This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles
What is the source for casualties stated on this tab? It is rather strange that a numerically superior, rather professional, and by all accounts better armed army suffers a loss of almost 30% at the hands of a small militia, which was almost annihilated. Logically speaking, each Georgian militia man should have taken two Persian soldiers before dying. Legends aside, such things do not happen unless one side posseses a superior technology, like fire arms. In this case, actually Persians had fire arms (limited) and Gerogians did not. I think the numbers need revising. mrjahan Nov 3rd, 2006.
While the numbers indeed need to be checked, I must say that Georgians actually had fire arms and quite well organized artillery. After the fall of Tbilisi, Agha Muhammad Khan did not execute captive Georgian artillery officers and took them in Persia where they were compelled to serve in the shah's army. --Kober04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it simply, I can not believe the numbers. It looks like one of those propaganda pieces that losing sides put out there as history and keep repeating. It sounds like "yes, we got our butts kicked, but you know what son? We were twice the man they were!!!" Out of a "militia" force of 5000 (losing 3-4 thousand by the end of the day), how many possibly could have been regular, trained soldiers? Or else, the information is wrong: it should read like "Georgians fielded a small but well-armed and professional army of 5000". This I can believe. So, which story should be out there? You decide. --mrjahan 6:30 PM, November 5, 2006 (UTC)
Who told you they were militias ? The Battle of Krtsanisi is known as a phyrric Persian victory against a small force of loyalists, who were well trained and skilled warriors and not militias. Georgia almost allways relied on a small professional force. BTW Georgia used muskets much much ealier than the persians, in a very large amount, they built them themselves and used them against enemys since the 15th century. So I am very sure that the Persians even had a great disadvantage in this point. It was 1787. Nearly every georgian warrior carried at least one musket and a few pistols along with his saber and daggers. If not mounted, than on ground and in this case, the georgians had to hold several strategic locations near and around Tbilisi. I think a death ratio of 4-1 for the persians is very typical for that time period, because they lacked on effective amount of small arms like muskets. They just had a smaller amount and the persian regular was equipped with very limited amunition. Besides that, their artillery never outnumbered the georgian artillery, which was decisively effective on elevated positions, though not decisive for the end result
Just dropping some more sources here that specifically state that Georgia and Tblisi were (re)conquered, apart from the latter being sacked, which was already stated in the article.[1][2]
I can post more if needed, but I'm sure that Yarshater and Axworthy are sufficient. Overwise its kinda overkill, placing 5+ sources.
^Yarshater, Ehsan. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 8. Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 72. (..) Aga Mohammad Khan then proceeded to punish Erekle and capture Tbilisi, which resulted in the bloody conquest of eastern Georgia.
^Axworthy, Michael (2010). Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant. I.B.Tauris. p. 283. The Qajars eventually won the struggle, and under Agha Mohammad Khan set about re-establishing Persia's traditional boundaries. Agha Mohammad Khan reconquered Georgia in September 2015.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
