Napoleon in 1921[8] Even today monuments to him are build in Poland [9]and its capitol Warsaw[10]. So you have to remember that for Poland Napoleon was a liberator in these times.Sadly Poznań was reoccupied by Prussia later with the all the dire consequences we know that happened next.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Molobo that is historical mythology, Poland was a satellite of France under Napoleon. France dictated Polish foeiegn policy, French officials controlled Polish trade and the Polish military was at the service of the Emperor. Does this remind you of Poland circa. 1982?--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the sources use the term "liberated" (in one particular instance apparently with quotation marks). I'm sure for the Poles, Napoleon's control was much preferable to Prussian rule. Anyway, we stick to the sources. What I'm wondering is how these phrases:
  • "Napoleon invaded Prussian Poland."
  • "An insurrection quickly liberated western Poland from Prussian rule." (note this one specifically refers to Poles liberating themselves, not Napoleon)
  • "After western Poland was liberated from Prussian rule in 1806"
Somehow managed to turn themselves into a "French occupation". I mean, last time I checked "liberation" and "occupation" are more or less antonyms. So this just seems like a pretty straight forward misrepresentation of sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All relevant sources are quoted in the section above. Two of them (Grab 2003: 179; Nafziger et al 1993:4) use the term "liberation", but only in the context of "liberation from Prussian rule"; one source (Bideleux 2007: 280-281) uses "liberation" in quotation marks. The argument that liberation and occupation are antonyms is not correct: the sources talk about 'liberation' from Prussian rule and (or rather through) occupation by France. That is not the first time an invading power's occupation is termed "liberation" - there are always people welcoming that power, while others don't. I don't see how the claim of a liberation contradicts simultaneous occupation by the 'liberating' power.

The phrase "liberation from Prussian rule" is however not used exclusively by the sources referred to above. Grab, while using that phrase, at the same time terms this an invasion of Prussian Poland (""Napoleon invaded Prussian Poland") and refers to the 'liberated' areas as "Polish areas conquered from Prussia" under the "Napoleonic government in Poland" in the same paragraph (quoted in the section above). 'Liberation' from Prussian rule and French occupation go hand in hand. Norman Davies, as quoted in the section above, likewise refers to the French-occupied area as "his [i.e. Napoleon's] Polish conquests", saying that after "Gneisenau's brilliant defence of Colberg, Napoleon was quite prepared to hand the whole of his Polish conquests back to Prussia. Even after his final repulsion of the Russians at Friedland in June, he entered negotiations with the Tsar with the clear intention of trading Poland in exchange for concessions elsewhere." Skäpperöd (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All relevant sources are quoted in the section above. - yes they are, but they don't state what the text stated previously. To wit, the term "occupation" is not used anywhere that I can see.
I don't see how the claim of a liberation contradicts simultaneous occupation by the 'liberating' power. - maybe it doesn't but at the very least you need a source which actually talks about any kind of "occupation".
while using that phrase, at the same time terms this an invasion of Prussian Poland - yes, but I'm not sure I see your point. See Normandy Invasion. "Invasion" does not automatically imply "occupation". Invasion just means you come into a territory which previously was not under your control. Same thing goes for "conquests" and "conquer" - it just means that someone now controls territory which they did not control previously.
"Liberation" from Prussian rule and French occupation go hand in hand. - is this from a source or is this your own statement?
I'm not seeing "occupation" anywhere. I do see "liberation" used repeatedly in the sources. But somehow this "liberation" became an "occupation" when you inserted the text and "sourced it".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated in the abovecited sources,

  • the bulk of the Grande Armèe (including Murat, Davout and Napoleon himself) was in Prussian Poland
  • Napoleon moved his headquarters first to Poznan/Posen, then to Warsaw
  • a popular anti-Prussian uprising was started on Napoleon's behalf in support of the French conquest of Prussian Poland
  • as soon as the uprising had fulfilled its purpose, Napoleon ordered raising regular troops who then fought under French command
  • the Polish government of the area was appointed by Napoleon, its main purpose was to organize the war effort
  • Napoleon was able to trade and bargain with the Polish territory (i.e. offer it to Prussia, Russia...) as he liked
  • sources don't use "liberation" unspecified; the few who are using the term either put it in quotation marks (one source) or explicitely specify it as "liberation from Prussian rule" (two sources) and at the same time speak of French "conquest"

All of this should suffice to use the terms "occupation" and "client state." There are also sources spelling it out, if that is what you want:

