Talk:Timur/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Portrait

The portrait of Timur in the article infobox has a few problems
1. Colour, the image is black and white and you can see the glare of light.
2. The claim that the image is from a timurid era manuscript would make the image more preferable except that the file description says it's probably a copy of an original. plus miniatures or manuscripts of the time would probably have been coloured in the way a Persian Miniature is coloured.
3. This image is a bit dull and not quite "good looking", though it's satisfactory

So i was thinking we could use the image to the right. It's coloured, good quality, artistic, and visually pleasing (could use some cropping). ANYTHING other than the current article portrait!

Timur073767 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

trying to sort out the clarification need template

"Timur was dispatched on a mission to the invader's camp, which resulted in his own appointment to the head of his own tribe, the Barlas, in place of its former leader, Hajji Beg." --> my ref says he inherited the chieftainship about the same time as he was appointed governor of Transoxania. (Hannah) -- taking the text that seems to be incorrect here, in case someone who knows more thinks my reference is the one that is wrong. It does not mention Haiji Beg. Elinruby (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also moving this paragraph and embedded comments here for much the same reason. Will indent the comments so they appear (rather than in comment markup):

The exigencies of Timur's quasi-sovereign position compelled him to have recourse to his formidable patron, whose reappearance on the banks of the Syr Darya created a consternation not easily allayed.

clarify|date=May 2015 comment: (Clarify template added after this comment placed here. Request for clarification is warranted.) I know the meaning of every $10 word used here, but still can't work out what the sentence is supposed to mean. Timur was acting semi-independently, pressing needs forced him to require help from his patron (who was?), so why would this cause consternation?)

One of Tughlugh's sons was entrusted with the Barlas's territory, along with the rest of Transoxiana, but he was defeated in battle by the bold warrior he had replaced, at the head of a numerically inferior force.

clarify|date=May 2015 comment: (Clarify template added after this comment placed here. Request for clarification is warranted.) Who was defeated? Tughlugh, Tughlugh's son or Timur? Who had the inferior force? My guess was that Timur's smaller force defeated Tughlugh's son, but reading the next section suggests it was Tughlugh who was defeated. The sentence is poorly written)

I believe I have resolved that last question with the text I wrote in from the hannah reference Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Conquest of Smyrna

The Human Journey: A Concise Introduction to World History, Volume 1 By Kevin Reilly

https://books.google.com/books?id=v1...page&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=v12nkhHzD7UC&pg=PA164#v=onepage&q&f=false

When European ships sailed to relieve Smyrna, Timur warned them away by filling the harbor with floating plates carrying the severed heads of the garrison defenders lit from inside the skulls by burning candles.

The History of Nations, Volume 14 edited by Henry Cabot Lodge

https://books.google.com/books?id=M6...page&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=M6Q-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false

It was the custom of the Tartar conqueror to rear a vast pyramid of human heads when any great city had been captured by his troops. The garrison and population of Smyrna proved insufficient to supply materials for one of these monuments on his accustomed scale of hideous grandeur. But Timur was resolved not to leave the site of Smyrna without his wonted trophy; and he ordered that the supply of heads should be economized by placing alternate layers of mud between the rows of heads in the pyramid. In 1404 the conqueror rested for a short time from blood-shedding, and displayed his magnificence in his capital city of Samarkand, which he had not seen for seven years.

Medusa's Gaze: The Extraordinary Journey of the Tazza Farnese By Marina Belozerskaya

https://books.google.com/books?id=yk...page&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ykRpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false

And in Smyrna (modern Izmir) in 1402, having massacred all the citizens, Timur chopped off their heads and piled them into two enormous towers.

The History of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem: Styled Afterwards, the Knights of Rhodes, and at Present, the Knights of Malta, Volume 2 By Vertot (abbé de)

https://books.google.com/books?id=3u...page&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=3u9EAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q&f=false

“The Musulmen forced them, sword in hand, to quit the “breaches that they defended, and made their way into “Smyrna, crying out victory, and praising God, to whom “they offered the heads of all their enemies, by way of “thanksgiving for their success. Very few of those “escaped who had thrown, themselves into the sea, and “were swimming to the ships that lay off, great numbers “of them being drowned in the attempt. After they “had put the people of Smyrna to the sword, they demol“ished the buildings both of the town and castle, and “threw the materials, the bricks, arms, and goods, into “the sea. “Some great ships, called caracas, came from certain “parts of Europe; these had two masts at least, and “were well provided with soldiers and arms on board, to “succour those of Smyrna. When they drew near the “port, and saw no marks either of the town or castle, “they were startled, and stopped their course. Timur “gave orders to throw the heads of some of the Christians “on board these ships, and the throwers of wildfire “having executed his orders, several heads fell into the “very ships. The seamen knowing the heads of their “comrades, tacked about and returned in a fright, alto“gether disappointed of their expectation.” This is Cherefeddin's relation of what passed at the siege of Smyrna.

05:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Delhi Sultanate Dynasty Indian History AP World History http://apworldhistory101.com/history-of-india/delhi-sultanate/

The Sack of Damascus | History Today http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/sack-damascus

Tamerlane in Damascus http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/9452/tamerlane-in-damascus

Shlama - Aleppo - BELIEVING IN ALEPPO http://www.shlama.be/shlama/content/view/3/4/

Biyokulule Online http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=3804

Tamerlane http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml

Tamerlane in Damascus http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/9452/tamerlane-in-damascus

????? ???..???? ?????..?????! | ??? ????? http://syrianoor.net/article/1724

The Sack of Damascus | History Today http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/sack-damascus

Delhi Sultanate Dynasty Indian History AP World History http://apworldhistory101.com/history-of-india/delhi-sultanate/

religious opportunist

Tamerlane http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml

Whatever the unlogged/anon IP wanted to do with this information remains a mystery ... 104.169.17.29 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timur. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/asia/uzbekistan-on-the-bloody-trail-of-tamerlane-407300.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Superstitious statements need more direct sources

The article claims that the tomb contained an inscription about unleashing a conqueror worse than he on whomsoever unearths his grave. I can't find that in sources given. It also claims the dates of Operation Barbarossa and the Soviet victory in Stalingrad as being correlated to the date of exhumation and re-interment. Can we get some more direct, and hopefully online accessible sources? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, after reading the archived source, it doesn't say where it got it's information from. For all we know, the 2013 article could have been taking the line directly from Wikipedia. Furthermore, the date of the exhumation and re-interment isn't give in the online sources. This almost has to be a untrue from any possible perspective. Are we really trying to lead readers to believe Timur supernaturally anticipated the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1405 and his own exhumation? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Independent article is from 2006. Go back and check and you will see that no such information was given in the article in 2006. It's a story that's been around for a long time already, you can find sources about the supposed curse earlier than the article's existence, for example this 2001 Time magazine article - [1]. The article does not say that it is true, I have no idea what gives you the idea that it did. Even if the inscriptions do exist, it may simply be coincidence. The origin of the story appears to have come from a Russian cameramen who was there at the exhumation and later made a film about it - [2] Hzh (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

2006 article gives The Golden Road to Samarkand by Wilfred Blunt as source. I might see about getting it ordered from another library. Despite the article saying 'allegedly', it's falsifiable whether the excavation really took place on June 22nd, 1941, and whether the inscription speaks of awakening a conqueror. I'd rather see primary sources than newspapers from 60-70 years later making an exciting story. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Falsifiable"? Did you mean to say "doubtful"? 104.169.17.29 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Whether real or not, mythology is a widely accepted part of history, and a component of various Empires and rulership (see Rome, Egypt, etc); one could arguably dismiss all religious history on Wikipedia if we become so contentious about it. That being said, I recall watching a number of documentaries and clips mentioning the same story, so it can't seem to be fabricated/vandalism. Whether one "believes" it or not, is an entirely different matter. I hope some users can find the appropriate citations and ensure that it isn't hastily removed from the article. For now, adequate tags such as or should be appropriate. These are meant to encourage editors in improving the article instead of wholesale deleting portions without consensus. DA1 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

The section "Conquest of Persia" currently contains the following:

An eye-witness counted more than 28 towers constructed of about 1,500 heads each.[40] This has been described as a "systematic use of terror against towns...an integral element of Tamerlane's strategic element", which he viewed as preventing bloodshed by discouraging resistance. His massacres were selective and he spared the artistic and educated. This would later influence the next great Persian conqueror: Nader Shah.[39]

The page cited by footnote [39] contains no reference to Nader Shah. Instead, it deals exclusively with the use of terror by Timur. My suggestion is to place footnote 39 one sentence earlier, after "spared the artistic and educated," which it clearly supports. There may be support in the same source for the influence of Timur on Nader Shah but that particular page doesn't contain it.

Thanks for your time! 101.98.43.237 (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that I may have found an error in this article.

Hello -

In Section 17.1 "Sons Of Timur" it shows "Khalil Sultan ibn Timur" as a son of Timur with Saray Mulk Khanum.

I believe that Khalil Sultan was the grandson of Timur. Khalil Sultan's father was Miran Shah ibn Timur.

