Talk:Battle of Talas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note by passby:
The decription about the battle contains too many mistakes, such as the size of the troops of both sides(10 times of acutal), and Arabic troops was much bigger than Chinese, etc.
And this battle is not the deciding point of Chinese withdrawal from Central Asia, it is just one of the series of battles between Tang and Arabic world, both won and lost at different times. Only two years after the battle, Chinese troops re-attacked again, only stopped by the big internal rebelion which almost destroyed the empire. And the failure of the battle, was also caused by the rebelion of the local tribe troops....
-The second external citation is broken, a fix would be good.Eiburahamu 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentences:
- Centuries of Chinese influence in the region since the Han Dynasty were halted. It would not be recovered until the Qing Dynasty under Qianlong Emperor as the Tang Dynasty dwindled
- "China" did not continuously excercise influence over this region. China was able to control it only while she was at the height of her prosperity.
- Qianlong Emperor of the Manchu Qing Dynasty did NOT enforce "Chinese" rule there.
--Nanshu 00:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
IMO the second sentence did not imply any enforcement of Chinese rule during Qianlong's reign; it only stated that Chinese influence was recovered. Ktsquare (talk) 05:28, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And, for the first sentence, I agree that "continuous influence" would not be correct. My modification would be:
Influences of the Tang Dynasty and from the East were halted and had not been recovered until the Mongolian invasion. The Qing Dynasty under Qianlong Emperor exercised Manchu influence after successful military campaigns. Ktsquare (talk) 05:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
First of all, the article of the Battle of Talas doesn't need to, or shouldn't, overemphasize Chinese influence of centuries later.
I don't know what kind of influence Ktsquare assumes. For political influence, the Chinese were excluded from Qing's administration of Eastern Turkestan. Take a look at 清史稿. Ministers and generals dispatched there were chosen from Manchu or Mongol Eight Banners (the Green Standard were on a rotating basis). The high officials of tulergi golo-be dasara jurgan (Lifanyuan) were reserved for Manchu or Mongol Eight Banners or the imperial family. For cultural or other influence, Chinese entry into Eastern Turkestan was restricted and they were segregated from local residents.
But it is very misleading to say that the Qianlong Emperor exercised Manchu influence. The communication between the dynasty and local leaders were mostly done in Manchu, and bannermen were garrisoned in important points. However, the dynasty minimized Manchu influence. It try to keep the traditional political systems and customs as much as possible. That's the way to maintain the multiethnic empire.
It was after Zuo Zongtang established Xinjiang Province that real Chinese influence began. He enforced an assimilation policy and sparked a backlash from Turkic Muslims. See 中央アジアと東アジアの境界―中央アジアからみた中華世界 by 濱田正美 (境界を超えて―東アジアの周縁から) or Hamada's other works. --Nanshu 03:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
a problem on many of these pages is the loose use of the term "Arab" to describe what should properly be called Islamic or Muslim. To illustrate the problem, simply try to imagine whether the troops fighting against Chinese forces would have been mostly Arabs from the Arabian peninsula. very unlikely.Fixifex 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Du Huan
If the travels of Du Huan were true, shouldn't it be under a separate article? Hanfresco 21:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, my understanding of Molin is in East Africa along the Indian Coast around modern day Ethiopia. [Click for details] Hanfresco 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why exactly is this section even significant to the article about the battle? I suggest removal. --Tone 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paper Apocrypha?
Requesting a citation of scholarly sources on the validity of Abd al-Malik al-Tha'alibi claims that paper was transmitted by Chinese prisoners from this battle.
Although the website link I just provided doesn't mention Abd al-Malik in the article, it does list its source (Hunter 1943, 60) about this. That ought to clear it up.
--PericlesofAthens 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: WikiProject Chinese history articles | Start-Class Chinese history articles | High-importance Chinese history articles | Start-Class China-related articles | Start-Class China-related articles of High-importance | High-importance China-related articles | Start-Class Chinese military history articles | Chinese military history task force articles | Start-Class Medieval warfare articles | Medieval warfare task force articles | Start-Class military history articles