Talk:Seljuq dynasty

seljuks and the middle ages

empowering of seljuks and mongols ae a mere example of the ararchism existed in the middle ages in the middle east, seljuks werent a real dynasty, peoples lives did not change by seljuks and they ddidn t offer anything

Disgrace to Wikipedia

For an empire like the Great Seljuk Empire this webpage is a total disgrace. It looks like a primary school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.5.41 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Turko-Persian

http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica states that the dynasty is of Turkish origin. Do you question Encyclopedia Britannica? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.248.2 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear that the dynasty is of Turkish-origin. The Great Seljuk Empire might have adopted Persian language and tradition to some degree, but that doesn't make the dynasty Turco-Persian. From Grousset, page 189: "Seljuk sultans of Turkic race and markedly Iranian culture"

Moreover, Encyclopedia Britannica, Histroy Channel and countless others clearly state that the dynasty is Turkish. Seljuks are also referred as "Seljuk Turks", also in Wikipedia (in every other language of the page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.83.105 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of applying your 20th/21st century nationalism to an Empire that existed during the 11th - 14th centuries. I'd suggest reading more than just the Encyclopedia Brittanica. IF you knew anything about research, you would know that just because you find ONE source that says something doesn't mean it is correct.

A an MBA, I know what research is. It is you who does not know anything about resarch. Encyclopedia Britannica is consiedered one of the most reliable sources througout the world. Hundreds of scholars attribute to the encyclopedia. Let's come to your citations.

• "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace." -- Grousset, p161,164

You mix up the meanings of dynasty and the empire. Here, Grousset states that the empire (not the dynasty) is Turco-Persian. The Seljuks are Turkish, and since this article is about the dynasty, this citations means nothing.

• "The Turko-Persian tradition developed in the Seljuk period and reached its fullest florescence in the 16th to 18th centures..." --Mandelbaum, p79

Again, nothing related to the dynasty, etnic origin.

• "Even when the land of Rum became politically independent, it remained a colonial extension of the Turo-Persian culture which had its centers in Iran and Central Asia. The literature of Seljuk Anatolia was almost entirely Persian.." -- Lewis, p29

Again, it is about the culture and traditions, not the ethnicity.

• "The architecture of the building reflects the style developed at the Bursa School of Ottoman Architecture, which is a departure from the traditional Ottoman aesthetics in favor of the Seljuk(Turko-Persian) style." -- Clough, p18

• "The Seljuks even exported Iranian culture to Asia Minor. Those of Konya adopted Persian as their official language, and it remained the court language there, as has been noted, until about 1275." -- Grousset, p574

• "...and took refuge under the Seljuks, who had founded a kingdom in Asia Minor and inherited the Turko-Iranian culture from them." -- Shushtery, p 128

• "...the Mongols destroyed the Turko-Iranian Empire of the Seljuks in Turkestan; ravaged Iran..." -- Allen, p27

AND all these references;
Jackson, P. (2002). Review: The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks.Journal of Islamic Studies 2002 13(1):75–76; doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.
Bosworth, C. E. (2001). Notes on Some Turkish Names in Abu 'l-Fadl Bayhaqi's Tarikh-i Mas'udi. Oriens, Vol. 36, 2001 (2001), pp. 299–313.
Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).
Hancock, I. (2006). ON ROMANI ORIGINS AND IDENTITY. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center. The University of Texas at Austin.
Asimov, M. S., Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). (1998). History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Josef W. Meri, "Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, 2005, p. 399
Michael Mandelbaum, "Central Asia and the World", Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79
Jonathan Dewald, "Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24: Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks.
Ram Rahul. "March of Central Asia", Indus Publishing, page 124.
C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish expansion towards the west", in UNESCO HISTORY OF HUMANITY, Volume IV.
Mehmed Fuad Koprulu, "Early Mystics in Turkish Literature", Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff, Routledge, 2006, pg 149.
O.Özgündenli, "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK) Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Seljuq", Online Edition,
Ram Rahul. "March of Central Asia", Indus Publishing, pg 124:The Seljuk conquest of Persia marked the triumph of the Sunni over Shii but without a decline in Persian culture. The Seljuks eventually adopted the Persian culture.