Skäpperöd (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your list titled "As stated in the abovecited sources" is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. As stated in the above cited source, the episode is termed "liberation" repeatedly. Some of the items in the list are either false or complete OR, for example

  • a popular anti-Prussian uprising was started on Napoleon's behalf - no, a the uprising was started by Poles on their own behalf.
  • sources don't use "liberation" unspecified; the few who are using the term either put it in quotation marks (one source) or explicitely specify it as "liberation from Prussian rule" (two sources) and at the same time speak of French "conquest" - so what? The implication that you are drawing from this are completely your own, and hence WP:OR.
  • Your three other sources use "occupied" in a different sense than you are trying to use it here. You're equivocating. I'm occupying my house - doesn't mean it ain't mine. Also, we're not talking about Warsaw here so again, irrelevant.
  • I love how selectively you quote Pawly & Courcelle. Your quote is "Late in 1806, with large parts of Poland now occupied..." and then completely omit what follows: "...by the French and their allies, its citizens (i.e. those of Poland), were ready to fight alongside their liberators in order to free their country from Russian and Prussian yoke". This kind of selective use of text from sources is, to put it politely, misleading.
  • Your original changing of "liberation" - as is found in the sources - to "occupation" was based on a source which used the word ... "liberation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to completely ignore the fact that the French army was in Poland and that the "liberation" from Prussian rule resulted in rule by a commission appointed by Napoleon. When you say that "the uprising was started by Poles on their own behalf," you ignore that the French invasion predated the uprising and that it was instigated by Napoleon's officer Dombrowski who was called in by Napoleon for that purpose, cf. Grab, Alexander I. (2003: 179) as cited above: "Shortly after his victories over Prussia, Napoleon invaded Prussian Poland. The emperor invited Dabrowski and Wybicki to appeal to the Polish people to revolt but made no commitment to support Polish independence. [...] Wybicki and Dabrowski called on their countrymen to rise up." When you say that "occupying my house - doesn't mean it ain't mine," you ignore that the French weren't exactly occupying their houses, but Prussian Poland.

The point is that "liberation" and "occupation" are not mutually exclusive as you present it, both terms are used by sources (and "conquest" is, too). But, while "occupation" is factual and just stating what happened, "liberation" is, per the other commentators to this thread, a judgemental term. And I did not change "liberation" to "occupation" - you changed "occupation" to "liberation of Prussian controlled Poland". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything. Of course the French army was in Poland - as the sources above state, they "liberated" it. It's hard to "liberate" any place without having the army actually present in the territory in question. Whether the uprising predated French operations in the region or was concurrent with it, or was inspired with it is immaterial - it was still "on behalf of the Poles". It's not like the Poles were just interested in doing Napoleon a favor. This is just common sense. Do you actually know who Dabrowski and Wybicki were? Yes, at the time they were in French service, simply because Poland had been partitioned and hence didn't have its own army. So what?
If you'd like I'll change my analogy. If a burglar breaks into my house, and a friend of mine comes over and whoops up on him, then stays for awhile to make sure everything's ok, then that friend is "occupying" my house. It's still my house.
What you did was to insert the word "occupation" and add a citation at the end of the sentence to a source which actually used the term "liberation". Again, this is, to put it politely, misleading (which is why I changed it to what the sources actually say). Care to explain why you also tried to misquote the Pawly and Courcelles source by selectively omitting relevant text from it? This is all adding up to a particular pattern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation request

I request a citation for this sentence:

"Additionally, the Prussians distrusted Polish soldiers stationed in the city(of whom 2,000 were garrisoned in the whole region)"

The citation shall also clarify

  • what is meant by "whole region"
  • if this is relevant for Kolberg, i.e.
    • if any Poles served in the Prussian garrisson of Kolberg and
    • if the "distrust" occurred in Kolberg
    • if Poles, should there have been any among the defendants, faced any consequences

