Talk:Battle of Talas
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in China or Central Asia may be able to help! |
|
|
"Decisive" victory
[edit]This came to my attention because of an edit war over whether or not it was a decisive victory. (I'm not sure the cite we have now is much use in deciding this issue).
One can argue that it was decisive because the Tang losses were extremely heavy and that the battle resulted in a rout.
One can argue that it was not decisive because Tang expansion was halted by domestic issues, not by this battle; it was not strategically significant. While Tang losses were heavy relative to this army's size, they were a drop in the bucket of overall Tang forces.
Anyone else? Pinkbeast (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It was decisive Abbasids victory as after this battle the region shifted from Buddhist influence to Islamic influence Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat of an old discussion. What matters is not people's opinion but sources. Thankfully, there are sources which claim that the battle was a decisive victory for the Abbasids. --CaliphoShah (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Number of combatants on each side
[edit]I guess there were 40,000 soldiers on Arab side along with Tibetan allies and 50,000 soldiers on Chinese side along with around 10,000 Karluks But as we know Karluks defected Tangs for Arabs and routed them from flanks Before that battle of slightly in favour of Chinese and Arabs suffered good amount of casualties but Karluks defection changed the course of battle and seeing this Arabs attacked from front with full force and surrounded Chinese were routed By the end of battle around 60-70% of Chinese soldiers were Killed or captured Uzair Ansari333 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uzair Ansari333 - We are not interested in what you "guess" - we are only interested in what reliable published sources have already said about the subject, Please cite which sources you are referring to in order to obtain all these figures - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Date Terminology
[edit]Since this is a non-Western, non-Christian battle, shall we only use the CE date terminology and replace the AD usage? Tpsreport84 (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The Battle of Taras led to the end of Tang expansion in Central Asia?
[edit]The Battle of Talas led to the end of Tang expansion in Central Asia? How do you explain Feng Changqing's attack on the Great Buru Kingdom (present-day Kashmir) in 753? Feng Changqing's army crossed Central Asia into South Asia.
A country loses one-fiftieth of its standing army, leading to a significant decline in national strength? Inability to expand into Central Asia? What a ridiculous argument! You know, in the Anshi Rebellion of 755-763, the Tang Dynasty lost more than 30 million people, and recovered in the following decades.
Throughout human history, there has never been a state that has declined because of the 2% loss of the standing army. 李双能 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You've conflated "end of expansion" with both "cessation of activities" and "decline". Remsense聊 05:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Is the expansion over? So, how to explain Feng Changqing's attack on Kashmir in 753? After the Battle of Talas, the Tang continued to gather forces in Central Asia until the An Lushan Rebellion in 755, when most of the troops of the Anxi and Beiting protectorates began to withdraw from Central Asia and Xinjiang. 李双能 (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- 李双能, I suppose it depends how you would define expansion, which I would associate with broader long-term territorial or other material control. Going on campaign isn't necessarily expansion, campaigns are often undergone to maintain the control a state already has, which is how I would characterize Feng's campaign in Kashmir, though I will have to read more about it to be sure about that. I will also take another look at the sources used in the article to make sure the verbiage is supported by them. Remsense聊 17:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Is the expansion over? So, how to explain Feng Changqing's attack on Kashmir in 753? After the Battle of Talas, the Tang continued to gather forces in Central Asia until the An Lushan Rebellion in 755, when most of the troops of the Anxi and Beiting protectorates began to withdraw from Central Asia and Xinjiang. 李双能 (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
There are problems with the map of the Tang Dynasty used in the article
[edit]Victory of alliance?
