Talk:Perso-Turkic war of 627–629

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Roman & Byzantine / Classical / Medieval 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Georgia (country) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles

	Greece: Byzantine
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

	Middle Ages Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia or Europe may be able to help!

On 9 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Third Perso-Turkic War to Perso-Turkic war of 627–629. The result of the discussion was moved.

The article seems very well written, but where are the references?Hajji Piruz 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-War boundaries were reinstated after the war. The Khazars did not stay to occupy the land, they left, alhtough the Khazar king did get taxes from the area, even after he left.Hajji Piruz 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the territorial changes part isnt even necessary, as there were none. THe Result of the war was reinstatement of pre-war boundaries.Hajji Piruz 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not argue over this point. It is evident to anyone reading the article that at one point the Gokturks controlled all of Transcaucasia, and only the civil war in Central Asia induced them to back down. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's accurate. According to Minorsky: Византийцы не расширяли своих владений в Восточном Закавказье, большая часть которого оставалась во власти хазар до прихода арабов. [1] Byzantines did not expand their possessions in Transcaucasia, most of which remained under the Khazar rule before the arrival of Arabs. Grandmaster 05:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you reverted my edits to

К.В. Тревер. ОЧЕРКИ ПО ИСТОРИИ И КУЛЬТУРЕ КАВКАЗСКОЙ АЛБАНИИ IV В. ДО Н. Э. - VII В. Н. Э. (источники и литература) -- изданиe Академии наук СССР, М.-Л., 1959. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by being "accepted" in English (or Russian) languages. Both Albania and Aghvania are foreign place names, and both are perfectly legitimate. Aghvania is the term used in most scholarly treatments of the event and probably by Movses himself. I don't care about his nationality (although I believe his work is written in Armenian) but I'm sure the term "Aghvania" should stay, because that's how the country is called in the academia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article about Albania in

Encyclopedia Iranica: [2] From what I can see most scholarly sources call this ancient country Caucasian Albania. This name is accepted since the times of Rome, and has not changed since. Grandmaster 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You might refer me to the

Aghvania. "Albania" is the Latin name for the country; "Aghvania" seems to be the native one. It's just like Caledonia and Scotland, Britannia and England. It's useless to expurgate one version in favor of another; we have a system of redirects to refer our readers to the appropriately named article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Or Dowsett, both top experts in this field. The latter has an article called A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". [3]

I don’t mean to be confrontational, I'm just trying to help improve the article. I don’t say that you did an original research, but I think that we should use a common English name of the country throughout the articles. We don't know what the Albanians called their country, but Armenians called it Aluank/Alvank/Agvank, and Persians and Arabs Arran. Aghvania appears to be a very rare spelling. Grandmaster 12:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue that the term "Albania" is illegitimate and I subscribe to every word Minorsky says. "Aluank/Alvank/Agvank" was used by Moses who is our primary source on the issue, so we should go with this name, rather than introducing the Latin spelling. No Latin source records the events of this particular war, so why should we replace the native name with its Latin rendering? I assure you there is no need to improve the article at this point. There are many other articles that could benefit from your zeal. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three clear indications within:

"Hostilities were initiated in 627 AD by Khagan Tong Yabghu of the Western Göktürks and Emperor Heraclius of the Eastern Roman Empire";

"The next objective of the Turkic-Byzantine offensive...

"Before long these departed as well, leaving the Byzantines to continue the siege alone and prompting jeers from the besieged";

Ghirla, note also that the infobox lists Heraclius as another commander :) --Brand спойт 14:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no doubt that both the Byzantines and the Khazars fought on the same front in the Caucasus. The Byzantines should be included.Hajji Piruz 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are evil. They engender controversy where there is none. The Byzantine and Gokturk offensives overlapped, but that does not mean the wars were identical. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mixing up the wars. The question is who participated in that war :) --Brand спойт 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Andreas... AnonMoos 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review for the article. Findings:

1. Well written?: Fluent, well organized, no grammatical short-comings.

2. Factually accurate?: No errors as far as I can say.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers pretty much everything in a balanced way, well referenced throughout.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability? Article is pretty new, but last 2 weeks have been fairly stable. No apparent disputes in the air apart some minor wordings.

6. Images?: Images feel a bit fragmented and improvements on this sector could be the focus in the future.

Passing GA. Added the article to Wikipedia:Good_articles under "Conflicts, battles and military exercises". ----Drieakko 12:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the

Transcaucasia was part of persian empire but conquered by Turks in 3rd perso-Turkic war. and ruled by Turks until Arabs. so, I changed battle result from Indecisive to Turko-Byzantine victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a

published source that states this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/SassanianEmpireHistoryofIran.png persian empire. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Chasaren.jpg Turks. you can clearly see on those maps Transcaucasia was part of sassanids then became Turkic and Turks kept Transcaucasia until Arab conquestsBöriShad (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

I post pre-war and after-war maps of Transcaucasia. Transcaucasia was part of sassanids then became part of Turkic Khaganate. also you keep adding iranian sources to this page. this page needs impartial sources not Kaveh Farrokh's books.BöriShad (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Böri Shad[reply]