Skäpperöd (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, regarding this one [11], with an edit summary of connection to the siege remains unclear, no clarification at talk:
It looks like you tried asking for a third opinion here but because it was mal-formatted it got deleted, if I'm understanding correctly. Can you please reformat your 3O and resubmit it rather than removing sourced text unilaterally? First, the connection is obvious, let me bold it for you: The Prussians distrusted Polish soldiers stationed in the city. I'm assuming that "in the city" refers to Kolobrzeg rather than a Jam song. So why the edit summary? Second, I don't get why you think you can dictate these terms along the lines of "The citation shall also clarify". The citation shall do what is in the source. It's probably not a good idea to use this kind of "thou shall" phrasings, it's unlikely to be conducive to working out any potential disagreements. Third, your first three concerns are already addressed by the "in the city" part. If you think a source is being misrepresented then be explicit about the accusation and provide proof (note - I'm not the one who put the source or the text in). Otherwise, there's WP:AGF. Fourth, I don't see at all how whether "if Poles, should there have been any among the defendants, faced any consequences" is at all relevant to whether the text is included or not. Fifth, WP:DR requires that you allow for sufficient time for editors to respond. This is especially true for requests such as these. I'll order the book, I'll get it in a week or two and I will let you know. In the meantime, the world won't end if the sourced text stays in the article. Can you please restore it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first thoughts - you are not understanding correctly, the 3o request was properly filed and had nothing to do with this. Regarding the rest: that the sentence is not properly reflecting the source is already clear from the projected antagonism between "the Poles" and "the Prussians" - if Polish conscripts were in the Prussian garrisson of Kolberg, then they are part of "the Prussians" and not their counterpart. If that is of any relevancy to the siege will only be clear after the respective citation is provided and the questions asked above are answered. If there were only a handful of conscripts from Prussian Poland and the "distrust" did not result in anything but rather was just an unfounded concern by someone, then it is not of interest. If there were many Polish conscripts in the Prussian garrison who deserted/were detained/collaborated with the siege force or anything in significantly higher rates than the rest of the garrisson, then it should be mentioned. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see there already was a source cited to the text. You just removed sourced text per IDON'TLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

3O

A 3O request has been lodged at WP:3O. However, requesting user has not flagged the section of this page and it is not possible to identify the problem area, or whether the controversy is between two eds. who require a third. Please contact me if needed - the request has been taken from the page. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wybicki raised the Poznan legion?

This edit says that Wybicki and Dombrowski raised the Poznan legion. Why Wybicki? Skäpperöd (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dabrowski organized legion - i.e. took the recruits, trained them, made them into a fighting force, etc. Wybicki recruited soldiers to the legion, spread the news about its creation and "raised" it in other ways. Essentially, Wybicki was - despite having a military rank - the "civilan" advisor to Dabrowski in the creation of the legion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You know that Dabrowski and Wybicki were like BFFs, right? Thought you might know since Wybicki's people were Danes from Pomerania.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nafziger et al is quoted in the footnote saying that raising the Poznan legion was done, on Napoleon's ordre, by Dombrowski. If we want to include who raised the legion, and I am not sure if that is even necessary, it is of no relevance whether a "BFF" was Dombrowski's "civilian advisor." Dombrowski was ordered by Napoleon to raise the 4 regiments in Poznan/Posen, he did, he was put in command, that's what the source says. Wybicki is not mentioned in this context. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon in Poland Time for a Reality Check

The arrival in Warsaw of Napoleon was carefully managed by the French, there was to be no spontaneous demonstration. This document provided by the Polish government gives us a snapshot of rule under Napoleon. [12] He was the Emperor, there was to be no independant Poland. Napoleon did not approve of so direct reference to pre-partitions Poland. He had his own vision of European order and the Poles' place in it. He did not wish even so allegoric form of pressure on his later decisions--Woogie10w (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Skapperod's reverts

These two reverts appear to be extremely petty and pointless [13], [14]. Additionally, from the edit summary one might get the false impression that they are new edits rather than straight up reverts.

On the merits of the matter:

Edit summary 1: fmt: portrait of a colonel leading a regiment should not be larger than the portraits of the commanders; same for the caption (detailed in the text anyway))

The obvious difference is that the picture of the commanders is a composite of several pictures, whereas the one of Sulkowski is just of him. Putting his picture at 75px makes it so that you can barely see the freakin' portrait. The standard for images of this type in Wikipedia articles is at least 150px (I dared to make it a bare 100px). If you want to make the image of the commanders larger be my guest.

Second, a caption to an image should be descriptive. An image caption of "Sulkowski" is about as non-descriptive as one can get, save for skipping a caption all together. Why are you trying to provide our readers with as little information as possible? Furthermore, it is standard practice to wikilink names in captions, in addition to the text. If you want to expand the caption for the commanders be my guest.

