Talk:History of Central Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article History of Central Asia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 29, 2006.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Central Asia History of Central Asia is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Religion?

Why dose the article fail to account the religon history of this region. The Buddhism is introduced to central asia around 1st century BC. For the next 800 years, the Buddhism became dominant religion in this region and was backed by China. After the Battle of Talas, The Chinese Tang troops were defeated and Islam gained over Budduism in central asia. However, the conversion to Islam was not finished until 11th century.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.39.232 (talk • contribs)

[edit] What, no mention of Tuva?

How did this become a featured article with no mention of everyone's favorite central Asian republic? —Keenan Pepper 00:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing: progressive desertification and the Silk Road

"The aridness of the region made agriculture difficult and its distance from the sea cut it off from much trade." No. The two central facts in the prehistory of Central Asia, neither of them explored, are the progressive desertification of the region since the Atlantic period, the Holocene climatic optimum of the 8th-6th millennium, and the early existence of the string of oases that came to be known as the Silk Road. The rest of the history revolves around these features. Sea trade routes are by comparison a late development, even later than the domestication of the camel.--Wetman 02:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horses (or chariots) gave rise to nomadism?

This is an odd statement. Aren't there lots of historical non-horse nomads? Like Native Americans? 205.175.123.113 03:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans mostly stayed in the same places. Of course the Aztecs moved down from what is now the United States Southwest and invaded Mexico without the use of horses. I saw the article on the home page today. Congratulations! However.....I wonder if saying the horse nomads dominated the area for "millennia" gives the wrong impression. How long was it? Maybe 2 or 3,000 years? "Millennia" then is literally true but I think it gives the reader the impression of a much longer time. Keep up the good work.Steve Dufour 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Both historical and modern. Pastoralists were on foot millennia before a horse was first ridden. Only several millennia since.--Wetman 06:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Horses were the very important because my nomadic ancestors were fighting, travelling and even sleeping-resting on their horses. With respect, Deliogul 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does the featured article contains clear bullshit?

I mean, None of the new republics could be considered functional democracies until 2005, when the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan caused the collapse of the government and the popular election of president Kurmanbek Bakiev. - do one really think force-setting one popular president makes country a functional democracy?

Second error. In the twentieth century, nearly 55,000,000 Asians died in various communist famines or from famine-associated diseases tells us the article linking to http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM , which reads In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. I would not discuss this strange number, but anyway - this is TOTAL number. And the most famine we're talking about took place in Ukraine and Povolzh'e (check articles about history of Soviet Union). Why did this number land in article about central asia?

Every time you bullshit in wikipedia SCG kills a kitten.


P.S. Yes, of course, and both this bullshit changes was added when page was already featured. By one anonymous coward: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Central_Asia&diff=72531642&oldid=72531396 and one user User:Hux http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Central_Asia&diff=72543953&oldid=72538495 Morals: make featured articles protected, they attract the wrong kind of editors.

User:Hux, do you really think force-setting one popular president guaranties the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society? (Democracy) Ilyak 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four citations in a featured article?

It seems this article could use some quality citation, but I'd rather not clog up an FA with {{fact}} templates. --Davidstrauss 07:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is really.. really bad.

For such a grand title, the History of Central Asia has a lot of shortcomings. Can you imagine an article called the "History of Western Europe" being so short, void of citations.. and history. I know I have my own bias's, but, where is Timur (one line.. come on!), the Timurids, Babur and Muhammad Shaybani, Kara Koyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu? Why is there no mention of the Dalai Lama? The Ughurs? Personally, I think the task is too grand and large, and should be divvied off to smaller sub-articles. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep - it reflects poorly on Wikipedia that there are a lack of sub-articles (this one can only be considered a parent or summary). But it's not surprising, it is inherent to Wikipedia's modus operandi that coverage merely reflects the makeup of the editors. Unless there is a substantial editorial team that works full-time (i.e. not just editing for kicks, and spending hours per day on it) to ensure broad coverage, this will not change (even if the ongoing expansion of editors expands the selective subset of topics that Wikipedia covers). zoney ♣ talk 18:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, every sub-section should link to a featured length article providing more detail. As a main article, however, this is certainly quite a bit better than the History of Europe page, and the FA rules only look at the main article not at the presence or lack of subpages. - SimonP 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe the FA rules should be changed. The (missing) content that is referred to would be included in this article were it not for the need to keep the article size down. So the fact that the substance of this topic is not fleshed out in sub-articles is pertinent to this parent article also.

