Talk:Battle of Baghdad (1258)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] History and anecdote
OWB, I think that you believe too uncritically in later accounts of the fall of the city. This event became iconic for Muslims. It was the destruction of a six century tradition! Hence a tendency to embroider, to exaggerate, to inflate the death toll. It's not at all clear that the Persian historian saw the fall of the city, or relied on first-hand accounts of the destruction. It would take some real work to tease out the first-hand accounts from the later embroideries.
I think you also make a mistake in attributing desertification in Iraq to the Mongols. They did not stop to fill in canals -- that would have been counterproductive, if they expected any revenue from the conquered peasants. Rather, canals and dams failed due to lack of maintenance, caused by disruption and reduced population. Also, there's a long-term trend at work, Soil salination. If irrigation is not managed extremely carefully, it results in salination. As water evaporates under a hot sun, it leaves salt and minerals behind. Centuries of evaporation can leave salt deposits that make the ground unsuitable for agriculture. Only irrigation accompanied by periodic deposits of silt (as in Egypt) can keep land productive over millenia.
A historian should be a detective. Everyone has an angle, everyone lies or slants the narrative. You have to be suspicious like a hawk to try to find the truth behind the lies and distortions. Zora 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora Hi Zora, I agree that a historian -- I have degrees in history -- has to be like a detective, sorting through legend, and propaganda, to find the best facts we can -- after all, we are reconstructing events that took place almost eight centuries ago! Here is my problem, with all respect, I believe you are dead wrong when you say I am too critical in attributing later events -- the destruction of the canal system, and irrigation system -- to the Mongols. ALL histories, all of them, whether east or west, attribute this directly to the Mongols. With all respect, I also worked in the environmental field for 20 years as a manager in water treatment and wastewater reclamation. There really is no question historically, as to what happened. Lord, I sat in a meeting in the AWWA where the Iraq situation and it's causes were specifically discussed by environmental experts plus historians, and all agreed: The Mongols destroyed much of the system prior to their attack on Bagdad, and the population was simply not sufficient afterwards to repair and maintain it. If you can find me ONE SOURCE, just one, that has a different finding, I would like to read it. I am aware of the necessity of extreme carefulness in irrigation -- but Zora, you are overlooking that this particular system had worked well for at least a millinium! Zora, I believe you are a good historian, I just respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions. HOWEVER, this is obviously a labor of love for you, and I am just trying to help, so I am not trying to irritate you, nor will I post things you oppose -- though I believe in some instances, you are wrong. I am here to help you, not irritate you, but please think about what I wrote.old windy bear 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora I hate to admit this, but I like your style of putting an article together better than mine. You did an excellent job on this. If you have any articles where you think I might be of some use -- I do read arabic, greek and latin, and am a fairly knowledgable historian on the religions involved, the religious wars, the non-religious wars, et al, I would be delighted to help. I defer to you on final edits, even when I disagree. And again, you did an excellent job on this article. old windy bear 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Letter to the caliph?
OWB, I deleted the purported letter. Historians of the past were happy to invent letters and speeches for their characters. They were what the character would have said. Unless the letter is still extant today, or we have good reason to believe that a copy was sitting in front of the historian as he wrote, we have to categorize the letters and speeches as inventions. Zora 07:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora HI Zora, i agree that Verbatim accounts of old speeches and letters are to be distrusted, unless actual copies of the letters still exist. Historians were happy to invent letters and speeches -- but that messages were sent from Hulagu to the Calpih and answered is accepted history, and Abdullah Wassaf, a HIGHLY respected Muslim historian of the age, is one who put it in writing. However, you are correct in that a direct copy from Hulagu himself does not exist - but then it should be removed from the article on Hulagu, for consistency, don't you think? (for the record, I did not put it there, but did use the same quote which John Woods translated from the old Muslim histories -- remember that a Persian historian would have had special access to Hulagu since his Khanate was capitaled in Persia). Other than that, you are a better writer, so your edits were good ones. I do think though if we are taking a position that quote should not be used, it should be removed from the article on Hulagu Khan as well. I have not been here as long as you have, so I toss that issue to you, but believe since you are correct that no direct copy of the message exists, only accounts of it, abeit from reliable sources, that it is legitimate to object to citing it as a direct quote -- but then we should take the same stance wikipedia wide on that quote, and either remove it from the article on Hulagu Khan, or state that it is a second hand account from Wassaf and other Muslim historians. old windy bear 14:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it should be deleted from Hulagu. If accounts containing the purported letter are listed under references, then readers who want further info can look up the refs and make up their own minds.