Edit summary 2: rm Wybicki - not in the source given, see also talk; also rm "Polish commander" since he was in French/Italien service)

This is false. Wybicki is in fact in the source which states "Wybicki and Dabrowski called on their countrymen to rise up.". I guess I could copy/paste that statement into the article but I was trying to avoid too close of paraphrasing of source and avoid copy vios. This of course could be made precise if Skapperod hadn't hidden away virtually all information about Polish involvement in the siege in the footnotes.

Dabrowski was a Polish general. Just to grab a random source (there's hundreds which could be provided) [15]. As was already explained, since Poland had been partitioned it didn't have its own army yet and so at the time Dabrowski was in French service. He was obviously a Pole, and a commander (though I guess you can change it to "general" if you wish), calling upon his fellow Poles to rise up. And also, why not include his full name? Is it already included in its full form in the article somewhere? No? Then once again, why are we trying to provide our readers with as little information as possible?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The see also talk appears to refer to this comment [16] which says "why Wybicki?". That's not exactly an argument for removal or... anything else for that matter. It's a question. The revert was made before there was a chance to answer it or point out the fact that Wybicki is mentioned in the sources. I would appreciate it if in the future Skapperod wasn't so quick with the revert button and wait an appropriate amount of time after asking a question on talk so that it can be answered. Otherwise it just seems like a provocation to start an edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

re portrait: the images should illustrate the article, which is about the siege. Sulkowski participated as a colonel leading one out of many regiments. In the article, the commanders of the siege force and the commanders of the defense (except Lucadou) are pictured, not the brigade commanders, not any regiment commander except colonel Sulkowski. The caption of the commanders' portraits consists of their name only, since their role is detailed in the article. It is simply undue to make the image of a colonel 25% larger than the images of the commander and attach a long, redundant caption - one could even say that having that image of the colonel in here is in itself undue since neither other regiment commanders are pictured nor are their superior brigade commanders.
re Wybicki: Nafziger et al is even quoted in the footnote saying that raising the Poznan legion was done, on Napoleon's ordre, by Dombrowski. The line you copied above ("Wybicki and Dabrowski called on their countrymen to rise up") has nothing to do with the Poznan legion - I already created a dedicated section above, please respond there. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
So I can put in "Polish general" for Dabrowski?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm going to ask for third opinion on this. Specifically:

I'm going to leave Józef Wybicki and the liberation/occupation thing out of it for now since those are pretty much straight from the sources so we *should* be able to settle that matter without need for outside comment (hopefully).

Ok that's the neutrally worded announcement. Here's my argument. First see my post above [18]. Other than that:

  • An image that is sized to 75px is so small one can hardly see it! The other images that Skapperod is comparing to are all multiple images which integrate three or more portraits. Honestly, in all my editing in Wikipedia I have never seen an image sized that small, except in special particular circumstances, and I see no point to it (unless it is to make it hard to see). Most images of this type (portraits) are 150px or more. I increased the image to only 100px but this was reverted.
  • Perhaps more importantly, the caption should be descriptive. Making the caption just "Sulkowski" is about as non-descriptive as one can get, save for omitting a caption all together. Apparently the guy doesn't even get to have his first name in there. Seriously, what is the point of such a non-descriptive caption (unless it is to make it non-descriptive). My caption clearly indicated who the person was and what his role was: Commander of the Polish troops present at the siege Antoni Paweł Sułkowski. It was still short and to the point, but did convey the most important information to the reader.
  • Regardless of the above, standard Wikipedia practice is to wikilink articles in image captions, even if they're already wlinked within the article. There's no reason to remove the link to an article that I just created.
  • Jan Henryk Dąbrowski (sometimes spelled "Dombrowski") was a Polish general. But because Poland had been partitioned during this time, there was no Polish army (until a few years later), hence he was at the time fighting for Napoleon. Sure, he was in "French service". But in this "French service" he led a unit that was called "The Polish Legion" (true, that particular unit had been reorganized earlier). Before the partitions he had been a general in the regular Polish army. Once Duchy of Warsaw was created he was once again a general in the Polish army, fighting the Austrians. Sources call him a "Polish general" [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] and a score of others, or "Polish commander" [24] (fewer of these, I'm fine with "Polish general"). The freakin' Polish national anthem is about the guy! It is called "Dabrowski's Mazurek". The guy was clearly Polish, and a Polish general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You're very obviously not a third opinion, given your previous history of active and one sided involvement in this topic area. Uninvolved, neutral editors please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Says a EMML member who was found guilty of disruptive activities and battleground behaviour on Eastern European topics.
And I was never involved in Pomeranian or Great French War topics. Karasek (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please don't try to poison the well with irrelevant attacks. Also, virtually all of your contributions to Wikipedia consist of moving articles to exclusively German names and removing info on Poles and Czechs. For you to try and pretend that you're "uninvolved" stretches the limits of credulity here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