[edit] What is the article about?

I wasn't sure what was meant by "Central Asia". There's a map at the start of the artticle showing three possible uses of the term but I couldn't see in the article which one was followed. So when statements were made I didn't know which areas were referred to. Struman 11:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to use the largest definition, including Mongolia, parts of Russia and parts of China. However, there's also times when it seems to include only the five present countries separated from the USSR. Aran|heru|nar 13:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You may well be right. What I think I really wanted to say, as someone who has no specialist knowledge of this subject, was that I found the repeated references in the article to "the region" meaningless as I had no idea which region was referred to. I don't think an article that does not even define its subject matter should be featuredStruman

[edit] Featured?

The whole article shows a lack of insight - the section headings confuse readers, the content is an amassment of data without any creativity and is remotely away from neutral, the See also section contains 10 "Histories" that can well be sorted into a single table, or a single section, e.g. see History of Africa. Forgive my rudeness, but there's over a million articles in Wikipedia and this one had to be chosen? I don't think anyone even bothered to read through it. Aran|heru|nar 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as Steppe is such a short article this article should never been considered a featured article. We should stop seeing Wikipedia as a collection of single articles. My suggestion is to rename this article 'The History of the Steppe' and rewrite it. The Steppe is part of Asia and Europe. --Ulv 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uralic or Altaic?

Which one meant in this article? Contrary to an obsolete postulation, there is no Ural-Altaic language group. Clarifer 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality Issue

I feel that this article lacks an NPOV. Note the comments about how well equipped the khanates were. It has no source, and it sounds biased against the khanates. 67.62.134.210 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Russia was better equipped compared to the khanates. That particular fact does not seem POV. Here in China we freely admit ourselves to be worse-equipped than European nations in late Qing dynasty - surely we can't hold a POV against ourselves? I have removed the tag for the moment. It has passed the nomination, after all. A neutrality tag in a featured article, especially on its featured date, doesn't seem much attractive.Aran|heru|nar 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
But if it's accurate, then it should be there. It's not a beauty pageant. 67.62.134.210 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually think that a tag on a Featured Article proves how ever-evolving WP is --JD79 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How exactly was Russia better equipped compared to the khanates? There were many reasons why Russia predominated, but this is the first time I hear about the equipment advantage. If you are going to make such a specific statement and claim it as a fact, please back it up with sources.
I don't think it is POV. It could warrant a citation, but it is not POV. GuyFromChicago 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble believing it, so I think it's POV. Please provide a citation.

Here we go then, as requested:

From a Russian perspective

"disdaining Central Asian Forts as 'clay flowerpots', he (General Mikhail Chernyayev) believed they should be stormed after a brief bombardment. A reconnaissance revealed that Aulie-Ata's artillery was poor and its walls on the west were low[...]On June 4, concealing his intent to assault Aulie-Ata, Cherniaev crossed the Talas and bombarded the walls at close range. The Kokanese replied ineffectively. Cherniaev calculated that the driving rain would hamper the enemy's infantry fire. Driving the Kokanese from positions before the walls, his men pursued them into the town through breaches in the walls. the demoralised enemy fell in droves. In two hours the city, fortress and citadel were captured. Over three hundred enemy dead lay in the streets; only three Russians had been slightly wounded. 'Such an easy success', reported Cherniaev, 'can be attributed to the unusually successful action of our artillery and the infantry's precipitous attack'. Actually the primitive [sic] Kokanese were no match in armament or discipline for Russian regulars." David Mackenzie The Lion of Tashkent. The career of General M.G. Cherniaev (Athens, Ga.) 1974 p37

