Talk:Battle of Chaldiran
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Be fair!
Iranian king didn’t capture by ottoman Turks. He was escaped by his worriers.
- It doesnt say that he was captured. It says he was wounded and nearly captured. An Siarach
-
- Yep, he kept his throne for ten more years after the defeat at Chaldiran. So be calm, Deliogul 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Size of armies
The newly changed figures - 200k and 50-80k for the Ottomans and Persians respectively - seem far too large. However the projected figures for this battle often vary and to my knowledge there is no definitive figure . Ive had a quick look at the books i have immediately to hand which are "History of Islamic Societies" by Ira Lapidus," Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe" Daniel Goffman, "Medieval Persia" David Morgan and "The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis for figures over Chaldiran and found none although the admission that figures for this battle often vary and that there is no definitive source for them is stated at times. If we're to have any figures at all rather than simply (Unkown) i think we need to have them citing a source so ive stuck the tags up. An Siarach
- Safavid were not Turkmen. They were from Ardebil (azarbaijan).
Where you are from geographically does not directly affect your ethnicity. The Safavids were Turkic as is attested by numerous historical works. siarach 12:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Safevids especially shah ismail's actions show that they care turkısh ethnıcıty much more than theır rıvals ottomans. the formal language of the safevid empire was changed to Turkısh by Shah Ismaıl however at the same period Ottomans tried to prevent the alevi and shia movements in the eastern anatolia and they became an allied with the sunni kurdish tribes to break the weight of the shia population. as you know turks was the majority of the alevi and shia population ın thıs period. to sum up ottomans actıons and policıes show that they care islamic homojenity more than turkish homojenity. another point that ı want to add ıs the numbers of the army. the number of the ottoman army and the ınbalance of the numbers of the armıes are totally wrong. in the middle age, creatıng and organisıng a 200000 numbered army ıs imposible. selım s grand father mehmed the conquerer achıeved only 70 000 men to capture the constantınople. the age and technology and especially the population of the middle age world make ıt ımposible. please be objective. stop exaggeate the numbers of the ottoman army. bozkurtss.
- You are completely wrong my friend. Constantinople was conquered by 100,000 Ottoman warriors and it was, in a sense, easier than defeating a dedicated force like Safavids on open field. The key elements of the Ottoman military success were their wealth and ambition to gather such armies. They were out numbered in nearly every big combat (Battle of Chaldıran, Battle of Otlukbeli, Battle of Mohachs etc.) and their technological advantage was great (Safavids were shocked when they saw Janissaries with their Tüfenks -rifles- ). See you, Deliogul 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conversion to shi'ism
I am pretty sure that Shah Ismail's defeat at the Battle of Chaldiran did not lead him to proclaim Imamism as the official Safavid religion--that occured much earlier, in 1501, immediately after the establishment of the Safavid state. See The Waning of the Qizilbash By Kathryn Babayan, page 37.
- You are right. It is why they couldn't form good relations with the Ottoman Empire. Deliogul 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Strength of the Ottoman army...
"In 1515 Selim marched east with some 60,000 men; a proportion of these were skilled Janissaries, certainly the best infantry in Asia, and the sipahis, equally well-trained and disciplined cavalry. [...] The Persian army, under Shah Ismail, was almost entirely composed of Turcoman tribal levies, a courageous but ill-disciplined cavalry army. Slightly inferior in numbers to the Turks, their charges broke against the Janissaries, who had taken up fixed positions behind rudimentary field works." Who's Who in Military History, John Keegan & Andrew Wheatcroft, Routledge (Selim I, p. 268). Lysandros 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)