As evidence:

I would submit Timur's family tree as cited in the following book: MLA format - Marozzi, Justin. Tamerlane, Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World, Da Capo Press, 2004.

I would also point out that in the Wikipedia article on Saray Mulk Khanum, it says that she had no children with Timur.

Finally, I cannot find any credible mention of the existence of a person by the name of Khalil Sultan ibn Timur.

Thanks for your consideration, Virgil Fairchild, VFF0347 VFF0347 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Name

his real name is Taimur Beg. Due to being lame he was named Tiemur long RomanRace (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

In English, he was named Tamerlane - i.e., Timur the Lame. 50.111.3.17 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Change Sudddenly to Suddenly Prblart (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Done --Wario-Man (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Red Hair

Tamerlane supposedly had red hair and blue eyes. Should this be mentioned in the article? Fadendra1 (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a noteworthy fact, althought some users seem to dislike these facts (same for great Ghengis and other Central Asians) for various reasons (Eurocentrism). Nanuh2020 talk contribs

User is currently blocked. blocked Nanuh2020 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Sock puppetry, unknown master - it looks like a sock of User:Hunan201p but I suspect it's a different master pretending to be Hunan201p.)

Fact? Thats a good one ...look up his painted portrait online LordAgincourt (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That would have made him some sort of genetic freak, as he was 100% Turk, without any Mongol blood whatsoever, despite the compromise made with unruly editors for this sorry article (not that Mongols would fit that description, either). Timur may have dyed his hair, making it an actual RED rather than red-haired, for effect. Anyway, such tales are hardly "facts."

Infobox image

We literally have an image of how Timur actually more or less looked like in real life, how come that isn't the infobox image? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, support inclusion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Lev Oshanin's Anthropological Composition of the Population of Central Asia: And the Ethnogenesis of Its Peoples, Volumes 1 & 2

http://pahar.in/mountains/Books%20and%20Articles/Central%20Asia/1964%20Anthropological%20Composition%20of%20Population%20of%20Central%20Asia%20Vol%201%20by%20Oshanin%20s.pdf

http://pahar.in/wpfb-file/1964-anthropological-composition-of-population-of-central-asia-vol-2-by-oshanin-s-pdf/

Hunan201p (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Exhumation and alleged curse

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Restoring verified info. Tobby repeatedly restores the article to the misinformation I proved was false on the talk page, apparently using stealth edits." I think it is relevant and should be included. Hunan201p (talk · contribs), please explain your edits to other editors.

Gerasimov reconstructed the likeness of Timur from his skull and found that his facial characteristics displayed "typical Mongoloid features". It was determined that Timur was a relatively tall and broad-chested man with red hair and beard.

References

Thoughts? -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

In regards to @Visioncurve:'s revert, the "Mongoloid features" quote was from the second citation, the Özcan work, not Oshanin's.[3] Personally, I see nothing wrong with Tobby72's edit, though you are correct about the French map.
Alivardi (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you revert Oshanin's citation, when it clearly says nothing about Timur? The Routledge reference mentions quotes from a 1940s article by Gerasimov that was not a scientific study or a formal document. It is not acceptable as a source on biomedical incormation like phenotypes, per WP:SCIRS. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS is an essay. Link to the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#Using_of_primary_genetics_sources_at_Uyghur_(and_many_other_Eurasian_pages). I think there is still no consensus on this particular issue. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I understand now. You're arguing that the Oshanin citation serves no purpose here. In my defence, you did not clearly state that issue until long after my revert, having initially only asserted that it was "vandalistic". However, I am still baffled by your implication that Gerasimov is not qualified to comment on a reconstruction which he himself had performed.
Alivardi (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad we are on the same page regarding Oshanin. However, Gerasimov did not comment on his reconstruction, but the skull of Timur. As seen in Özcan's footnotes, the comment was made in Kratkiye soobscheniya Instituta istorii material 'noy kul'tury, in English, "Brief Communications on Papers and Field Research from the Institute for the History of Material Culture". This was not a peer-reviewed journal in the 1940s, nor was it internationally recognised as a notable publisher. Gerasimov was allowed to entertain a great deal of his taxonomic racial theories in this document, as was the norm in that era. To allow a weighted classification of Timur as "Mongoloid", based on a 70 year old snippet from a report on his own field research that was never subject to peer review, or even explained by the author in great detail, is WP:UNDUE. Classifications of human beings in to taxonomic races like "Mongoloid" requires high quality secondary sources. One author's pet theory published in what is basically a 20th century blog for anthropologists doesn't cut it. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: I'm sorry, but I'm still not understanding your opposition to this work of Gerasimov's. The paper in question, Portret Tamerlana, appears to have been his primary work for his research on Timur. Five minutes of googling shows that it has been used as a reference in many notable publications. These include Jackson and Lockhart's The Cambridge History of Iran,[4] in the Journal of World History by Beatrice Forbes Manz[5] and by Dr. Elena Paskaleva in the Central Asian Survey,[6] all peer-reviewed academic journals (the last of these specifically states that "throughout his article Portret Tamerlana Gerasimov refers to Timur as a 'Mongol' and concludes that Timur had 'typical Mongoloid features'"). My point is that if this "one author's pet theory" in a "20th century blog" received this level of high-quality academic attention, it is ridiculous for us here on Wikipedia to deride it as not being enough.
Alivardi (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the authors' attention to Gerasimov. When Özcan or Paskaleva describe Gerasimov's opinions, in scare quotes, they are not endorsing his theory or his work. Özcan is quite critical of Gerasimov. Hence it would be ridiculous if Wikipedia were to include simplistic overgeneralizations about the race of Timur, taken from quotes that actually reflect negatively on Gerasimov.

