Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Battle of Talas

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Battle of Talas
    Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 14:11
well, TJK lets continue here, so whats your prove?
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 14:36

No, I don't care what historian you point out, I want the details an so far you fail to provide any, thus your argument is lame and of little convincing ability. And did he mentioned An Lu Shan's revolt has anything to do with Tang? If so he is pretty misinformed on primary sources because it clearly show that An Lu Shan didn't even knew about the battle, I don't need his theories, I read the primary sources I can decide. And I'm pretty sure he didn't even read the primary sources on the side of the Chinese.

How primary sources can describe and evaluate the process which effects are visible after centauries ? There is no question if An Lushan do know or do not know about the battle. The question is how much the defeat at Talas have weakinig the Tangs and thus make the revolt possible. As for knowing of primary siources by Luther Carrington Goodrich I will even no make any commence...

." Why we should assume that arabic sources are more biased in this case (eg numbers) then chinese ?"

What does bias have to do with this?

There are big difference in the numbers of Tang soldiers in primary chinese and arabian sources...I do not see any reason to belive just chinese and not arabian...

They conquer the territory, and in 755 they would withdraw anyway, so what difference would it make?

Arabs did supress the revolts !

I was talkiong about the Tarim, Turgis and Kabul. And do tell me how Mawwarannhu has anything to do with Talas as well.

Islamization of this region started even before Talas however was very superficial..after Talas and supressing the revolts the process have been intensified much.

In conclusion, all you've done is telling me your point of view without a support that backs up your claim, this is a poor display and would not be accepted in the area of historical facts.

Exactly as I see your position ..with additional claiming professional historian knows nothing

 



Edited by TJK
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 14:43
is it just me or does Warhead get in vitriolic arguments with everyone?
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 14:53

"How primary sources can describe and evaluate the process which effects are visible after centauries ? There is no question if An Lushan do know or do not know about the battle. The question is how much the defeat at Talas have weakinig the Tangs and thus make the revolt possible. As for knowing of primary siources by Luther Carrington Goodrich I will even no make any commence..."

 

There is none, thus the unimportant effect of the battle, had it been important it would be recorded as the Tien Bao wars were. For the question, I've already mentioned its not much, the troops lost were less than 20,000, the Tarim basin only had a little fraction of the Tang army if 400,000 troops could not defeat An Lu Shan, 420,000 would not make a difference.

 

"There are big difference in the numbers of Tang soldiers in primary chinese and arabian sources...I do not see any reason to belive just chinese and not arabian"

 

the reason is obvious, you only deny it because you don't want to accept it, Al tabari claim Tang has 100,000 troops, the entire garrison of Tang at the Tarim doesn't number that much, historians such as Beckwith who read both Tabari and Tang Shu easily discard the credibility of Tabari and claimed it as a great exaggeration, second the troops were created by Tang and all the details are presented, the Arabs merely glanced at it, how could you even claim Arab sources to be anywhere near the accuracy of the Tang sources regarding to the Tang numbers? I don't have trouble believing the Arab record of their numbers been more accurate than the numbers that Tang gives, but thats Arabs and I don't think Al Tabari recorded the Arab numbers.

 

"Islamization of this region started even before Talas however was very superficial..after Talas and supressing the revolts the process have been intensified much."

And whats your prove that Talas stirred this? For all your information, I can say its beacuse the Tang withdrew its garrison rather than Talas. And the process only started to intensify in the 9th cntury.

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 14:57

"Arabs did supress the revolts !"

 

And? That only proves my point, the Tang would eventually withdraw and the territory would be Arab's anyway.

 

"Exactly as I see your position ..with additional claiming professional historian knows nothing "

 

Not quite, I've provided plentity of details to back up my claim, I said there is no source that record Talas' effect on the central plain, why do you think the Tang record hardly mention Talas if its effect have been so profound? Prove to me that the Tibetan skirmish of Tang in 740s were less important than Talas.Its you who said it important, thus its up to you to prove it, not me, I can't prove to you something that doesn't exist, I can only site you that primary sources hardly mention the battle, so you have to show me how its important.

