Talk:Ottoman–Hotaki War (1726–1727)

Untitled

Why is this called the Ottoman-Persian War when it was clearly between the Ottomans and an Afghan dynasty? Iranian nationalists need to stop fabricating event titles that make them feel better.

I have restored the links broken by your POV edit. The title of the article should be the most commonly used term in English. If you can provide reliable sources calling it "Ottoman-Afghan War" then you could initiate a discussion for changing the article title. Rants about "Iranian nationalists" will be considered battleground statements and will be addressed appropriately. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent change of title

Whilst I agree that this was a war between the ursurping Hotaks and the Ottomans, we need at least one source that state such a name, as in Ottoman-Hotaki War. Ottoman-Afghan war is sufficient too, of course. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"The Afghans didnt had experience of ruling a nation" is very misleading and wrong. Please fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:7DC7:D6C:F957:B304 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC) 

Result?

We probably need more sources on this, but a quick look at AŠRAF ḠILZAY (Iranica) says this;

"Then, after strengthening the city’s fortifications, he marched out to meet Turkish troops and defeated them at Ḵorramābād, south of Hamadān, on 25 Rabīʿa I 1139/20 November 1726. The Afghan victory over a greatly superior military opponent was largely due to infiltration of the Ottoman ranks by agents provocateurs who emphasized the common Sunni faith of the Turks and the Afghans, deplored the fratricidal war between them, and advocated alliance against their common enemies, the heretical Iranians; this adroit tactic sapped the morale of the Turkish troops and procured the defection of the Kurdish cavalry. Preferring not to push onward, Ašraf opened negotiations which led to the signature of a peace treaty in Ṣafar, 1140/October, 1727. This confirmed Ottoman sovereignty over all the western and northwestern parts of Iran and, in return for Ašraf’s abandonment of his territorial claims, gave him official recognition as Shah of Persia with rights of minting coins and sending annual pilgrimage caravans to Mecca."

So it seems that the Afghan victory was related to a battle at Khorramabad, not the war itself. Ultimately both sides seemed to gain what they wanted in the war, so the current result seems fine imo. Perhaps it could also be mentioned what the Afghans gained through this in the infobox without adding too much info. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkish sources says Ashraf asked for treaty. So how does a victory ask for treaty? And if this is a Hotaki victory, how does Ottomans gain territory? Imo, if there is no clear mention of the end result of the war, it is most appropriate to use inconclusive or the treaty article. Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to avoid any possible confusion, by "current result" I mean the original revision that you reverted it to. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Akbulut source

User:HistoryofIran, I noticed that you put the Better source needed template on the Akbulut source. I just want to know-what are your concerns regarding the source and why isn't it WP:RS? Kailanmapper (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I never said that it wasn't WP:RS, but that it was very low quality. I'm not sure if it is WP:RS or not, but it certainly looks very low quality. It's a thesis, written by a obscure person from not the most well-known university. It's published in a rather obscure site, which is... government owned? (not sure, it says "gov.tr" in the url). Fortunately we don't lack in high-quality sources regarding early modern Iran, so I don't see why we should use this source when we have Lockhart, Floor, Matthee, Axworthy, Iranica, etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

From looking seems like it is WP:RS, being that it is cited and used as a source in other reliable sources. From the looks of it, the seems like its a turkish thesis repository, so it probably wasn't published there.The source seems to focus on the ottoman perspective and uses mainly turkish sources (the only other similar source that I know of is "Tabriz under Ottoman rule (1725-1730)"). Most other sources focus on the Iranian perspective. Since it's cited in some reliable sources, I wouldn't say it's not reliable, but perhaps due it should be used with caution and only be used regarding the Ottoman perspective/aspects of their administration and not for anything else. I'll remove info from it for the background but use it to write about the ottoman-afghan diplomacy and perhaps the battle. Sounds good? Kailanmapper (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked properly into it as its a pain looking into stuff that is written in a language I can't understand, but it looks like it is cited in only reliable source, that is Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire by Brill. Anyways, it is still barely cited. I don't know what sources other these historians make use of, so I can't comment on which "perspective" they write from and will have to check on that sometime later. I'm not sure what the Akbulut source covers that other, more prominent sources don't (mainly because I can't find access to The fall of the Ṣafavī Dynasty and the Afghan occupation of Persia), so your proposal is a good start I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Date?

RU, TR, and AZ wikis includes the 1723-26 Ottoman-Safavid war to this article. Are they connected to eachother? Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The article's name should be change to the Ottoman–Persian War (1723–1727). Benyamin (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ottoman–Iranian War (1723–1727) perhaps? Hotakis are not Persian. Or create another article 23-26, and add a small backstory on the background section. Beshogur (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing is that from 1723 to early 1726 the Ottoman invasion was directed against safavid loyalists in western iran who continued to hold out, where as from 1726 to 1727 the Ottomans were fighting the Hotaks who claimed those territories for themselves. I suggest either making another article on the ottoman-safavid conflict from 1723 to 1726 or making a general article titled something like Ottoman occupation of Western Iran (1723-1735) or something like that, covering the entire period of ottoman rule in the area. If we were to combine them into Ottoman-Iranian war( 1723-1727), it wouldnt make much sense since up until Nader Shah's campaign in 1730 there were still rebellions in the region. Kailanmapper (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia has a lot of pages dedicated to this subject [1], I believe that it will answer most of our questions. Though for some reason its impossible to find for free even though its half a century old. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran & Kailanmapper: Where do you think we should start?

