Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Battle of Talas

"Decisive" victory

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Number of combatants on each side

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)[reply]

Uzair Ansari333 - We are not interested in what you "guess" - we are only interested in what reliable published sources have already said about the subject, Please cite which sources you are referring to in order to obtain all these figures - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date Terminology

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)[reply]

No. Srnec (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Taras led to the end of Tang expansion in Central Asia?

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.

Feng Changqing - Wikipedia

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)[reply]

You've conflated "end of expansion" with both "cessation of activities" and "decline". Remsense聊 05:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the expansion over? So, how to explain Feng Changqing's attack on Kashmir in 753? After the Battle of Talas, the Tang continued to gather forces in Central Asia until the An Lushan Rebellion in 755, when most of the troops of the Anxi and Beiting protectorates began to withdraw from Central Asia and Xinjiang. 李双能 (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
李双能, I suppose it depends how you would define expansion, which I would associate with broader long-term territorial or other material control. Going on campaign isn't necessarily expansion, campaigns are often undergone to maintain the control a state already has, which is how I would characterize Feng's campaign in Kashmir, though I will have to read more about it to be sure about that. I will also take another look at the sources used in the article to make sure the verbiage is supported by them. Remsense聊 17:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with the map of the Tang Dynasty used in the article

File:The red part of the land is gone.jpg

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.

姚州（剑南道姚州）_百度百科 (baidu.com)

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.

南宁州_百度百科 (baidu.com)

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.

曲州（古代地名）_百度百科 (baidu.com)

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.

矩州_百度百科 (baidu.com)

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.

播州区_百度百科 (baidu.com)

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.

File:Schematic diagram of the territory of the Wu and Zhou dynasties in 700 AD.png