You seriously need to do some reading. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You seriously consider practicing to understand what you reading and stop Persian proganda. All of the sources you added state that the empire is of Turkic origin.

Fanciful "Seljuk Empire" map

It [[1]] is brim-full of errors, inventions, and distortions. When was Cyprus part of the Seljuk empire? When was most of Eastern Armenia? When was the Aegean coast (complete with its islands)? Answer - never! Either this map gets a major reworking or it has to go. Meowy 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Meowy! I have two of the three references listed[2]. Both Grousset[3] p156, and Hourani p467, show the Seljuk Empire extending into the Anatolia peninsula, but no where does the Empire touch/reach the Mediterranean. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I showed this to Aramgar, and he agrees. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked its creator if he/she could correct its errors. The errors are so substantial that if they are not corrected I think the map should probably be removed from the Wikipedia articles that are linked to it. Meowy 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not the original creator of the map but I have just removed Cyprus and Aegean islands from it. The rest of the problems you are talking about (Great Armenia and Anatolian western coast) need more digging into reliable secondary sources--Dipa1965 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Smyrna was certainly under Seljuq control for a while. I'm not sure about the rest of the western coast of Anatolia. ETA - actually, our article on Chios states that that island was briefly under Seljuq control in the 1090s. My sense is that in the decades after Manzikert the Byzantines lost nearly all of Anatolia, only to regain much of it during and after the First Crusade. john k (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right that Smyrna was occupied by a Turkish emir and notorious pirate (Chaka of Smyrna, see Alexiad by Anna Comnena) and there was some bitter fighting between him and the Byzantines for the control of Chios and, maybe, other islands. However, I am worrying whether those beyliks could be attributed to the Seljuk Empire. I think they were at least semi-independent. Same (or, perhaps, even more) for the Danishmends. So it depends on the criterions that define a medieval empire. What do you think?--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They were certainly semi-independent, but I think attributing all of them to Malik Shah's empire seems reasonable - what would be ideal would be to have separate colors for areas under direct Seljuq control and for semi-independent vassal regions. john k (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As the creator of this locator map, I must say that stating this map is "brim-full of errors, inventions, and distortions" is rather rude. Meowy, please raise your concerns in a WP:CIVIL manner. I see from your talk page, however, that I am not the 1st one to raise objections to your tone and you are presently blocked until November 1.

Regarding the map itself, first and foremost this map is a snapshot in time, specifically of the Seljuk Empire at its height in 1092.

Description and support for the map

I have checked my references and the map truly matches Hall and Haywood, except that I mistook the colour for Cyprus and perhaps other islands (they are pretty tiny). My apologies, and thanks for fixing it, Dipa1965. As far as I can see, however, Hall and Haywood do show that the Seljuks overran all of Anatolia just before the death of Malil Shah. As noted by John K, the article Chios also states that that Aegean island was overrun by the Turks from 1090-1097.

"This came to an end when the island was briefly held (1090–97) by Çaka Bey, a Turkish emir in the region is Smyrna during the first expansion of the Turks to the Aegean coast. However, the Turks were driven back from the Aegean coast by the First Crusade, and the island reverted to Byzantine rule."

Similarly, the Seljuk campaigns in the Aegean says:

"A fierce opponent, Çaka Bey succeeded in inflicting the first Turkish naval victory against Byzantium and captured a few Aegean Islands, supplemented by the conquest of Smyrna and Abydos. However, Alexios I launched a counter-attack in the aftermath of the First Crusade. "

Note that Nicaea, barely across the Bosphorus, was held by the Turks from 1077 to 1097.

Now, there is a question of what type of control the capital exerted over the various parts of the Empire, but my referenced maps all include these various pieces within the "empire", that is except for the Danishmends.