 

"is it just me or does Warhead get in vitriolic arguments with everyone?"

 

Like what? I only disprove whats not true.

 

Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 15:23

And? That only proves my point, the Tang would eventually withdraw and the territory would be Arab's anyway

No, this just prove that your knowlegde about Central Asia in VIII centaury is somehow limited..This also prove that antiArabs sentiments of the tribes of Mawarannahr was strong and if supported by allies could result with expel of Arabs domination..

Not quite, I've provided plentity of details to back up my claim

So do I

I said there is no source that record Talas' effect on the central plain, why do you think the Tang record hardly mention Talas if its effect have been so profound?

Because the primary source have so called "limited view" on the effect of some events. Events which seems to be unimportant from actual perspective  turn to be decisive when evaluated hundreds years after...

Prove to me that the Tibetan skirmish of Tang in 740s were less important than Talas.Its you who said it important, thus its up to you to prove it, not me

Now it's you who said it was more important so prove it

Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 16:00

TJK, the Turkic peoples starting mass-converting to Islam starting from the 940s; such as the Yaghmas, Chighils, Qarluqs, Trkmens (not Muslim Oghuz - these were a branch of Qarluqs), Oghuz, Volga Bulgars, etc... These all lived in Kashgaria-Semirechie-Kyrgyz Steppes regions, not much in Transoxiania, which was still Soghdian-Turkic mixed (even if Turks converted to Islam in Soghdiana, these were either small in number and/or were made by force).

The Rebellion of An Lushan doesn't have anything to do with the Tang defeat at Talas. The closeness in dates is just a coincidence. Talas was more like a skirmish for the Tang, it wasn't very important. Please show us real sources that say that An Lushan rebelled because of the defeat at Talas.

Btw, Chinese sources can be regarded more accurate in numbers when compared with Islamic and European sources.

[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 16:08

"No, this just prove that your knowlegde about Central Asia in VIII centaury is somehow limited..This also prove that antiArabs sentiments of the tribes of Mawarannahr was strong and if supported by allies could result with expel of Arabs domination.."

 

I don't what you're trying to prove? But even if Mawarannahr becomes independent, what makes you think that the arabs wouldn't conquer them again? As they did with the different countries of central Asia despite been driven out numerous times the Turgis. As limited as my knowledge on central Asia could be, yours regarding to An Lu Shan's revolt is even more poor, as can be seen by your totally baseless assumption that its even remotely connected to Talas.

 

"So do I"

 

No you haven't, you've shown nothing on how Talas is related to An Lu Shan, in fact you contradicted your own statement when you said there is no source claiming whether An Lu Shan knwe about Talas, thus proving your whole statement about An Lu Shan invading Tang because of Talas is completely made up and unfounded, you've so far did nothing in proving Talas started An Lu Shan or even tried to connect them. All previous examples of Tang activity in central Asia easily proves that no matter how badly the defeat there, its still a Tang colony and would not in any way affect the central plains. And these defeats were far more severe than Talas.

 

"Because the primary source have so called "limited view" on the effect of some events. Events which seems to be unimportant from actual perspective  turn to be decisive when evaluated hundreds years after..."

 

No, my point of this is that Talas has nothing to do with An Lu Shan which is what your constantly babble about without evidence. I'm not talking about anything in the future here.

 

"Now it's you who said it was more important so prove it "

 

I never said its more important, but you want prove? Ok, the Tang troop involved in that battle was 80,000, and its loss were more than 30,000? Proved your point? Talas suffered less casualtie, point proven, now your turn which you still haven't done.

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 16:17

Thanks Ihsan, I didn't really want thhis to be a flaming war, but the importance of the Talas battle is just not true, and I really hate it when people stick to it without evidence. The raids of the TuJue in 701, 687, 683 got more mentioning than Talas, the many Tibetan raids were also recorded in more details, proving that Talas is a completely negligible battle and a mere skirmish.