李双能 (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As is noted on the image's descripotion page, it sources from "The T'ang Dynasty, 618-906 A.D.-Boundaries of 700 A.D." Albert Herrmann (1935). History and Commercial Atlas of China. Harvard University Press.
Which is a relatively old source, but I would be curious if anyone else has any qualms with it while I go fetch the book to read it. We want to make sure we don't do original research here, and piecing together bits of historical anecdote together into a new map not based on what any single source says is a classic pattern of original research seen on Wikipedia.
As was said in the previous rv summary: Baidu Baike is a user-generated source, and so for several reasons can't be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia.Remsense聊 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I checked the source, and its map matches pretty perfectly onto the one we have. Remsense聊 00:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
姚安县人民政府-姚州都督府文化大观园建设项目 (yaoan.gov.cn)
This is the government website (Yao'an County Investment Promotion Bureau), which clearly states, "The ancient city site covers an area of 12,000 square meters, and the tiles with characters of the Tang Dynasty have been unearthed."
历史文化-曲靖市沾益区人民政府-沾益区人民政府网,沾益区人民政府,沾益区政府,云南省曲靖市沾益区人民政府网 (zhanyi.gov.cn)
Tang placed Xipingzhou, and the rule of the present is beneficial. "Zhanyi County Chronicles" contains: "Xiping Deserted City is in the east of the city. Zhanyi County is located in Qujing City, Yunnan Province.
贵州务川汉墓新出土文物百余件 (kaogu.cn)
There may be some controversy about the Yunnan region, but I find it difficult to understand that there is no map of northern Guizhou Province. The discovery of Han dynasty tombs in Wuchuan County is sufficient evidence that this area has always belonged to the Han people, Since the Han Dynasty until 700 AD, the Han regime has not lost records of this region.
In addition to that, I would like to correct one thing. In 700 AD, there was no Tang Dynasty, which was called "Wu Zhou（武周）" at that time, and the Tang Dynasty was briefly replaced. 李双能 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, official tourism websites or short press releases are not the best place to glean historical academic research, I hope you'll agree.
  • This doesn't address the issue raised above regarding a potential piecemeal WP:SYNTH. Ideally, we need a single, reliable, comprehensive secondary source that has done the cobbling together for us from which we can reference, as has been done with the original map.
Remsense留 04:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you allow me to ask a rhetorical question? Is there any evidence that the Tang Dynasty lost Yunnan and Guizhou before 700 AD? You know, since the Han Dynasty, it has been an administrative body with the Central Plains.
Nanzhao: No, you know, the territory of Nanzhao in 750 A.D. was still confined to the Erhai area.
Cuanshi（爨氏）？Well, it's possible, but they were only hereditary officials of the Tang Dynasty, and their control over the land was limited to the eastern part of Yunnan Province and the southeastern part of Guizhou Province.
