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

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.

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.

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

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://spotlightongames.com/background/emw.html#sources

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.

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://spotlightongames.com/background/emw.html#sources

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.......

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Due to the influence of Tang China in Central Asia at the time, troops from Central Asian states that were allied to China such as the Qarluq Turks and the state of Ferghana joined the Tang Chinese forces. Altogether the Tang Chinese army and allies numbered more than 30,000 men, two-thirds of which were Chinese. The Arab army numbered about 70,000. The Tang army under the leadership of Gao Xianzhi travelled more than 700 Chinese miles and eventually it met with the Arab Muslim army at Talas. Thus a famous and important battle in Asian and world history - the battle of Talas River, took place.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_post...ID=756&PN=7

You are a girl?! Never thought so!

QUOTE
Due to the influence of Tang China in Central Asia at the time, troops from Central Asian states that were allied to China such as the Qarluq Turks and the state of Ferghana joined the Tang Chinese forces. Altogether the Tang Chinese army and allies numbered more than 30,000 men, two-thirds of which were Chinese. The Arab army numbered about 70,000. The Tang army under the leadership of Gao Xianzhi travelled more than 700 Chinese miles and eventually it met with the Arab Muslim army at Talas. Thus a famous and important battle in Asian and world history - the battle of Talas River, took place.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_post...ID=756&PN=7



-> The Chinese army came right from the heart of China and the army was according to that source mainly composed of Chinese troops.

What do you actually want to prove? That Napoleon and the French were actually not defeated in Russia in 1812 because the Grande Armee was mainly composed of non-French troops...?

Nice try at revisionism. Start rewriting history books.

From Chinese primary sources:

" The Tibetans and Arabs, acting in concert, nominated a certain A-leao-ta king [of Farghana], and sent troops to attack Farghana. The troops of the [deposed] king having been defeated, he fled to Kucha to ask help. . . . The governor put himself at the head of 10,000 troops from the neighbouring barbarian tribes, marched several thousand li to the west of Kucha, and subdued several hundreds of cities. He made forced marches, and in the same month [according to Chav., p. 291, the eleventh month = December] he attacked A-leao-ta near the United cities [Lien-Ch'ang, now unidentified but apparently in Kashgaria] and after an eight hours' battle took these three cities and killed or captured over a thousand men. A-leao-ta with some horsemen fled into the mountains. . . . Chinese prestige made the western countries tremble. Eight kingdoms, including the Arabs, Samarqand, Shash, and Kapisa, sent embassies with their submission."

The one thing quite clear about this strange and obviously boastful narrative is that it has no connexion with anything reported by (the Muslim historian) Tabari. Its general bearing I hope to discuss in a later article on Chinese notices of the Arabs, but for the present purpose it should be noted that while on the one hand Tabari says nothing of Tibetan support or of a battle with the king of Farghana, so also the Chinese make no reference to an Arab attack on Kashgar. It is not even said that there were Arabs fighting on the side of A-leao-ta.

H. A. R. Gibb, The Arab Invasion of Kashgar in A. D. 715, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 2, No. 3. (1922), pp. 472

From Chinese primary sources:

" In the seventh month of 717, the protector of Kucha reported that the Tiirgesh had brought in the Arabs and Tibetans with the intention of seizing the Four Garrisons (Kashgar, Khotan, etc.), and that they were besieging the cities of Yaka-aryk and Ak-su." (Doc. 284, n. 2.)...

The reference to Arab and Tibetan assistance to the Tiirgesh in their descent on Kashgaria in 717 is also, I think, to be explained in this way. The main Arab forces were heavily engaged at the time under Yazid ibn Muhallab in the conquest of Jurjan, while the garrisons of Transoxania were engaged in summer raids in Soghd (Bal. 425). The Arabs of Su-Lu's exploit were almost certainly mercenaries, as some writers have already suggested....

These two references to joint action by Arabs and Tibetans (715 and 717), together with such other records as that of the embassy sent by the Pallava king in 720, seem to be the basis on which a widely held theory of Arab and Tibetan cooperation has been built. On closer examination, however, it is obvious that this association is entirely fortuitous. So far as we can judge, it is not the case that the Arabs in 715 sought the assistance of Tibet in Farghana, a province which they had conquered two years before, while the repeated statement that in return they assisted the Tibetans to make a descent on Kashgaria is in direct contradiction to the Chinese record.

This hare, first started apparently in the ill-informed work of Cahun (Introduction a VHistoire de VAsie, Paris, 1896), has grown in more recent works to a grandiose political scheme, whereby the Arabs and Tibetans, by linking up across the Pamir, sought to prevent the extension of Chinese influence to the south and west. Nothing could be more unlikely. The direction taken by both the Tibetan and Arab movements of expansion was determined by different natural factors, and until more definite evidence of an agreed policy is produced the theory must remain groundless. All that we do know of early Arab relations with Tibet is that when, in the early 'Abbasid period, Muslim rule was definitely established in the highlands of Central Asia the Arabs and Tibetans came into prolonged conflict.

H. A. R. Gibb, Chinese Records of the Arabs in Central Asia, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 2, No. 4. (1923), pp. 613-622.

In the revolts which spread throughout China after 751, the Emperor Hiuen-Tsong fled from his capital to Sechuan. In 757 his son, the Emperor Su-Tsong, succeeded in recapturing Ch'ang-ngan with the aid of troops from Kashgaria, Bishbalik, Farghana, Tukharistan, and the Arabs. (See Cordier, Histoire Generale de la Chine, i, 478.) According to the T'ang annals, these Arab troops were lent by the Caliph Al-Mansur.

from: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia,

pg 82.

…<148>The reappearance of effective Chinese power north of the Tien Shan, however, provided an opportunity for the ousted King Basak to seek outside assistance. He fled into T’ang territory, followed closely by an Arab raiding party sent by Qutayba which reached Kashgar and successfully returned shortly thereafter.<149> Qutayba, however, was nearing the end of his remarkable series of conquests. Back in Damascus, the caliph who had patronized him died, and the new caliph regarded him with animosity. Qutayba felt he had no recourse be rebellion. His war-weary army disagreed; they turned on him, and he was killed, defended only by his family and his personal bodyguard of Sogdian archers.<150>
In this time of Arab weakness, Hsuan-tsung’s specially appointed censor, Chang Hsiao-sung, urged quick Chinese military action. So Lu Hsiu-ching, the Protector-General of the Pacified West, mustered an army of over 10,000 men- composed of levies of Central Asians under T’ang rule- and made a forced march from Kucha to Ferghana. In December 715, he attacked Alutar

<148> Dating such events is extremely difficult. The Chinese sources are here, as often, dated retrospectively. (On retrospective entries in the Chinese sources, see the Note on Chronology.) In order to date this series of events, therefore, one must estimate the time necessary for the deposed king to flee to Kucha, rouse the Chinese to action, return with an army, defeat the Arabs, Tibetans, and Ferghanian partisans of Alutar, and return again to Kucha. The TCTC, 211:6713, specifically states that the T’ang victory occurred in the eleventh month(December 1-30) of 715. Thus the Chinese dating corresponds very nicely with Arab dating. (For more on Alutar, see Appendix E.) Note that Gibb, 1923:52 et seq., almost completely ignores Qutayba’s last Ferghana campaign. His only reference to the Tibetan alliance with the Arabs, and to the Chinese intervention on the side of the Basak, is: “in the following year they restored the deposed king of Farghana” (p.60).
<149> Despite Gibb’s arguments (“The Arab Invasion of Kashgar in A.D. 715” [1921-1923]and 1923:52 et seq.), there is no reason to reject the historicity of the raid itself. See also the version in Ibn A’tham al-Kufi, vii:251, which relates that Qutayba sent a force of 7,000 on horse and foot under the command of a certain Kathir. They raided Kashgar, killed many, and enslaved 100.
<150> Tabari, ii:1283 et seq. Cf. Gibb, 1923:51 et seq. On archers, see Beckwith, 19842.

Pg 78

All of the sourcesGibb cites and dismisses as, for example, “exaggeration in opposite interests” (1923:45-57) do in fact support the historicity of the appearance of the Turks at Samarkand at this time. One of the sources quoted by Tabari specifies that “a son of a qaghan” led the Turkic army.

Pg 67

Despite the opinion of Gibb(see below, note 82), there is no reason to doubt the Tibetan participation. Arsila Boghra’s petition to the Chinese emperor in 718 specifically states that as of 705-and probably for some time before-Tukharistan was bounded by the Arabs on one side and the Tibetans on the other. Thus the Tibetan leaders were indeed numbered among the “princes of Transoxiana.” In fact, the term “transoxiana”(Arabic, Mdwara’a al-nahr, “that which is beyond the River”) during this period actually referred to everything north and east of the Oxus as far as China. In this respect, it is important to note that Tabari and the accounts he quotes are-unlike other Arab authors-extremely reticent about non-Western peoples. F.Rosenthal, in A History of Muslim Historiography(1968) 135, says of Tabari’s work: “No notice is taken of the widening of the historical and cultural horizon which had taken place during at-Tabari’s lifetime.” It is, therefore, significant that Tibetans are mentioned at all in a source as conservative as Tabari; this is a strong evidence for their actual involvement in the Musa affair. It is irrelevant that Tibetan involvement is not recorded in the non-Arabic sources, because those sources are quite silent about Musa anyway.

Pg 69

The leader of these Tibetans and Turks was likely as not either the Tibetan ally Arsila T’ui-tzu (Tun Yabgha Qaghan), who was the nephew of King Arsila Na-tu-ni-li, the Tabghu of Tukharistan, or the Yabghu’s brother, Boghra, who also was one of the Tibetan-appointed qaghans attempting to rule the Western Turks<81>(As will be seen, Arsila T’ui-tzu fought the Chinese in Ferghana only one or two years later; he was thus undoubtedly in Central Asia in 704. Boghra only arrived at the Chinese court in 705, as his brother’s envoy.) Although Tabari unfortunately does not give the names of all of the leaders involved, there is no reason to doubt his evidence<82>. Thus, there can be little question of Tibetan intervention in Tukharistan.

<82> Tirmidh is no farther from Tibet than Ferghana. So, with local cooperation, it would have been just as easy for Tibetan troops to fight in Tirmidh as in Ferghana. The comments of Gibb(1923:24) on this subject-“magnified in the legend to huge armies of ‘Turks and Haytal and Tibetans;”-are not valid, See above, note 79.

How fortunate for me that gibbs just happens to be the target of attack in my sources.

Your source: So Lu Hsiu-ching, the Protector-General of the Pacified West, mustered an army of over 10,000 men- composed of levies of Central Asians under T’ang rule- and made a forced march from Kucha to Ferghana. In December 715, he attacked Alutar

Gibbs quoting primary Chinese sources: " The Tibetans and Arabs, acting in concert, nominated a certain A-leao-ta king [of Farghana], and sent troops to attack Farghana. The troops of the [deposed] king having been defeated, he fled to Kucha to ask help. . . . The governor put himself at the head of 10,000 troops from the neighbouring barbarian tribes, marched several thousand li to the west of Kucha, and subdued several hundreds of cities.

Your source: In order to date this series of events, therefore, one must estimate the time necessary for the deposed king to flee to Kucha, rouse the Chinese to action, return with an army, defeat the Arabs, Tibetans, and Ferghanian partisans of Alutar, and return again to Kucha. The TCTC, 211:6713, specifically states that the T’ang victory occurred in the eleventh month(December 1-30) of 715.

Gibbs quoting primary Chinese sources:

" The Tibetans and Arabs, acting in concert, nominated a certain A-leao-ta king [of Farghana], and sent troops to attack Farghana. The troops of the [deposed] king having been defeated, he fled to Kucha to ask help. . . . The governor put himself at the head of 10,000 troops from the neighbouring barbarian tribes, marched several thousand li to the west of Kucha, and subdued several hundreds of cities. He made forced marches, and in the same month [according to Chav., p. 291, the eleventh month = December] he attacked A-leao-ta near the United cities [Lien-Ch'ang, now unidentified but apparently in Kashgaria] and after an eight hours' battle took these three cities and killed or captured over a thousand men. A-leao-ta with some horsemen fled into the mountains. . . . Chinese prestige made the western countries tremble. Eight kingdoms, including the Arabs, Samarqand, Shash, and Kapisa, sent embassies with their submission."


Gibbs making comments:

The one thing quite clear about this strange and obviously boastful narrative is that it has no connexion with anything reported by (the Muslim historian) Tabari. Its general bearing I hope to discuss in a later article on Chinese notices of the Arabs, but for the present purpose it should be noted that while on the one hand Tabari says nothing of Tibetan support or of a battle with the king of Farghana, so also the Chinese make no reference to an Arab attack on Kashgar. It is not even said that there were Arabs fighting on the side of A-leao-ta.

H. A. R. Gibb, The Arab Invasion of Kashgar in A. D. 715, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 2, No. 3. (1922), pp. 472

In the revolts which spread throughout China after 751, the Emperor Hiuen-Tsong fled from his capital to Sechuan. In 757 his son, the Emperor Su-Tsong, succeeded in recapturing Ch'ang-ngan with the aid of troops from Kashgaria, Bishbalik, Farghana, Tukharistan, and the Arabs. (See Cordier, Histoire Generale de la Chine, i, 478.) According to the T'ang annals, these Arab troops were lent by the Caliph Al-Mansur.

Again, I have to add something else to my statement of "admit one and you have to admit the other", for Gibb himself also claimed that the battle of Talas was insignificant in effecting Tang power, but Tang's real decline was from the AnLuShan rebellion. Thus, admit that Talas = Arab military superiority means disregarding poor Gibb here

I do not want to disrupt your illusions here, but you do realize that you are firmly here in the business of making a mountain out of a molehill? Talas was a battle, while the clashes of 715 and 717 can only be classified as skirmishes. Skirmishes, in which, as Gibbs has demonstrated, Arab troops of the Caliphate did not even took part.

Conclusion: The Tang defeat at Talas remains the only battle ever between the Caliph and the emperor.

The line-up of our sources shows that both factually agree on the character of the Tang troops. The denotation of the terms "levies of Central Asians" and "neighbouring barbarian tribes" is exactly the same, since Kucha is situated in Central Asia and the governor, by gather troops in his neighbourhood, must have recruited Central Asian troops and not Tang Chinese from the Chinese heartland. So perfect harmony here between our sources.

What does your secondary source say here? It just maintains that "the Arabs, Tibetans, and Ferghanian partisans of Alutar" were defeated at the United cities, but fails to give a single reference source or any other piece of evidence to support the view that Arab forces actually participated in the battle! Whereas Gibbs draws on both Chinese and Arab sources to show that this was not the case, as you will see now:

That means, since Qutayba' s army had disbanded afterwards, that battle must have been , even if it took place, a miniscule affair from the Arab point of view. It was actually the death of Qutayba which brought the Arab occupation of Transoxania subsequently to a halt, not any Tang military interventions.

As I am going to demonstrate, your source does not attack the subject we have agreed upon, that is the question whether an army composed wholly, mainly or partly of Tang Chinese troops fought ever an army composed wholly, mainly or partly of Umayyad Arabs other than at Talas.

<148> Dating such events is extremely difficult. The Chinese sources are here, as often, dated retrospectively. (On retrospective entries in the Chinese sources, see the Note on Chronology.) In order to date this series of events, therefore, one must estimate the time necessary for the deposed king to flee to Kucha, rouse the Chinese to action, return with an army, defeat the Arabs, Tibetans, and Ferghanian partisans of Alutar, and return again to Kucha. The TCTC, 211:6713, specifically states that the T’ang victory occurred in the eleventh month(December 1-30) of 715. Thus the Chinese dating corresponds very nicely with Arab dating. (For more on Alutar, see Appendix E.) Note that Gibb, 1923:52 et seq., almost completely ignores Qutayba’s last Ferghana campaign. His only reference to the Tibetan alliance with the Arabs, and to the Chinese intervention on the side of the Basak, is: “in the following year they restored the deposed king of Farghana” (p.60).

"In this time of Arab weakness, Hsüan-tsung's specially appointed censor, Chang Hsiao-sung, urged quick Chinese military action. So Lü Hsiu-ching, the Protector-general of the Pacified West, mustered an army of over 10,000 men - composed of levies of Central Asians under T'ang rule - and made a forced march from Kucha to Ferghana. In December 715, he attacked Alutar in the 'connected cities'."

Christopher Beckwith: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, Princeton 1987, p.82

"On or about August 15, 717 a Türgis-led allied army of Tibetans, Arabs, and Türgis laid siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan, both on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin. In response, the Chinese colonial governor, Assistant grand Protector-General of the Pacified West T'ang Chia-hui, ordered Arsial Hsien, the western Turkic qaghan, to lead the 'three surnamed Qarluqs' in an attack on the besieging forces. The T'ang army, which was composed exclusively of ethnic Turks, drove off the allies."

Christopher Beckwith: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, Princeton 1987, p.88

Since there were no records of other possible encounters, the only direct clash between the forces of the central Umayyad and Tang goverment remains at Talas, a battle which ended which a complete victory for the Arabs.

Tibet Libre - I've deleted your cheap shot at Anthrophobia, which was in bad taste. Please don't do that again.

Honestly, I do not see how the quotes from Beckwith you cited above are relevant to our question here, which is whether an army composed wholly, mainly or partly of Tang Chinese troops fought ever an army composed wholly, mainly or partly of Umayyad Arabs other than at Talas? So far you have not addressed this question.

QUOTE
"In this time of Arab weakness, Hsüan-tsung's specially appointed censor, Chang Hsiao-sung, urged quick Chinese military action. So Lü Hsiu-ching, the Protector-general of the Pacified West, mustered an army of over 10,000 men - composed of levies of Central Asians under T'ang rule - and made a forced march from Kucha to Ferghana. In December 715, he attacked Alutar in the 'connected cities'."

Christopher Beckwith: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, Princeton 1987, p.82


While the Tang army was apparently exclusively composed of local troops, there is no mention at all of Arabs fighting on the side of the Alutar.

-> 715: An army composed of levies of Central Asians under T'ang rule vs. Alutar, the king of Ferghana.

"On or about August 15, 717 a Türgis-led allied army of Tibetans, Arabs, and Türgis laid siege to Aksu and Üc-Turfan, both on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin. In response, the Chinese colonial governor, Assistant grand Protector-General of the Pacified West T'ang Chia-hui, ordered Arsial Hsien, the western Turkic qaghan, to lead the 'three surnamed Qarluqs' in an attack on the besieging forces. The T'ang army, which was composed exclusively of ethnic Turks, drove off the allies."

Christopher Beckwith: The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia, Princeton 1987, p.88


Again, the Tang army is exclusively composed of local forces, that is this time Turcs and, unlike in 715, not even the commander was Chinese, but the Western Turkic Khan. Moreover, the Arabs mentioned above by Beckwith were "almost certainly" not forces of the central Umayyad government: "The Arabs of Su-Lu's exploit were almost certainly mercenaries, as some writers have already suggested...." (H. A. R. Gibb, Chinese Records of the Arabs in Central Asia, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, Vol. 2, No. 4. (1923), pp. 617)

Anthrophobia - I've merged your posts into one, but I'm afraid I can't tell what's wrong either. Try asking at the technical support section?

Well, cheap shots look differently, I just thought it funny. But anyway, lets move on, the best advice I can give to Anthrophobia is to restart your computer which often works wonder. Otherwise switch briefly your firewall off, often a source of unaccounted trouble. Finally, check whether your browser has Java or Java script script on.

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

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.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...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.

Henceforth I will save my time from the aleady crushed statement you are babbling and decide the only person whose time you are going to waste is yours(and unfortunately, Anthrophobia's as well.)

Again, you always bring ethnicity to the table. I really don't see the point of that, considering a nation's power has nothing to do with ethinicity. Arsilia himself was given title as grand governor by the Tang. As long as the Tang dynasty has enough control over it, then it's a part of the Tang dynasty's region/power, no matter the race/ethincity.

So, to summarise:

715 - Tang governor with troops from Tarim Basin states defeats Umayyad client king of Ferghana.

717 - Western Turk kaghan directly appointed by Tang court defeats invading Turgis-Tibetan-Umayyad allied army.

Ethnicity in itself is not important.

The important thing is whether the troops fighting against one another were from the central government or not. Because only that can give us a sufficiently good idea about the respective military strengthes of the two empires. Celebrating victories of Tang allies against allies of the Umayyads means in this context just adorning oneself with borrowed plumes. This is like celebrating the Greek military successes against Italy in 1940 as a defeat of Germany itself. This would be absurd.

Baladhuri 425 states that "Al-Yaskuri led his troops to Transoxiana, and he penetrated deeply into the lands of the enemy-and those were at the entrace of China" After the battle of the Four garrisons, al Yaskuri was said from the same source "to escape back to Islamic territory, and made their way to Tashkent."

Then one shouldn't paint Tang Central Army troops as Tang allies.

717 - Western Turk kaghan directly appointed by Tang court defeats invading Turgis-Tibetan-Arab allied army.


Conclusion: There was never direct military encounter in the field between Umayyads and Tang. It was all and exclusively a proxy war before Talas.

We do not know for sure about the identity and affiliation of these Arab troops, although Gibb considers them to be mercenaries. But to consider these Arabs as Umayyad troops only on the basis of their Arab ethnicity would be just as illegitimate as considering the Arabs soldiers which took Cheng'an in 756 as Umayyads.

Wrong,...

PS: And pleae get over the fact that at Talas the Arabs blew away with ease the Tang army

Wait a minute, what? Isn't that contradictory to what you just stated above?

No offense intended, NHNB, you know so, but I stopped reading already here. I am tired of conversations which solely focus on pointing out presumed contradictions or interpreting things to death. This is so sterile. Instead, bring facts to the table that counter directly my statement.

Regards

*Yawn* Give quotes from your sources for all your claims, or otherwise consider yourself ignored, because I have now wasted enough time with your transparent attempts to counteract the crushing defeat the Arabs inflicted on the Tang at Talas. Is the Cold War really already so long ago or why do you constantly fail to grasp the concepts of proxy wars?

So, according to your private logic, when the Chinese were beaten back by the Soviet-backed Vietnamese in 1979, the SU actually beat China, even though it was not at all militarily directly involved? And even if we allow for a minute that the "Turkic khaghan directly represents the Tang government", then the fact still remains that on the other side the Arabs (not necessarily Umayyads) were relatively small minority (A Turgis led Turgis-Tibetan-Arab army). So, even in the best case for you and the worst for me, so to speak, you are pumping up almost nothing.

I have given you guys two references from both Arab and Chinese sources to support my point and you have given me nothing, but your subjective interpretation. Start bringing evidence to the table, because from now on I will link to this thread, whenever one Tang apologist dares to create a phantasma of Tang victories against the Arabs which actually never happened.

And even if we allow for a minute that the "Turkic khaghan directly represents the Tang government", then the fact still remains that on the other side the Arabs (not necessarily Umayyads) were relatively small minority (A Turgis led Turgis-Tibetan-Arab army). So, even in the best case for you and the worst for me, so to speak, you are pumping up almost nothing.

PS: And pleae get over the fact that at Talas the Arabs blew away with ease the Tang army under what was probably their best general. They had already inflicted such humiliating defeats earlier to even stronger powers, so the Tang were in good company there. No shame in admitting that and doing the historical truth justice there, boys.