re portrait: I have already responded to that in my e/s and in the section above: the images should illustrate the article, which is about the siege. Sulkowski participated as a colonel leading one out of many regiments. In the article, the commanders of the siege force and the commanders of the defense (except Lucadou) are pictured, not the brigade commanders, not any regiment commander except colonel Sulkowski. The captions of the commanders' portraits consist of their names only, since their role is detailed in the article. It is simply undue to make the image of a colonel 25% larger than the images of the commander and attach a long, redundant caption - one could even say that having that image of the colonel in here is in itself undue since neither other regiment commanders are pictured nor are their superior brigade commanders. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

re Dabrowski/Dombrowski:

  • 1st, I am not convinced that Dombrowski needs to be included here at all. The four regiments of the Poznan legion were, on Napoleon's order, raised and commanded by him - but the 1st regiment of this legion (Sulkowski) was the only one participating in the siege, and was at that time not fighting under Dombrowski, but under brigade commander von Berndes, who in turn was subordinate to Loison (who in turn was subordinate to Napoleon).
Another argument in this regard is that the article does not detail who raised all the other regiments participating in the siege.
  • 2nd, regarding the use of "Polish commander". Best to leave that out, because it is more complicated than that and if Dombrowski is to remain in this article, his own article is linked and one can read about it there. It is not that easy because "Polish" can be understood as "ethnic Pole" and as "in Polish service," and both are not entirely accurate:
    • the "ethnic" designation is problematic as we are talking about 1806/07 here, when "nations" in the sense it is understood today only started to evolve, slowly. If I use the term "ethnic" below, then I do so only with this very important caveat.
    • Dombrowski was the son of an "ethnic Polish" father (Dombrowski) in Saxon service and an "ethnic German" mother (Lettow-Vorbeck), married to an "ethnic German" woman (Rackel).
    • Dombrowski was born in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but spent his childhood and youth in Saxony where he also received his military education.
    • from 1791 to 1795, he was in Polish (-Lithuanian) service
    • from 1796 to 1814, he was in Napoleonic service:
      • He raised and commanded the Polish legion in Napoleon's Italian client states, who fought outside partitioned Poland and was finally wasted by Napoleon in Haiti, where the legionnaires were supposed to quell slave riots and thousands died in the swamps - a few hundred returned, the legion was disbanded.
      • He then served in the army of the Italian Republic/Kingdom of Italy, whose founder / king was Napoleon
      • In late 1806, Napoleon called him to Prussian Poland, which he had just invaded, to stage a popular uprising in support of the Grande Armeè's campaign and raise the legion whose 1st regiment would later participate in the siege of Kolberg
      • from 1807 to 1814, he served in the army of the newly created Napoleonic client Duchy of Warsaw and participated in Napoleon's campaigns
    • in 1815, he served in the army of the Russian vassal Congress Poland, whose king was the tsar. He soon retired and died in 1818.