I am not a nationalist, please stop doing these edits if you don't have any source and watch your language. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources that persian kept transcaucasia after war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on the Muslim conquest of Persia, it says that Armenia and Caucasian Albania was part of the Sasanian Empire and shows sources when they were lost. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

same says caucasia and transcaucasia was part of Khazars in

Khazar-Arab wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Where? does it show sources on the information? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blankinship (1994), p. 106 BöriShad (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

Where does it say that on the article? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dude, if that source doesn't says, please you show me a source that says caucasia was part of iran in 7th c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

check this out Minorsky, Vladimir. A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries. Cambridge, 1958. "In the late 6th to early 7th centuries the territory of Albania became an arena of wars between Sassanid Persia, Byzantium, and the Khazar Khanate, the latter two very often acting as allies against Sassanid Persia. In 628, during the Third Perso-Turkic War, the Khazars invaded Albania, and their leader Ziebel declared himself Lord of Albania, levying a tax on merchants and the fishermen of the Kura and Araxes rivers "in accordance with the land survey of the kingdom of Persia". Most of Transcaucasia was under Khazar rule before the arrival of the Arabs" BöriShad (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC) BöriShad[reply]

Can you not provide a page number? Subsequent searches have only one mention of Ziebel and no mention of "Lord of Albania". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sasanian-dynasty which shows readable information unlike your source, says that The Khazars were ravaging the northwest provinces, and it does not say that they conquered the northwest provinces, meaning that i am right. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

according to Minorsky transcaucasia was part of Khazars until arrival of Arabs. page loading slow but you can find that book in here http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/Minorsky/minorsky.html BöriShad (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

On what title can i find the information? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used "arabs" to find. BöriShad (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

What? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry misunderstood. "Download in .pdf format" you can find there — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just downloaded the pdf and i did not see any title saying Arabs, and all of the information is about the Shaddadids and Saladin, not about the Sassanids. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just misunderstood you and said "arabs" I meant use arabs to searh on document here pic from that page. http://oi44.tinypic.com/jzux3m.jpg BöriShad (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

I have found another sources which confirms that Azerbaijan and Eastern Armenia was under Sassanid control, take a look here and go page 20: http://books.google.dk/books?id=hvx9jq_2L3EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cambridge+history+of+iran+arab+invasion&hl=da&sa=X&ei=lTrxUYjUKoak0QWPkoGwCw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=cambridge%20history%20of%20iran%20arab%20invasion&f=false

Go to the Muslim conquest of Persia article and then take a look at the Conquest of Armenia title and the Conquest of Azerbaijan title, it shows sources when they were conquered.

And don't forget this one: According to this: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sasanian-dynasty, The Khazars were ravaging the northwest provinces, and it does not say that they conquered the northwest provinces, --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any non-iranian sources For God's sake? BöriShad (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests#Conquest_of_the_Caucasus:_711.E2.80.93750 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you show me that link? it doesn't show anything, and it don't matter what ethnicity the historian is, it matters if the sources is reliable or not, and the sources i showed are reliable, too bad for you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your sources shows Turks 300.000 in first and second wars and you call that source reliable? BöriShad (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

I posted impartial source. lets leave this to users of Wikipedia. BöriShad (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

And here is also another source i found: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii The Sasanians’ bargaining position improved when the Turks unexpectedly withdrew of their own accord from Transcaucasia in 629, but this was more than outweighed by domestic political instability. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add some reliable and impartial sources. not from iranian online or kaveh's books. I added one more reliable sources to the page. BöriShad (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)BöriShad[reply]

It is actually a reliable source, what is your problem against Iranians? first you call me an Iranian nationalist and then you say that these sources aren't reliable because they are Iranian, you shouldn't really talk about reliable sources because some time ago you thought that a fan-made map counted as a reliable source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stop deleting sources from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 13:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add the sources, but don't remove what i have added. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you kidding? you're deleting reliable sources and adding iranian nationalists sites as source? according to Vladimir Minorsky, Peter B. Golden and Otto Harrasowitz, Transcaucasia was part of Khazar Khaganate and Arabs fought for Caucasia against Khazars not persians. so stop adding natioanlist bull**** to this page.BöriShad (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, you are hopeless, i will let the admins deal with you, and do yourself a favor and read the Wikipedia rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, when you do not have words to tell, try to act cool. good job. I'm saying; "add non-iranian sources" because this war fought between a nation and iranians. so, iranians can not be objective. I added non Turkish and non iranian sources. and, said before, lets leave this page to other users. because you keep deleting my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, HistoryofIran and Börishad, stop editing the article....NOW. And both: consider this a warning. Hop over to the

third opinion to boot; build consensus, and I frankly do not care who is right or wrong; the next one of you to edit the article and reverting again will earn a block. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not about who wins, it is about what is the truth, well it is like that for me, i don't know about the other guy, and i have already stopped editing if you didn't read my comment up above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have retracted my personal opinion above; it was uncalled for....but my advice stands. Just as a sidenote: even when you consider all the sources would still be available and neutral, you could nver be sure waht is "truth". Lectonar (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just made a Dispute resolution noticeboard, now we just have to wait. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for the reopening of the DRN listing. Please see and respond here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (As DRN volunteer.)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on