"As Cherniaev approached the city (Chimkent), masses of Kokanese cavalry appeared. When they stayed out of range, the Russians drew closer and exchanged fire with the enemy artillery. Kokanese cavalry, uttering terrible screeches, charged the square Russian formation. 'Whoever has not been attacked by an Asian horde', related Cherniaev, 'cannot imagine the effect of these inhuman cries on the nerves'. Russian artillery, grenades and rifle fire repelled the assault. Hundreds of Kokanese dead lay scattered about while the Russians had three men slightly wounded. This revealed again the vast disparity in the firepower and discipline of the two armies". Ibid p40

And at Tashkent a force of about 1500 Russians overcame a "garrison" (probably just the adult male population of the city, but still) of 30,000. Unless you believe that the Russians were somehow superhuman that suggests to me that they had better equipment. (Ibid pp56-8)

From a Central Asian perspective -

The battle before Chimkent: "Some ignorant and short-sighted emirs and commanders, unable to contain and restrain themselves until Djamadar Na'ib and the artillery had come, said to the Amir-i Lashkar [Alimqul]: 'The Russian warriors are few in number. if we launch [an attack the Russians] could shoot only once; [they] won't have time for a second [volley] and we'll overpower [them].' The Amir-i Lashkar, out of extreme fervour and courage, yielded to their rash persuasions and threw all his forces on the Russians. Many people were killed and wounded from the disciplined fire of the Russian lines. A terrible panic set in." Mulla Muhammad Yunus Djan Shighavul Dadkhwah Tashkandi The Life of Alimqul. A Native Chronicle of Nineteenth Century Central Asia Trans. & Ed. Timur Beisembiev (London) 2003 p65

And, finally, for those who know some Russian, from the translation of Sami's Ta'rikh-e Salatin-e Manghitiya:

«Мир-асад достиг Самарканда и о результатах своей миссии сообщил военачальникам. В то время как со стороны Хишткупрука появился авангард христианского войска, [бухарские] войска, находившиеся там, пришли в смятение и в беспорядке обратились в бегство. Передовой отряд христиан подошел к реке Зеравшан, напротив возвышенности Чупан-Ата 171, и остановился. В это время на Чупанатинской возвышенности было готово [к бою] более ста тысяч человек сипахи и приверженцев священной войны из народа во главе с могущественными эмирами, с громоподобными пушками, с военным снаряжением и оружием. Было здесь также и четыре тысячи сарбазов отряда Хаджи Руми и отряда христианина 'Османа, который, приняв ислам, получил в этом государстве чин военачальника. Сарбазы этих двух отрядов состояли из арабов и узбеков и были известны своей храбростью и смелостью. /77б/ Полагаясь [на них], их назначили на укрепления на берегу реки у переправ и бродов. Остальные воины и приверженцы священной войны также выстроились на берегу реки и приготовились к сражению. Они навели огнемечущие дальнобойные пушки с возвышенности на христиан, ждали приказа командующего и были готовы открыть огонь. Узбекские богатыри верхом на быстрых как ветер лошадях, с длинными прямыми копьями то выскакивали вперед, то возвращались, а часть войска глядела на дорогу, как бы убежать[...]

Однако причиной смелости и храбрости борцов за веру было обилие воды в реке, готому что в эту пору полая вода в реке достигла предела и не было возможности перейти [ее][...] Ни у кого и мысли не было, что христианская пехота переправится через эту бушующую реку. Убежденные в этом [бухарские] воины были бодры и спокойны.

