Talk:Kaykhusraw II

Name

There are 457 English lanhuage hits for Keyhusrev, and 156 for Kai Khusrau in google. I intend to rename it to Keyhüsrev, as well as for other Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate sultans.

Cretanforever 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Claude Cahen in his book Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, C.1071-1330 prints “Kaykhusraw.” Stephen Album’s Checklist of Islamic Coins prints “Kaykhusraw.” This seems to be the preferred transliteration in contemporary English language scholarship. “Keyhüsrev” is certainly appropriate as an alternate spelling and for Wikipedia Turkey.

I will check the spelling in Speros Vryonis’ The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century next time I am in the library. This will pretty much cover the easily accessible books on the Seljuqs of Rum in English.

More relevant than a Google search for Keyhusrev, Kai Khusrau, Kay-Khusrau, Keyhüsrev, Kaykhusraw, etc. would be a search of an English language academic database like JSTOR.Aramgar 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Below is the number of articles in JSTOR mentioning a K.

13 Kaykhusraw (between 1945-2003, 12 in English, 1 in French, nearly all on Anatolia)

6 Keyhusrev (between 1953-1995, 3 by Turkish writers Saatçi and Turan)

2 Keykhusrev (by the same Prof. Turan.)

9 Kay Khusrau (8 by V. Minorsky between 1944 and 1960)

41 Kai Khusrau (nearly all on subjects to the east of Anatolia including the Sikhs) Aramgar 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Yağlı güreş then. Cretanforever 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The accepted transliteration of the sultan’s name in English language scholarship is “Kaykhusraw.” This transcription reflects the spelling of the name in Arabic inscriptions and Persian histories of the time. “Keyhüsrev” is the contemporary Turkish version and is fine for Wikipedia Turkey.

The laqab, or honorific, Gıyaseddin or Giyath al-Din, is helpful to know, but not strictly important for identifying this ruler. Such laqabs are used throughout the period and the title Giyath al-Din, “Aid of Religion,” is assigned to several notable figures in the Seljuq line.

In addition to the standard works cited above, strong support for changing the spelling of the entry to “Kaykhusraw” comes from the book The Wind Blowing From Asia to Anatolia: an Exhibition of Beylik Period Coins published in 1994 by the Yapı Kredi Kültür Merkezi in Istanbul. The catalogue contains parallel Turkish and English texts. The Turkish identifies the sultan as “Keyhüsrev” while the English translation says “Kaykhusraw.”

The title of the entry should be changed from “Gıyaseddin Keyhüsrev II” to “Kaykhusraw II.” Aramgar 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian

There is no point in having the Armenian spelling of the name of a Seljuk sultan, for several reasons. And while the the category placed first in the page, is certainly crowded, its main article Armenian nobility is still in great need of being stabilized. I am removing remove both. Cretanforever 03:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaykhosrov II is an important figure in Cilician Armenian history, and of 50% Armenian descent. There really needs to be a reason to delete it, which you failed to provide. And whoever is removing the Armenian name under IP address is not helping. If it contines I will have to report it.Hetoum I 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Cretanforever and profess that I see no reason for an Armenian version of the sultan’s name. The Arabic is important because it is in this form that the name appears in inscriptions, on coins, and in the Persian source material. The modern Turkish is important because Kaykhusraw is a figure important for Turkish history and many things are written about him in Turkish under this spelling. But why Armenian? Certainly he appears in Armenian chronicles, but why not also include a Georgian, Greek, or even Latin spelling? To claim that he is fifty percent Armenian is not a valid argument. Bayezid II, the most Muslim of all sultans, had a Greek mother. In this culture, where the ruling classes are of mixed race but unfailingly Islamic, such distinctions are nice to know but not ultimately decisive. Aramgar 04:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the least I could say on the present rendering of the name in the title is that it's as inspiring as Charlie Magnus. Cretanforever 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaykhusraw or Keyhüsrev

For several months now, there has been some debate as to which spelling of the sultan’s name is the most appropriate title for this article in English Wikipedia. The spelling current in English language academic literature is “Kaykhusraw.” Some Wikipedia editors prefer the Turkish spelling “Keyhüsrev,” which is understandable given the sultan’s role in Anatolian history and Turkish civilization. Still, “Kaykhusraw” is the form most familiar to readers of English, and Wikipedia Naming Conventions suggest that we use this form. Below is a list of credible English language sources. All use the spelling “Kaykhusraw.” The first two books in the list are the essential English language references for the history of the Seljuks of Rum.