 

"This also prove that antiArabs sentiments of the tribes of Mawarannahr was strong and if supported by allies could result with expel of Arabs domination.."

 

Other than whats said about the repeated conquests of Arabs, what made you think the Tang would support them even if it defeated the Arabs? As mentioned, Tang attacked because it herd Arabs would attack the Tarim, when this is done, Tang has no reason to attack the Arab garrisons in central Asia. Xuan Zong has rejected offers made by Central asian countries throughout the 8th century in 731, 740s rspectively, why would he change the policy now?

Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 16:25

Btw, Chinese sources can be regarded more accurate in numbers when compared with Islamic and European sources.

Hahahahahah.  That was a funny joke.

 

Btw, can anyone just summerize the battle of Talas?  I don't know what's going on.

Grrr..
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 16:29

"Hahahahahah.  That was a funny joke."

 

Thats not a joke, its a fact agreed by many expert historians studying central asia. Chinese are accurate when regarding its own troops, but regarding source of foreign things they have some inaccuracy but thats due to misinformation than Bias, Bias history expecially on military was not a big concept back then. 

Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2004 at 16:57
Originally posted by demon

Hahahahahah.  That was a funny joke.

It's not a joke at all, it's a fact. I've read both Chinese, Islamic and European sources from the Middle Ages; among these, the Chinese look more accurate. Besides, many historians indicate this fact too.

Originally posted by demon

Btw, can anyone just summerize the battle of Talas?  I don't know what's going on.

Here is what was posted by a Chinese member of old AE:

The Battle of Talas according to Chinese sources

罗斯战役
The Battle of Talas

公元751 年(唐玄宗天宝 313;年)怛(音 da,二声) 罗斯战役暴发,$ 825;场战争大致地点 在现在的哈萨克 031;坦江布尔城附近 。

In the year 751 AD (the tenth year of the Tianbao period of Emperor Tang Xuanzong), the battle of chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />lace>laceName>TalaslaceName> laceType>RiverlaceType>lace> was fought near today's lace>Kirghizialace> in lace>Kazakhstanlace>.

罗斯战役的起因 159;西域藩国石国 无番臣礼,唐安西 节度使高仙芝领 853;征讨,石国请求 投降,高仙芝允# 834;和好;但是不久 高仙芝即违背承# 834;,攻占并血洗石 国城池,捋走男 969;,格杀老人、妇 女和儿童,搜取$ 130;物,而且俘虏石 国国王并献于阙 979;斩首。侥幸逃脱 的石国王子遂向 823;食(阿拉伯帝国 )的阿拔斯王朝A 288;中国史书称之为 黑衣大食)求救。有消息 说大食援军计划" 989;击唐朝西域四镇 ,高仙芝的反应 是采取先 发制人之策,主 160;进攻大食。鉴于 当时唐帝国在西 495;的影响,有许多 葛逻禄及拔汗那 269;的军卒参加大唐 军队。组成的大 776;联军有三万多人 ,其中唐兵占 2/3。大食 军队大约有七万 154;。高仙芝率领唐 联军长途奔袭, 145;入七百余里,最 后在怛罗斯与大' 135;军队遭遇。于是 ,一场历史上著 517;的战役 罗斯战役打响了 290;