So apart from my mis-coloring Cyprus, I don't see anything demonstrably wrong. I would be happy to discuss further. MapMaster (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... it seems MapMaster has both ownership issues and a lack of ownership skills. MapMaster's reasoning for the mistakes he admits to - "mistaking the colour", the islands "are pretty tiny" - is really limp. Making personal attacks on the editor who pointed out those errors just shows a childish nature. Mapmaster seems to be not masterful at all. Showing islands as part of the empire is not a "tiny" mistake to make - it is a very serious error because it implies the Seljuks had a navy at this time, which they patently did not. Nor did the Seljuks "overun all of Anatolia" - mounted raiding parties (not all of them acknowledging Seljuq supremacy) spread throughout much of the Byzantine empire after the defeat at Manzikert, but over a large area of territory they raided they did not establish permanent control to anything like the degree that is needed for that territory to be called part of a "Seljuk Empire". It has already been pointed out that two of the sources cited for Mapmaster's map, Grousset and Hourani, do not show the territory of the empire reaching the mediterranean sea. Neither does the map on pXVI in Claude Cahen's "The formation of Turkey", or the various maps in The Times Atlas of World History. The manner of MapMaster's response indicates that he really has little actual knowledge of this region's history. Some expert editors are needed. Meowy 17:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the map in "The Times Complete History of the World", 2007, (the successor to "The Times Atlas of World History") and for their Great Seljuk Empire map, showing the 1090 period, nowhere does their territory touch the coastline - neither on the Black Sea, the Aegean, or the Mediterranean. The same for map 6, titled "Map showing the territories of the Great Seljuks, on page 26 of "The Turks, A Journey of 1000 Years", 2005; none of their territory is shown touching the Black Sea, Aegean Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Because I have been unable to located a published map that bears any comparison to the map drawn by Mapmaster, and all the maps I have been able to locate show very different borders to the territory of the Grea Seljug Empire, I have fact tagged all examples of this map on Wikipedia. Meowy 21:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In the The Atlas of World History by Jeremy Black (2005), the territory does indeed touch the coastline, and is a very, very close match to the one on page 228. I would scan the image, but that would cause copyright problems. I added this reference to replace your fact tags as it verifies the map produced. Jeremy Black is well respected, and not just any editor as you can see. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 5 sources which disagree with your "Atlas of World History" map - three of them are specialist books about Turkey and are not just general atlases. If you scan the map and post it without attribution, in a few days it will be automatically erased - nobody is going to hang you for breaking copyright laws! Also, maps, like all illustrations, are there to illustrate content in the article - where is the content with sources that says the empire stretched to the Mediterranean? BTW, there is no "Atlas of World History" listed on his webpage [4], so the author is probably just some other Jeremy Black. Meowy 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the webpage is missing his contribution. In the Atlas, he is listed clearly: Professor Jeremy Black, Department of History, University of Exeter, UK. The consultants on the Atlas are very impressive as well, and so it is very hard for me to believe that Professor Black would allow such a large amount of errors to go by.

As for the Mediterranean, it does note that "1095: Recaptured by Fatimids" in Palestine just under Jerusalem. The Great Seljuk Empire does stretch along the Mediterranean from south of Antioch level with the southern coast of Cyprus all the way down to Jerusalem. Wow, what a controversy, eh? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 22:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - by Mediterranean, I meant the part of the Mediterranean sea along the present-day southern coast of Turkey. Meowy 00:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the first step would be for the creator of that map to remove Grousset and Hourani as references, since both Grousset(p156) and Hourani(p467) only show the Seljuk Empire extending into the Anatolia peninsula, and give viable references that support this "map". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Grousset and Hourani belong in the references because their maps provided information to build the map in question. No two historical maps are exactly the same unless one is derived from the other. Just like a Wikipedia article, a good historical map will use multiple sources although these sources may present different data or data differently.

Now, regarding Grousset, his map does indeed show that the Turks had conquered all of Anatolia except for the Black Sea coast line. It also shows that the western lands were reconquered by Byzantine at the end of the century, but Grousset certainly supports this map in question.