By the way, Portret Tamerlana was not Gerasimov's primary work on Timur. It is just an essay that was published in a non-notable Soviet journal. He wrote other works about Timur, such as in 1971 (published posthumously).- Hunan201p (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Whether or not Paskaleva agreed with Gerasimov is irrelevant. As I stated previously, my point was that using Portret Tamerlana as a source is perfectly appropriate. The question now is that which I had originally posed: whether we can quote Gerasimov on a project he had performed. Of course, if quotes can be found from his subsequent works which show that he changed his stance on Timur's racial grouping, then that view should take precedence.
Alivardi (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have found another source, published by Cambridge University Press.-- Tobby72 (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Alivardi, if that was your point, you failed to provide a compelling reason for it. The simple fact that something was cited in a book doesn't make it a reliable source. I can find all kinds of citations from Carleton Coon's anthropological works and personal communications, published by prestigious presses, authored by big names like Chris Stringer. That doesn't make Carleton Coon's opinion on who is a "Negroid", or whether bigfoot is real, relevant or due. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And lest you think I'm unfair in comparing Gerasimov to Carleton Coon, please be aware that some experts in his field have "cast aspersions on the honesty of Gerasimov's work".

@Hunan201p: I'm sorry, but I don't see continuing the discussion as we currently are as being useful to resolving our disagreement. I've therefore placed a request for a third opinion. I hope this can help us to reach an amicable solution.
Alivardi (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The cranium of Timur is predominately of South Siberian Mongoloid race Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

If you're not satisfied. How about a Russian source aswell. Nauchnye trudy, Issues 232-235 (V.I. Lenin nomidagi Toshkent davlat universiteti) Тимура относится к монголоидной расе южносибирского типа. Реконструкция Герасимова полностью подтверждает этот вывод, полученный на краниологическом материале. Translation: Timur's skull belongs to the Mongoloid race of the South Siberian type. The reconstruction of Gerasimov fully confirms this conclusion, obtained on craniological material.

Gerismov reconstructed the face of and concluded Timur had 'typical Mongoloid features' (Gerasimov 1947, 18). Shinoshijak (talk) ,14 April 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: @Alivardi and Hunan201p: As long as the statement is clearly attributed (which I would say it is in the original edit) and relevant (i.e. mentioned in reliable secondary sources, which it seems to be), its accuracy is secondary to its inclusion in the article. If anyone can find a recent (post-1980s or so?) characterisation of the description or some historical context, it would be fair to include that too to give some indication of whether the system used by Gerasimov is still accepted. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 06:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ReconditeRodent:, your input is really appreciated. What do you think @Hunan201p:? I'm thinking we restore the content and perhaps also add one of those caveats on Gerasimov's accuracy that you mentioned. Or maybe some mention of how the terms he uses are somewhat antiquated? Would that be an acceptable solution with everyone? Pinging @Tobby72: and @Shinoshijak:.
Alivardi (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. I know the others have already seen my message so I'll assume there's no objections. On a separate note, I'm gonna keep the Oshanin citation since upon review, it's become evident that it was associated with the info from the first sentence, i.e that Oshanin had been involved with the exhumation.
Alivardi (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

People questioning on Gerasimov's accuracy must not be based on pseudo-science. There must be anthropologist when talking of Gerismov accuracy, not just people with their own pseudo-science opinion. This is accurate Illustrated History of the Islamic World M. M. Gerasimov was able to reconstruct what Timur's Mongoloid face must have looked like when he was alive. a “[p]ortrait head of Timur [was] made by the Soviet scholar M. M. Gerasimov. This sculpture is very accurate as it is based upon the skull found in Timur's grave. By closely studying such skulls and then working out the exact position. -Shinoshijak (talk) , 17 April 2020