The official cause of the battle was due to the Chinese vassal of lace>Tashkentlace> in lace>Central Asialace> not paying enough respect fit for an vassalage to the Chinese empire. As a result, the Tang Chinese Viceroy of Anxi in lace>Central Asialace>, Gao Xianzhi, invaded the state of lace>Tashkentlace>. The lace>Tashkentlace> rulers pleaded for peace, to which Viceroy Gao initially agreed, but soon he went against his earlier promise and sacked the city of lace>Tashkentlace> by force. The city was pillaged by the Chinese army, the men were snatched away while the women, children and the elderly were killed. The king of lace>Tashkentlace> was also beheaded. The prince of lace>Tashkentlace>, who luckily got away, begged the Abbasid Dynasty of the Islamic empire for help. At this crucial time Chinese intelligence reported that the Arab Muslims intended to strike the four Chinese districts in Xiyu (in modern day Xinjiang province and parts of lace>Kazakhstanlace> and lace>Afghanistanlace>). Viceroy Gao decided to strike the Arabs first in a preliminary attack. Due to the influence of Tang lace>Chinalace> in lace>Central Asialace> at the time, troops from Central Asian states that were allied to lace>Chinalace> such as the Qarluq Turks and the state of Ferghana joined the Tang Chinese forces. Altogether the Tang Chinese army and allies numbered more than 30,000 men, two-thirds of which were Chinese. The Arab army numbered about 70,000. The Tang army under the leadership of Gao Xianzhi travelled more than 700 Chinese miles and eventually it met with the Arab Muslim army at Talas. Thus a famous and important battle in Asian and world history - the battle of Talas River, took place.

在怛 罗斯战役中双方 456;互撕杀,战斗持 续五日。其间大 776;联军的葛逻禄部 见形势不妙反水 498;向大食,高仙芝 受到大食与葛逻 108;部夹击,无力支 撑而溃败不成军 。副将李嗣 业和别将段秀实 910;拢散兵游勇向安 西逃遁,途中恰$ 898;大唐联军中的拔 汗那兵也溃逃至 492;,结果兵马车辆 拥挤堵塞道路。 446;嗣业惟恐大食追 兵将及,挥舞大 834;毙杀百余名同属 大唐联军的拔汗% 027;军士,才得以率 先通过。此前李 987;业还曾劝高仙芝 弃兵逃跑,被段 168;实斥责为 敌而奔,非勇也A 307;免己陷众,非仁 也 。最后高仙芝等$ 930;引残兵逃至安西 。此役以大食 军完胜奔袭问罪 340;大唐联军为结局 ,唐三万余士卒$ 817;乎全没,只有少 数逃脱。

The mutual struggle during the battle lasted for five days, during which the Tang Chinese ally of Qarluq Turks saw that the situation was gradually going against the Chinese army and thus defected and went over to the Arab side. Gao's forces were attacked from both sides by the Arabs and the Qarluq Turks and as a result the Chinese army could not hold on and was routed. Two generals serving under Viceroy Gao, General Li Siye and General Duan Xiushi gathered the scattered troops and escaped towards the Anxi region in Tang-controlled Xiyu. In the process of retreat troops of the Ferghana allies, who were also retreating, crowded and blocked the path of the Tang army. Concerned about the Arab forces chasing them, General Li Siye ordered his men to kill the Ferghana troops in order to get away. Hundreds of Ferghana soldiers were killed before the Tang army got away. Earlier on when the battle was being lost, General Li advised Viceroy Gao to run away. General Duan condemned him saying: "To retreat due to fear of the enemy is not courage, to save oneself by sacrificing the army is not benevolence." In the end Gao Xianzhi escaped with a few remaining troops. Thus the battle ended with a victory for the Arab Muslims over the attacking Tang Chinese. Almost all of the Tang army's 30,000 men were killed or captured and only a small minority got away.chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

> >

> >

An ancient Chinese source, an account of the battle from the Zizhi Tongjian, written during the Northern Song Dynasty.

资治通鉴卷第二 334;一十六唐纪三十 二天宝十年)

高仙芝之 虏石国王也,石 269;王子逃诣诸胡, 具告仙芝欺诱贪 292;之状。诸胡皆怒 ,潜引大食欲共 915;四镇。仙芝闻之 ,将蕃、汉三万 247;击大食,深入七 百馀里,至恒罗 031;城,与大食遇。 相持五日,葛罗 108;部众叛,与大食 夹攻唐军,仙芝 823;败,士卒死亡略 尽,所馀才数千 154;。右威卫将军李 嗣业劝仙芝宵遁A 292;道路阻隘,拔汗 那部众在前,人 044;塞路;嗣业前驱 ,奋大梃击之, 154;马俱毙,仙芝乃 得过。
将士相失,别将 751;阳段秀实 闻嗣业之声,诟 352;: 敌先奔,无勇也A 307;全己弃众,不仁 也。幸而得达, 420;无愧乎! 业执其手谢之, 041;拒追兵,收散卒 ,得俱免。还至 433;西,言于仙芝, 以秀实兼都知兵 马使,为己判官 290;

