Jump to content

Talk:Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malekfarugh (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 22 June 2021 (→Title of the historical insident: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleMongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 5, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
August 28, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 17, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Old comments

Though a bit on the short side for a rather important campaign (in my opinion anyway), I think there are several things that need to be fixed in the artical. For instance, the Siege of Otrar was not a quick capture. It took a five month siege before the Mongols were able to break through a small sally gate to gain access to the city, and it took another month before the city's citadel fell. Further, Bukhara was sieged by Genghis before he assaulted Samarkand, as we wanted to elimante the possibility of reinforcements from Bakhara from attacking his flanks (Bukhara was west of Samarkand). Also, you stated that Genghis selected his third son to be his succesor. However, it should be put in some context. The reason that Genghis had done this was because of a dispute that was rising between the two oldest sons: Jochi and Chaghatai during the siege of Urgench (after the fall of Samarkand). Jochi was promised the city after its fall, and wanted it in pristine condition. Because of that, Jochi interferred with the military aspect of the conquest, infurirating his younger brother Chaghatai. Also, I think it should be noted that the Shah's son, Jalal ad-Din, inflicted the Mongol's only major defeat in the campaign at Parwan in Afghanistan. Another suggestion might be to expand on various different tactics that Genghis and his sons used during the campaign, such as complete and utter decimation of cities and the use of prisoners as body shields when storming citadels. Hope this helps. - Lasserbeamcrossfire

I copy-pasted this article from Genghis Khan. Why don't you expand? --Ghirla -трёп- 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know that some people can get angry when someone does that. I will expand it then! - Lasserbeamcrossfire
Thanks. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...

I think I am done with this. There are probably a good amount of spelling errors, so I'll be going back and correcting those from time to time. Think of anything else that needs to be added/expanded/removed? --Laserbeamcrossfire 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a nice article, so I hope you don't mind I expanded on it, and detailed the reasons on the review page. Some of hte issues - such as the Shah's differences with the Caliph, the reasons Jochi was so embittered by his treatment during the war, the incredible use of the tactics of indirect attack and wholesale terror, plus the usual 3 introgatory paragraphs, plus badly needed sourcing and linking. Hope you like the additions...old windy bear 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Love the edits myself, so it's not a problem. I don't know much about Mongol military history, but an article I read caused some interest somewhere in my brain, and so I did some additional research. Unfortunately, my library at school was very lacking in modern books on the subject, so I had to use an old copy of Prawdin's book. Anyways, your additions were very awesome. :) --Laserbeamcrossfire 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Laserbeamcrossfire Thanks, and you did an outstanding article especially considering the lack of reference material. I have been studying the Mongols for 35 years, and have every book listed in the references, plus 3,000 (mostly varied history on just about everything, especially Rome in all it's phases, the Mongols, and the Dark Ages) more, at home, so my ability to dig up trivia was infinitely greater. You did a super job on the base article,
) I was just polishing your good work. Always a pleasure to work with a good person and good editor!
)

--old windy bear 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article GA status..i picked pt a few typo errors and it would help some additional references but it is a good read up to its level. --Zak 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor cleanup needed

There are still some typos and grammar mistakes in this article - I'll go through and pick them out when I have time, if nobody else gets there first. Katharineamy 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an unclear sentence at the end: "that bitterness, transmitted to his sons, and especially grandsons, Batu and Berke Khan".

Unclear if Batu and Berke are sons or grandsons of Jochi. EverGreg 11:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rename

I remove it as Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia. Because the conquest of Central Asia consisted of the submission of the Uyghus and Qarlughs, and the surrender of Kara-khtan but not only Khorazm itself.--Enerelt (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have a problem with the photograph on the main page entitled "Ruins of Muhammad's palace in Urgench.", the problem is the description of the photo, when expanded by clicking upon it, says that the photo is not of a "palace" of anyone, merely a fancy resting place for caravans! Which is the correct description. 69.92.23.64 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes Iseem to notice that nothing, as of yet, has been done to correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Urgench.jpg ! Either it is the "ruins of Muhammad;s palace in Urgench" or it is a "caravansi?", however the word is spelled? Perhaps one should make some effort to correlate depicitons with the correct descriptions?69.92.23.64 (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Did the Mongols rule the "Setting Sun?"

It seems to me there is a basic paradigm existing in the second paragraph. It reads thus; "Ironically, it was not originally the intention of the Mongol Empire to invade the Khwarezmid Empire. Indeed, Genghis Khan had originally sent the ruler of the Khwarezmid Empire, Ala ad-Din Muhammad, a message greeting him as his equal: 'you rule the rising sun and I the setting sun'." Just why would a ruler of the Eastern / Oriental world consider that he was the ruler of "the setting sun?" Did I miss something from my geography lessons? Was America discovered at some earlier time that we know nothing of? Just how does our current scholarship explain such words?69.92.23.64 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

I would also expect some consideration of these words?

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm (please look at the "Runestone!", citing the assertation that some "Viking" once traveled there, or resided there, etc.!

