Talk:Battle of the Indus/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

• Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class.

• This article would benefit from: expansion, sections (Prelude, The battle, Aftermath), in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

dem numbers

At the battle of Parwan(same year, 1221) Jalal ad-Din had(according to wiki page) 60.000 soldiers under his command. In a quarrel over spoil, he lost half his army

60.000 / 2 = 30.000

Yet this wiki-page, battle of Indus, same year, claims his army only shrinked by 10.000 men... wtf?

were most available Khwarezimd forces heading towards the indus, so Jalal ad-Din's army was quickly replenished, or is this just one of those incontinuty battle? 2.69.50.158 (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Harper's military encyclopedia does not give any number about this battle - delete it please.

Current version of the article cites "Trevor N. Dupuy and R. Ernest Dupuy, The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, (Harper Collins Publishers, 1993), 366." as source for Khwarazmian strength being 30 - 35 thousand men. The encyclopedia is with me right now, I took a look at the relevant page and other pages as well. It does not feature any number about strength of either side. If permitted, I can even post photo of the relevant part. So, please delete it --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have just seen it does. Sorry. My bad. I strokethrough my initial discussion. + it does state Chingiz khan had Fifty thousand men, I will add it into the text. --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: Actually, the encyclopedia still does not give numerical info about this battle. It talks of 30 000 men from the previous battle. It says at the Battle of Parwan section: "The Prince withdrew into the northern Punjab with 30 000 men. Genghis followed with more than 50,000." That is all. Then comes this battle's section without any number. --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Chagatai and Oghedei khan also partook in this battle

It is mentioned both in contemporary and modern accounts. Juvaini mentions it, and here is an example of a modern source mentioning it: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=uV9jAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA436&dq=Battle+of+Indus&hl=tk&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwwIznhdXsAhUINOwKHYxNC7UQ6AEwCXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Indus&f=false Let us add them as well --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Of Carl Sverdrup assessing the Djerdin

Hello, @HistoryofIran:. The edit you reverted was previously deleted due to a confusion on a source (I made that addition and confusion). Earlier, Sakura emad made your objection and here is the explanation I gave him (which convinced him): {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) Respond here if you have further objection so that I can make it clear. In short, I was the one that added that assessment. Upon further reading, I discoverd I have confused the battles. Kind regards, --81.213.215.83 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No objection, thanks for explaining. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting guidance on Battle of Indus

Hello, @AirshipJungleman29:, for the battle flow most sources state the Mongol left initiated the battle, attacked and was driven back by Jalal al-Dins right wing, which advanced despite Genghis Khan reinforcing his left. Then a general Mongol attack was also driven back, and the Sultan's counter attack almost broke through, but Mongol reserves checked his progress. The Sultan used his left as a reserve in the melee that followed. Seeing this, Genghis khan sent his crack troops to scale the ridge and outflank his left. not all the sources give all the details, but together a more coherent picture can be set up. Also, some sources state that Timur Malik my have survived - why not mention this?

The Mongols normally used repeated charges and retreats with arrow showers to weaken their enemy, or entice them into following their retreating troops and fall into an ambush. At Indus they were fighting in a cramped space with swords and lances made the battle even as they could not maneuver. They were using their arrows sparingly, not because of the crowded conditions, but because Genghis Khan had ordered that the Sultan be taken alive and they did not want a chance arrow to hit Jalal ad-Din. The Khwarezm soldiers had the advantage in close quarter sword and lance fight, and were using their arrows more effectively, leading to higher Mongol casualties as mentioned in the source, as you fire in a crowd, you can hit more targets.

In many featured articles and good read articles on battles, like the Battle of Cannae, or Battle of Ibera, Battle of the Aegates, description of soldiers, ships and their equipment are given as they influenced the battle to some degree, and the battle flow from all sources are mentioned. Why was this section removed as "excess prose"? Does the description requirement vary from article to article, or it is consistent across Wikipedia?

