Talk:Battle of Köse Dağ

Disputed

• Mamluks come to power not before 1250s, therefore if Baibars come to aid of Seljuks, it must be after 1250s which may be 1260, Battle of Homs.
• Also the reason for retreat of turkish army is not clear.
• Genghis is apparently of Mongol origin, not Caucausian(this have to be removed, genghis is known for his red hair, not a mongolid property, its highly probable that his ancestors were appointed prices to the Mogol tribe(that of Temuchin) by their previous rulers gokturks as they replaced many of the princes(bey), but this is just a theory only fact is genghis was not mongolid, probably turkic or arian )

That's absolute rubbish. Tumijen was a Mongol, through and through.50.111.11.25 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Where was the Battle of Köse Dağ

The Encyclopaedia of Islam states that Köse Dağ is a “land-corridor some 50 miles/80 km. to the north-west of Sīwās” and, under “Kaykhusraw II” in the same work, “between Erzindjan and Sivas.” Cahen in Pre-Ottoman Turkey locates the battle in “the defile of Köse Dagh, in the province of Erzinjān.” My cherished Turkish atlas, Köy Köy Türkiye: Yol atlası (Istanbul 2006), puts Kösedağ Geçidi (Köse Dağ Pass) to the south of Gümüşhane and well to the north of Erzincan. In 13th century terms, this would be close to the lands of the Empire of Trebizond and nowhere near the caravan route between Sivas and Erzincan. Can anyone produce a credible source in any language that offers more precision? Thanks Aramgar 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The information above is corroborated by Anthony Bryer and Richard Winfield, The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, vol. 1, (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1985) 172, 353. Aramgar 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

I have removed this section from the article. If someone can adduce a source, it can be easily restored. Aramgar 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the Sultan had left the field after he saw his forces were almost twice the size of that of the Tatars and Mongols. He probably thought that it would be an easy victory. However, when the soldiers saw him leaving the field, some of them started to retreat as a result.

Source is Larousse as i have also read it. I will find more and complete the topic as i remember the forces were 30 000 sultanate of rum against 15 000 tatars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.208.79 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lev Gumilev

The source "Л.Н.Гумилев - Чёрная легенда" added by User:Enerelt (diff) seems to be the following: Gumilev, L. N. (Lev Nikolaevich), Chernai'a' legenda : druz'i'a' i nedrugi Velikoĭ stepi (Moscow: Aĭris Press, 2003). I am not so parochial as to expect every source on en.wikipedia to be in English but would like a second opinion on this one. Lev Gumilev seems to have had some strange ideas, and I am curious to know how he came to the numbers he does, as the primary sources say very little about troop strength. Aramgar (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Past experience indicates that in most situations, Gumilev should be considered at least controversial. He seems to have been a strange mixture of panturkist, soviet propagandist, and even antisemit. Other historians often disagree with him (even if they discuss his views), as he apparently came to many of his conclusions in absense of primary sources. Other discussions where his views have been debated as scientific fringe are Talk:Mongol invasion of Rus', Talk:Sabir people, Talk:Dingling, Talk:Olga of Kiev, Talk:Göktürks, Talk:Radhanite, Talk:Khazars/Archive 1, and many others (very incomplete list). The usual consensus seems to be that Gumilev's views may be mentioned in articles as alternative interpretations, but should not be given undue weight. So far I've only seen one editor who takes him at face value and considers him a reliable source. --Latebird (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sejuks invasion of Georgia and Greater Armenia

Anatolian turks had raided Georgia and Armenia first before 1242.--Enerelt (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Source? Aramgar (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Монголы татарын в Азий и Европе --Enerelt (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Kayqubad I invaded Georgia in 1236-1237 as a punitive response to a Mongol raid. The Armenians of Cilicia were also reluctant vassals of the Seljuqs.The statement you have included in the article implies that Seljuqs provoked the Mongols, which is not the case. On the book title you have supplied above, please see consult the following policies: WP:VUE and WP:CITE. Aramgar (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. As you wish. --Enerelt (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Armenian name of the site

Is the Armenian name of the site relevant in some significant way? I propose the removal of it for the sake of brevity.--Eleman (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection then.--Eleman (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Objection. Given the confusion over the location (see the talk page discussion Where was the Battle of Köse Dağ) having an alternative name as a possible aid to the location could be useful. However, I have not yet returned the Armenian name since I do not know if it is sourced. Does it come from Bryer and Winfield? The Köy Köy Türkiye Yol Atlası, map 61, source looks like OR to me. Köse Dagh as a modern placename is found in several locations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It is in Kirakos Gandzakets'i's History of the Armenians, Robert Bedrosian translation, section 35. So I have restored the Armenian name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Köse Dağ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130503033127/http://rbedrosian.com:80/kg10.htm to http://rbedrosian.com/kg10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109041355/http://www.turkishhan.org:80/history.htm to http://www.turkishhan.org/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)