Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kharistan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Kharistan edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

One more in my series of articles on the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana. This battle was the turning point of the wars between the Umayyads and the Türgesh, and was something of a miraculous success for the Muslims, who had been driven back into Khurasan. The article passed GA back in 2016 and had fallen off my radar since, but I think it is comprehensive and up to A-class standards. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford edit

A very good article that is as comprehensive as can be expected for an 8th century battle. Article is thoroughly sourced with all references originating from reputable, academic presses. The form checks (DAB, alt text, etc.) look good. There is a logical and cogent organization and a neatly formatted infobox with map. The lead is of appropriate length for an article of this size. An image might be nice but, having followed all the personal name links in the article, I can find none that would be appropriate so that's that. Anyway, I have only one comment and this is suggestive only:

"In the ensuing clash, the Türgesh right under Ibn Surayj was victorious, reportedly reaching Asad's tent, but after an attack from the rear, reportedly on the suggestion of the ruler of Juzjan, the Türgesh and their allies broke and fled, leaving behind their encampment with their women, including the wife of the khaghan, who was stabbed by a eunuch servant to prevent her from being taken captive." - Through grammatically correct, this is an exceptionally complex sentence with no fewer than eight (8!) commas, making it difficult for the reader of average or lower intelligence to comprehend (e.g. me).

Chetsford (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Chetsford for your time and comments. I've broken up the sentence. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

Lead edit

"thereby forestalling the collapse of Arab rule over Khurasan". Optional: that reads a bit clunkily to me. Can you phrase it more felicitously?
"but had been increasingly hard-pressed by Türgesh attacks". Would it be possible to introduce the Turgesh, here or in the paragraph above? Who they were, where they came from or why they were attacking - just a bit of context.

I've generally revamped the lede a bit, have a look

"his army's baggage train was annihilated". I don't think that you mean "annihilated", I think that you mean something like 'captured'.

The baggage train also included an armed escort, which was indeed annihilated; changed wording accordingly.

"Asad's successor Nasr ibn Sayyar was able to use the collapse of Türgesh power to restore the Arab position in Transoxiana almost to what it had been before the Türgesh intervention." Do we have any idea by what date this restoration was effected?

Added

I have only got to the end of the lead and already I am a little confused by one side being variously referred to as "Umayyad", "Arab" and "caliphal". It may be helpful to chose one and stick to it.

I've tried to make the connections somewhat clearer, and I'll keep that in mind, but I cannot eliminate the other designations altogether (it must be also mentioned, for example, the the Umayyads were Arabs, because Ibn Surayj was also an Arab, etc).

Background edit

I assume that " conquered by the Arab Muslims" and "loyalty ... to the Umayyad Caliphate" refers to the same thing?

Moved the first mention of the Umayyad Caliphate up to address this.

"from 720 on the Türgesh launched a series of attacks". "on" seems to me to be redundant.

Removed, and added circa, since the exact date is a bit unclear (720/21).

"in 728 a large-scale uprising broke out with Türgesh aid" seems a little clumsy. Was the aid delivered after an uprising broke out, or did the Turgesh incite it, ie aid its outbreak?

Clarified.

"the rebellion of al-Harith ibn Surayj". Where did this take place?

Clarified (I can't believe I had omitted that).

"already served as governor of Khurasan before". One of "already" or "before" needs to go.

Replaced both with the years of his first tenure.

"Asad was informed barely in time". A better turn of phrase would be something like "Asad received [very] little notice …"

Good suggestion, done.

"virtually annihilated the Arab baggage train" See above. They may have annihilated the escort and captured the baggage train, but I doubt that they "reduced to nothing, destroyed, or eradicated" the baggage itself.

Clarified.

Battle edit

"messages arrived at Balkh that the Türgesh and their allies, some 30,000 strong, were at Jazza" It may help to know how far apart these were.

Jazza is unidentified; at long last I was able to find a source that deals with its possible location, but there is nothing definite to go on, other than that it was near Balkh.

"The Umayyad governor" Is this Asad? If so, it would be better to say so. If not, he needs introducing.

Clarified.

"with some reaching as far as Marw al-Rudh". Any idea how far this was?

Added.

"(6.2–7.5 miles)" I think that '6-7' would suffice.

Done.

"while the rest of his force consisted not only of his Türgesh but also of contingents". Optional: 'while the rest of his force consisted ~~not only~~ of his Türgesh ~~but also~~ and of contingents'.

Good suggestion, done.

"sending the captive Türgesh women to the local Iranian dehgans" Would it be possible to have a one or two word translation of dehgans in parentheses after it?

Done.

"soon beset by heavy rain and snow" "beset" Really? 'hampered'?

Done.

Aftermath edit

Who is "Caliph Hisham"?
And should he be linked?

I really don't know how I missed that. Clarified and linked.

I have also made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.

They are fine, thanks a lot.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine, apologies for the delayed response; you didn't ping me and I only just realised that you had addressed my comments. Your changes are all spot on, my concerns are all addressed, and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Map is appropriately licensed, but I wonder if there are any additional images that could be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the topic and period are rather poorly represented in Commons or elsewhere. I've been looking for either a medieval miniature on these events or some archaeologically-relevant photo, but to no avail. There are some excellent depictions of Umayyad and Turkic warriors by Angus McBride that could be used but, alas, copyright. Constantine ✍ 12:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Not much to say except these.

had been conquered by the Arab Muslims of the Umayyad Caliphate Unlink both Arab and Muslims.

Done, and reversed order.

as far as Marw al-Rudh, some 350 kilometres (220 miles) south I reckon that kilometres and miles should be switched.
farsakhs—roughly 10–12 kilometres (6–7 miles)—from the capital of Juzjan Same as above.

For both, why? The metric system is the most familiar for an international audience.

Well I think we should miles instead because at the time no country in the world uses metric so probably every old English source is written with miles and yards. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I am indeed a fan of retaining archaicisms when warranted, but the article is meant for a modern audience. The primary sources, being Arabic, don't use either miles or km, but farsakhs, which is what I have rendered into modern equivalents with km taking precedence for the reason stated above. On the distance between Marw al-Rudh and Balkh, this was calculated using this tool rather than from a written source. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it intresting to add a local unit like in this example the farsakhs? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: not sure I follow: there is one "local" unit, appropriate to the place, period, and use in the primary sources, and that is the farsakh (furthermore, as the farsakh could vary quite a bit in length, it should be included for accuracy's sake). There is no other "local" unit I can think of, certainly neither miles nor kilometres fit this criterion. Constantine ✍ 11:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't reckon there is a MOS rule who pointed out that a local (or an historical) unit should included in the article. Well at least as far as I can tell. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Again, I am not sure what you are driving at. What do you propose should be different? Constantine ✍ 20:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind also just a question why doesn't we use farsakhs in this sentence reaching as far as Marw al-Rudh, some 350 kilometres (220 miles) south and east of Balkh? Or is there a good reason why we shouldn't add it here but in the other sentence farsakhs—roughly 10–12 kilometres (6–7 miles)—from the capital of Juzjan it should? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: this is mentioned above: the distance between Balkh and Marw al-Rudh has been calculated by me to assist the reader in gauging the distances involved; the farsakhs are from the primary sources. Constantine ✍ 16:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate the title of the Sims-Williams and Nicholas's source?

Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, please have a look. Best, Constantine ✍ 08:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: a friendly reminder :). Constantine ✍ 14:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Put the series name in Blankenship 1989 in title case; sources are otherwise properly formatted.
references are properly formatted
Sources are high quality and reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Done. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 05:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.