My own English translation of this account: (Not necessarily 100% accurate )

The person that Gao Xianzhi had captured was the King of Tashkent. The Prince of Tashkent escaped away to the various barbarian states and among them he spread words about Xianzhi's unfaithfulness and greed. The various barbarian states all became very angry at this, and with the Islamic empire in the lead, they secretly planned to strike the four districts in Xiyu. After Xianzhi heard about this, he attacked the Islamic empire with an army of 30,000 men, consisting of both Chinese and non-Chinese troops. His force travelled a great distance of 700 Chinese miles before encountering the Islamic army at the city of Talas. The battle lasted for five days. During this time the Qarluq Turks in the Tang army defected and they attacked the Tang forces together with the Islamic army. Xianzhi was decisively defeated. Most of his men were lost and only a few thousand remained. Then the Right Guard General Li Siye advised Xianzhi to escape away. The retreating path was narrow and difficult to travel, and the allied Ferghana troops were in front of them, their men and horses blocking the way. Siye went ahead, and with a large club he ordered his men to kill all the obstructing Ferghana soldiers. The men and horses were all slaughtered before Xianzhi's forces could go through.
The officers and soldiers of the Tang army were all scattered around and could not find each other. Then the Vice-General Duan Xiushi of Xinyang heard the sound of Siye. After they met Xiushi condemned him, saying: "To hide from the enemy and escape away is not courage, to save oneself by abandoning the army is not benevolence. Now fortunately you have been able to escape, but do you not feel any sense of guilt and shame?" Siye bowed to Xiushi and thanked him for his rebuttal. He then stayed behind to hold off enemy troops that were running after them. He also gathered up the scattered soldiers before returning to Anxi. All the soldiers that had ran away were excused from any punishment. After returning to Anxi, Siye told Xianzhi about what happened. Xianzhi therefore rewarded Duan Xiushi, putting him in charge of various forces in the provincial capital and making him a judge in the army.

[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
TJK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 367
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 09:42

Ihsanchemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

TJK, the Turkic peoples starting mass-converting to Islam starting from the 940s; such as the Yaghmas, Chighils, Qarluqs, Trkmens (not Muslim Oghuz - these were a branch of Qarluqs), Oghuz, Volga Bulgars, etc... These all lived in Kashgaria-Semirechie-Kyrgyz Steppes regions, not much in Transoxiania, which was still Soghdian-Turkic mixed (even if Turks converted to Islam in Soghdiana, these were either small in number and/or were made by force).
>>

Well, and how the Islam have come to all this tribes ? not via already Islamized Transoxiania ? I also do not want to claim that finally this tribes would be not converted into Islam but even dozens years of delay would result with great impact on history of this region..>>

The Rebellion of An Lushan doesn't have anything to do with the Tang defeat at Talas. The closeness in dates is just a coincidence. Talas was more like a skirmish for the Tang, it wasn't very important. Please show us real sources that say that An Lushan rebelled because of the defeat at Talas

Well I have no >>

I must admit Im not the expert at this subject however such (undirect) connection  is claimed by many scholars:>>

In 751, Abu lAbbas joined forces with the Qarluqs and turned against the Tang Chinese forces that were menacing both of them. They defeated the Tang army at the Talas River in present-day southern Kazakhstan, decisively ending Han Chinese presence in West Turkistan. This marked the turning of the tide, after which Han Chinese occupation and rule of East Turkistan gradually dwindled and ended as well.>>

The Tangdefeat and the heavy cost of all Emperor Xuanzongs seemingly fruitless campaign Asia finally became too overwhelming for the Chinese population to bear any longer. In 755, An lushan (An Lu-shan), the son of a Sogdian soldier in Tang service and an Eastern Turk mother, led a popular revolt in the Tang capital, Changan.