You may or may not know that the above group were also known as "Charismians?" And, "charisma" has a particular meaning and well could be attached to many Christian Groups.

http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediaofr00cann/encyclopaediaofr00cann_djvu.txt

"The Fifth Crusade was preached by Iimocent III. in 1215, and the cross was taken b.v Andrew II. of Hungary (1217) and by the Emperor Frederick II. (1220). Frederick II. was excom- municated by Pope Gregory IX. for delaying to take the field, and in con.sequence could not i>revail uiwn the Military Orders to fight under him. But he contrived to obtain the cession of .Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and in 1229 crowned himself King of Jeru- salem. In 12-14. however, the Templars and Hos- pitallers were defeated by the Charismians. allies of the Sultan of Egypt, and Jerusalem was sacked."

For more sources see; http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS315US315&q=charismians+iran

And, it seems the name/word "Charis" can be found to mean "Grace!" See; http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Charis

Thus anyone having the aspect of "One with Grace", meaning "Blessing of God", etc., might call themselves as "Charismatics?"

For Christians we might well accept the meaning found here?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement

But, what about the "Huns?"

Can you connect the English word "charisma" or "Charismians" with "Khwarezm" or "Khwarezmians?", etc.?

Is there any connection to IndoEuropean?, to Sanskrit, etc.?"69.92.23.64 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Debate about numbers is misleading

While it's good to highlight the uncertainty of army sizes for this campaign, there's no point in misleading people with the total improbability of some of these fantastical number claims. A Khwarezm army of 40,000 would mean it's forces had drastically decreased since the Ghurid and Khara-Khitai wars. Furthermore, 40,000 men would not be remotely able to sufficiently protect more than a couple major cities from internal revolt, and it is clear from Juvaini and Rashid al Din that the Shah's garrisons were numerous and strong. The Shah's mobile reserve cavalry force was apparently so strong that Jebe and Jochi's force in the Ferghana Valley retreated without a major battle, and if his reserve is that strong, his total army must be in the several hundreds of thousands. 

200,000-450,000 for the Khwarezm Empire adequately shows the range of uncertainty while still being very probable, as with the Rashid al-Din figures for the Mongol forces (75,000-150,000, depending on auxiliaries, given Muqali was still in China at this point).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.69.66 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Army Sizes

There are are extensive citations for all the numbers I added to the infobox in the "Forces" section of the article. They're being reverted for literally no reason.--2600:8801:C500:82F0:C1B9:544B:99AA:1AD5 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm surry, feel free to re-add it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible value judgement

I have issue with the following sentence from the article:

”The Mongol wars with the Jurchens however had shown how cruel the Mongols could be“

I feel as though it makes a value judgement on the Mongols, but it presents useful context. Should it be reworded? Pelevinwells (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia → Mongol invasion of Persia – Until July 2009 the page was Mongol conquest of Central Asia (now a separate article). Then there was an undiscussed rename to this title - see the "Rename" section above, where this was announced (in incomprehensibly poor English, I might add). While technically correct, there is absolutely no way this is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. I'll do an n-gram thing. Ok with Mongol conquest of Iran if that is preferred, but at this period we mostly use "Persia". Actually google trends suggests "invasion" is more common than "conquest", and "Persia" more common than the other names - I'm fine with that. Please state a preference if supporting a move. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd better do a list. Please specify support for:
  • A Mongol conquest of Persia
  • B Mongol invasion of Persia (wins on google trends)
  • C Mongol conquest of Iran
  • D Mongol invasion of Iran
  • E Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia (as at present)
  • F Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia
I'm essentially ok with A-D, but B seems the best on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. At Category:Invasions by the Mongol Empire one can see both "invasions" and "conquests", but more "invasions" - of course not all invasions were successful, even for the Mongols. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Persia refers to what is now modern Iran and the Khwarzamin empire did not only rule Iran but also Central Asia which was not historically part of Persia. I concur with Wario-Man that the "Mongol conquest of Khwarzamian empire" sounds much better. Akmal94 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Order of preference: A–C–B–D. I'd also support Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire, but not Mongol invasion of Central Asia and Persia, which would require a merger of three articles. It is true that Khwarezmia is not Persia, but this article is not strictly about Khwarezmia. It is about the Khwarezmian Empire, and Khwarezmia is not a good shorthand. (The real question is whether Persia/Iran is a good shorthand for the Khwarezmian Empire.) I favour "conquest" because this was a successful invasion that was not quickly reversed. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Mongol conquest of Khwarezmia → Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire – Clearer about scope. This is not simply about the region of Khwarazmia, but about the fall of an empire. Srnec (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod, Wario-Man, Ghirlandajo, and Akmal94: Pinging participants in the previous RM. Srnec (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec, Johnbod, Wario-Man, Ghirlandajo, and Akmal94: Khwarezmian or Khwarazmian? Britannica prefers Khwarezm with 530,000 Google hits, where Khwarazm has 394,000 hits. Hanberke (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No strong views on that point. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should match Khwarazmian dynasty until/unless that article is moved. Srnec (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title of the historical insident

This topic is recorded in the world history and various books, documents and academic articles as "Mongol invasion of Persia" or "Mongol Conquest of Persia". Therefore I just added this title in the first paragraph of the article with reliable references (published by eg. the Cambridge University Press, University of London, Brill Academic Publishers, etc.) However the user User:HistoryofIran removed all of them with no reason! Please keep the alternative title.--Malekfarugh (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongol_invasion_of_the_Khwarazmian_Empire&oldid=1029940475"