This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in China or Central Asia may be able to help! |
|
|
This came to my attention because of an edit war over whether or not it was a decisive victory. (I'm not sure the cite we have now is much use in deciding this issue).
One can argue that it was decisive because the Tang losses were extremely heavy and that the battle resulted in a rout.
One can argue that it was not decisive because Tang expansion was halted by domestic issues, not by this battle; it was not strategically significant. While Tang losses were heavy relative to this army's size, they were a drop in the bucket of overall Tang forces.
Anyone else? Pinkbeast ( talk) 03:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It was decisive Abbasids victory as after this battle the region shifted from Buddhist influence to Islamic influence Uzair Ansari333 ( talk) 16:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat of an old discussion. What matters is not people's opinion but sources. Thankfully, there are sources which claim that the battle was a decisive victory for the Abbasids. -- CaliphoShah ( talk) 22:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess there were 40,000 soldiers on Arab side along with Tibetan allies and 50,000 soldiers on Chinese side along with around 10,000 Karluks But as we know Karluks defected Tangs for Arabs and routed them from flanks Before that battle of slightly in favour of Chinese and Arabs suffered good amount of casualties but Karluks defection changed the course of battle and seeing this Arabs attacked from front with full force and surrounded Chinese were routed By the end of battle around 60-70% of Chinese soldiers were Killed or captured Uzair Ansari333 ( talk) 16:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Since this is a non-Western, non-Christian battle, shall we only use the CE date terminology and replace the AD usage? Tpsreport84 ( talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The Battle of Talas led to the end of Tang expansion in Central Asia? How do you explain Feng Changqing's attack on the Great Buru Kingdom (present-day Kashmir) in 753? Feng Changqing's army crossed Central Asia into South Asia.
A country loses one-fiftieth of its standing army, leading to a significant decline in national strength? Inability to expand into Central Asia? What a ridiculous argument! You know, in the Anshi Rebellion of 755-763, the Tang Dynasty lost more than 30 million people, and recovered in the following decades.
Throughout human history, there has never been a state that has declined because of the 2% loss of the standing army. 李双能 ( talk) 05:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that on the map, Yunnan and Guizhou, as well as parts of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula and Juyan, are not depicted on the territory of the Tang Dynasty, what is the reason for this?
In 621, the Tang Dynasty established Yaozhou(姚州) in Chuxiong City, Yunnan, and it was not taken away by Nanzhao until 750, and it was never lost in between.
In 634 AD, the Tang Dynasty changed Nanning Prefecture(南宁州) to Langzhou(朗州), and the seat of governance was in present-day Qujing City, Yunnan. We ruled here from the Han Dynasty until it was occupied by the Southern Zhao in 755, and the area belonged to the Han Chinese.
In 625 AD, Gongzhou(恭州) was renamed Quzhou(曲州), and its seat of rule was in the city of Zhaotong in present-day Yunnan Province. The region was annexed by Southern Zhao between 750 and 756.
The Tang Dynasty established Juzhou(矩州) in 621 and its jurisdiction was in present-day Guiyang City, Guizhou Province. I don't know exactly when this area was lost, but it is certainly later than the above districts.
In 639 AD, the Tang Dynasty split Langzhou(朗州) and added Bozhou(播州), which governed the city of Zunyi and its surrounding areas, which the Tang Dynasty never lost in Zunyi, present-day Guizhou Province.
In 676, after the end of the Silla War, the Tang gave up most of the Korean Peninsula, but this did not include Pyongyang. In 735, Silla attacked the Balhae Kingdom and suffered heavy losses. The Tang Dynasty gave land south of the Taedong River to Silla in order to compensate Silla, but this did not include Pyongyang. It is now widely believed that the Tang Dynasty completely lost all the land on the Korean Peninsula after the Anshi Rebellion.
As for the area around Juyan Lake, since the Han Dynasty acquired, this area has been subordinate to Jiuquan, with the existence of Jiuquan, disappeared with the loss of Jiuquan, in 700 AD, the Tang Dynasty's rule in the Hexi Corridor was very solid, there is no evidence that Juyan Lake was lost.
The following map can be a good reference, I'm not sure if the Empire's borders in Central Asia are reliable, but other regions have not found problems at the moment.