>>

from: http://www.berzinarchives.com/islam/index.html>>

Btw, Chinese sources can be regarded more accurate in numbers when compared with Islamic and European sources.>>

It's not a joke at all, it's a fact. I've read both Chinese, Islamic and European sources from the Middle Ages; among these, the Chinese look more accurate. Besides, many historians indicate this fact too.

>>

Yes many... and some not  (Lew Gumilev  Ancient Turks, the chapter about Juan Juan defeat) >>

>>

warhead

No you haven't, you've shown nothing on how Talas is related to An Lu Shan, in fact you contradicted your own statement when you said there is no source claiming whether An Lu Shan knwe about Talas, thus proving your whole statement about An Lu Shan invading Tang because of Talas is completely made up and unfounded, you've so far did nothing in proving Talas started An Lu Shan or even tried to connect them. All previous examples of Tang activity in central Asia easily proves that no matter how badly the defeat there, its still a Tang colony and would not in any way affect the central plains. And these defeats were far more severe than Talas>>

No, my point of this is that Talas has nothing to do with An Lu Shan which is what your constantly babble about without evidence>>

>>

 >>

I would say you are probably right with my knowledge about Anlu Shan rebellion, and this is my last post in this topic as I dont enjoy to discuss in such style.>>

Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 10:44

Well, and how the Islam have come to all this tribes ? not via already Islamized Transoxiania ? I also do not want to claim that finally this tribes would be not converted into Islam but even dozens years of delay would result with great impact on history of this region..

The Battle of Talas was fought at 751, the earliest date of mass-convertions of Turkic peoples started in the 940s. There is an almost two centuries of gap between the two events.

The Volga Bulgars learned about Islam via Muslim traders from the South, they converted under the orders of their ruler, just like what happened to the Kievan Rus. I think the Qara-Khanids and Oghuz, at least the early followers of Seljk (Seljk) Begh, converted in the same way, though there must have been many self-convertions too. Satuq Bughra Khan, for example, was influenced from a refugee Smnid prince whereas Seljuk Begh had to convert to gain support from the residents of Jand (remember that after breaking up from the Yabghu of Oghuz, Seljuk went to Jand with his followers and converted to Islam later).

Islam was spread among the rest of Qara-Khanids and some of the Uyghurs via the "Holy Wars" of Muslim Qara-Khanid rulers. Especially the earliest Muslim Qara-Khanids had many "Ghz" rulers.

My point is that I couldn't find any connections between Turkic peoples converting to Islam and the Battle of Talas. You say the Turks converted via Islamised Transoxiana, but Talas didn't and couldn't have much impacts on Abbsid rule over the region. Even if the Tang won, they still wouldn't conquer the region, at least for a long time. If they did, the Abbsids would re-strike with even more powerful forces (remember the wars between Sulu Qaghan and Umawwids). And then the rest is Alternative History and I don't like it much

I must admit Im not the expert at this subject however such (undirect) connection  is claimed by many scholars

I know, but they haven't shown any solid evidences.

In 751, Abu lAbbas joined forces with the Qarluqs and turned against the Tang Chinese forces that were menacing both of them. They defeated the Tang army at the Talas River in present-day southern Kazakhstan, decisively ending Han Chinese presence in West Turkistan. This marked the turning of the tide, after which Han Chinese occupation and rule of East Turkistan gradually dwindled and ended as well.>>

The Tangdefeat and the heavy cost of all Emperor Xuanzongs seemingly fruitless campaign Asia finally became too overwhelming for the Chinese population to bear any longer. In 755, An lushan (An Lu-shan), the son of a Sogdian soldier in Tang service and an Eastern Turk mother, led a popular revolt in the Tang capital, Changan.