Regarding Hourani, it is unfortunate that he does not precisely date his map, but merely states that it represents the territory " . . . toward the end of the eleventh century". From my research, I would date the map at 1098 or 1099. Certainly Hourani does not conflict with the Wikipedia map. MapMaster (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone- read this explanation by Professor Black on page 92 in another one of his books- it may get to the heart of the problem we are facing with this map. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The heart of this problem is that maps and atlases don't often give sources or indicate why a line is drawn where it is. Genarally a good map is good because it stands at the evolutionary top of a tall pile of earlier maps. But, all other things being equal, if we have a ratio of 5 to 1 for maps that do not show the territory extending to the Aegean, then the majority wins. And things are probably not equal - three of those 5 are maps are from specialist books, not general atlases. MapMaster should have used the majority position when making his map, not the minority one. Meowy 23:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of just including a different map so there is no question as to its accuracy. That would be the most viable solution instead of waiting on a new edited one. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

According to various sources, at the time of Malik Shah's death in 1092 -- at the time of this map -- the Turks had effectively driven the Byzantine armies and governors/government out of Anatolia. That's what this maps shows. Earlier in the thread (see Talk:Seljuq_dynasty#Description and support for the map), I listed quite a bit of evidence that the Turks had reached the coast, including evidence that they had taken a couple of Aegean islands. Isn't this enough?? Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough. I'm sorry, but you don't really know much about the history of the Byzantine Empire at this period if you can write "Turks had effectively driven the Byzantine armies and governors/government out of Anatolia". You also seem to be ignoring the fact that two of the three sources you cited as a source for your map show a different border from what your map shows. And three more sources, the ones I cited, also show a different border that the one shown on your map. Why have you decided to take the minority position for your map, rather than the majority one? Meowy 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Which sources? The whole entire problem is that we cannot guarantee an accurate map from this period because of conflicting sources. I have tried to lend my assistance, but this will take some more work. I have suggested the use of another map until this one can be resolved so that adequate time is given. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, I don't think that personal attacks are helping the matter much. Please stop. Thank you.

There is significant evidence that the Byzantines were driven out of Anatolia by 1092, the date of this map.

• There are now five map references listed here, four of which (including Grousset) agree with the outlines of this map. The fifth, Hourani, is showing outlines of control in Anatolia after the re-conquests of the First Crusade.
• There is also significant textual support for the loss of Anatolia by the Byzantines. The major cities of Anatolia, including Nicaea, Smyrna, and Ephesus, were all under Turk control by 1092. Several islands were also captured by the Turks, as shown earlier in this thread.

So, again, I don't see anything wrong with this map. Let me ask Meowy whether he or she believes that Smyrna, Ephesus, and Nicaea were under Turkish control in 1092.

Thanks, MapMaster (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mapmaster - please stop behaving in this insulting manner. You claim I am making "personal attacks", yet there is nothing in my above post that could be construed as a personal attack. I'm left with the conclusion that you think anyone who questions the accuracy of your maps is making a personal attack on you. I do not have access to the Grousset and the Hourani sources - but Kansas Bear has stated that their maps do not show the same borders as shown on your map. The maps in the four sources that I have cited - "The Times Complete History of the World", 2007 edition; "The Times Atlas of World History", 1986 edition; "The Turks, A Journey of 1000 Years", Royal Academy of Arts, 2005; "The Formation of Turkey", Claude Cahen, 2001 - do not agree with the borders shown in your map. "The Byzantines" were not "driven out of Anatolia by 1092" and there is no textual support for such a bizarre view. Meowy 15:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, you did take a jab at MapMaster when you said "I'm sorry, but you don't really know much about the history of the Byzantine Empire ...", no matter what comes after. Even something such as this can easily divert the crux of the problem. Our problem is the accuracy of the map, and providing proper sources for the entire map, not just cities. I'm going to create a separate section for the listing of individual sources that prove your map is accurate, and then we can evaluate it and add to it. I think this is a fair way to approach it. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the Seljuk Empire in 1092 map