If Yunnan did not belong to the Tang Dynasty, then why did the Tang Dynasty fight against Nanzhao in Yunnan and Guizhou? 李双能 (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not speaking to any of these points, I'm speaking on the verifiability of information presented. The argument you are presenting is apparently being synthesized by you from numerous different sources. This doesn't mean it is wrong, but this does make it original research, which is not permitted to be included in Wikipedia articles.
Claims and arguments of this kind require direct citations in reliable sources. We cannot draw conclusions from putting together points found in several different sources, while saying something that no one of the sources supports by itself.
It would be appreciated if you could point to a reliable source that is making the specific points you are presenting here—an atlas, an academic journal, or a Tang history book, in Chinese or English, that specifically names these territories as being under Tang control circa 700. Remsense留 04:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I will use the official history book of my country, "History of the New Tang Dynasty", published in 1060 AD.
“姚州云南郡，下。武德四年以汉云南县地置。土贡：麸金、麝香。户三千七百。县三：姚城，泸南，长明。”
“戎州南溪郡，中都督府。本犍为郡，治南溪，贞观中徙治僰道。天宝元年更名。长庆中复治南溪。土贡：葛纤、荔枝煎。户四千三百五十九，口万六千三百七十五。县五：南溪，僰道，义宾，开边，归顺。”
“费州涪川郡，下。贞观四年析思州之涪川、扶阳，开南蛮置。土贡：蜡。户四百二十九，口二千六百九。县四：涪川，扶阳，多田，城乐。”
“思州宁夷郡，下。本务州，武德四年以隋巴东郡之务川、扶阳置，贞观四年更名。土贡：蜡。户千五百九十九，口万二千二十一。县三：务川，思王，思邛。”
“播州播川郡，下。本郎州，贞观九年以隋牂柯郡之牂柯县置，十一年废，十三年复置，更名。土贡：斑竹。户四百九十，口二千一百六十八。县三：遵义，芙蓉，带水。”
“夷州义泉郡，下。本隋明阳郡地，武德四年以思州之宁夷县置，贞观元年州废，四年复以黔州之都上县开南蛮置，十一年徙治绥阳。土贡：犀角、蜡烛。户千二百八十四，口七千一十三。县五：绥阳，都上，义泉，洋川，宁夷。”
“锦州卢阳郡，下。垂拱二年以辰州麻阳县地及开山洞置。土贡：光明丹砂、犀角。户二千八百七十二，口万四千三百七十四。县五：卢阳，招谕，渭阳，常丰，洛浦。”
“辰州卢溪郡，中都督府。本沅陵郡，天宝元年更名。土贡：光明丹沙、犀角、黄连、黄牙。户四千二百四十一，口二万八千五百五十四。县五：沅陵，卢溪，溆浦，麻阳，辰溪。”
“黔州黔中郡，下都督府。本黔安郡，天宝元年更名。土贡：犀角、光明丹沙、蜡。户四千二百七十，口二万四千二百四。县六：彭水，黔江，洪杜，洋水，信宁，都濡。”
“溪州灵溪郡，下。天授二年析辰州置。土贡：丹沙、犀角、茶牙。户二千一百八十四，口万五千二百八十二。县二：大乡，三亭。”
This is an administrative body set up in the Yunnan-Guizhou region recorded in the History of the New Tang Dynasty. The above elaborates on the basic information of the establishment of the organization, such as a series of adjustments such as the time of establishment, the time of name change, the time of office relocation, etc. There is also the number of people in the jurisdiction and the scope of jurisdiction.
《新唐书》全集在线阅读_史书典籍_古诗集网 (gushiji.cc)
This is an online reading site for "New Tang Dynasty History", I'm sorry, there are some small ads on this site, I personally rarely read e-books, so some ad-free online reading sites don't know. You can read directly about the "Geography" section, where "地理五" and "地理六" are on this topic.
I don't think there's any more reliable source than the official history books, right? Do you have any more questions? 李双能 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have an immense respect for the chops of the official historians throughout Chinese imperial history. But you'll have to forgive me for not having read through each of them—my Chinese reading ability is still basic, and the Literary Chinese is still doubly hard for me. This of course deserves a proper analysis and response, but it is very late in America presently, and my Classical-reading brain is not presently on. I hope you don't mind if I tackle this in the morning. Cheers! Remsense留 05:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I'll translate it, and hopefully you'll see it when you wake up in the morning. But I can only translate them into modern Chinese, because my English is not very good, and most of these ancient place names and nouns can't find matching English words, so I can only do that.