Again, I couldn't find a connection between the minor Tang defeat at Talas and An Lushan's rebellion. I want to see a record of that day which says that An Lushan rebelled because of the defeat at Talas. The Tang suffered far worser defeats than Talas, remember

 

Yes many... and some not  (Lew Gumilev  Ancient Turks, the chapter about Juan Juan defeat)

And Gumilv isn't very accurate either. I saw many mistakes or wrong theories in that book

 

and this is my last post in this topic as I dont enjoy to discuss in such style

But you can still discuss with me, I swear I won't insult you

[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 12:15

"I must admit Im not the expert at this subject however such (undirect) connection  is claimed by many scholars:"

 

First of all, these historians are professional in their subject not on An Lu Shan's rebellion, thus their professionalism here is as good as nothing, none of the sinologists who have profession in this field claim such lousy statements, and if sinologists aren't enough there are historians who specifically field in the history of An Lu Shan's rebellion such as Pulleyblank, Seijiro, and Bielenstein. Their analysis of An Lu Shan is far deeper and analyzed than those historians you brought up whose profession is clearly not about An Lu Shan thus their words are no better than any commoner who read primary sources if not worse since at least commoners read the primary Chinese sources and they didn't.

To get a clearer view of An Lu Shan's revolt, I'm just going to post some major information drawn from primary sources and expert writers on the background of An Lu Shan.

First there is the military background, here is whats wiritten on the primary source:

"At the end of Tien Bao(742-756), because there was great peace in the Middle plain, the emperor cultivated the arts of civilization and abandoned military preparation(from within). He had the spear and arrow points melted down in order to weaken the valiant knights of the empire. Thereuopn anyone who carried warlike arms was punished and anyone who kept prophetic books was executed. Anyone who practiced archery cmmited a crime. .....only in the frontier districts were large bodies of troops maintained. In the Middle plains arms and weapons were stored away to show that they would again be used. Men grew to old age without hearing sound of war........When an emergency arose their knees shook and they were incapable of carrying arms. It was no mere case of ill-fourtune that after this rebels took advantage of the situation to revolt" 

As can be seen the disarmament policy left the central plains inexperienced in military making An Lu Shan believe the invasion would be successful.

Second their is the political background, this has to do with Li Lin Fu who had tremendous power at the frontier and all the generals were in fear of him, after An Lu Shan was defeated by the kitans and xi in 751, he decided to revenge them with a far larger army of 200,000, He obtained permission from the court to recieve cooperation of the province of Shuo Fang under the command of a turk name A Pu Su,(whom the Qarluqs helped in capture later), A Pu Su feared An Lu Shan and didn't want to join him but was refused, he thus escaped to the west, since the powerful Li Lin Fu was the superior of A Pu Su, Yang Guo Zong and even Ko Shu Han(who fought in Tibet) condemned him, he was forced to resign from the post and died of illness later, this was a significant event in that he was able to balace the power of diffferent generals and An Lu Shan feared him, when he died in 753, Abn Lu shan grew bolder and didn't listen to the new post. An Lu Shan also got much more reiforcement during this period since he exaggerate the power of Kitan thus his power grew steadily until his force went over 200,000 in size.

 

Third is the economic background, here is a passage taken from Zi Zhi Tong Jian:

At the begining of Kai Yuan(712) the annual frontier expenditurewas approximately 2,000,000 strings of cash. By the end of Kai Yuan(741) it had reached 10,000,000 strings. By the end of Tien Bao(755) it had again increased by four to five million. According to the regulations of the Ministry of War those who take part in defeating the enemy or perform military services are rewarded according to a fixed scale and those who hold offices are one or two in ten. After Tien Bao(742) the frontier generals, relying on their favour, asked for the creation of offices........In every one of the more than 40 commanderies of Kuan fu, shuo fang, He xi, and Lung Yu and the moer than30 commanderies of He bei ther ewere government granaries. The larger ones held 1,000,000 shi, the smaller ones, not less than 500,000 shi. They provided the salaries of officials sent out from court. By the end of Tien Bao they were all exhuasted. Such was the ruin brought upon the empire"

 

