Talk:Battle of Köse Dağ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Disputed

  • Mamluks come to power not before 1250s, therefore if Baibars come to aid of Seljuks, it must be after 1250s which may be 1260, Battle of Homs.
  • Also the reason for retreat of turkish army is not clear.
  • Genghis is apparently of Mongol origin, not Caucausian(this have to be removed, genghis is known for his red hair, not a mongolid property, its highly probable that his ancestors were appointed prices to the Mogol tribe(that of Temuchin) by their previous rulers gokturks as they replaced many of the princes(bey), but this is just a theory only fact is genghis was not mongolid, probably turkic or arian )

[edit] Where was the Battle of Köse Dağ

The Encyclopaedia of Islam states that Köse Dağ is a “land-corridor some 50 miles/80 km. to the north-west of Sīwās” and, under “Kaykhusraw II” in the same work, “between Erzindjan and Sivas.” Cahen in Pre-Ottoman Turkey locates the battle in “the defile of Köse Dagh, in the province of Erzinjān.” My cherished Turkish atlas, Köy Köy Türkiye: Yol atlası (Istanbul 2006), puts Kösedağ Geçidi (Köse Dağ Pass) to the south of Gümüşhane and well to the north of Erzincan. In 13th century terms, this would be close to the lands of the Empire of Trebizond and nowhere near the caravan route between Sivas and Erzincan. Can anyone produce a credible source in any language that offers more precision? Thanks Aramgar 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The information above is corroborated by Anthony Bryer and Richard Winfield, The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, vol. 1, (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985) 172, 353. Aramgar 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Material

I have removed this section from the article. If someone can adduce a source, it can be easily restored. Aramgar 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the Sultan had left the field after he saw his forces were almost twice the size of that of the Tatars and Mongols. He probably thought that it would be an easy victory. However, when the soldiers saw him leaving the field, some of them started to retreat as a result[citation needed].

Source is Larousse as i have also read it. I will find more and complete the topic as i remember the forces were 30 000 sultanate of rum against 15 000 tatars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.208.79 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lev Gumilev

The source "Л.Н.Гумилев - Чёрная легенда" added by User:Enerelt (diff) seems to be the following: Gumilev, L. N. (Lev Nikolaevich), Chernai'a' legenda : druz'i'a' i nedrugi Velikoĭ stepi (Moscow: Aĭris Press, 2003). I am not so parochial as to expect every source on en.wikipedia to be in English but would like a second opinion on this one. Lev Gumilev seems to have had some strange ideas, and I am curious to know how he came to the numbers he does, as the primary sources say very little about troop strength. Aramgar (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Past experience indicates that in most situations, Gumilev should be considered at least controversial. He seems to have been a strange mixture of panturkist, soviet propagandist, and even antisemit. Other historians often disagree with him (even if they discuss his views), as he apparently came to many of his conclusions in absense of primary sources. Other discussions where his views have been debated as scientific fringe are Talk:Mongol invasion of Rus', Talk:Sabir people, Talk:Dingling, Talk:Olga of Kiev, Talk:Göktürks, Talk:Radhanite, Talk:Khazars/Archive 1, and many others (very incomplete list). The usual consensus seems to be that Gumilev's views may be mentioned in articles as alternative interpretations, but should not be given undue weight. So far I've only seen one editor who takes him at face value and considers him a reliable source. --Latebird (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)