Though there are many connections to Poland, it is misleading to just call him "Polish commander", especially in 1806 - the timeframe of interest here - since he was then called in from Napoleon's Italian holdings and acted in Napoleon's service on Napoleon's orders. The google books search results presented above do not deal with the time period in question. I agree with Karasek here. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re portrait - Antoni Sulkowski is notable because he was a notable person (even if at the time he only lead a regiment later he was the commander of all armed forces of the Duchy of Warsaw, as well as other commands and honors), and because the city is now in Poland (not Italy, or Nassau or Saxony). Perhaps the caption of the other commanders should be expanded. Regardless there is absolutely no reason why we cannot explain who Sulkowski was in the caption. It doesn't mess up the layout. It doesn't subtract from the article in any way. It is important encyclopedic information. The only reason I can imagine for some editors to try and minimize this information is IDON'TLIKEIT (which is also done by removing all other text relating to Polish participation in the siege, or by hiding it in the footnotes). Numerous sources discuss Sulkowski's involvement in the siege.
Re Dabrowski - again, why are you trying to remove important historical background? The siege didn't happen in a vacuum. It's not like Napoleon strolled over from France just to besiege Kolberg. The fact that the Wielkopolska Uprising (1806) occurred concurrently is part of the general background to this battle - in fact information on it should be expanded not removed.
Dabrowski was so obviously Polish that it boggles the mind that someone would seriously try to dispute it. He is universally referred to as Polish or as a "Polish general" - in this period or any other - by sources [25]. The fact that he was in French service - the reasons for which have already been explained; Poland had been partitioned and did not have an army of its own - is already obvious from the text and there's no need to weasel it.
And of course you agree with Karasek. You two share the same POV and the same agenda, and have for a long time. Thanks for showing again that he cannot be in any way be considered "uninvolved" here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Your "agenda" and "idontlikeit" comments are frivolous, just some short notes on your other claims:
  • Your argument that we should weigh the participants of an 1807 siege according to their nationality combined with which country the besieged town belongs to now ("because the city is now in Poland") is ridiculous.
  • Notability has nothing to do with this.
  • The information you want to have in the caption is already in the article.
  • The uprising in Prussian Poland did not occur "concurrently", but months before the Polish regiment took part in the siege.
Skäpperöd (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
First of all, I thank the editors of this article for inviting a third opinion so that the Wikipedia project can become better for everyone and easier for everyone to manage. Not that it matters to the validity of my opinion, but I will say that military history is a specialty of mine in the non-Wikipedia world and I have no feelings or allegiance to any side or viewpoint in the Napoleonic Wars. I have travelled to battlegrounds, including some in Poland, and believe overall this article is of a good quality. Lets remember that these wars of 200+ years ago are now becoming obscure to the average internet user and that your best service is probably to give a good overall summary of the conflict and major players, if readers want further detail they can go to the external sources or citations you create. Please don't get bogged down in pedantic detail when you could be adding more to the broad knowledge about these largely forgotten wars. With that wordy introduction, my specific opinions are:
1. re Sulkowski's picture should be provided in the article, if readily available. According to major sources he played a not-inisignificant role in the seige and a general guideline is more information, not less, is helpful, and in this case a picture is helpful.
2. re The size of Sulkowski's picture - this REALLY is a trivial detail which leads me to wonder if some editors are missing the forest for the trees and concentrating on petty details versus getting out the overall message. The picture size should be consistent with the others of individuals on the page, there should be no difference in picture size because he had a greater or lesser role in the events. If you really want a number, 90px is fine.
3. re Sulkowski's caption. Just his name alone is adequate.
4. re Dabrowski. Dabrowkski should be included in the article as he is mentioned in relevant source material. I think it is relevant BOTH that he is of Polish heritage but in this case fighting for (at least nominally) the Italians. He need not have any epithet at all, it is acceptable to refer to him simply by his name. I suggest a simple sentence that explains this rather unusual state of affairs along the lines of, "...the Polish born Dabrowski, former leader of xxxx xxxx, is here commanding on behalf of Italian armies under Napoloeon.." or words to that effect that explain the unusual situation of a. homeland not currently existing as a state and b. fighting for a 3rd party, Italy.
Overall, please don't get so caught up and emotional about details like picture sizes. Also when in a dispute try forming sentences that address both sides of it, instead of creating a dispute and insisting on a resolution that goes one way or another. History previous to the 20th century is not covered as well as it could be on Wikipedia, please consider spending most of your time expanding articles or adding new ones instead of fighting over minor details like captions, epithets, pictures, etc...
send me a note on my talk page if you are interested in another 3rd opinion on this good article.Leidseplein (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)—Leidseplein (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

.

Thanks for the third opinion, it's much appreciated. Quick question on Sulkowski's caption should the name be just the lat name or can it be "Antoni Pawel Sulkowski"? (The Sulkowskis were actually a fairly prominent family with several well known members). For Dabrowski I'll put in something like "Polish General in French and Italian service". Again, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@Leidseplein, thank you for weighing in. I agree with most of what you say, but:

Sulkowski:

  • You said that "the picture size should be consistent with the others of individuals on the page, there should be no difference in picture size because he had a greater or lesser role in the events." - That is exactly what I want. Sulkowski's picture is already is included in the article, and it is had been consistent with the size of the other portraits shown before VM enlarged it, please have a look.
  • Then you say "if you really want a number, 90px is fine." - that would make the picture larger than the other portraits, which is what VM wants, contradicting your reasoning above.