李双能 ( talk) 11:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Qiushufang, hello. We won't do adding each belligerents to the result section even though they are participants. WP:RS cites this as the victory of Abbasids, supported by Tibetians. No need to add Abbasid-Tibetian victory. Imperial [AFCND] 14:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The abbasids never conquered anywhere close to the hexi corridor. I assume this was a typo that meant the tibetan empire took the corridor. Waxwing96 ( talk) 13:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Remsense @
Sudsahab, Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan
, this is an excerpt taken from
Indian Esoteric Buddhism: Social History of the Tantric Movement, specifically, from page number 46. Now, let's revise to the original version.
Imperial
[AFCND] 12:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
According to K.P. Jayaswal, Yasovarman's sending an embassy to China in 731 A.D. seems to have followed his defeat at the hands of Lalitāditya, for the Kashmir king himself was under the acknowledged suzerainty of China, and Yasovarman...- Page number 103 of Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman
Paradoxically, Lalitaditya became the supreme lord of India as a vassal of the Tang Chinese, and with the means provided by them.- Page number 243-244 of Al-hind: The Making of the Indo-islamic World. And it is quite surprising that most of us tend to show him as an ally of the Tang, even though that too is an additional input, and couldn't wait for few more days for that. Imperial [AFCND] 13:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Funny how you didn't quote from these existing cited sources
[1]
[2]
[3], definitely because you know these sources nowhere said that Lalitaditya was a Tang vassal
. Moreover your poor editing can be seen as the first source that you have cited is itself contradicting the victors of this battle, later helped defeat the Arabs at the battle of Talas
.Now if we talk about the sources from which you quoted, the first source is fine (but can a religious history book define a historical account?) the second one
[4] is explicitly saying accepted suzerainty
so can we equate it to "vassal"? Isn't that
WP:OR?
The third one
[5] is more amusing as the source you have given doesn't even say anything like that.
Are you just randomly throwing these sources before even reading them? Do you realise that anyone can verify if your claim is true or not?
Sudsahab (
talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Lalitaditya was a Tang Vassal. Sudsahab ( talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The "vassal" part was added to show their relationship with the Tang Dynasty.On the basis of what? That's what I'm asking, the sources you cited don't even say so and you're making your own presumptions? In Lalitaditya Muktapida you have cited the same sources there which nowhere said that
Lalitaditya was a Tang VassalI'm repeating it because you're not checking your sources before quoting them here. Sudsahab ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in China or Central Asia may be able to help! |
|
|
This came to my attention because of an edit war over whether or not it was a decisive victory. (I'm not sure the cite we have now is much use in deciding this issue).
One can argue that it was decisive because the Tang losses were extremely heavy and that the battle resulted in a rout.
One can argue that it was not decisive because Tang expansion was halted by domestic issues, not by this battle; it was not strategically significant. While Tang losses were heavy relative to this army's size, they were a drop in the bucket of overall Tang forces.
Anyone else? Pinkbeast ( talk) 03:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It was decisive Abbasids victory as after this battle the region shifted from Buddhist influence to Islamic influence Uzair Ansari333 ( talk) 16:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Somewhat of an old discussion. What matters is not people's opinion but sources. Thankfully, there are sources which claim that the battle was a decisive victory for the Abbasids. -- CaliphoShah ( talk) 22:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I guess there were 40,000 soldiers on Arab side along with Tibetan allies and 50,000 soldiers on Chinese side along with around 10,000 Karluks But as we know Karluks defected Tangs for Arabs and routed them from flanks Before that battle of slightly in favour of Chinese and Arabs suffered good amount of casualties but Karluks defection changed the course of battle and seeing this Arabs attacked from front with full force and surrounded Chinese were routed By the end of battle around 60-70% of Chinese soldiers were Killed or captured Uzair Ansari333 ( talk) 16:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Since this is a non-Western, non-Christian battle, shall we only use the CE date terminology and replace the AD usage? Tpsreport84 ( talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The Battle of Talas led to the end of Tang expansion in Central Asia? How do you explain Feng Changqing's attack on the Great Buru Kingdom (present-day Kashmir) in 753? Feng Changqing's army crossed Central Asia into South Asia.
A country loses one-fiftieth of its standing army, leading to a significant decline in national strength? Inability to expand into Central Asia? What a ridiculous argument! You know, in the Anshi Rebellion of 755-763, the Tang Dynasty lost more than 30 million people, and recovered in the following decades.
Throughout human history, there has never been a state that has declined because of the 2% loss of the standing army. 李双能 ( talk) 05:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that on the map, Yunnan and Guizhou, as well as parts of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula and Juyan, are not depicted on the territory of the Tang Dynasty, what is the reason for this?