Agreed on the title of Jalal al-Din. However, like to point out Sultan Muhammad II assumed the title of Shah, "Second Alexander" and "Sultan Sanjar" after his defeat of the Qara Khitai and the Ghurids, and was addressed as "Shah", while Jalal ad Din's letters address him as "Sultan". He never ruled in Khwarazm.Maglorbd (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maglorbd:, I have seen this and I will get back to you as soon as real life/other commitments release their grip — you seem, at first glace, to have made some good points, so I'd rather have all my attention focused on this. One question: I assume that the IP address that edited your comments above was also you, correct? Thanks ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. Your observations will help streamline and revamp the related articles.Maglorbd (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maglorbd: sorry for the long delay. Your first point: I had gone through multiple sources, and established to my satisfaction that despite the confusion of the sources, the battle proceeded as in the current text. The Khan and his commanders would have seen the strength of the Khwarazmian left wing on the ridge, and it makes far more sense, with the certain numerical advantage, to try to break that first; when that attack failed, he moved some troops from his left to his right. However, the ridge proved too strong, and the movement of the troops also weakened the Mongol left, so the Khwarazmian right managed to beat them back. After the wings were repulsed, there was no general Mongol attack; that is an invented event that in reality was the Khwarazmian advance. This was checked, although Nasawi's account of a terrified Genghis 'urging on the ship of deliverance' is very clearly exaggeration. The bahadurs would have taken more than an hour to scale the steep ridge from behind; thus the Khan must have ordered their attack earlier, after his initial assaults were repulsed (this also helps explain why the Mongol center was weak when the Khwarazmians attacked).

Do you have a source on Genghis ordering Jalal al-Din to be taken alive? If you do, that would be very helpful, and I will happily put that section back into the article. I do not, however, believe that the feigned retreat strategy was ever an option here: the battle is too compact for that, and the Khwarazmians would never have been in any position to chase the Mongols.

"Second Alexander" was never a title, more an accolade. Muhammed II was always Shah of Khwarazm, that being the hereditary title, while his father had secured the sultanates in his campaigns against the Caliph. Jalal al-Din's letters are from his later years, when he ruled large swathes of Iran and Hamadan, and thus could conceivably be called Sultan - but in this article, it makes as much sense to refer to him by the title of Sultan, as it would to refer to Ogedai by the title of Khagan.

The sections on the respective armies were uncited or badly sourced. As an example, the Mongol army section contained no citations at all, while the Khwaramian section cited Boyle p.183 for the Khwarazmians being indisciplined; this is incorrect, the source just says they pillaged excessively. The prose was shoddy and rather far away from GA-class, where I intend to get this. I hope that addresses your concerns. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for your views, I have a few questions than need clarification:

Can you please name the sources where it specifically states Mongols attacked the ridge first? The sources I listed all state action began with the Mongol left. Unless it is specifically stated in a source, please do not guess. You are not willing to use the battle location because they are "guesses" by reputed scholars, so why use guesswork? Please use what majority of the sources describe, and see if put together what they give. Most sources have Mongol left attacking Sultan's army, a few has Jalal ad-Din' right attacking Mongols left first, as it was more vulnerable and it made more sense to get a breakthrough here as attacking an enemy weak-point first makes more sense, especially to an experienced general like Genghis khan, so I disagree with your interpretation of the battle.

Sultan's left was the stronger position because 1) It could not be outflanked. Mongols would charge straight at it, while eating arrows from their stationary enemy. in a confined front, their numbers would not have mattered. 2) It is possible some of the Sultan's soldiers were on the ridge itself, able to shoot down on the Mongols. another reason to avoid the position.

The observation that the Mongols outflanked the ridge only after Genghis Khan observed Jalal ad-Din removing soldiers from his left is also valid, there are some sources that specifically states this, if the bahadurs took time to climb, the armies simply remained stalemated until then. Also, if they climbed, they attacked as infantry, not cavalry. A cavalry attack is possible if there were paths across the ridge, and Sultan's left wing had advanced beyond the pass exit without noticing. Mongols rode through the path to surprise the Sultan's troops.