@Shinoshijak: Not gonna be a problem. I decided I was just gonna include a comment on Gerasimov's terminology being outdated for now.
Alivardi (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Turco-Mongol Persianate

How can a person be "Persianate". Isn't the source about the dynasty? Don't see anything about Timur itself. Either he was Persianized, or not. Which isn't case by Timur itself. Beshogur (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's wrong. Added in this revision and it was copied from the lead of Timurid Empire. It should be removed. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. But let's ping @Kansas Bear: Could a person be Persianate or that term only applies to dynasties/societies? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a person can not be a culture, which is what Persianate is. Turco-Persian is also a culture. They could say, in the article not the lead, that he established or patronized the Persianate culture. Good call, Wario-Man! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It was never officialy or historicaly called Transoxiana

The proper name is Turkestan LordAgincourt (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Maveraunahr = Transoxania. Beshogur (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

“Known from arabic sources” is not a source LordAgincourt (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur this is not unconstructive in case of grammmatical problems that disruptive and distracting to the reader. Like with Dul Chand being locked out..of what? The section on the war Elephants has the same issue. How did he know they would by frightened? Why do you need to state 3 x that the camels charged etc. LordAgincourt (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur In the Tokhtamysh war what do you mean he was pulled away? This is confusing. Can you fix this please LordAgincourt (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rubbish. The term "Transoxiana" occurs over virtually thousands of historical/geographical sources in English, and it completely acceptable. You've been blocked for disruptive edits many times for things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.11.25 (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Romanticization

Taimur's genocides, killing of massive populations in India, Persia and Anatolia is missing. I will say Hitler was a great conqurer as well but you need to reflect upon his ghastly acts and stop romanticization of him just because his kindom was large. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead literally says that his conquests caused the death of a great deal of people. Timur is famous for his cruelty, no one is trying to romantize him as I far as I'm aware. If you feel something is missing, feel free to add it yourself if you have reliable sources that support it. Also, we can't judge people such as Timur through a modern point of view, but we can indeed do that with Hitler, as he lived not so long ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course we can! That's pure sophistry. 50.111.52.57 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As he lived not so long ago... Thats nonsense! He lived in era of colonialism and racism which was quite different than present era, rather era changed because Europeans overdid these things. So we can judge both Timur and Hitler as non of them belong to our era, and fact is people see things with wisdom of present. So Timur or Genghis should be judged in same way as people judge Hitler. Belonging to past does not give a free pass. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that stuff which we today deem evil/barbaric were often viewed differently back in the day? And no, I'm not trying to protect anyone here, it's simple facts. Also, since when did the 1930/40s become an era of colonialism? It's still pretty close to this era and not that significant in terms of morality and such. Anyhow, I'm not interested in continuing this silly discussion, add the information yourself (with sources) instead of expecting other people to do it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That is such a common cop out. Yes, there were things that were considered more acceptable back then than today. But even despite different moral standards throughout history there are still things and people that are considered baseline 'brutal'. The Viking raid on Lindisfarne for example. The slave trade had staunch critics even within its day. Ghengis Khan and Timur were definitely also considered to be far more merciless than the moral standard of their day, if you want a primary source, read Yahya's account of Timur's invasion of Delhi, it describes how he broke his promise not to sack the city and how he appeared to enjoy killing anyone regardless of their religion. --82.26.153.73 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Does no one else think this article sucks the ghost of timur a little too hard? It paints him as some Marcus Aurelius style scholar-king when in reality he was a bloodthirsty merciless psychopath who appeared to care little for anything outside of warfare and slaughter. This is the same man who promised the inhabitants of a city 'I will not spill your blood if you surrender', upon their surrender he had them all buried alive so he could have his satisfaction without breaking his promise. The same man who, upon capturing Baghdad asked each of his soldiers to bring his two heads so that he could construct 5 macabre monuments. The same man who promised not to sack Delhi if they swore him their ruler, and then immediately sacked Delhi and slaughtered everybody. I have no idea how this article ties him to 'art and architecture' but from what I know of his history he had no such interests. He was fascinatingly intelligent, to be sure, but in the same way that Ted Bundy was intelligent, not the way Mithridates was. I believe this article portrays him in a way that borders on factually incorrect for no apparent reason. --82.26.153.73 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you feel something is missing, feel free to add it yourself if you have reliable sources that support it. Complaining is not gonna fix anything. Also, the art and architecture bit is sourced, so there's that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont really know how to add sources, etc, but for the guy above, here are a couple: “You see me here a poor, lame, decrepit mortal. Yet by my arm has the Almighty been pleased to subdue the kingdoms of Iran, Turan and the Indies. I am not a man of blood, and God is my witness that in all my wars I have never been the aggressor, and that my enemies have always been the authors of their own calamity.” During this peaceful conversation the streets of Aleppo streamed with blood and re-echoed with the cries of mothers and children, with the shrieks of violated virgins. The rich plunder that was abandoned to his soldiers might stimulate their avarice, but their cruelty was enforced by the peremptory command of producing an adequate number of heads, which, according to his custom, were curiously piled in columns and pyramids.’