Dabrowski/Dombrowski:

  • "is here commanding" - that is false. Dabrowski did not take part in the siege and had no command there whatsoever, he merely raised one of the regiments partcipating in the siege.
  • "Dabrowkski should be included in the article" - he is included already, please have a look.

Skäpperöd (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Skapperod just reverted (again) [26] an edit based on the third opinion provided above. What is the point of asking for a third opinion if a particular user has no interest in listening to outside input?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit [27] introduced false and unsourced information while removing sourced information, I restored the sourced version. I also disagree with another edit of yours [28], where you again made Sulkowski's picture the largest portrait in the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing false in that edit. Please don't make baseless accusations like that since, aside from displaying extreme bad faith they border on being personal attacks. The edit only clarified text based on the suggestion made by Leidseplein above, which he provided in his third opinion. A third opinion which you appear to be intent on ignoring and instead insist on edit warring.
Also, I resized Sulkowski's picture to exactly the size also suggested by Leidseplein in his third opinion above. A third opinion which you appear to be intent on ignoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request PART II:

Thanks to the editors of this article for continuing an effort to resolve disputes using the less-formal 3rd Opinion process. I try to do the process thoughtfully with the overall goals of the Wikipedia project in mind. Some of you asked for more clarification of my opinion,

re Sulkowski's caption > can contain his entire name. The preferred form would be however he is most commonly identified in historical literature or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Obviously Napoleon and Stalin are most famously known by only their last names and many casual readers may even be confused if you spell out their full names, so if Sulkowski is better known by his full name or if there is no real difference in how he is commonly referred in historical literature, his full name should be used.
re picture size > Yes, I reiterate that pictures should generally be of uniform size for all individuals in the article, I did not bother to check what that size is, but if 75 is the size of other pictures, this should be the size of Sulkowski's picture
re Dabrowski's role > I'm not sure of his role, my impression was, perhaps incorrectly, that it was more substantial than raising a regiment. I think leaving his name in is fine, as I think everyone agrees, but if there is continued controversy here let's discuss. Put pros and cons to Dabrowski's inclusion or role below if you want a further opinion.
re Reversion of edits, bad faith, etc... related to Dabrowski being Polish etc.. > I really question whether this issue is so important such as to justify so much time from editors who obviously have a lot to offer Wikipedia's rather thin coverage of pre-20th Century conflicts and especially thin coverage of non-English-speaking belligerents. I am pretty sure everyone is trying to do what they feel is right and in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but,
I don't understand why it is so important to include Dabrowski, or his Polish heritage, because it is such a minute detail to the average reader, likewise, I don't understand why its so important to another editor to keep this information out of the article. If you'd care to explain the reasoning both for and against Dabrowski's inclusion, and references to his Polish-ness, please do so below and if you still value my opinion I'll read arguments tomorrow.

Why doesn't everyone take a break and spend some time away from this for a day or so and then we can return to it, because, really, this is such a tiny issue and I hate to see time spent on this when so much in military history, or in central or eastern European history in general, is completely absent from Wikipedia. I hope this helps, thanks for using the 3rd Opinion process and inviting me to help everyone reach an article that meets the high standards we all hope to achieve.Leidseplein (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture Size Controversy - Proposed Solution

In view of the dispute over picture size I decreased Sulkowski's slightly and increased a few others slightly. With these old drawings/paintings it is hard to get a uniform representation on a digital screen, but this is a fair result I think and one which implies no level of importance (or unimportance). I hope this is a resize compromise everyone can live with and one which can put to rest the arguments over how big these illustrations should be. Leidseplein (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

due to variations in the original image size, quality, resolution, etc... assigning an arbitray picture width (e.g., width=90) to all the illustrations in an effort to promote equality unfortunately produces untidy results, so we are forced to use our best judgment about the width parameter. I've entered widths I think work nicely in view of the arguments presented here, but I have no objection to changing them if it is done through consensus...although living with these sizes for a few days might help cool down this dispute.Leidseplein (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that's fine (in fact I suggested resizing the other pictures instead above, which was ignored). I feel like the question of whether or not Dabrowski can be described as a "Polish general" (or commander), as he is in the sources is still unresolved (more specifically I thought it was resolved but Skapperod reverted my edits). I also agree that it is quite hard to understand why there is such a strong objection to a simple, short and straightforward clarification.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Kolberg_(1807)/Archive_1&oldid=1092421318"