Talk:Perso-Turkic war of 588–589

message: about the number of turkic army, isn't it too much, 300 000? and what is your sources? i propose to remove that number, it is ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.207.104 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the number is from the ancient sources , it can be exaggerated in the original source , anyway the armies of that time were not national armies and a confederation of various peoples could build up a big army . Anyway , if a modern text gives a new estimation , it will be welcomed to mention it alongside the ancient sources . Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  300,000 certainly is an exaggeration. Not even the Seljuqs who lived 400 years later had such a large army. The early Seljuq armies consisted of 15,000 Turkmen steppe-warriors and later included - at best - 50,000 slaves and "ghazis". However, the sources seem to agree that the nomads had a larger army than the Persians. Personally, I believe that it was 8-12,000 Persians vs. - at best - 20-30,000 Turks. It's a ratio of 1:2 to 1:3, and hence realistic. Tajik (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right , but anyway , in Wikipedia we can't use our original research and we may site a source who tells that . I think every new source may reduce that large number , but as you can see in the numbers for Battle of Thermopylae , the impossible numbers like 5,283,220 (!) are still mentioned in the articles because the old sources give them . Please add new number with it's source to improve the article . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added "likely exaggeration" which is stated by the reference and needs to be conveyed to the reader. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of turkic army

message: *"First Perso-Turkic War" -Llc 0
*"Perso-Turkic War" -Llc 0
*"Sasanian-Turkic wars" 1, Sasanian ? Sassanian ?
Takabeg (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: According to the Pei-shih, both the Sasanians and the Hephthalites revolted against Tardu (Ta-t'ou) kaghan in 581 or 582. Some years later, in 588–589, in a further war with the Hephthalites, the Sasanian army, under their commander-in-chief Bahram Chobin, took Balkh and crossed the Amu Darya.
Takabeg (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship between Hephthalites and West Turks is a complex and yet unknown one . As Iranica says : "It was only with the rebuilding of Sasanian power under Ḵosrow I Anoširvān, between A.D. 558 and 561, when the Persians acted in concert with the newly-arrived Turkish horde under their Khāqān Sinjibu (Silzaboulos, with variants, in Byzantine sources), that the two powers were finally able to crush the Hephthalites in an epic battle near Bukhara, dividing their territories along the line of the Oxus (Amu Daryā). The Šāh-nāma names the defeated Hephthalite king Ḡātfar (ed. Moscow, VIII, p. 157), though in Ṭabari (I, p. 895) he appears as Warāz (variant Wazar). Yet, though the power of the Hephthalites was destroyed in Transoxania, Hephthalite kingdoms remained in Afghanistan, of which fragments survived for some time even after the Arab invasions." 
There was other wars between Sasanid army and Hephthalites before the war of 588 , but before 561 , the independent Hephthalite empire acted as a buffer state between Sasanids and Western Turkic empire .Then I tink calling this war as the First is resonable .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First ?

message: 300.000 Men ?? 280.000 Killed ?? Huh Persian 6.000 Killed Very Dumb I am requesting the rearrangement  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordcry (talk • contribs) 02:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After finally getting to read the reference, the 300,000 was used for the Second Perso-Turkic War, not the First Perso-Turkic war. The 300,000 needs to be removed from the template then. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also sure about the exaggeration , but that does not means we have to remove it at all . In all ancient wars , there has been historical exaggeration in historical texts about the size of the forces . In Bal'ami translation of Tabari's , Tarikh-e Bal'ami , there is direct citing of that 300000 figure , and Bal'ami says he had not translated that from Tabari , but he had picked it out from the Sassanian historiography of "Tarikh Muluk e Ajam" and included it in the Tabari's book Translation . Anyway , overall , that is a historical exaggeration and we may not remove it . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the source, Alborz? The 300,000 appears in the 2nd paragraph, which starts out, "Nearly 30 years later....". The first paragraph covers the Hephthalite attack in 588, whereas the second paragraph concerns itself with "30 years later" and is where the 300,000 appears. I have already added the "300,000(likely exaggeration)" to the Second Perso-Turkic War article. The only thing that remains is to remove the "300,000 (likely exaggeration)" from this article since it does not apply to this war, but to the Second Perso-Turkic War. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

text: That is from the Kaveh Farrokh text. Yes , in the book Sassanian Elite Cavalry , the 300,000 figure is of second war , but in Balami (which is an ancient history book ) the first war is also 300,000 . I can post a scan if is it necessary.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great. Then we would need to change the reference then, correct? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure , but the text is in Persian . Does it have problem as a reference ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a primary source then it could be considered a problem. As for it being written in Persian, I do not know. I, unfortunately, can not read Persian. What about this source? Or this one. These mention Oxus, Bahram, and 300,000 Turks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Both of the above sources can be used . About the Bal'ami translation of Tabari's book, Tarikh-e Bal'ami , this is the address : . Can we use it like this , or it needs more (I mean scanning the page ) ? A view of the cover of this book is available in this address () --Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If the page is in Persian, then it would be of little use to the majority of readers visiting English Wikipedia. As for whether it would be considered a primary source, you may have to inquire on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the question of primary vs secondary , I think this discussion of that board may be of help :  . ....they can be cited for what that particular work says explicitly, but not to comment on or interpret whatever topic they're discussing.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