EDWARD GIBBON, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

"In the words of the fifteenth-century Syrian historian Ibn Taghri Birdi: ‘Seizing its armed men, three thousand individuals, he dug for them an underground vault into which he threw them and then covered them with earth. This was after he had sworn to them that he would shed the blood of none of them; and he then said: “I have kept my oath, since I have not shed the blood of any of them.”’

The Tatar, who had long aspired to recognition within the Islamic world as the greatest defender of the faith, took pains to inflict miserable deaths on the city’s Christian community. While the Sipahis were buried alive, others had their heads tied between their thighs before being thrown into the moat to drown. According to Johann Schiltberger, the Bavarian squire captured by Temur in 1402, nine thousand virgins were carried off into captivity. Those who were fortunate enough to escape the slaughter fled from Sivas in horror. As for the city itself, it was, reported Arabshah, ‘utterly destroyed and laid to waste’."

Timur Father Origin : Amir Taraghai also known as for Taragay He was The Father of Mongol - Conquer Timur and The son of Burgul Noyan He was the Family member of Barlas Clan in Start of 14th Century. He was The First Barlas Tribe Member who was Accepted Islam To Buddhism. He was The Greatest of All Social Administrator of The Mongol Empire in Chagatai-Khanate and The armies court's Leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam.i.120 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The point is to remove words that romanticize, like "widely regarded as one of the greatest military leaders " - first of all, who is "widely" and why does it matter? I'm sure there are a subset of people who consider him one of the most ruthless military leaders, mass murderers. Second, "greatest" is a problem. As Pinker points out, if a military leader kills millions of people and gets away with it, they are "great," but why? So we should disregard all opinions and value-added labels, and just say something like "highest conquering," or something to that effect.

I agree with the other commenter here. Just replace a word or two and you see the problem which is true but condones bad behavior--notice the language is in the present too:

"Hitler is regarded as a military genius and as a brilliant tactician with an uncanny ability to work within a highly fluid political structure to win and maintain a loyal following of nomads during his rule in Germany. He was also considered extraordinarily intelligent—not only intuitively but also intellectually."

And its generally against my personal policy to edit important articles on wikipedia because I'd rather the community make a decision and apply it instead of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That particular statement is cited to two separate reliable sources. We should know what those sources actually say before we pass judgment on that statement. Unfortunately they are apparently not online.

However, I have no objection to removing "widely" and rephrasing to "regarded as a great military leader". It's more neutral and doesn't risk misrepresenting the cited sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Rage90 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Amir Taraghai

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amir Timur.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

Iam.i.120 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am just give the sources of his father Amir Taraghai and new information and ancestory and Descendents but i am not Changing anything i am just giving the articals and also i am giving the new info' about his mother if you give me permission to writing to edit

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 00:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Legends and stories"

I am planning to put such a section in legacy section. What do you think, does it sounds ridiculous to include these? Beshogur (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

Give me the timur parents edit permission and ancestry i am not harm anything Give me the permission. Iam.20.M (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Blocked sock. Alivardi (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Registan monuments

• All historical buildings on Registan Square in Samarkand were built after the death of Timur. Ulugbek madrasah was built in 1420, Sherdor and Tillya-kari madrasahs were built in the 17th century.Khorazmiy (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Timur claimed to be a descendant of Genghis Khan through his father v. Through his father, Timur claimed to be a descendant of Tumanay Khan, a male-line ancestor he shared with Genghis Khan.