[edit]@Qiushufang, hello. We won't do adding each belligerents to the result section even though they are participants. WP:RS cites this as the victory of Abbasids, supported by Tibetians. No need to add Abbasid-Tibetian victory. Imperial[AFCND] 14:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
"Seizure of the Hexi Corridor by the Abbasids"
[edit]The abbasids never conquered anywhere close to the hexi corridor. I assume this was a typo that meant the tibetan empire took the corridor. Waxwing96 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Tibetan takeover happened over a decade after the Battle of Talas per Military_history_of_the_Tang_dynasty#13th_Tibetan_Empire_(753). It is not substantiated in this article and is probably a reaching statement based on broad descriptions of the aftermath. Qiushufang (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Lalitaditya being the vassal of Tang
[edit]@Remsense @Sudsahab, Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan
, this is an excerpt taken from Indian Esoteric Buddhism: Social History of the Tantric Movement, specifically, from page number 46. Now, let's revise to the original version. Imperial[AFCND] 12:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Relax. If the battle can wait 1300 years to have a featured wikipedia article, it can wait a few more days to get additional input. That book doesn't seem suspicious, but is there a more general history book for this claim? Remsense诉 12:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
According to K.P. Jayaswal, Yasovarman's sending an embassy to China in 731 A.D. seems to have followed his defeat at the hands of Lalitāditya, for the Kashmir king himself was under the acknowledged suzerainty of China, and Yasovarman...
- Page number 103 of Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of YaśovarmanParadoxically, Lalitaditya became the supreme lord of India as a vassal of the Tang Chinese, and with the means provided by them.
- Page number 243-244 of Al-hind: The Making of the Indo-islamic World. And it is quite surprising that most of us tend to show him as an ally of the Tang, even though that too is an additional input, and couldn't wait for few more days for that. Imperial[AFCND] 13:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Funny how you didn't quote from these existing cited sources [1][2][3], definitely because you know these sources nowhere said that Lalitaditya was a Tang vassal
. Moreover your poor editing can be seen as the first source that you have cited is itself contradicting the victors of this battle, later helped defeat the Arabs at the battle of Talas
.Now if we talk about the sources from which you quoted, the first source is fine (but can a religious history book define a historical account?) the second one [4] is explicitly saying accepted suzerainty
so can we equate it to "vassal"? Isn't that WP:OR?
The third one [5] is more amusing as the source you have given doesn't even say anything like that.
Are you just randomly throwing these sources before even reading them? Do you realise that anyone can verify if your claim is true or not? Sudsahab (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Found so much attack on me here. We are here to build encyclopaedia. Not to cuss others. A gentle reminder. I gave sources for all the parts I cited and wherever it's necessary. That's it. Now I just need @Remsense to look at it. Imperial[AFCND] 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- So that's all you have in reply? Before moving forward I'd suggest you to go through WP:PA so you can refrain from making false allegations. Now coming to the topic, you again didn't quote anything like "vassal" word from the existing cited sources, we have to work together in order to sort out this issue but you're not giving quotation from those sources instead you brought up more sources in talk page in which only one has explicitly mentioned "vassal" word. Sudsahab (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to cite those sources if they do not mention such "vassal" word, only cite that source which explicitly saying
Lalitaditya was a Tang Vassal
. Sudsahab (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) - The Lalitaditya part in this article was supposed to describe their presence in the battle. Not to prove if they were vassal or not. The "vassal" part was added to show their relationship with the Tang Dynasty. As that was already present in the article of Lalitaditya Muktapida, it is not necessary to cite it again, and I wouldn't mind to cite if anyone needs that. So, as the sources are given, could you add that "vassal" part again in its position? Can use the sources I've provided above, if it's necessary. About the PA, I am here to comment on the topic. Not on the person. Imperial[AFCND] 18:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, please involve to make a consensus if you are notified by the ping. I am not rushing, but not interested in lengthening this thread by personal comments. Imperial[AFCND] 18:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will respond as soon as I am able. Remsense诉 18:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense As you can see from the above discussion @ImperialAficionado has failed to provide a specific quotation from the existing cited sources, adding more to the point this source[https://books.google.com/books?id=GFa0uSleDNwC] contradicts the victor of the battle. This is clearly WP:SYNTH. Sudsahab (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that is an art history book. I think it's fair to say that as such, it is less reliable in this context than the ones Imperial has provided, which do explicitly back up their claims. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Remsense诉 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense As you can see from the above discussion @ImperialAficionado has failed to provide a specific quotation from the existing cited sources, adding more to the point this source[https://books.google.com/books?id=GFa0uSleDNwC] contradicts the victor of the battle. This is clearly WP:SYNTH. Sudsahab (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The "vassal" part was added to show their relationship with the Tang Dynasty.