“姚州云南郡，下。武德四年以汉云南县地置。土贡：麸金、麝香。户三千七百。县三：姚城，泸南，长明。”
Translated into modern Chinese:姚州（云南郡），下等州。武德四年（621年）在汉代的云南县辖地上所设立。进献的土产是麸金和麝香。该州拥有的家庭数量是3700，管辖三个县，分别为：姚城，泸南，长明。
“戎州南溪郡，中都督府。本犍为郡，治南溪，贞观中徙治僰道。天宝元年更名。长庆中复治南溪。土贡：葛纤、荔枝煎。户四千三百五十九，口万六千三百七十五。县五：南溪，僰道，义宾，开边，归顺。”
Translated into modern Chinese:戎州（南溪郡），中等都督府。原名犍为郡，治所在南溪县，贞观中期（635-年643年间）将治所迁到僰道，天宝元年（742年）改为现在的名字。长庆中期（822年或823年）将首府迁南溪县。进献的土产是葛纤、荔枝煎。该州拥有的家庭数量是4359，人口是16375。管辖五个县，分别是南溪，僰道，义宾，开边，归顺。
“费州涪川郡，下。贞观四年析思州之涪川、扶阳，开南蛮置。土贡：蜡。户四百二十九，口二千六百九。县四：涪川，扶阳，多田，城乐。”
Translated into modern Chinese:费州（涪川郡），下等州。贞观四年（630年）将思州的涪川、扶阳划出，加上南蛮的土地建立费州。进献的土产是蜡。该州拥有的家庭数量是429，人口为2609，管辖四个县，分别是：涪川，扶阳，多田，城乐。
“思州宁夷郡，下。本务州，武德四年以隋巴东郡之务川、扶阳置，贞观四年更名。土贡：蜡。户千五百九十九，口万二千二十一。县三：务川，思王，思邛。”
Translated into modern Chinese:思州（宁夷郡），下等州。原本属于务州，武德四年（621年）在隋代巴东郡的务川、扶阳设立务州，贞观四年（630年）改名为思州。进献的土产是蜡。该州拥有的家庭数量是1599，人口12021.下辖三个县，分别为务川，思王，思邛。
“播州播川郡，下。本郎州，贞观九年以隋牂柯郡之牂柯县置，十一年废，十三年复置，更名。土贡：斑竹。户四百九十，口二千一百六十八。县三：遵义，芙蓉，带水。”
Translated into modern Chinese:播州（播川郡），下等州。原名为朗州，贞观九年（635年）在隋代的牂柯郡的牂柯县设立朗州，637年废除，639年重新设立，并更名为播州。进献的土产是斑竹。该有拥有的家庭数量是490，人口2168.下辖三个县，分别是遵义，芙蓉，带水。
“夷州义泉郡，下。本隋明阳郡地，武德四年以思州之宁夷县置，贞观元年州废，四年复以黔州之都上县开南蛮置，十一年徙治绥阳。土贡：犀角、蜡烛。户千二百八十四，口七千一十三。县五：绥阳，都上，义泉，洋川，宁夷。”
Translated into modern Chinese:夷州（义泉郡），下等州。原属于隋代的明阳郡，武德四年（621年）将思州的宁夷县划出设立夷州。贞观元年（626年）撤销，630年在黔州的都上县和从南蛮手中夺回的土地重新设立夷州，637年将治所迁到绥阳。进献的土产是：犀角、蜡烛。该州拥有的家庭数量是1284，人口7013.管辖五个县，分别是绥阳，都上，义泉，洋川，宁夷。
“锦州卢阳郡，下。垂拱二年以辰州麻阳县地及开山洞置。土贡：光明丹砂、犀角。户二千八百七十二，口万四千三百七十四。县五：卢阳，招谕，渭阳，常丰，洛浦。”
Translated into modern Chinese:锦州（卢阳郡），下等州。垂拱二年（686年）划出辰州的麻阳县和开山洞设立锦州。进献的土产是光明丹砂和犀角。该州拥有的家庭数量是2872，人口为14374.管辖五个县，分别是卢阳，招谕，渭阳，常丰，洛浦。
“辰州卢溪郡，中都督府。本沅陵郡，天宝元年更名。土贡：光明丹沙、犀角、黄连、黄牙。户四千二百四十一，口二万八千五百五十四。县五：沅陵，卢溪，溆浦，麻阳，辰溪。”
Translated into modern Chinese:辰州（卢溪郡），中等都督府。本名沅西郡，天宝元年（742年）改名为卢溪郡。进献的土产是光明丹沙、犀角、黄连、黄牙。该州拥有的家庭数量是4241，人口28554.下辖五个县，分别是沅陵，卢溪，溆浦，麻阳，辰溪。
“黔州黔中郡，下都督府。本黔安郡，天宝元年更名。土贡：犀角、光明丹沙、蜡。户四千二百七十，口二万四千二百四。县六：彭水，黔江，洪杜，洋水，信宁，都濡。”
Translated into modern Chinese:黔州（黔中郡），下等都督府。原名黔安郡，天宝元年（742年）改名为黔中郡。进献的土产是犀角、光明丹沙、蜡。该州拥有的家庭数量是4270，人口24204.下辖六个县，分别是彭水，黔江，洪杜，洋水，信宁，都濡。
“溪州灵溪郡，下。天授二年析辰州置。土贡：丹沙、犀角、茶牙。户二千一百八十四，口万五千二百八十二。县二：大乡，三亭。”
Translated into modern Chinese:溪州（灵溪郡），下等州。天授二年（691年）从辰州分出。进献的土产是丹沙、犀角、茶牙。该州拥有家庭数量是2184，人口15282.下辖两个县，分别是大乡，三亭。
I had tried to translate these into English, but I had to give up because some nouns were missing from English. For the modern Chinese section above, I would like to point out some key points: each of the above states has two official names, but the names in parentheses are not commonly used.
I don't know if the book is available in English, I tried to find the answer from the wiki, but it seems that there is none.
中文笔记 (chinesenotes.com)
新唐书 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书 (wikipedia.org)
Oh, it's a pity. 李双能 (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work, and have been busy with different stuff today, but this is still a priority for me. Starting to take a look now, thanks for your patience. Remsense留 01:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victory of alliance?

