Hello everybody !
I'm newbie on this forum however I have met with some members in the other historical forums (General_Zhaoyun, warhead, Jun)..
I would like to know the opinion of our Chinese members about significance of the battle of Talas 751 AD.
I know the opinion of the some of western sinologist and the specialist for the Central Asia history is that this battle was one of the decisive in the history, however I have also met the (well documented) opinion that this battle have no influence at all as it was just the skrimish..thus having no the acces to the Chinese primary sources and recent Chinese works I would appreciate your commence...

Fought between the Tang and the Arabs, it seems that western sources had lots of detail about this battle. For the chinese source, this battle was less-mentioned due to the defeat of Tang by the Arabs.

The outcome of this war I can say is the spread of paper-making technology from China to the Islamic world, and ultimately to the west. After the defeat, the Arabs captured many chinese, and from them, they learnt about paper-making and printing. I would say this battle contributed to the civilization development of the arab world. With the knowledge of paper-making, the arab world can now make paper and print their korans and other intellectual text.

(btw, welcome to CHF, TJK :D )

There is a thread at AE about Battle of Talas.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=131&PN=1

[quote] btw, welcome to CHF, TJK[/quote]Thank you to warm welcome GZ :)

[quote] The outcome of this war I can say is the spread of paper-making technology from China to the Islamic world, and ultimately to the west..[/quote]
This is what I know already.. what I would to know is the the stand of modern Chinese
modern historiography about importance of this battle..was it just skrimish not influenced on the historyn of Tang dynasty or the one of decisive battle of the history which have influenced much on the history of Central Asia ? (or both?!?).. [/quote]

[quote] There is a thread at AE about Battle of Talas.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=131&PN=1[/quote]

Which have been continued here: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=164&PN=1

Most Chinese historians regard the An Lushan rebellion of 755 as being much more crucial in Chinese history than the Battle of Talas in 751. The Chinese defeat at Talas could have meant the loss of their control over the Silk Road in the long term, but it didn't matter because just four years later An Lushan made it happen in the short term by throwing north China into chaos. Nor was it the Arabs who took advantage of this to seize the Silk Road - instead, it was the Tibetans.

After the decline of the Tibetan Empire in the 9th century, much of the Silk Road was taken over by the Uyghurs (although Zhang Yichao's Guiyi statelet held on to Dunhuang). The Uyghurs were mostly Buddhists, and did not convert to Islam until the 10th century. So the Battle of Talas also played no part in establishing the current dominance of Islam in Central Asia - this has also been discussed at greater length on AE already.

A "rematch" between the Arabs and the Tang would have been certain after 751, if not for the disruptive impact of the An Lushan rebellion. As it is, the Arabs never fought another battle with a Chinese army (unless you count the Mongols), and never expanded further east from Talas either. The influence of the Umayyad Caliphate did not go beyond Ferghana or Tashkent into the Tarim Basin itself. This might be one of the endless what-ifs of history: what if the Arabs had gone on to invade north China and even defeat An Lushan?

There is 4 claims that many people I read writes,

1) China lost its western possessions because of this battle
2) it caused an lu shan's rebellion
3) It made central asia muslim
4) it stopped chinese expansion westwards.


The first 3 especially the first one is absolute nonsense. As primary sources clearly indicate that most of the tarim is well in Tang hands until 790. The other 2 is also wrong as Ihsan and I already clarified in AE,
the 4th one is the only possibility, but it envolve illogical assumptions, the Tang's invasion was never intended for conquestbut rather a counter measure against a muslim attack. And even if they conquered, An Lu Shan would still force these garrisons to withdraw.




Why would it have been certain? The Tang's goal is to prevent Arabs from attacking tarim which was acheived, there is no reason for the Tang to attack the Arabs again, as for Arabs even reaching anywhere close to An Lu Shan, thats just ridiculous, The most arabs ever possess in central asian conquests was hardly 80,000 in size, and the garrison of Kucha is extremely easy to defend, even the enourmous Kushan army is easily repelled by Ban Chao with a handful of troops when he simply shuts down all the gates.

Sorry, I'm not well-informed about this battle, I have a few questions:

1. Who attacked first? Was it the Arabs or the Tang?

2. What was the purpose of the attack? Was it to control the silk road?

The tang attacked first, it attacked because it herd the arabs were going to invade tarim basin, nothing more. No control of anything was fought over, no demograph changed.