Nowhere does the sources say the Sultan's wings crumbled at the same time, rather, most state Sultan's right gave way first after Genghis khan led the Mongo left wing attack, and outflanked Sultan's right wing. Until then, it was an even contest in a crowded place. So I disagree with the overall battle description. There is no mention of troops from Mongol left bolstering their right, So I disagree. Genghis Khan's army was much larger that the Sultan's, so he had enough reserves to send to his right before needlessly moving troops from his left wing. The Mongols army was at least twice as much troops, so Mongol wings had enough troops to contain the Sultan's wings and plus enough reserves to shore up their lines without weakening their forward formations - I disagree with your reasoning. This is one of the sources that does not seem confusing: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=uV9jAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA436&dq=Battle+of+Indus&hl=tk&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwwIznhdXsAhUINOwKHYxNC7UQ6AEwCXoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Indus&f=false

Also, it should be noted Genghis khan fought his battles trying to preserve his best soldiers. He rarely fought slugging matches, used ruses, maneuvers to create a weak spot before attacking. Which is why, Mongols sent their prisoners first to assault besieged cities, and after the city garrison had weakened, the Mongols attacked in the final wave. Same was with their tactics, use shower of arrows to weaken enemy formations, try to lure the enemy cavalry out, then charge home or ambush the enemy. To preserve his soldiers, Genghis Khan would attack the weak spot first, as the description of his battles show, even with a larger army, he was employing ruses and formations to hit the enemy at his weakest, so I cannot agree that he would try to overcome a strong position by sheer weight of numbers and suffer needless casualties of his veterans, when a weaker spot existed on the other side. So I disagree with your interpretation of events. I state - Mongol left started the battle, and was driven back despite receiving reinforcements from the reserves.

2. Agreed. Do you need a primary source on Genghis Khan forbidding the killing of Jalal ad-Din?Tarikh-i Jahangushay p 133-134 mentions that Genghis Khan wished the Sultan to be taken alive. This was in the article, you took out this section. Probably did not specifically check to confirm this. So, with two armies fighting with lances and swords, Mongols were not firing volleys into enemy crowds, less they hit the Sultan, but Sultan's army was showering arrows in Mongol crowds, hitting droves of enemies. Worth mentioning. As one source mentions, Mongol casualties were higher - stands to reason - the climb on the left and this caused a considerable number of them.

3. Sultan's army was placed between the ridge and river, and could not be outflanked. However if they advanced when the Mongols retreated, they could be chasing down the Mongols, which is what happened when the Sultan's right wing followed by his center advanced, and only then the Mongols could outflank Sultan's right, as reasioned by Raverty. Even if there was no chase, Sultan's army had room to advance and moved forward, and when the Sultan's right wing crumbled, Amin Malik and some of his troops could flee towards Peshwar, which means either, the riverbank offered little protection in reality, and troops could cross without difficulty, or the Khwarizm wing had space to move away from the battle, no longer restricted by the river.

4. Temer Malik - there are sources that state the left was under someone else's command and he may have survived the battle - I see no reason not to mention this, and don't see how GA quality would be compromised by doing so.

5. The combat with swords and lances favoring the Sultan - think, if fighting in a corridor, two men can hold off a whole battalion. Same effect - in a crowded place, lances, maces and swords were used, advantage was with the Sultan. I see no reason not to mention this, as Mongols suffered higher casualties because of this situation and also due to losing men on the ridge. Genghis Khan used the outflanking maneuver because the battle had stagnated. Mongols were suffering heavily, and he noticed the Sultan had weakened his left wing to support his center and right, he had fewer soldiers and needed to bolster the wings engaging the Mongols to prevent his wings collapsing after weakening from combat losses. Aging disagree with you on the flow and that Genghis Khan sent his bahadurs early. Tarikh-i Jahangushay p 134 mentions that Genghis Khan wished the Sultan to be taken alive.

6.The Mongol army had enough troops to have both their wings and center of equal strength, and the sources clearly mention Genghis Khan used his reserves posted behind his main line to bolster his left wing first, which fell back despite this, so the Mongol center was not weakened as you interpret. Also, Genghis Khan and his crack bodyguards were posted behind the center, and he could bolster the troops as soon the Sultan's charge arrived. It makes more sense that a general attack on Khwarizm left and center was driven back, then the Sultan charged the retreating Mongols, routing them and reaching and driving back Genghis Khan's troops, then the situation was stabilized as Mongol reserves arrived - mentioned in a source. So while Nasawi's description of Genghis Khan's panic may be colorful fantasy, the flow of battle might not be. I disagree with you on the flow, agree Naswai's exaggerated Genghis Khan's alleged panic and think we can mention the event without the fancy description, as you have done - but with a little more elaboration.