@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)[reply]

"Seizure of the Hexi Corridor by the Abbasids"

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)[reply]

The Tibetan takeover happened over a decade after the Battle of Talas per Military_history_of_the_Tang_dynasty#13th_Tibetan_Empire_(753). It is not substantiated in this article and is probably a reaching statement based on broad descriptions of the aftermath. Qiushufang (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitaditya being the vassal of Tang

@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)[reply]

Relax. If the battle can wait 1300 years to have a featured wikipedia article, it can wait a few more days to get additional input. That book doesn't seem suspicious, but is there a more general history book for this claim? Remsense诉 12:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Found so much attack on me here. We are here to build encyclopaedia. Not to cuss others. A gentle reminder. I gave sources for all the parts I cited and wherever it's necessary. That's it. Now I just need @Remsense to look at it. Imperial[AFCND] 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that's all you have in reply? Before moving forward I'd suggest you to go through WP:PA so you can refrain from making false allegations. Now coming to the topic, you again didn't quote anything like "vassal" word from the existing cited sources, we have to work together in order to sort out this issue but you're not giving quotation from those sources instead you brought up more sources in talk page in which only one has explicitly mentioned "vassal" word. Sudsahab (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to cite those sources if they do not mention such "vassal" word, only cite that source which explicitly saying Lalitaditya was a Tang Vassal. Sudsahab (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lalitaditya part in this article was supposed to describe their presence in the battle. Not to prove if they were vassal or not. The "vassal" part was added to show their relationship with the Tang Dynasty. As that was already present in the article of Lalitaditya Muktapida, it is not necessary to cite it again, and I wouldn't mind to cite if anyone needs that. So, as the sources are given, could you add that "vassal" part again in its position? Can use the sources I've provided above, if it's necessary. About the PA, I am here to comment on the topic. Not on the person. Imperial[AFCND] 18:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense, please involve to make a consensus if you are notified by the ping. I am not rushing, but not interested in lengthening this thread by personal comments. Imperial[AFCND] 18:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond as soon as I am able. Remsense诉 18:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense As you can see from the above discussion @ImperialAficionado has failed to provide a specific quotation from the existing cited sources, adding more to the point this source[https://books.google.com/books?id=GFa0uSleDNwC] contradicts the victor of the battle. This is clearly WP:SYNTH. Sudsahab (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is an art history book. I think it's fair to say that as such, it is less reliable in this context than the ones Imperial has provided, which do explicitly back up their claims. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Remsense诉 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Vassal I'm repeating it because you're not checking your sources before quoting them here. Sudsahab (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what sources you are referring to, but the ones here that Imperial cite do specifically say that Lalitadya was a Tang vassal or something to that effect where it acknowledged the Tang as superior. Qiushufang (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Imperial do directly say that Lalitaditya was a vassal of Tang China. "Suzerain" can be taken as something similar but more specific wording can be used if that is an issue. Qiushufang (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked all the sources provided by @ImperialAficionado? Let me conclude it for you and other readers:-
1.) This source https://archive.org/details/alhindmakingofin0003wink (given IA link for ease) provided by@ImperialAficionado is the most irrelevant here for the whole context, found nothing relevant in given pp 243-244.
2.) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GFa0uSleDNwC&redir_esc=y (p.96) this source from the beginning contradicts the victor of the battle of Talas so how can we assure its credibility?
3.) This one, https://archive.org/details/ingodspatharabco0000hoyl/page/186/mode/1up (p.186) neither it says that Kashmir/Karkotas participated in the battle of Talas nor do it says that Lalitaditya was a Tang vassal. It's now irritating and amusing at the same time. Why these sources were even cited for this long time?
4.) From these two [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kZWgj-YMdVEC&pg] (p.103)
[https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gUt7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false] (pp. 30-34) If suzerainty and submission (respectively) can be taken as vassal (note that authors do not mention "vassal" word) then I'm also fine with it.
5.) The only source which mentions "Lalitaditya being Tang vassal" [6] can be used by adding [clarification needed] or templates, though several other questions can be raised like Ronald M. Davidson is professor of religious studies at Fairfield University but he's neither a military historian nor a linguist but I'm not going for that deep research because it's already exhausting for me to show how @ImperialAficionado sources lack credibility and promotes WP:SYNTH .
At last I'll only add up- some of his sources say that Karkotas participated in the battle of Talas while some didn't say so, and one of his sources even contradicts the victor of the Battle of Talas. I'm now tired and fed up of explaining this nonsense. Sudsahab (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the wrong version of al-hind, the one with pg. 243-244 is 2002. The quote is there in the pdf I have. Suzerain can indeed be taken as something akin to vassalage in certain contexts. Multiple sources have stated something similar to the extent that it would pass reliably sourced by most standards. Both vassal and suzerain are provided in the body of the article. I'm not seeing what the contention is. Qiushufang (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Talas