Настало время, когда командующий христианской армией отдал своим людям приказ наступать. Согласно приказу, христианские солдаты взяли в руки свои ружья, вошли в воду, без труда и утомления перешли ту глубокую реку, и все разом разрядили луки. Когда произошло это удивительное дело, сарбазы из отряда Хаджи и 'Османа также оказали сопротивление и из своих укреплений сделали русских мишенью своих стрел. После того как упомянутые сарбазы проявили смелость, христиане сразу побежали к укреплениям и напали на них. Они дрались в течение часа. Большинство сарбазов этих двух отрядов благодаря своему рвению не опозорило себя бегством и погибло на укреплениях. Из христианского войска также было убито много-людей. В то время когда сарбазы Хаджи Руми и 'Османа жарко бились с русскими, богатыри и борцы за веру, [находившиеся] на возвышенности, бросились бежать, не помышляя об оказании им помощи. Когда Хаджи Руми и 'Осман, принявший мусульманство, увидели, что войско, [стоявшее] на возвышенности, бросилось бежать и ниоткуда нет надежды на помощь, они с малым числом оставшихся от их отрядов сарбазов, большая часть которых была ранена, отступили. Эмиры и войска, бывшие на возвышенности, побросали, как и прежде, свои шатры, палатки, снаряжение и вещи, и не потому, что считали величайшей удачей спасение своей жизни, а потому, что, [видимо], приводили в исполнение содержание [стиха]: «Бежать от того, что непосильно, предлисывается посланниками бога». Мирза 'Абдал'азим Сами: Та'рих-и Салатин-и Мангитийа. (1907) История Мангитских Государей Правивших в Столице, Благородной Бухаре Издание текста, предисловие и примечания Л.М. Епифановой (Москва) 1962 pp75-6

Basically this passage describes how the Russians forded the Zarafshan river with ease, keeping their rifles dry, when the Bukharans believed it was impossible. Although they fought fiercely the Bukharan forces were defeated with relative ease by the Russians, and took to flight.

Enough citations? It is well-known that by the 19th century European armies enjoyed a marked superiority in artillery and military discipline over those of Asiatic powers: it was precisely this which allowed colonial conquest and expansion to take place so rapidly. The one exception was the Sikh Khalsa, and it is no coincidence that the Sikh Wars were the bloodiest and most hard-fought of all Britain's colonial wars in India. Sikandarji 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But by the 19th century, most of the Central Asian khanates were already included in the Russian Empire. There were only a couple left, Kokand being one of them. I was thinking Russia versus the Crimean, Siberian, Astrakhan, Noghay, Kazakh and other earlier khanates, where the Russians had very little equipment advantage and paid dearly for any advance at all. The article should state that the Russian equipment advantage applies only to the 2-3 khanates remaining within present-day Uzbekistan in the 19th century, and not to the Central Asian "khanates" in general. Otherwise, it's a stereotyping overgeneralizing POV.