7. Jalal ad-Din using units from his left wing to reinforce his center and right, and Genghis Khan used bahadurs only after he noticed this. As you mention, this it took time, the armies fought until they arrived on Sultan's left. I see no reason why they had to start early, especially no source says Sultan's right and left crumbled at the same time. I disagree with your description.

8.Description of respective armies - I will post with the sources - may I request you to make it GA status?

9. In Battle of Red Cliffs, a featured article, the battle site location is listed - all guesswork, and there are four sites. I think we can give the information on Indus battle site.

10. A GA, Battle of Ticinus, historically a small skirmish compared to battle of Indus, has a more information of background and battle description. So does the broad approach of GA depend on the editor on how much information would make it a GA?

11. Many GAs have Battle flow diagrams so the flow can be understood better. I would include one once we can agreed on the flow.

10. Agreed with your take on titles. My point was - Jalal ad-Din never ruled an empire to claim the title of Shah. Shah is an Iranian title, Sultan is Turkih, Jalal ad-Din was a Tuk who never ruled Khworezm, and in India and Persian he was addressed as Sultan. Agree that he was Shah of Khwarazm, even in exile as he was the heir. Given his diminished status, Sultan is more appropriate, which is why he used that title in India and Persia.

Thank you again for your time. I applaud your efforts to make this a GA, but I think some of the information can be added as GA has a "broad approach" and I disagree with the flow of battle as it stands, I have to my satisfaction had given an alternate battle flow with all relevant sources, and had tried to convey the reasoning that information several sources, taken together, gives a somewhat different picture.Maglorbd (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Indus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 20:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Mention that the image was produced between 1596–1600  Done
• Malik Khan is mentioned in the infobox but not the body. The body mentions Amin Malik, Akhash Malik, and Temur Malik. Amin and Temur should be mentioned in the infobox with {{KIA}} after their names  Done

Lead

Background

• Remove "disciplined"  Done
• Link Shah Muhammad  Done
• Why did Shah Muhammad doubt his commanders' loyalty?
  • He seems to have been quite a suspicious man. I don't think I can really expand on that in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove the comma after "until April"  Done
• Replace the emdash between 30,000 and 40,000 and "to"  Done
• Replace "men" with "man"  Done
• Link Uzlaq-Shah  Not done doesn't have an article
• "Ogedei" → "Ögedei"  Done
• "shook off" → "evaded"  Done
• "flocked to him" → "joined him"  Done

Battle of Parwan and prelude

• Link Saif al-Din Ighrak  Not done doesn't have an article
• "Jalal ad-Din" and "Jalal ad Din" → "Jalal al-Din"  Done
• Remove "However," at the start of the last paragraph  Done
• "Ogedai" → "Ögedei"  Done
• Delink Ögedei and Chagatai  Done
• "their foes" → "Jalal al-Din's forces"  Done

Battle

• Mention in the image caption that it was produced in the 1540s  Done
• "At dawn" mention the date  Done
• Remove the comma after "defensive position"  Done
• "Ogedai" → "Ögedei"  Done
• "Even though" → "Although"  Done
• "fought on" → "continued to fight"  Done
• List a source for Note b regarding the alternate translation.

• I can't find one, so it has been deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Is there an article about the state he established in India?  Not done doesn't have an article
• "Jalal" → "Jalal al-Din"  Done
• "Ogedai" → "Ögedei"  Done
• "1223-4" → "1223–4"  Done
• Source for the last sentence in the first paragraph?  Done

Overall

• Sources are ok
• Neutral
• No war edits
• Focused and broad
• Images properly licensed

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@AirshipJungleman29: I've left some comments for the review. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 20:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• PizzaKing13 replies above. Thanks for the review! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Everything looks good. I'll pass this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

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.