@Beshogur: +1 Benyamin (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure tbh. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I found the Persian translation of the book for free. Benyamin (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah that's good, I got some of the book in English. Here it is [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and more.

User:Beshogur So heres what I am referring to about the infobox, (I am currently doing this on mobile by the way so this will be a bit difficult).

(Also a mistake was you claimed I was edit warring when I reverted you once, that is not what edit warring is)

So firstly clearing up confusion before sources; the Hotaks did not fully control Iran, which you seem to confuse, the Afghans only had dejure rule over different regions, a good example to look on a map would be the Hotak dynasty page, where it shows their relative length at their height. The territories “ceded” by the Hotaks were dejure and not de-facto Hotak rule, iirc the Ottomans did not take many of these territories either post treaty, and later lost them following the rise of Nader Shah.

Now pointing toward sources,

The Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia by Laurence Lockhart

The Afghan Occupation of Safavid Persia 1721-1729 by Willem Floor

History of the Wars (1721-1738) by Abraham of Erevan (gives a detailed account of the events in Western Iran and the Caucasus between 1721 and 1738, focusing on the Ottoman invasion of the region and Nader Shah's subsequent recovery of the area) [Link: [3]

THE SCRAMBLE FOR IRAN: OTTOMAN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ENGAGEMENTS DURING THE AFGHAN OCCUPATION OF IRAN, 1722-1729

[4]

These sources point out said information I am trying to restore to in article, that the war was in reality, a Hotak military or nay clear victory, the Hotaks had defeated the Ottoman attempts and in battle and only gained dejure control over some territories, some of which they didn’t move to capture following the treaty. There are also numerous other sources, but these are just some I have pointed out going over the Ottoman Hotak war.

I think User:Kailanmapper and User:HistoryofIran could also help settle this dispute because they have knowledge of the region during this period of time. Noorullah21 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What I am proposing is a change back to the “Hotaki military victory” status in the infobox, because as shown, that is the correct and appropriate term to be placed.

As well as the info about the battles (?) I don’t remember too much about what you took out from there because mind this was a few weeks ago, but the stuff you were in dispute over should be reverted. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

From iranica specifically:

(As also mentioned by historyofIran prior,)

“ Ašraf opened negotiations which led to the signature of a peace treaty in Ṣafar, 1140/October, 1727. This confirmed Ottoman sovereignty over all the western and northwestern parts of Iran and, in return for Ašraf’s abandonment of his territorial claims, gave him official recognition as Shah of Persia with rights of minting coins and sending annual pilgrimage caravans to Mecca."

It seems both parties gained what they wished for, with the Hotaks conceding mostly dejure territory (they did not rule), and the Ottomans pressing their claims, which is why I believe it would be appropriate to return it to “Hotaki Military Victory” and possibly “Ottoman Diplomatic Victory”. ? Noorullah21 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There can not be such names according to the infobox template. And one battle doesn't give a victory when you lose(?) the war, ceeding territory. I think it's a diplomatic victory for Hotakis since they got recognition. Beshogur (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Beshogur I see your point, especially with MILMOS#INFOBOX. But, again, expanding on that they gave up dejure territory that they didn’t rule/conquer at that point.

How do YOU propose we should settle on the infobox?

Should we have it as inconclusive? And then list below it the said agreements of the treaty (ie ottomans gain dejure sovereignty over this area, Hotakis get recognition, etc.

Should we just have it link to the treaty page?

Should we write Hotaki victory? Etc. I wish to settle this dispute and want to see what you might favor.

Noorullah21 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t also say one battle, there was a lot of battles the Hotaks and Ottomans fought, for example when the Ottomans tried to seize Isfahan but were defeated, at Khromabad, etc. Noorullah21 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Beshogur You still have not replied to my proposition, can you please respond? It has been a week, if not, I will previously revert to its other version, or implement one of the propositions I had in mind. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I still support the current version per my previous comment, as well per MILMOS#INFOBOX. We could add what the Afghans gained through this in the infobox without adding too much info, as it is already quite large for a infobox. Noorullah21, perhaps it would easier to get your point across if you made your comment more concise (or rearranged it in some way, it's currently a bit... err.. WP:TLDR) and cited quotes from sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran

I see what you mean thanks.

For adding what the Afghans gained, I have 2 propositions.

One of them is to obviously add them in the infobox but I do not favor this because the infobox will be quite large as you said.

Instead, we could add a “see aftermath” section, which complies with MILMOS#INFOBOX that explains the specifications of the treaty, ie the Ottomans gain sovereignty over (this) and the Afghans gain (this), etc.

What would you prefer or how do you propose changing said page? Noorullah21 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I support adding both. Let's see how the infobox turns out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this plan that you all had? I thought we were going to add both. Should we add both? WestAsianMapper (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Afghan victory

Afghans won, they beat the Ottomans which caused the remaning rest to surrender. So "Hotaki victory" needs to be added in the Infobox. Akmal94 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No they didn't, read the article, its sources (eg [5]) and the discussions here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RFPP

@HistoryofIran Due to the persistent disruption, I've opened an RFPP, hopefully that'll keep the page clear. Noorullah (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Noorullah! HistoryofIran (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)