As can be seen these are detailed analysis, Talas is not even remotely mentioned, and its completely ridiculous to claim Talas was the cause of An Lu Shan, the expenditure of Talas is too small to even alert the court, it was treated as a minor skirmish at the time. Every major expenditure during the Tang has a census taken on the amount of money spent, those of the Tien Bao wars against Nan Zhao for example was recorded to have several hundred thousand shi of expenditure. While the undertaking against Tibet in 678 and 670 were also recorded to have lots of spending, these are major campaigns that include up to a hundred thousand troops not some small skirmish of Talas that only involved perhaps 20,000 Tang troops(the remainder are foreign allies) and the result of Talas merely took perhaps no more than 10,000 Tang troops. And these troops are of not the smae quality as those of the imperial armies of the central plains.

 

 

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 12:27

"In 751, Abu lAbbas joined forces with the Qarluqs and turned against the Tang Chinese forces that were menacing both of them. They defeated the Tang army at the Talas River in present-day southern Kazakhstan, decisively ending Han Chinese presence in West Turkistan. This marked the turning of the tide, after which Han Chinese occupation and rule of East Turkistan gradually dwindled and ended as well.>>

The Tangdefeat and the heavy cost of all Emperor Xuanzongs seemingly fruitless campaign Asia finally became too overwhelming for the Chinese population to bear any longer. In 755, An lushan (An Lu-shan), the son of a Sogdian soldier in Tang service and an Eastern Turk mother, led a popular revolt in the Tang capital, Changan."

 

This again is cery shallow analysis, and even here they did not indicate talas started An Lu Shan, what it said was "the heavy cost of ALL emperor xuan Zong's seeminly campaign Asia" there is a mistake here as well, he is perhaps referring to the Tien Bao wars against Nan Zhao which is the only war which Tang spend greatly and lost during the whole reign of Xuan Zong. All other miltiary campaigns vary in success but all had the desired result, Tubo was contained and defeated, the Turgis subdued, and the Kitan and xi crushed(except in the end).  

Second mistake here is that Qarluqs was never threatend by Tang, they joined Tang on the operation until they switched sides. The author seem to indicate that Qarluqs was Arab's ally since the begining. The third mistake he made was claiming it ended all Tang military activity in western central Asia, since when have Tang even participated any event in sogdiana except for 750 which it withderw after the success. Tang is still the suzerain over the western turks and that haven't changed because of Talas.

 

"and this is my last post in this topic as I dont enjoy to discuss in such style."

 

I don't plan on arguing with this style, but the way you present your view which is claiming something without giving the detail analysis and keeps on holding on to the mistake and bringing up professionals whose professsion field isn't even An Lu Shan just annoys me. If you just claim this statement from the begining: "I must admit Im not the expert at this subject however such (undirect) connection  is claimed by many scholars" and ask for more detailed information, I wouldn't have got exited over it at all.

Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 13:53

People, the definition of summerize is something that is short as 3 to 4 sentence which still retains the main idea. 

I don't have time to read all that.

Thats not a joke, its a fact agreed by many expert historians studying central asia. Chinese are accurate when regarding its own troops, but regarding source of foreign things they have some inaccuracy but thats due to misinformation than Bias, Bias history expecially on military was not a big concept back then

What I was trying to say was that History is written by the winners.  And I don't like to trust winners the way fishers bragg on bigger fish.

Grrr..
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 14:03

"What I was trying to say was that History is written by the winners.  And I don't like to trust winners the way fishers bragg on bigger fish."

 

The point here is that Chinese sources were more reliable not if its completely reliable, what does history written by winners have anything to do with this, many Chinese historians does not necessary write well for their dynasty, many stick to historical facts, Si Ma Qian for example gave the credit of destroying Qin to xiang Yu and not Liu Bang which is the founder of his dynasty.

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 14:05

"People, the definition of summerize is something that is short as 3 to 4 sentence which still retains the main idea. "

 

?

Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Aug-2004 at 16:25
when I wanteda brief summery, like 3 to 4 sentence long, ihsan gave me a whole detailed information with all these extra chinese characters.  The ultimate problem is that I don't have time to read all of that...
Grrr..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.