• ”Kaykhusraw” Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (University of California Press, 1971), p. 134.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 1071-1330 (Taplinger Publishing, 1968), p. 127.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Stephen Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, 2nd edition (1998), p. 62.
• ”Kaykhusraw” The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261, edited by Helen C. Evans and William D Wixom (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), p. 416.
• ”Kaykhusraw” Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade (Viking, 2004), p. 191.
• “Kay-khusraw” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 2, p. 1117.

The title of this article must remain Kaykhusraw II. The articles Kaykhusraw I and Kaykhusraw III are also affected by this information. Aramgar 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed this thread. I concur that "Kaykhusraw" seems to be the most common spelling and I support that spelling for an article title. However, I think we should still do our best to provide redirects from all the possible alternate spellings, to aid other readers who may be working from a source that uses a different spelling (of which there are many!). --Elonka 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon of St Quentin and Vincent of Beauvais

The traveler Simon of Saint-Quentin, whose memoirs are included in the Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais, is a major source for this period. I am looking for a copy so that I can attach the needed citations. It may take me a couple of weeks. Aramgar 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Done. Aramgar 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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 16:26, 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 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

However, there are a number of "Köse Dağ" in Turkey. The one that immediately comes to mind for me is the impressive pinnacle that sits between the Aras and Eleshkirt valleys in present-day eastern Turkey, but it's too far east to be the location of the battle. There is another Köse Dağ in the mountain range between Suşeri and Zara - that one seems a more reasonable location. Meowy 14:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Jurmaghun or Chormaqan

According to Claude Cahen, Chormaqan was very old but very much alive in 1243 and 1244 (pp. 269). Aramgar 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Accession Date

The date of Kaykhusraw’s accession provided in the Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages is incorrect. The coins of Kayqubad end and those of Kaykhusraw begin in AH 634 (AD 1236-1237). See Mehmet Eti’s fine site on Anatolian Coins. I have changed the date back to 1237. Aramgar 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Elonka, Accession Date of Kaykhusraw II. Aramgar 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(copying from my talkpage) The date of Kaykhusraw’s accession provided in the Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages is incorrect. The coins of Kayqubad end and those of Kaykhusraw begin in AH 634 (AD 1236-1237). See Mehmet Eti’s fine site on Anatolian Coins. cf. Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history c. 1071-1330 (Taplinger, New York), 133; H. Crane, "Notes on Saldjuq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (v. 36, no. 1, 1993), 38; Répertoire chronologique d'épigraphie arabe 4148. There is ample numismatic and epigraphical evidence to support AH 634-AD 1237. There is no controversy about Kaykhusraw's accession date.

Perhaps you as the more experienced editor can comment on sources. For many of the articles on the Sultans of Rum, I have used Cahen almost exclusively to start the article. I figured it was better to have information from one source than no information at all. I have not put a reference for every statement but cited Cahen as the source at the bottom of the article in the style of most print-media encyclopedias. Which particular statements require specific citation in the article Kaykhusraw II? Aramgar 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. I'm fine on discussing sources, but please understand that it is extremely bad form to simply remove a reliable source such as Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages, 1250-1520, and say "wrong", without actually providing different sources of your own.[1] If you have a source proving a different date, than you should source it right there on the spot, rather than removing one source in order to leave the sentence unsourced. --Elonka 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) I have checked page 133 of Cahen's Pre-Ottoman Turkey (which I agree is an excellent source). However, it does not say specifically that Kaykhusraw's reign began on 1241. It does say that his father died in 1237, but then it also says that there was immediate dispute about succession, which was not settled until Kaykhusraw had sons (so he must have been a bit older), at which point his brothers and mother were strangled. There is no year listed for this date in Cahen's book, but it seems to be consistent with the Cambridge history, which is very clear that 1241 was the official start date. I'm happy to review your other sources though. Can you please provide specific quotes? --Elonka 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the numismatic and epigraphical evidence not sufficient? Aramgar 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm confused. As I understand it, your source for the 1237 date, is a website which took its information from Cahen's book. But I've checked Cahen's book, and it doesn't say what the website says. Are you disagreeing with my interpretation? Or are you working from another source? If so, which source? Can you please provide an exact quote of what that source says? --Elonka 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The dates on the coins and on the buildings are not subject to dispute.