On the basis of what? That's what I'm asking, the sources you cited don't even say so and you're making your own presumptions? In Lalitaditya Muktapida you have cited the same sources there which nowhere said thatLalitaditya was a Tang Vassal
I'm repeating it because you're not checking your sources before quoting them here. Sudsahab (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure what sources you are referring to, but the ones here that Imperial cite do specifically say that Lalitadya was a Tang vassal or something to that effect where it acknowledged the Tang as superior. Qiushufang (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will respond as soon as I am able. Remsense诉 18:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense, please involve to make a consensus if you are notified by the ping. I am not rushing, but not interested in lengthening this thread by personal comments. Imperial[AFCND] 18:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- You don't need to cite those sources if they do not mention such "vassal" word, only cite that source which explicitly saying
- So that's all you have in reply? Before moving forward I'd suggest you to go through WP:PA so you can refrain from making false allegations. Now coming to the topic, you again didn't quote anything like "vassal" word from the existing cited sources, we have to work together in order to sort out this issue but you're not giving quotation from those sources instead you brought up more sources in talk page in which only one has explicitly mentioned "vassal" word. Sudsahab (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The sources provided by Imperial do directly say that Lalitaditya was a vassal of Tang China. "Suzerain" can be taken as something similar but more specific wording can be used if that is an issue. Qiushufang (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you checked all the sources provided by @ImperialAficionado? Let me conclude it for you and other readers:-
- 1.) This source https://archive.org/details/alhindmakingofin0003wink (given IA link for ease) provided by@ImperialAficionado is the most irrelevant here for the whole context, found nothing relevant in given pp 243-244.
- 2.) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GFa0uSleDNwC&redir_esc=y (p.96) this source from the beginning contradicts the victor of the battle of Talas so how can we assure its credibility?
- 3.) This one, https://archive.org/details/ingodspatharabco0000hoyl/page/186/mode/1up (p.186) neither it says that Kashmir/Karkotas participated in the battle of Talas nor do it says that Lalitaditya was a Tang vassal. It's now irritating and amusing at the same time. Why these sources were even cited for this long time?
- 4.) From these two [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kZWgj-YMdVEC&pg] (p.103)
- [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gUt7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false] (pp. 30-34) If suzerainty and submission (respectively) can be taken as vassal (note that authors do not mention "vassal" word) then I'm also fine with it.
- 5.) The only source which mentions "Lalitaditya being Tang vassal" [6] can be used by adding [clarification needed] or
templates, though several other questions can be raised like Ronald M. Davidson is professor of religious studies at Fairfield University but he's neither a military historian nor a linguist but I'm not going for that deep research because it's already exhausting for me to show how @ImperialAficionado sources lack credibility and promotes WP:SYNTH .This article needs additional citations for verification. - At last I'll only add up- some of his sources say that Karkotas participated in the battle of Talas while some didn't say so, and one of his sources even contradicts the victor of the Battle of Talas. I'm now tired and fed up of explaining this nonsense. Sudsahab (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is the wrong version of al-hind, the one with pg. 243-244 is 2002. The quote is there in the pdf I have. Suzerain can indeed be taken as something akin to vassalage in certain contexts. Multiple sources have stated something similar to the extent that it would pass reliably sourced by most standards. Both vassal and suzerain are provided in the body of the article. I'm not seeing what the contention is. Qiushufang (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Chinese history articles
- Mid-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- C-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- Low-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class Central Asia articles
- High-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles
- Wikipedia requested maps in China
- Wikipedia requested maps in Central Asia