Talk:Battle of Chaldiran

message: 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)
thread_title:  Be fair! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: Caroline Finkel lists 100,000 of whom about 12,000 were Janissary Musketeers which might provide some support. She also gives the 80,000 figure for the Safavids. (SSJPabs (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You are right. It is why they couldn't form good relations with the Ottoman Empire. Deliogul 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of armies

message: 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)
thread_title: Conversion to shi'ism

message: When Safavid came to power and established The Safavid Empire, one must remember that they were not Iranians and at that time no Human Rights existed for Politics and Politicians. Whatever they and other leaders decided especially in religious matters for their own respective peoples it caused damages to the their own societies and the future. Today we are expriencing changes from traditional och tribal culture caused by these incompotent leaders to modern, democratic and civil values no matter how strong, beautiful or weak they were. Human Rights is the only solution for changes in Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America and once the politics and societies are based on Human Rights, we'll exprience the Freedom.
Good Luck Every Body :=D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iranian Issue (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights for World 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/safavid/chaldiran.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: In the introduction it was claimed that The battle, was just the beginning of 124 years of destructive war between the two Islamic empires that only ended in 1638 with the Treaty of Zohab . I changes the duration, date and the name of the treaty. Now it reads "...41 years of destructive war between the two Islamic empires that only ended in 1555 with the Treaty of Amasya." Actually neither Amnasya nor Zohab was the end of conflict. But the war that involved the battle of Chaldiran ended by 1555. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1638→1555 

message: It should be easier than it currently is,  for the reader to figure out where this place actually is.Eregli bob (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I needed to use GeoHack to find where the battle was fought, so you do have a point. The battlefield is 10 miles east of the modern Turksih-Iranian border, roughly Norht of East of Lake Van. How would this be best integrated into the article? Or does someone with good knowledge of the area have a better way of describing the location (hypothetical example: "at the top of a valley that empties into Lake Van, 10 miles east of the modern Turkish-Iranian border"). -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it ? 

message: In the section "Battle" the text reads, "The advanced Ottoman weaponry was the deciding factor of the battle as the Safavid forces, who only had traditional weaponry, were decimated." -- Exactly what does "advanced Ottoman weaponry" & "traditonal weaponry" mean here? I'm guessing that some of the Ottoman infantry had muskets/arqebuses, but I doubt their horsemen had those firearms -- let alone all, due to the cost of these weapons -- while the Safavid had mostly spears, shields & maybe swords. But guesses like this can lead a reader astray; & it a more important consideration would be rather the troops were supplied their weapons by their rulers, or had to provide them themselves. (A combatant could obtain for himself a spear/lance & shield far easier than a firearm at this time.) And wouldn't this be more of a firearms vs. cavalry engagement? Cavalry weren't armed with firearms at this time to the best of my knowledge. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the tools of war 

message: Can 12.000 Safavids dear to battle against technologically advanced 60.000 Ottomans? It's not realistic. Besides, source for 12.000 number isn't reliable. The author Sarwar isn't an Ottoman history expert. The numer, 12.000 thousand can not be verified. The Islamic Encyclopedia says the numbers were close to 100.000 for both armies.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strengths Not Realistic 

message: With no offence intended to the many editors who have worked hard to produce a thorough article, the use of English is not good. If time permits, and if there are no reasoned objections, I intend to give it a thorough copy edit. And go somewhat beyond that to try and improve the flow and sense of the prose. 
Let me know if this seems a  bad idea, and don't be shy in letting me know if I get something wrong once I start.  Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished. Criticism and suggestions welcomed.  Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: I have added reference to the First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua in the "See Also" section. The Battle of Chaldiran was fought a decade before the First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua. The Ottomans made extensive use of cannons and firearms protected by a barricade of carts to win the battle. Babur procured his cannons and firearms from the Ottomans and used the similar tactics to win the battle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 06:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding "First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua" to the "See Also" section, is at best, wishful thinking and hardly tangential. As Ghatus stated, "      Chaldiran is too far fetched". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of reference to First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua in "See Also" section 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Battle of Chaldiran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ismailsafaviiranica":
From Ismail I: Encyclopædia Iranica. ٍIsmail Safavi 
From Safavid dynasty: "Ismail Safavi" Encyclopædia Iranica
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Battle of Chaldiran]] 

message: I realy wonder of how some editors here say that the outcome of this battle was not decisive, even though the begin of the article also clearly says (with source) that it ended in an decisive Ottoman victory. They destroyed the Persian army and even occupied the capital of the Persians, so how is this not a decisive victory? Take also in note that the Shia uprisings declined after this battle and that they took quite a lot of land in eastern Anatolia and Mesepotamia Ottomanwarrior12991923 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result of the Battle, not decisive?