1) H. Crane, "Notes on Saldjuq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (v. 36, no. 1, 1993), 38: "Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kaykhusraw II (c. 1206-1246). sultān (r. 1237-46). The son of ‘Ala’ al-Din Kayqubad by Safwat al-Dīn Māh Perī Khātūn. His epigraphically attested foundations are:

1) Eğidir Han (khān), Eğidir,) dated 635/1237-38 (RCEA 4162);

2) İncir Han (khān) Antalya-Burdur road,) dated 636/1238-39 (RCEA 4162)…"

2) Mehmet Bey's website provides photos of coins of Kaykhusraw II dated AH 634, from all major cities of the Sultanate. There are no coins of any of his brothers. Do I need to check out Ibrahim Artuk and Cevriye Artuk, Istanbul Arkeoloji Muezeleri Teshirdeki Islami sikkeler Katalogu (Istanbul, 1971-74)? Aramgar 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it a bit difficult to follow your sources. I did see in there that there's an article by H. Crane "Notes on Saldjuq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia", which lists Kaykhusraw II's reign as (r. 1237-46). I agree that that's an acceptable source. As for the other one, I'm afraid that photos of coins can't be used as a source, since they're what's called a "primary source", and we really need "secondary sources", meaning information from modern historians, preferably in peer-reviewed journals. See WP:RS.

With respect, Elonka, I have reviewed wp:rs, and it does not say that primary sources may not be used. Numismatic and epigraphical evidence are generally considered dating sources par excellence, so I fail to see your issue with them. This is akin to saying that the date on the Declaration of Independence cannot be referenced.

Your assumption, incidentally, that your audience does not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources comes across as somewhat condescending, especially when you haven't actually proven your point regarding the former's unacceptability.Kafka Liz 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm coming across as more aggressive than I intend. It may just be because I have had this discussion in many many venues, so I'm quite certain of my interpretation. In fact, I'm currently having a debate about source reliability at Talk:Laurent Dailliez. There's also a noticeboard where these issues are discussed, at WP:RSN. What my stand boils down to, is that when you have a primary source (even multiple primary sources) that say "X", but a modern secondary source that says "Y", the secondary source is what wins out. Using the example of the Declaration of Independence, even though it might say "Signed on July 4", if there were modern history books that said, "The Declaration of Independence was actually signed on July 5," then on Wikipedia we would put our faith in the secondary sources instead of the primary sources. Though, in some cases, we might want to include both versions, like to say, "Though the DOI indicates that it was signed on 7/4, modern historians agree that the actual signing date was 7/5".

The problem with primary sources, is that they're very easy to mis-use. Especially with historical objects and documents, there's a lot of bad information out there. For example, even such a well-respected historian as William of Tyre from the Crusades, is often recognized as having simply gotten his dates wrong, or he'd say that such and such a noble was the son of someone, when he was actually the grandson, and so forth. The Armenian historian Sempad the Constable was notorious for writing "history" that was actually propaganda designed to glorify the king, and so forth. In the case of these coins, I'm not saying that it happened this way, but it could have been the case that if there was a succession dispute, that coins might have been issued for one claimant or another as a way of trying to reinforce their claim, even though it wasn't quite solidified yet. Another example of incorrect primary sources was in 1300, when there were rampant urban legends that the Mongols had conquered Jerusalem. We have multiple documents from the time period saying that it happened, we even have the Pope celebrating that it happened, but in reality, it didn't happen, it was just rumors for a few months. Which is why we shouldn't use the primary source documents as valid sources. See Dr. Sylvia Schein's 1979 article "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos, the Genesis of a Non-Event" for more.[2]