In common historical parlance, the "Central Asian Khanates" refers only to Khiva, Bokhara, Kokand and (occasionally) Yakub Beg's Kashgar. I don't think the Crimea can be said to be in Central Asia by any definition, whilst the loose political affiliations of the Kazakhs are generally known as "hordes" rather than khanates; furthermore although the Russians had nominal sovereignty over the little horde by the late 18th century, the Middle and Greater hordes had to be subdued by force in the 19th (there's a reference somewhere in the article to Kenesary Kasimov's campaign, which took place in the 1840s). With the three successor states of the Golden Horde - Kazan, Astrakhan, Sibir - you run up against the problem that people have different definitions of "Central Asia". My definition only includes the modern territory of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Chinese Turkestan (Kashgaria and Dzungaria) and Mongolia. Kazan and Astrakhan are in Europe. Sibir too far North to be considered part of "Central Asia" - that is my definition of the term, and it is one very commonly (though not universally) employed. The University of Indiana uses the (to me) cumbersome term "Inner Eurasia" which also includes Siberia and the Volga region, but as that isn't the title of this article it seems to me quite clear that these regions are not included here.Sikandarji 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So then, out of all the additional khanates that I've mentioned, only the Kazakhs are included in your definition of Central Asia. But you are quick to dismiss them as not comprising a khanate - I can't see why. The Kazakh Khanate was founded in 1456-1465 on the banks of the Seven Rivers in present day south-eastern Kazakhstan. During the reign of Kasim Khan (1511-1523), the Kazakh Khanate expanded considerably. Muhammad Haidar Dughlat wrote in the Tarikh-i-Rashidi (1541), that the only earlier state in the region that could be compared in prominence to Kasim's Kazakh Khanate was the khanate of Batu Khan himself (a.k.a. the Golden Horde). Danila Kubin, the Russian ambassador to the Kazakh khan, wrote back to the czar in 1536 that the Kazakhs are the strongest of all the khanates in Central Asia.
The earliest mention of the three separate Kazakh "hordes" as comprising the Kazakh Khanate was recorded in 1616, but they did not become politically independent until 1715 - when Tauke Khan (the last all-Kazakh khan) passed away, and each horde elected their own khan. Expansion of Russian control into Kazakhstan occurred in 1731-1740, when the rulers of each of the three Kazakh hordes agreed in succession to be subjects to the czar.
The uprising under Kenesary Kasimov that you mentioned (1841-1847), occurred much later and was a failed Kazakh attempt at independence from the Russian Empire. In that case however, there was no significant equipment advantage on the part of the Russians, since Kenesary took control of the weapons industry and armed his troops with modern guns and artillery.
As you yourself pointed out, the Kazakh khanate had effectively ceased to exist by the time of the Russian conquest of the Steppe, even if one takes the earliest possible date for this. Although the Russians claimed sovereignty over the Kazakhs from the early 18th century, it was only in the territories of the little horde around Orenburg and the Ural river that they really exercised any authority. The notion that all the Kazakh hordes swore allegiance to the Tsar in 1731 is a myth perpetuated by Soviet historians anxious to establish as long a pedigree as possible for the "great friendship" between the Russians and the Kazakhs. The Tsars certainly claimed sovereignty over the Steppe from that date, but what they interpreted as tributary status the Kazakhs thought of as an alliance between equals. The conquest proper of the steppe did not take place until the 19th century, and in my view (and that of many historians) Kenesary Kasimov's rebellion should be viewed as resistance to the imposition of real authority over the Kazakhs by the Russians. It is true that he did his best to acquire the technological advantages which allowed the Russian Empire to expand so swiftly, but his success was limited. In any case, was his polity a "khanate"? I'm not sure - although I imagine he claimed Chingissid descent as did most Kazakh leaders. Sikandarji 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgy map

The map shown at the top of the page shows the Soviet definition (fine), a UNESCO definition (fine) and a "common" modern "definition" (says who?). Really, I can see little grounds for including the latter. If the grouping is used by anyone of consequence (I don't know, NATO, the US?) - then fine. If it's something the creator of the map assumed was "general knowledge" - I say scratch it.

I would have thought that the UNESCO area is a far more common roughly defined region as far as people in general are concerned. Besides, who are we considering? The entire world? The West? Europe and the US? English-speaking Wikipedia editors?

It seems like fluff to me.

zoney ♣ talk 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The "common modern definition" is the one that the Central Asian states proclaimed to be the correct one, and is the one used by most of the recent references . - SimonP 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well then, "Common modern definition" should be changed to some other term to reflect the main force behind the definition. Of course, referring to the "Central Asian states" would be rather circular. zoney ♣ talk 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
See Central Asia#Definitions. If there is PoV, it should be discussed in that article. Circeus 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the map is that it's very misleading as-is: it implies that the Soviet definition comprised Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and that the "common modern definition" comprises only Kazakhstan (ans also that the UNESCO definition doesn't comprise any of those states). As for the validity of the phrase, "common modern definition," I think we could do with something better. However, it is certainly true that in the current, political context, "Central Asia" refers to all five of the countries I mentioned. You can see this in all references to the region by the US government, for example, as well as the myriad NGOs that work in the area and, most importantly, the five countries themselves. I propose two things: 1) that the Soviet part be removed (since as far as I can see it's redundant), and 2) that the two shaded areas should be, say, "UNESCO regional definition" and "current political definition". -- Hux 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)