All sources for the map created by MapMaster can go under this section for analysis. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• 1. History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 1 by Ezel Kural Shaw (1976), p. 7: "The establishment of the Seljuks of Rum posed a threat to Malikşah, who responded by establishing his dominion in northern Syria and reaching the Mediterranean."
  2. Black, Jeremy. The Atlas of World History. Covent Garden Books, American Edition, New York. p. p. 228. , ISBN 9780756618612
  3. Grousset, René (1970) The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press, 8th paperback edition, 2002, p. 156.
  4. Hall, Simon and John Haywood (1997) The Complete Atlas of World History: The Medieval & Early Modern World, A.D. 600 - 1783, Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference.
  5. Holt, Peter Malcolm; Ann K. S. Lambton; Bernard Lewis (1977) The Cambridge history of Islam, Volume 1, p, 260, ISBN 978-0521291354. Map is on page 260. Also, on page 267: "Apart from the territories of Philaretos and Gabriel, . . . the only part of Anatolia which was not in Turkish hands was the eastern Black Sea region. In Trebizond, which was taken back from the Turks in 1075, a Greek dukedom had been founded."
  6. Shepherd, William (1911) "Europe and the Mediterranean Lands about 1097", Historical Atlas, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
  7. Hourani, Albert (1991) A History of the Arab Peoples, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, p. 467. Unfortunately, this map is not dated any more precisely than " . . . toward the end of the eleventh century".
  8. Brownworth, Lars (2009) Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization, Crown Publishers, ISBN 978-0307407955: ". . . the Muslims captured Ephesus in 1090 and spread out to the Greek islands. Chios, Rhodes, and Lesbos fell in quick succession." p. 233.
  9. Further information can be gleaned from the fact that by 1092, the major cities of western Anatolia -- Nicaea, Smyrna, and Ephesus -- and even several Aegean islands were all in Turkish hands. I can find no source that lists any locations within Anatolia that were under Byzantine control in 1092.
  10. Luscombe, David The new Cambridge medieval history, Volume 2; Volume 4, p. 248: "By 1095 Alexios . . . was in a position to contemplate recovering Anatolia from the Turks. He moved troops across the Bosphorus and, using Nicomedia as a base, created a defensible zone, but it soon became clear he did not have the resources to effect a reconquest of Anatolia. . . Alexios had made the situation still worse at the very beginning of his reign [he took the throne in 1081] by withdrawing the remaining Byzantine garrisons from Anatolia."

I really think the Shepherd map is ideal, albeit from 1911- it shows what my Black map shows. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Shepherd's maps are all over Wikipedia and although I didn't use Shepherd to build this map under discussion, Shepherd provides support for it. And thank you for mediating this, Monsieurdi -- it is much appreciated. MapMaster (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all... getting it right is worth the effort. I just wish I had more sources in my library to help, but they seem to be weak on maps and strong on text in this instance. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That Shepherd map is a childish simplification, full of mistakes and generalisations. How could you consider it as a legitimate source for creating a map? Do you consider that a map which claims 50% of central Anatolia is Muslim in 1097 is a legitimate source? (Probably 10% is about right). Do you consider that a map which shows 100% of Armenia and Georgia as Muslim in 1097 is a legitimate source? (A correct figure would be about 1%). From what fantasy-history textbook did Shepherd, 100 years ago, get the information that Caeserae and Melitene were "petty Armenian states"? Melitene, for example, was an Arab emirate until its 930s century capture by the Byzantines. After the collapse of central control from Constantinople after Manzikert, the local Byzantine administration continued to hold it until its capture by the Danishmendid Turks in about 1101. The population throughout those changes was almost entirely Syrian. I guess that Shepherd thought that it was a "petty Armenian state" because the Byzantine-appointed governor was an ethnic Armenian. A bit like MapMaster thinking that all of Anatolia was part of the Seljuk Empire because some individuals who happened to be ethnic Turks briefly ruled settlements like Smyrna. Also a bit like MapMaster assuming that because direct rule from Constantinople was disrupted, every bit of the empire should suddenly be considered as part of some other empire! The Greek-Orthodox Armenian governors of Melitene, Edessa, and Marash had all received and accepted the title of curopalates from the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus - the territories they controlled were all still within that empire. And why does the territory of those "petty Armenian states" not include places actually held and ruled independently by Armenians, such as Lampron and its district, west of Tarsus and within what the map falsely claims to be Seljuk territory. From what fantasy history textbook did Shepherd get the information that Kars or Ani was part of the "Dominions of the Seljuk Turks"? Ani was under Shaddadid control from about 1072, and the Saddadids were not even Turks! From what fantasy history textbook did he get the idea that Abkhazia was part of the "Dominions of the Seljuk Turks"? Meowy 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)