- I think it's OK to reference legends and anecdotes, if they're summarized and presented as possibly or probably non-historical. Someone coming to the article may be looking for info precisely on that anecdote. However, long direct quotations of non-historical material aren't needed, IMHO. Zora 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
NPOV query: I think the 'stench was too much for even the bloodthirsty Mongols' is outside NPOV.
- Good point. I overlooked that in trying to tone down the article. Zora 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora Hi Zora, I agree with the deletion of extra material on the change in dynsties, but the quote on the moving of the camp, and the bloodthirsty MOngol is a direct quote from the highly sourced and well regarded book, The Mongol Warlords, and I do think it should be in since it is sourced and the movement of the camp is also covered in The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, and The History of the Mongol Conquests, among others, so please consider the sourcing, and leave it in? Unless someone else can come up with countering references? I agree with you that the alleged letter sent by Hulagu to the Caliph should also be excised from Hulagu's article -- will you support me if I do so? I am currently revising most of the Mongol Era articles. old windy bear 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you put it back with a reference and with references to bloodthirsty Mongols removed? Instead of saying that they were bloodthirsty, allow readers to come to their own conclusions. I suspect that the conclusion will be "bloodthirsty" in any case.
- As to supporting you -- I suppose that you're anticipating a conflict with other editors, but I can't really get involved. I'm sorry, but I am so grotesquely over-extended in editing Wikipedia articles that my real life is suffering. As in jobless and broke. I can't promise any more effort. Zora 22:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora Zora, I will be glad to put it back without the word "bloodthirsty," (even though that really was in the quote). I am really sorry that you are having problems with job loss and finances. I know it does not any good to say I will pray for you, but i will. You are a nice person, extremely bright, and I hope you find something good. I won't ask you to get involved in any other wikiepedia articles, and apologize I did so. I forget sometimes that not everyone is sitting at home in a chair like I am, with this (and school!) as my primary interest. Well, again, I hope and pray you find something good jobwise soon, and I will reword the little citation on moving the camp, leaving out the bloodthirsty. On the issue with the quote being in Hulagu's article, don't worry, since I am working on the Mongol Era for the Military project, I will just bump that up to Kirill, and I am sure he will take care of it. Again, take care...old windy bear 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latest copyedit
OWB, you don't seem to have gotten the trick of references. If the book is listed in the reference section, all you have to do is add (Foobar 2005, p. 32). Short and sweet. You don't need to give the whole author name or the whole title. However, it IS important to give page numbers. There are also trickier ways of doing references, with footnotes, that I've been too lazy to learn. See Battle of Badr for a good example.
Please ADD references in that short form or the superscript footnote form.
If you want to quote, then quote, don't paraphrase. It would go something like:
Foobar claims that "blah blah blah blah" (Foobar 2005, p. 32).
Also, I cut the whole section on Berke -- you never explain who he is. Surely this is something outside the scope of this battle and this article.