text: OK , Thank you . Although the sentence about the exaggeration is not in the Bal'ami's history , but I think it is better if it remains . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong 

message: Do you really believe this? only persian sources added and they show 300.000 Turks vs 12.000 persians and persians won! lol. I think numbers of the Turks must change to "unknown" because nobody knows actual numbers. also, same for second perso-Turkic battle. seriously, 300.000 in 6th c. laughable...BöriShad (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  300.000 Turks against 12.000 persians? lol 

message: There is no source cited for the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of this article that states "He then proceeded to cross the Oxus river and managed to repulse the Turkic Invasion and taking over Hephthalite territory that was occupied by the Turks."
If you guys do have a source for this information then please cite it. I really would like to know where you all found it. Regards. :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the source for this information? 

message: Did you have a chance to check references? This seems to a myth of ancient Persia depends on minor battle with huge exaggrations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karadede3512 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Myth or Real? 

message: Hey, do you have links for the sources, i would be happy to be able to check them and change the figures, but we need reliable sources to do so. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That source and the others that have been added recently should go to WP:RSN. Also, as i said above, i would like to have links for these sources in order to verify what they say.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures 

message: The number of Turks is 300 thousand? In the third battle, the Turks defeated 200,000 Persians with 60,000 men. 300,000 people and 12,000 Persians will be defeated? looking at the source, the Persian source Icameforarealhistory (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Please take your concerns here per WP:CONSENSUS. No personal attacks either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Hi, hope you're doing well. For the first time, it was actually not a disruptive IP/brand new account that removed the bit about the Turkic numbers in the infobox, but myself . I did it due to al-Tabari being a primary source. Bests. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, hope you're doing well too. My bad, sorry for my edit summary that was not about you, of course. i'm so used to trolls vandalising this article (as well as other articles) that as soon as I see any kind of significant change here, I think of those trolls first. Now this article is indefinitely protected, this should prevent it from being vandalised as often as before. For my part, I think that since the figures are explicitly attributed to the (primary) source and furthermore, a "better source needed" template is included, the infobox is fine as it is, but of course, if you think it's not, we can remove the Göktürk figures, I have no problem with that. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I didn't expect anything else, as I have the exact same "issue" as well. I will be removing it then, best. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for fixing my mistake and the infobox. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Why were the numbers removed on here? The same source(Tabari) is used for other battles aswell. Seems very biased 5.47.10.132 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi IP, see the above section. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The Coinage of Hormiz in Chach and Samarkand seems to be before the war (see note 7 in the article: According to Rezakhani, coins of the years 3-5 (582-584) of the reign of Hormizd IV (579–590) were minted in Khulm and Samarkand, and coins of year 6 (585) were minted in Chach, and should "probably" be assigned to this period, attesting to the "northernmost extent of Sasanian power, extending beyond the Syr Darya/Jaxartes" p.176p.178). Shouldn't the sentence "The Sasanians now held suzerainty over the Sogdian cities of Chach and Samarkand, where Hormizd minted coins." be revised, since the minting is not apparently a consequence of the 588–589 war but rather an indication of previous Sasanian territorial extent circa 582-585, before Bagha Qaghan's 588 southward expansion? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, really? Well, that’s a pain. I’ll try to take a look at it today. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Coinage

message: I think that we should at least add something like "significantly larger army* to the number of the turks SeljukK2 (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the numbers 

message: BaghaKhaghan army strength : 300000 men to approximately 400000 .
This information comes from the Credible book Tarikh al Tabari which has information on major historical events and details on historical wars. 2A01:5EC0:2800:6B8D:4D90:C87D:203A:E715 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023 

message: The Turkic army had a number of 300000 men and the Persian army led by general Bahram Chobin is 12000 cavalry . 2A01:5EC0:2800:6B8D:4D90:C87D:203A:E715 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic Army : 300000 men 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Clyde [trout needed] 18:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: WikiProject Afghanistan has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Iran has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Central Asia has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 October 2023 

message: This source below is a revelant source therefore the previous edit ( deleting the numerical forces of the armies ) is not justified 
300,000 - 400,000 men (According to Tarikh Al-Tabari[1]) The devicer (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Edit requests are for uncontroversial matters only – reverting an edit is by definition a controversial request. Feel free to discuss with the relevant editor(s). Tollens (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024