In 621, the Tang Dynasty established Yaozhou(姚州) in Chuxiong City, Yunnan, and it was not taken away by Nanzhao until 750, and it was never lost in between.
In 634 AD, the Tang Dynasty changed Nanning Prefecture(南宁州) to Langzhou(朗州), and the seat of governance was in present-day Qujing City, Yunnan. We ruled here from the Han Dynasty until it was occupied by the Southern Zhao in 755, and the area belonged to the Han Chinese.
In 625 AD, Gongzhou(恭州) was renamed Quzhou(曲州), and its seat of rule was in the city of Zhaotong in present-day Yunnan Province. The region was annexed by Southern Zhao between 750 and 756.
The Tang Dynasty established Juzhou(矩州) in 621 and its jurisdiction was in present-day Guiyang City, Guizhou Province. I don't know exactly when this area was lost, but it is certainly later than the above districts.
In 639 AD, the Tang Dynasty split Langzhou(朗州) and added Bozhou(播州), which governed the city of Zunyi and its surrounding areas, which the Tang Dynasty never lost in Zunyi, present-day Guizhou Province.
In 676, after the end of the Silla War, the Tang gave up most of the Korean Peninsula, but this did not include Pyongyang. In 735, Silla attacked the Balhae Kingdom and suffered heavy losses. The Tang Dynasty gave land south of the Taedong River to Silla in order to compensate Silla, but this did not include Pyongyang. It is now widely believed that the Tang Dynasty completely lost all the land on the Korean Peninsula after the Anshi Rebellion.
As for the area around Juyan Lake, since the Han Dynasty acquired, this area has been subordinate to Jiuquan, with the existence of Jiuquan, disappeared with the loss of Jiuquan, in 700 AD, the Tang Dynasty's rule in the Hexi Corridor was very solid, there is no evidence that Juyan Lake was lost.
The following map can be a good reference, I'm not sure if the Empire's borders in Central Asia are reliable, but other regions have not found problems at the moment.
李双能 ( talk) 11:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Qiushufang, hello. We won't do adding each belligerents to the result section even though they are participants. WP:RS cites this as the victory of Abbasids, supported by Tibetians. No need to add Abbasid-Tibetian victory. Imperial [AFCND] 14:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The abbasids never conquered anywhere close to the hexi corridor. I assume this was a typo that meant the tibetan empire took the corridor. Waxwing96 ( talk) 13:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Remsense @
Sudsahab, Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan
, this is an excerpt taken from
Indian Esoteric Buddhism: Social History of the Tantric Movement, specifically, from page number 46. Now, let's revise to the original version.
Imperial
[AFCND] 12:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
According to K.P. Jayaswal, Yasovarman's sending an embassy to China in 731 A.D. seems to have followed his defeat at the hands of Lalitāditya, for the Kashmir king himself was under the acknowledged suzerainty of China, and Yasovarman...- Page number 103 of Yaśovarman of Kanauj: A Study of Political History, Social, and Cultural Life of Northern India During the Reign of Yaśovarman
Paradoxically, Lalitaditya became the supreme lord of India as a vassal of the Tang Chinese, and with the means provided by them.- Page number 243-244 of Al-hind: The Making of the Indo-islamic World. And it is quite surprising that most of us tend to show him as an ally of the Tang, even though that too is an additional input, and couldn't wait for few more days for that. Imperial [AFCND] 13:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Funny how you didn't quote from these existing cited sources
[1]
[2]
[3], definitely because you know these sources nowhere said that Lalitaditya was a Tang vassal
. Moreover your poor editing can be seen as the first source that you have cited is itself contradicting the victors of this battle, later helped defeat the Arabs at the battle of Talas
.Now if we talk about the sources from which you quoted, the first source is fine (but can a religious history book define a historical account?) the second one
[4] is explicitly saying accepted suzerainty
so can we equate it to "vassal"? Isn't that
WP:OR?
The third one
[5] is more amusing as the source you have given doesn't even say anything like that.
Are you just randomly throwing these sources before even reading them? Do you realise that anyone can verify if your claim is true or not?
Sudsahab (
talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Lalitaditya was a Tang Vassal. Sudsahab ( talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The "vassal" part was added to show their relationship with the Tang Dynasty.On the basis of what? That's what I'm asking, the sources you cited don't even say so and you're making your own presumptions? In Lalitaditya Muktapida you have cited the same sources there which nowhere said that
Lalitaditya was a Tang VassalI'm repeating it because you're not checking your sources before quoting them here. Sudsahab ( talk) 18:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |