[Mei Houwang]

Quote

Nobody has ever heard of this little battles you quote from I don't know where. In fact, isn't it pretty obvious that someone has felt here the need to 'neutralize' Talas quantitatively by somehow coming up with two other 'battles' in order to make a 2-1? A bit too transparent perhaps... next time the Austrians may come and claim that they won the two squirmishes prior to Austerlitz...

I can just as well say: It's pretty obvious someone here needs to 'neutralize' Tang wins against the Arabs by bringing up Talas. In fact almost all your posts hint at comparing China and some other place in a inferior or superior way, but since I'm not accusing you, please don't accuse me also.

Quote

I haven't heard of Alutar or Suleiman. Could you please elaborate?

The bottom's a brief description from warhead:

The first encounter was in 715· When Arabs under Qutaiba invades Ferghana, he install a new king called Alutâr Qutaiba also raided Kashgar and Arab sources claim that he ravaged the surrounding until the "King of China"(perhaps the governor of that region) agreed to pay him ransom for his withdrawal. The old King of Ferghana escaped to Tang and the next year the Tang sent 10,000 troops under Chang Hiao sung from Kucha to Ferghana. He then defeated the Arab puppet Alutâr who escaped to the countrysides. Tang source claim that the Arab and Tubo occupation there was ended by the Tang forces, but the Arab and Tubo force there at this time was probably not large, since there happen just to be a purge in the islamic world in which Quitaiba revolts and was killed by his troops just before the Tang forces entered Ferghana.

The second skirmish is in 717, the new caliph Suleiman tried to sent embassies to the central asian kingdoms to convert to Islam. He sented a general with an army and joined the Türgis and Tubo armies to siege the city of Aksu and other parts of the Tang western protectorate. The Tang ordered the vassal Western Turkic qaghan Arsïla Hsien, to attack the enemy. The alliance was routed and the Muslims escaped back to Tashkent. The Muslim army again is probably not that large, a few thousand at most. While the Tang force is composed mainly of Turkic troops.

Then comes Talas, this sticks out so much because the Arab force was actually large this time, although no sources record the size. Some modern historians think it was around 70,000.


The last mention of encounter was in 801, when Tang and Nan Zhao troops defeated the Tubo and reported to capture Arab troops in them. Whether this is an alliance or the Arabs are simply captured by the Tubo in war and used as Auxiliars is not known.



Here's a web sight that also highlights each of the above mentioned.

http://spotlightonga...mw.html#sources

This post has been edited by Yun: 14 August 2006 - 08:25 AM

[Tibet Libre]

Anthrophobia, on Jul 24 2006, 08:16 PM, said:

http://spotlightonga...mw.html#sources

This is a confusing muddle but in my understanding the Tang victory in 715 was against a local favourite of the Muslims, not themselves. If you count that one as "Chinese victory", you have to count the defeats of the various (nominal) Chinese vassals in the region by the Muslims as Umayyads vics as well. In fact, the whole Muslim occupation of Transoxania would according to that logic constitute a defeat of Tang.

In 717, it was a vic of Chinese allies, not by Tang forces themselves, against the Muslims.

So, in both clashes only one of the parties directly participated, only at Talas both armies clashed directly. Looks like warhead has again made up hot air.

[Mei Houwang]

Quote

I was not accusing you, I refered to "someone" because I was sure that you did not conjure that rabbit out of the head. Actually, I have not opened a single versus thread on this board and try to steer away from them as good as possible, but when I open one I usually encounter you, either before or shortly after me, so please do not preach here.

Ah yes, because comparison threads are interesting, but not interesting enough for almost all my posts to be about it(and admit it, you are in a lot more vs threads than I ever was). In truth it is much more like that I find you in the vs threads, since I usually don't come in until the discussion is well under way and there's something good to talk about. You quoted "someone" who you stated to have given accounts of two Tang victories against Arabs, and if you are not talking about me, then you must be talking to someone who never existed.

Quote

This is a confusing muddle but in my understanding the Tang victory in 715 was against a local favourite of the Muslims, not themselves. If you count that one as "Chinese victory", you have to count the defeats of the various (nominal) Chinese vassals in the region by the Muslims as Umayyads vics as well. In fact, the whole Muslim occupation of Transoxania would according to that logic constitute a defeat of Tang.

As I said country borders were ill-defined nowadays and in the past there really wasn't a good definition of a border. It can be just as well stated that the land around Ferghana is merely a Chinese vassal, which is a very conservative view, but just as conservative as yours on Alutar the puppet king.

If you want to see it in a long term, keep in mind that once the Muslims regained their lands the Ummayads pretty much fell, although later dynasties took its place. But then again, later dynasties took Tang's place as well, and then we got a tug of rope struggle that lasts till now in which no one owns the pie everybody wanted. The only one who lost would be the tubo(also an active player in the region) who don't exist anymore.

Quote

In 717, it was a vic of Chinese allies, not by Tang forces themselves, against the Muslims.

Actually it was a clash between Tang/Turkick allies against Muslims/Tubo.

Quote

So, in both clashes only one of the parties directly participated, only at Talas both armies clashed directly. Looks like warhead has again made up hot air.

Looks like there's some biasdness here in battle descriptions. If you admit one you must admit the other, granted the winner in all the battles had the strength of numbers big time.

[Tibet Libre]

Anthrophobia, on Jul 24 2006, 10:57 PM, said:

Actually it was a clash between Tang/Turkick allies against Muslims/Tubo.

Where are the Tang forces here? There were none. We do not know how much "harassing" the garrissons involved actual fighting. But the ensuing fight is between "Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis" and "Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan". Hence the only field battle between the Umayyad Muslims and Tang forces was Talas.

Quote

On August 15, a Türgis-led army of Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis lay siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan and harass the Four Garrisons. The Chinese order *Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan, to lead the Qarluqs in an attack on them. The attack succeeds, the Muslims escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent.

http://spotlightonga...mw.html#sources

Anthrophobia, on Jul 24 2006, 10:57 PM, said:

Looks like there's some biasdness here in battle descriptions. If you admit one you must admit the other, granted the winner in all the battles had the strength of numbers big time.

I never take numbers of army strenght too serious without good proof. I think we even already had a discussion on this in another thread. Just check the army numbers for Talas at Wiki. In the English, French, and German edition they all give different numbers with a range of 100.000 troops! Only the Spanish edition was wise enough to not post at all any numbers.

We just have to contend ourselves that Talas was a clear win of the Caliphate and that is a fact. And even if the Arabs won by outnumbering the humble Tang forces by 40:1, who cares, wasn't Tang the military superpower of its times on the grounds of its army strength.......

This post has been edited by Tibet Libre: 25 July 2006 - 08:28 AM

[Mei Houwang]

Quote

Where are the Tang forces here? There were none. We do not know how much "harassing" the garrissons involved actual fighting. But the ensuing fight is between "Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis" and "Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan". Hence the only field battle between the Umayyad Muslims and Tang forces was Talas.

QUOTE
On August 15, a Türgis-led army of Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis lay siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan and harass the Four Garrisons. The Chinese order *Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan, to lead the Qarluqs in an attack on them. The attack succeeds, the Muslims escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent.

http://spotlightonga...mw.html#sources

Thx for not giving the complete quote.
"On August 15, a Türgis-led army of Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis lay siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan and harass the Four Garrisons. The Chinese order *Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan, to lead the Qarluqs in an attack on them. The attack succeeds, the Muslims escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent. The Tibetan army is defeated at the "Bends of the Yellow River" by Kuo-Chih-Yün, military governor of Lung-yu. "

And according to the more liberal historians, the western turks would even be merely just another region of the Tang dynasty during this time, not just another vassal.

Quote

I never take numbers of army strenght too serious without good proof. I think we even already had a discussion on this in another thread. Just check the army numbers for Talas at Wiki. In the English, French, and German edition they all give different numbers with a range of 100.000 troops! Only the Spanish edition was wise enough to not post at all any numbers.

Ah yes, that's why I said "anywhere between 70,000 to 150,000". That way it lessens the chance of me being wrong.

Quote

We just have to contend ourselves that Talas was a clear win of the Caliphate and that is a fact. And even if the Arabs won by outnumbering the humble Tang forces by 40:1, who cares, wasn't Tang the military superpower of its times on the grounds of its army strength.......

Yes, no one disagrees with you that the Caliphate was the clear winner at Talas, but that does not mean anyone is superior militarily, else one might as well say that the Mongols have a weaker army during the Yuan dynasty than that of the Japanese, or that the Romans were militarily inferior to the Germanic tribes.

btw, the Umayyid Muslims went extinct by Talas. It was not the Umayyid, but the Abbasid, that fought the Tang there.

This post has been edited by Anthrophobia: 25 July 2006 - 08:56 AM

[Tibet Libre]

Anthrophobia, on Jul 25 2006, 07:54 AM, said:

Thx for not giving the complete quote.

Stop.

The source says that "the Muslims [were] escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent." It then goes on saying that the battle was between the Chinese and the Tibetans ("Tibetan army") at the "Bends of the Yellow River".

Now I do not know where this Yellow River is situated in Central Asia, but in my understanding, the way how the author gives the sequence of events here, this clearly means that the Tang beat the Tibetan part of the army, but not the Muslims who at the time were already fleeing westwards.

Hence Talas remains the only direct clash between Arabs and Tang. Text exegesis rocks.

Quote

"On August 15, a Türgis-led army of Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis lay siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan and harass the Four Garrisons. The Chinese order *Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan, to lead the Qarluqs in an attack on them. The attack succeeds, the Muslims escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent.The Tibetan army is defeated at the "Bends of the Yellow River" by Kuo-Chih-Yün, military governor of Lung-yu."

[Non-Han Nan Ban]

Plus, you, me, and Anthrophobia weren't there at the Battle of Talas to judge anything correctly. How well documented is this battle to begin with? How well-done is the archeological digs on the battle? Was it really as significant as we all portray it to be? Or was it a mere skirmish that was very trivial in the amount of battles and warfare waged by the Chinese in fighting the various turks and Tibetans in their western campaigns throughout a large chunk of the Tang Dynasty's history?

In any case, changing subject for a moment, I thought it was always interesting reading about General Ban Chao in Parthia and how he was just a days march away from a Roman army. I wonder how that would have played out if they became hostile towards one another (unlikely, though, considering that they would have no solid basis to attack each other, other than Ban Chao's army being on a diplomatic friendly base with the Parthians. I think they would be rather dumbfounded at first by the sight of each other, both looking very exotic to the other, and then establish relations).

Quote

Yes, no one disagrees with you that the Caliphate was the clear winner at Talas, but that does not mean anyone is superior militarily, else one might as well say that the Mongols have a weaker army during the Yuan dynasty than that of the Japanese, or that the Romans were militarily inferior to the Germanic tribes.

Lol, very good point.

Eric

This post has been edited by Non-Han Nan Ban: 25 July 2006 - 09:08 AM

[Mei Houwang]

Quote

This is a foolish conversation to begin with, considering that many battles throughout human history and in all societies (Chinese and Arab included) have proven that superior strategy, capability of individual fighting units, and advantage of terrain are all factors that overshadow the importance of the sizes of opposing factions.

^I disagree considering there are just even more instances(although not quite as famous due to that it doesn't sound as glorious to defeat an enemy that's outnumbered) where numbers did decide the battle. Communist Russia would have never pushed back the Nazis, nor would D-Day, or even the Korean War, turn out as it did. Given that numbers alone will not mean victory in war, but it certainly helps, by a lot.

Quote

Cannot agree more but you will see that on this forum quite a few posters are resorting in military things to posting mere numbers, no matter how speculative these are, when they run out of arguments. I call it the human wave syndrome.

I call it statistics, which is what the modern military and governments rely on heavily to judge descisions. Quite a few posters hate statistics because they don't like it but can't say anything to discount it. Jk .

Quote

The source says that "the Muslims [were]escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent." It then goes on saying that the battle was between the Chinese and the Tibetans ("Tibetan army") at the "Bends of the Yellow River".

Now I do not know where this Yellow River is situated in Central Asia, but in my understanding, the way how the author gives the sequence of events here, this clearly means that the Tang beat the Tibetan part of the army, but not the Muslims who at the time were already fleeing westwards.

Hence Talas remains the only direct clash between Arabs and Tang. Text exegesis rocks.



QUOTE
"On August 15, a Türgis-led army of Tibetans, Muslims and Türgis lay siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan and harass the Four Garrisons. The Chinese order *Arsïla Hsien, the Western Turkic qaghan, to lead the Qarluqs in an attack on them. The attack succeeds, the Muslims escaping back to Islamic territory and then to Tashkent.The Tibetan army is defeated at the "Bends of the Yellow River" by Kuo-Chih-Yün, military governor of Lung-yu."

And is that supposed to matter? I'm more than sure that this is how the Tang/Turks planned the battle instead of the battle going on random order, excluding the fact that many of the Turks work for the Tang army and depending on the view, the western Turks are merely another ethnicity within the Tang.

What amazes me is that the Qarluqs "won" every battle considering that when they fought against the Arabs for the Tang, the Qarluqs were soundly victorious, while in the battle of Talas, they switched to the Arab side after a 2-5 day tug-of-war and that is what caused the battle to be turned to the Abbasids. It seems the Qarluqs remain the smarter player in the game, the puppetmaster of the Tang and the Arab governments. The last part is just my exaggerated opinion though .

This post has been edited by Anthrophobia: 25 July 2006 - 09:33 AM

[Mei Houwang]

Quote

Well, if not to you, then why did you post that link in the first place?

It happens that you didn't understand my reasoning, considering that by your reason that the Tang never "fought" the Muslims, then by that same reason the Qarluqs was the real reason that the Tang were defeated at Talas.

Quote

After one and a half pages we have now finally established the fact, at least according to this muddled link of warhead, that Talas remained the only battle between the Umayyads and the Tang - to debunk that urban myth immediately.

As I said previously, the Tang never fought the Umayyads, but the Abbasids, but the Tang did defeat the Umayyads previously depending on how liberal/conservative you are when it comes to who belongs to who.

Edit: never mind, Yun stated the Abbasid/Umayyad confusion for me.

All you did was repeat your case, an opinion in which I have established the fact that if you consider Talas a symobl of Muslim military superiority over the Tang, then you must consider the overthrow of Alutar and the like as a Tang victory.

This post has been edited by Anthrophobia: 25 July 2006 - 10:47 AM

[Yun]

Anthrophobia and Tibet Libre, you seem to disagree on whether or not the Turgesh (who defeated the Umayyads in 717) should be considered part of the Tang empire. If so, please refer to my discussion with Warhead on this thread: http://www.chinahist...p...c=725&st=90

You will see that Warhead himself describes the Turgesh as a Tang client that increasingly went rogue, rather than a part of the empire itself. If in 717 the Turgesh were part of the Tang, then one has to explain why in 718 they'd capture the city of Suiye (Suyab) from Tang forces despite the Turgesh ruler receiving a title from the Tang court that year. If the argument is made that in 717 they were Tang but in 718 they rebelled, then surely the victory of 717 meant little for the Tang.

[Tibet Libre]

Anthrophobia, on Jul 25 2006, 09:44 AM, said:

All you did was repeat your case, an opinion in which I have established the fact that if you consider Talas a symobl of Muslim military superiority over the Tang, then you must consider the overthrow of Alutar and the like as a Tang victory.

Here we go again. Actually you are right, I do not understand your reasoning. I do consider Talas as an Arab victory, but why should I then also consider "the overthrow of Alutar and the like as a Tang victory"? We have just been going through that link and the result is clear as one could get: These were no direct encounters between the Umayyads/Abbasids and the Tang.

Arabs and Tang fought only one battle and that was an Arab victory. The rest is just your private logic, I am afraid.

[Mei Houwang]

Quote

You will see that Warhead himself describes the Turgesh as a Tang client that increasingly went rogue, rather than a part of the empire itself. If in 717 the Turgesh were part of the Tang, then one has to explain why in 718 they'd capture the city of Suiye (Suyab) from Tang forces despite the Turgesh ruler receiving a title from the Tang court that year. If the argument is made that in 717 they were Tang but in 718 they rebelled, then surely the victory of 717 meant little for the Tang.

Just as the battle of 717 meant little for the Tang, neither did the battle of Talas mean much either, considering that no territory was lost. In the end, it's still a matter of "admit one, and you have to admit the other".

Quote

I do consider Talas as an Arab victory, but why should I then also consider "the overthrow of Alutar and the like as a Tang victory"?

Because the Tang overthrew the puppet king installed and protected by the Umayyad Caliphate. It's as clear as "one could get".

Quote

Arabs and Tang fought only one battle and that was an Arab victory. The rest is just your private logic, I am afraid.

Not really. They fought up to 2 - 4 battles, and if you admit Talas as a battle between the Tang and the Abbasids, then there is no reason to admit the overthrow of Alutar as a battle between the Tang and the Umayyads. If you only admit the battle of Talas, then there is a clear contradictory. In the end, the clearer logic of this discussion only tells that one battle, or even several battles, mean nothing to superior military might, which is my point the whole time.

This post has been edited by Anthrophobia: 25 July 2006 - 11:24 AM

[Tibet Libre]

Anthrophobia, on Jul 25 2006, 10:15 AM, said:

In the end, the clearer logic of this discussion only tells that one battle, or even several battles, mean nothing to superior military might, which is my point the whole time.

And which I actually never out into doubt when I initially said that I would also rate the Caliphate as a more powerful empire if Talas had not happened.

You know, you should have told us earlier that you are just intent on making smoke screens, because that would have saved us a lot of time. Your 'logical' junctim between Talas and the other battles is just plainly silly. Allow me to contradict your thin argument by pointing out some of your contradictions:

Anthrophobia, on Jul 25 2006, 10:15 AM, said:

Just as the battle of 717 meant little for the Tang, neither did the battle of Talas mean much either, considering that no territory was lost.

According to that 'logic' Carrhae meant also little for Rome, since no territory was lost either. Still, I see you in the Rome vs. Han discussion beating the topos of the 'superiority' of the mounted archer to the footsoldier at death...Nice double standard.

Quote

Because the Tang overthrew the puppet king installed and protected by the Umayyad Caliphate. It's as clear as "one could get".

According to that logic, the defeat of the Sultan of Malacca by the Portuguese also constitutes a Portuguese victory over Ming China "as clear as one could get" because the Sultan was Ming vassal. Likewise would the conquest of Nepal by the British consitute a British victory as the Gurkhas were then Qing vassal, and so on, all clear victories over Beijing.

Quote

Not really. They fought up to 2 - 4 battles, and if you admit Talas as a battle between the Tang and the Abbasids, then there is no reason to admit the overthrow of Alutar as a battle between the Tang and the Umayyads. If you only admit the battle of Talas, then there is a clear contradictory.

As Yun has already pointed out. Only if you go to the very extreme and consider the Turgesh as "Chinese" forces, then there was a defeat of the Arabs by the Tang. But since the Turgesh were at that moment factually not political allied to Tang anymore, let alone their mode of fighting reflected adequately Chinese fighting, I just fail to see what the Turgesh actually should make "Chinese".

Talas was fair and square between the main armies of both sides and since the Arabs took a leaf out of the book of your Sun Tsu by winning over the Chinese allies, Talas must according to accepted Chinese historiographical standards be rated as a fine victory. Add to that the fact that the Arabs just came fresh out from a disrupting civil war, I would place Talas as clear writing on the wall.

[Mei Houwang]

I have to apologize to the forum that I went into a tangent about Tang/Muslim power in a non-related thread, so I guess I'll continue it in this thread. My apologies

[Mei Houwang]

Quote

QUOTE(Anthrophobia @ Jul 25 2006, 10:15 AM)

In the end, the clearer logic of this discussion only tells that one battle, or even several battles, mean nothing to superior military might, which is my point the whole time.



And which I actually never out into doubt when I initially said that I would also rate the Caliphate as a more powerful empire if Talas had not happened.

You know, you should have told us earlier that you are just intent on making smoke screens

Not so, b/c if you had actually been reading my posts, I've posted this fact from the beginning, so please don't blur the truth here.

Quote

QUOTE(Anthrophobia @ Jul 25 2006, 10:15 AM)

Just as the battle of 717 meant little for the Tang, neither did the battle of Talas mean much either, considering that no territory was lost.


According to that 'logic' Carrhae meant also little for Rome, since no territory was lost either. Still, I see you in the Rome vs. Han discussion beating the topos of the 'superiority' of the mounted archer to the footsoldier at death...Nice double standard.

In the Rome vs Han discussion, you'll realize that the posts were like more than a yr ago. That's a lot of time for opinions to change. Also note that in the Rome vs Han discussion my more recent posts(which is still a while ago by now) have already stated that Carrhae did really no damage to Rome considering later Roman victories. It's only significance is the proof that arrows can go through shields at close range due to primary sources, but there was no mention of the battle results being significant politically. If you find proof that Arab arrows can go through Tang shields in the battle of Talas, sure, go ahead and post it. Please don't make stuff up about me saying how Carrhae was such a tragic blow to the Romans, I said no such thing. And even if I did, it was yrs ago. That's even worse than double standard.

Quote

QUOTE
Because the Tang overthrew the puppet king installed and protected by the Umayyad Caliphate. It's as clear as "one could get".


According to that logic, the defeat of the Sultan of Malacca by the Portuguese also constitutes a Portuguese victory over Ming China "as clear as one could get" because the Sultan was Ming vassal. Likewise would the conquest of Nepal by the British consitute a British victory as the Gurkhas were then Qing vassal, and so on, all clear victories over Beijing.

And where is your proof that Alutar was merely a vassal? His place was jointly ruled by both the Arabs and the Tibetans, and his armies consists of Arab and Tubo armies, which means he is like a governor, no more and no less.

Quote

QUOTE
Not really. They fought up to 2 - 4 battles, and if you admit Talas as a battle between the Tang and the Abbasids, then there is no reason to admit the overthrow of Alutar as a battle between the Tang and the Umayyads. If you only admit the battle of Talas, then there is a clear contradictory.


As Yun has already pointed out. Only if you go to the very extreme and consider the Turgesh as "Chinese" forces, then there was a defeat of the Arabs by the Tang. But since the Turgesh were at that moment factually not political allied to Tang anymore, let alone their mode of fighting reflected adequately Chinese fighting, I just fail to see what the Turgesh actually should make "Chinese".

Actually during this exact period the Turgesh already recieved Tang titles, making the Turgesh a representative of Tang power in the area(although in reality it lasted only 1-2 yrs, but outwardly it lasted quit a while). The Turgesh acts kind of wierd, really. First they join, then they break, then they join, and then they break again. The Tang must have found them really tirring.

Quote

Talas was fair and square between the main armies of both sides and since the Arabs took a leaf out of the book of your Sun Tsu by winning over the Chinese allies, Talas must according to accepted Chinese historiographical standards be rated as a fine victory. Add to that the fact that the Arabs just came fresh out from a disrupting civil war, I would place Talas as clear writing on the wall.

And as I said, if you want to admit this as a clear sign of military superiority, then you must admit others as well(considering Tang troops in the tarim weren't mainly of han ethnicity but Turkick ethnicity), with equal achievements due to that the Tang is almost always overstretched in logistics in the Tarim Basin. By now there are 2-4(one of them could be considered 0.5, considering one of the battles weren't officialy Arab, but merely Arab merceneries ) possible battles. Each with there own different circumstances. Some with the Turgesh vs Arabs, some with the Quarluqs vs Arabs, some with the Ferghanans vs Arabs. The Turgesh seems to be the least controlled by the Tang in certain periods, while the Quarluqs seem to be the most controlled, due to that they had to ask for permission from the Tang to attack other countries, while in the battle of Talas the Tang troops didn't even ask for permission from Chang'an.

I find it amusing that you would admit Talas, in which a large number of the Chinese troops(if not all the troops) were of central plains or turkic origin and even the general wasn't of Chinese regional origin, but is quick to admit other similar battles in which the Chinese troops/general were also of central plains origin.

btw, "my suntzu"? Why'd you say that? What is he, my husband? Bah!

This post has been edited by Anthrophobia: 25 July 2006 - 01:13 PM