I moved the claim re Shi'a betrayal to the bottom. I'd say that this is controversial, and possibly just one volley in the Sunni-Shi'a war that's been on-going for centuries. This really needs more investigation. Surely there's a Shi'a rebuttal somewhere. Zora 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora Hi Zora. Sorry about the references -- with all respect, I am referencing as the APA Manual calls for. I didn't know wikipedia had different rules. I was quoting the book itself - and page numbers are no problem -- because there has been so much argument about sourcing. I personally think the quotation by Berke should be in the article - the whole point of revising the entire series on the Mongol Era is to tie them together. This battle, historically, led to the first Mongol on Mongol War, the real break up of the Mongol Empire! Berke's attacks on Hulagu's domains in retaliation for the sack of Bagdad, and Hulagu's subsuquent invasion -- and disastorous defeat, north of the Caucas, are all direct result of this battle. It was Berke's pressure on Hulagu that kept him from ever being able to bring his entire army to bear to avenge the terrible Mongol defeat at Ain Jalut. But you are the editor, I am merely a military historian, so I respect your decision. As for the section on the Shi'a, I think that whole section should be deleted. Personally that can be debated, and I think it opens a whole can of worms that we don't need. I know you visit this article regularly, so if you put it back, I will honor that too. I did add that another author said that the Shi'a who yielded to the Mongols did so out of fear, and provided troops as any vassal who had yielded was required to do -- but the vast majority of his army was not Shi's, though in numbers, had they all fought for him, they should have been! But I really believe the whole question of which side various Shi'a sects fought on -- and it originally said Iran, when of course there was no country named Iran for another 700 years! -- some of the Shi'a were horrified by the sack of Bagdad, some were not, it is just too political, especially without additional sourcing. There is no question that most of the Persians, and they were virtually all Shi'a, had submitted to Hulagu, (or been killed if they hadn't) and therefore, as vassals, were required, as were other Muslims who had yielded to him, to provide troops. The statement Iran -- a non-existent country -- or the Shi'a in toto (many were in Bagdad, and while there was some effort to spare them, those who had helped defend the city, and some others, were killed with the mass of the population executed) wanted to help the Mongols is just not historically provable. There is evidence some Shi'a were happy about revenge on the Abbasids, but others were horrified at the fate of brother and sister Muslims! And again, those who had submitted in order to survive supplied troops because it was provide them or die! Actually, all of it is in the sources already referenced! Under all these circumstances, I think the statement should be removed, or modified, which I did, and sourced, and more fully explained, as above. Hope you agree! (but if not, you are the boss!) old windy bear 17:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- OWB, I'm not the boss. I'm not the boss of you! The reference style that I described is fairly common in academic works -- but it's not BETTER than AP style, it's just different. I think it works here because we are allowed to have a list of references at the end. The style used at the Battle of Badr article is probably better yet and I really should learn to use it! As for the Persians being Shi'a then ... actually, they were majority Sunni until the 15th century or so.
- I was thinking that there should be a para at the beginning, giving the Mongol context, and perhaps one para at the end, with the consequences. Short paras, with links to other articles that would explain. I have a hard day ahead of me -- I'm doing stuff for my local Linux group -- but I'll get to it when I can. Zora 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora Zora, forgive the boss joke, I was just sort of kidding. You seem like a genuinely nice person, and what I really meant was that I respect your intelligence and historical knowledge a great deal, and in this venue, I believe it is probably superior to mine, therefore I am trusting your judgement. I agree that a substantial number -- maybe most of Persians at that point were Sunni, (there is some historical disagreement on that, as you know! The Shi'a histories certain dispute it!) and the issue of Shi'a support for the Mongols is complex, and I honestly do believe MOST historical references support the general idea that their support was mostly forced. Do I believe they harbored ENORMOUS bitterness over the Abbasid stealing of the caliphate? (you are better aware than I that they had agreed after the Zab that ultimately the heirs of Ali would become Caliph!) Yes, but I don't believe the majority supported the horror of the sack of Bagdad. As to references, I am going to the style you pointed out, because I believe you are right, and it works better here. I guess I am still (I have only been working on articles here for 6 months!) getting used to some of the different ways of doing things. I agree there should be a short para in the beginning, and a conclusion, another short one, referencing other articles -- for instance, both the articles on the Battle of Ain Jalut and Hulagu support the historical facts that Berke Khan did indeed do his best to call Hulagu to account for destroying Berke's brother Muslims, and his intervention probably saved the Mamluks from the overwhelming numbers Hulagu could have otherwise mustered against them. I have faith you will put good paras together, and seriously, I wish you good fortune in finding a job. I hope my thoughts have been a little helpful on this article. I must say, it is not often I find someone who is clearly more knowledgable than I am on this subject -- I read Arabic, Greek, Latin, and a little Farsi, (though I realize Farsi is not the appropriate term of saying the Persian language) and really have tried to learn about this era. But I take my hat off to you, and that is quite sincere. old windy bear 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
outside article 3 (from ANTIWAR.COM, a libertarian soap box)is inappropriate-it is overgeneralized, preachy and out of context. The article is a heaping pile of SPIN!
If it is a heaping pile of spin, show where and what, and cite sources. old windy bear 23:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
