Talk:Battle of Chaldiran

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Ottoman military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Be fair!

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)

Size of armies

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)

Safevids especially shah ismail's actions show that they care turkısh ethnıcıty much more than theır rıvals ottomans. the formal language of the safevid empire was changed to Turkısh by Shah Ismaıl however at the same period Ottomans tried to prevent the alevi and shia movements in the eastern anatolia and they became an allied with the sunni kurdish tribes to break the weight of the shia population. as you know turks was the majority of the alevi and shia population ın thıs period. to sum up ottomans actıons and policıes show that they care islamic homojenity more than turkish homojenity. another point that ı want to add ıs the numbers of the army. the number of the ottoman army and the ınbalance of the numbers of the armıes are totally wrong. in the middle age, creatıng and organisıng a 200000 numbered army ıs imposible. selım s grand father mehmed the conquerer achıeved only 70 000 men to capture the constantınople. the age and technology and especially the population of the middle age world make ıt ımposible. please be objective. stop exaggeate the numbers of the ottoman army. bozkurtss.

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)

Justin McCarthy says that Selim sent home half his army, which solved supply problems and removed the elements in the janissaries which could have listened to heterodox views, is this factored into the final number?

"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)

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))

The Ottoman army could impossible have been less than 100.000 soldiers. The Ottoman sources themselves, claim that Selim counted his army and then learned that he had organized 140.000 soldiers, from which he dismissed 40.000. This makes 100.000. Why should the Ottomans themselves try to lie, to make their army look bigger? It is more rational to think, that they made it look smaller, and more rational to think, that they would try to make the Safavid army look bigger. The same Ottoman source claim that the Safavid army made up 40.000 soldiers. The Safavid wars before Chaldiran, were fought with 10.000-25.000 soldiers. These soldiers were not even from the Iranian lands, but mainly from Anatolia. The Safavids, who were Shi'ites themselves, also gained their support from other Shi'ite groups, therefore highly unprobable to think that the predominantly Sunnis of Iran would like to fight for the Shah. Let us be rational here. The Safavid army size also needs to be sourced! Page number is missing in Roger Savory's work. I made some changes, and they were among others, based on Roger Savory's work! This should not be a place for Ottoman propaganda! (Xizilbash (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Conversion to shi'ism

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)

200,000? You must be crazy. Modern historians estimates the figure is about 60-80,000 for Turkish Empire and 40,000 for Safevid Azerbaijan. In addition to that, Ismail used a scorched earth policy which destroyed almost all Eastern Anatolia. Nobody in the world could supply such an army in that area. And finally, there were no example in classical era of Turkish Empire gathered over 100,000 men. Manpower doesnt determine the army size but geography and settlement sizes. Nobody gathers an army that he cannot supply. And Mehmed II had 70,000 men while besieging Istanbul and that was his upper limit. He never had 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.177.18 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights for World

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).

Copyright problem removed

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)

1638→1555

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)