Primary sources should really only be used for non-controversial information. If there's no dispute, and no reasonable concern that there might be a dispute, then a primary source can often be perfectly acceptable as a source. But where there is controversy, we should always stick with secondary sources. Where there's dispute among secondary sources, we should stick with modern ones, with the ones that seem to be the "mainstream" views. Preference is also given to secondary sources that go into in-depth discussion on an issue, as opposed to a secondary source that might have a passing one-sentence comment on a different subject. For example, I've often seen the case where there's a typographical error in a history book, and someone wants to use that as a source, even though it's clear that the information is not backed up by anything else.

If there's still dispute about source reliability after that, then we should be careful to only use secondary sources that are from peer-reviewed journals. And if there's still dispute after that, then we should just list all major opinions from peer-reviewed secondary sources in a neutral manner, and try to ensure that we're giving appropriate weight to the various opinions.

Ultimately though, this is all moot, since we have sufficient secondary sources now to say that 1237 is the correct date, and that the Cambridge history probably just made an error. So we're all good now, yes? :) --Elonka 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all good. :) Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. These are all excellent points, and I understand your reservations much better now. I felt obliged to post primarily because in the literature I'm familiar with (primarily numismatic), the 1237 date hasn't really been regarded as controversial. I do see where you're coming from, though, especially in light of the Mongol/Crusaders issue you're dealing with presently. Thanks again, Kafka Liz 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Until we can find other sources to put this to rest, I recommend that we include both versions at the Wikipedia article for now. Then once we have more sources and can make a better determination later, the article can be easily changed. --Elonka 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Ah, found something better in Cahen's book. On page 748, he does list "Kaykhusraw II (1237-45)". So that's good enough for me.  :) It disagrees with the Cambridge history, but Cahen's book is definitely more in-depth, so as far as I'm concerned, it trumps Cambridge as a source, especially since we haven't found any other sources that agree with the Cambridge date. I've updated the lead of the Wikipedia article to include the page # source. I think we're good now, thank you for your patience.  :) --Elonka 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relations with Cilician Armenia

Silver trams of Armenian king Hethoum I (1226-1270) acknowledging the Seljuq sultan Kaikhusrau II (1237-1245). British Museum.

Silver trams of Hethoum I (1226-1270) acknowledging Seljuq sultan Kaikhusrau II (1237-1245), before Hethoum's alliance with the Mongols. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaykhusraw II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828023601/http://mehmeteti.150m.com/thamara/index.htm to http://mehmeteti.150m.com/thamara/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Relation to Ghaziya Khatun

Please see the artical (content:Succession) where Al-Aziz Muhammad's daughter Ghaziya Khatun was wife of Kaykhusraw II's father, Kayqubad I. While on the article Al-Aziz Muhammad (content:Death), she was wife of Kaykhusraw II. IAmAtHome (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I found this book on the Ayyubid history and I quote "Dayfa consolidated her relation with Kaykhusraw II early in 635/1237 by welcoming his proposal to marry the daughter of al-Aziz, Ghazia Khatun. Also al-Nasr II would marry the sister of the Saljuqid sultan" , page 44[3]. Also here it says same[4]. I can't find anything saying she married Kayqubad. In fact Kayqubad only married 2 females Mahperi and Adila Khatun not Ghazia[5] and his sons their mother was thus Adila Khatun. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thank You. I am checking these sources.

IAmAtHome (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ozan33Ankara ! Check Kayqubad I, there is another (3rd) wife named Ismat al-dunya wa'l-din.(in reply of:In fact Kayqubad only married 2 females)

IAmAtHome (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, most sources state 2 first wives. I never heard of the third wife. I will look into it. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)