@Haldir Marchwarden: I think you don't understand what the differences are. Could you put the direct quote by Woods here? Both texts linking the same citation, one of them has to be wrong. Beshogur (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I Also found this: First of all, Timur's genealogy gives him a common ancestor with Chinggis Khan in Tumbinai - sechen or Tumanay Khan[7] not sure, who is senseless. You have no idea about what you are editing. Same article mentions: Timur could not claim the title of khan or rule the Mongol Empire because he was not a descendant of Genghis Khan. Beshogur (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. Based on statements such as "Tamerlane , or more correctly Timur - iLang (Timur the Lame) was the Central Asiatic Turkish prince who claimed unwarranted direct descent from Genghis Khan" (Eastern Horizon - Volume 11 - Page 58), I had taken it that he claimed direct descent too. It remains unclear whether he claimed a common ancestor or direct descent on his father side. I believe a common ancestor is plausible, but it's not clear whether he claimed direct descent on his father's side too. There are other sources that point to direct descent on his mother's side (that is, biographers claimed direct descent on his mother's side for him). Also, while you are right, a common ancestor and direct descent are by all means different things, by not mentioning the alleged common ancestry and limiting to exclude "descent", the lead seemed to obscure any possible relation to Khan, while I think that the common ancestry is worth mentioning. I'm working to suitably edited the lead.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Converted the Borjigin tribal leaders to Islam"

Can someone elaborate on this point in the introduction? The inline citation posits Marozi pg. 91, but I have that book at hand and my version of it doesn't seem to talk about Timur's religious overtures to the 4 septs of Chinggis Khaan's descendants, even though it does touch significantly on Timur's Islamic and Turko-Tatar bona fides. As far as I'm aware, most of the Borjigin rulers of Central Asia with the exception of the Chinese Toluids (and even the Yuan Dynasty nearly got a Muslim Khagan at one point) had already been long converted to Islam since the conversion of Berke Khaan and in the Golden Horde in the 1240s. Could this line be referencing the conversion of various Northern Yuan Princes to Islam in preparation for Timur's war against the Ming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.183.229 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sahib Qiran in the lead as bold?

This is an ephitet, rather than an title. Should we include this to the lead? Sources from Timur's period calls him Sahib Qiran instead of his personal name. Beshogur (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021

According to historical texts Timur devasted lots of Hindu Temples and Monuments which shows the dexterity of Indian architectures and arts representing the culture of India; but, Why it is written that he was a preaser and appreciater of good architectures and arts by denying the truth of his genuine nature of robbery and sinisterity? 2409:4062:2D9E:6AF8:99AC:D02B:FBCF:F046 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Motivations

There is a shared view that Timur's real motive for his campaigns was his imperialistic ambition. However, Timur's following words: "The whole expanse of the inhabited part of the world is not large enough to have two kings" explains that his true desire was "to amaze the world", and through his destructive campaigns, to produce an impression rather than to achieve enduring results. This is supported by the fact that besides Iran, Timur simply plundered the states he invaded with a purpose of enriching his native Samarqand and neglected the conquered areas, which may have resulted in a relatively quick disintegration of his Empire after his death.

How many historians share this view of Timur? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of specialists in this area agree with that view to greater or lesser extent. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.86 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Timur was a Borjigin Prince

Amir Timur was a Borjigid Dynasty Prince through his Father paternal-ancestor Tumbinai Setsen who was a Mongol Borjigin Khan in Mongolia 1100s & Chenghis Khan Make Great Mongol empire in 1206 c. So Timur remove both Turkic and Mongol titles and claimed Islamic Title (Emir) which is Arabic word for commander or, warlord. To he view himself the Leader of Mu'mins. 103.115.157.90 (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that Timur's ancestor, Qarachar Barlas, is discussed in the Secret History as a Borjigid and a relative of Chinggis Khaan, calling him a member of the Borjigid family is entirely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.183.229 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur Timur and Temujin both have same D.N.A of Paternal-dynasty so don't neglect Mongol editors Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Timur

Could you add how many of his troops were killed in the wars he caused 82.215.102.176 (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

USSR Archeologists Discover Timur’s Tomb

I feel this would be an interesting addition because these archeologists found his tomb with a message on it that literally translated to whoever finds this will have a worse invader than I ever was. 2 days later Germany invaded the USSR. Brettc310 (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's already there, click here. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In my personal oppinion my ancestor Timur template should be knowledge by correction.

According to historical sources he was also defeat bis brother-in-law hussain in December 1369 in many sources so it would be also added and as his title he proclaimed to be a Sword of Islam as his title, his coronation in capital also source stateted as in January of 1370 AD. so it also added and his birth-date according his bio-datas he was like Tuzuke-Timuri he was a born around 1332-34 when he was died he approximately a aged of 70-72 but secondary and major soyrces say he born in 6-9 April 1336 so both should be added, and his full named was also mentioned as Muhammad because his father Taraghai accept islam in early ages and learning islam he give his Name Shuja-ud-din Muhammad Timur and Beg and Barulas/Barlas bith his birth name, as i read his biography writer claim he was memorizer of Quran which we Muslims know as Hafeez-e-Quran and in eras he lived in 14th Century to his maximum ages and die untile 15th Century, in religion i stated Timur and both his descent follow the mazhab of Hanafi of Sunni-Islam The Mughal Dynasty follow also Hanafi Sunni-Muslim and i added his military career in module.

It’s my personal oppinion for how to looked templates but i Don't interfare for edit, but sir Administrator of this lines should be do that. Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tuzukat Timur is hoax. It's not his book. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No Timur-Nama was autobiography of Timur Ajrun Amir'za-da (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

The claim that Timur's campaigns killed 17 million people has no clear source and should be deleted. The sources currently cited are a Chicago Tribune article with no citation and page 147 in The History of the Mongol Conquest which does not make the claim that Timur's campaigns killed 17 million people, only that they were brutal and did not create a lasting state. JarkThornbeard (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As per WP:RS, reliable sources (such as the Chicago Tribune) do not necessarily need to cite further sources to be considered reliable. If you believe that the Chicago Tribune is generally unreliable, or that this specific article is unreliable, please establish consensus around this before requesting an edit. The second source indirectly supports the statement in the article by stating that "millions" were killed. I agree that the article could be improved by a further source that also provides a specific number. However, the claim is well-sourced enough to stay up. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Tamerlane

I think his alternate name of "Tamerlane" ought to be right front in the first paragraph of the lede, and bolded. It could say "formerly known in the West" if you like, I suppose. And I mean after all he is actually just called "Tamerlane" in a few places in the text, with the explanation for this buried in the text. And I mean it Tamerlane is, or used to be (which counts) a common name for the guy, look at the refs, Tamerlane is all thru them. This Google Ngram gives Tamerlane as being used about half as much as Timur, which isn't chopped liver, granted a fair number of the Tamerlanes are probably for the poem.

I'm just a driveby here, so I haven't done this, but I think it probably should be done. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Per MOS:BOLDSYN and MOS:BOLDREDIRECT it should be in the lead. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added it.AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@AlphabeticThing9: I'm not your "mate". Read wp:civil. Also I added Tamerlane, as other users wished. Still your removal of sourced content + names is not justified. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit this page

I attempted to make a grammatical correction to this page, but was unable to do so since it appears to be locked from editing. Please correct this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is unfortunately the constant target of disruption, hence why it's protected for IPs (and new users too I think?). What did you want to correct? I'll gladly do it for you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

(The claim that Timur gave himself the title "gurugen" or "son-in-law" could be mistaken with the title "Gur-khan" that was assumed by non-royal blood kings of Mongols. First, in the Secret History of Mongols, Jamukha a non-royal blood given himself the title "Gur-Khan", while Temujin assumed "Chingiz-Khan". Second, Chingizid king Ligdan khan from the 16th century addressed himself as Chingiz-Khan in a letter he sent to Nurkhachi baatar of Manchuria. Third in the Mongolian language someone giving himself the title gurugen or son-in-law is unintelligible considering that mongolian language mostly kept its originality since 13th century. Sarahyoungasian (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sarahyoungasian: This has nothing to do with gurkhan, which comes from Turkic kür (whole). Gurkan is Persianized version of Mongol khüregen (хүргэн). I don't understand what's the issue here? Beshogur (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Nashville whiz (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Tamerlane

No one uses Timur. Why is this article using this name. Are we going to change Plato to "Platonas", write Napoleon with an "é"? this is ridiculous. can we proceed to a name change? 212.72.139.134 (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Beshogur (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Year of Birth

Why is the year of Timur's date of birth listed as 1336 in the infobox, but 1325 at the beginning of the article? I can't edit the page as it is semi-protected. Thanks! 2600:6C64:5800:2B4:D0DD:428:66BC:8B03 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@AgisdeSparte: can you elaborate your edits? Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur @2600:6C64:5800:2B4:D0DD:428:66BC:8B03 Hello, I have made changes to the beginning because in the subsection regarding the origins of Timur, the date traditionally provided in both primary sources is heavily criticized by a scholar who suggests a more plausible date between 325/330. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't see 1325 either. Where did you get this number? Beshogur (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

1336, although fabricated, is the most accepted birth date. I don't see 1325 as a consensus among scholars. Beshogur (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

He was not muslim, He is Nasiry one of the Shia. According to all scholars of Islam, He ruled with genkiz khan rules only and he wasn't a muslim. Please fix it 41.37.133.94 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No WP:RS to support this. Also, Shias are also Muslim, see Shia Islam. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)