Found a map in the World Book online encyclopedia that shows the relative spheres of influence of the Tang and Arabs (I've attached the same picture in case it doesn't show up, because the website requires subscription):

A figurine of a 7th/8th-century Arab horse archer:

A rear view:

That's a nice 3D model of the arab horse archer

that map contain large errors as usual, first of all, the Ordos is also part of the Tang empire, so were the Kitans and Xi of Manchuria. Nan Zhao at this time is also a Tang protectorate with Prefectures set up in it. While the Arabs never had the north indus valley, they only had Sind and the northern most possestion they had was Multan, far from reaching the Kashmirs and pamirs, eastern Afghanistan was at the time ruled by kingdom of Kabul and the north east by the king of Tukharistan

I've heard that Tang general Gao Xian Zhi wanted a "rematch", but for some reasons he abandoned the plan, was it because of An Lushan's rebellion?

What primary source is this from?

No primary sources, just something I heard.

So let's get a quick review of participants in the battle.

you had primarily Tang and some Uighur allies

vs

Arab with Tibetans and Qarluk Turks?

no, Tang and its tarim troops, Ferghana and Qarluq vs. Arab and central asian auxiliar. But during the fight the Qarluqs switched sides.

what source are you using? I am using History of the Steppes by Rene Grousset.

Zi Zhi Tong Jian by Sima Guan

You can find much mention of Tibetan participation in this battle simply by googling it

http://tse.dyndns.org/~sktse/tangtl.htm

Googling has a fatal flaw as were many sources today, they tend to copy one another until the false rumor spread like fire. Tibetans never participated in Talas, this is guranteed by primary sources both Arab and Chinese, also some more competent secondary sources that quote from primary sources.

Its unfortunate that so many scholars today ignore the vast amount of primary source available, and they tend to read from modern secondary sources, in this case, its no wonder that nonsense such as Talas caused An Lu Shan start to appear in different sites and even books, have they just take a look at the primary sources, it would be much better. I'm still trying to track down who the first person that brought up the Talas myth is. I have a feeling it was Grousset. But he never mentioned the connection between Talas and An Lu Shan, some other incompetent online reader probably has later on based on his theory, this is the paradox of the domino effect and must be viewed with caution. The primary sources are by far the most reliable and one should always take them into account.

Good luck on tracking them down. But i am curious to what Arab sources you are using.

Since I can't read Arab, the sources I use are from secondary sources tha tquote primary sources such as Tabari's work.

btw, I made a mistake, I've consistantly brought up Tabari, who never mentioned the battle at all, it was al-Dhahabi's work that mentions this battle.

And I believe I've found the person who started the talas myth, its Barthfold and L. Carrington Goodrich who were the first ones that called it" one of the decisive battles of history," and all later claims ultimately derive from him.

Warhead, it's a matter of perspectives.

From Chinese sources, it was a small insignificant battle, fought over land China didn't care about, too far to really even matter.

From Arab sources, it was a big moral boost, fought just at their northern borders, a fight against infidels which they won and hence helped spread their dogma and religion into the central steppes.

Really depends on who's point of view. :-) You're right in that this myth has been blown waaaaaay out of proportion. Carrington like most western historians/writers, have easier access to middle eastern accounts than east asian accounts so would draw heavily on them.

However, having said that, I do believe the battle did stop Tang influence beyond the Tien Shan. Who knows what would have happened if the Tang had committed a larger army and won. Maybe the central ex-soviet republics in the whole area right up to the caspian sea would be more like mongolia or tibet instead of islamic.

Jieming

"Warhead, it's a matter of perspectives."

Its a matter of whether people read primary documents or not.

"From Chinese sources, it was a small insignificant battle, fought over land China didn't care about, too far to really even matter.

From Arab sources, it was a big moral boost, fought just at their northern borders, a fight against infidels which they won and hence helped spread their dogma and religion into the central steppes."

No, both the Chinese and Arab sources did not view it as anything significant, this can easily seen since Tabari completely neglected that battle in his histroy document as I alerady mentioned.



"However, having said that, I do believe the battle did stop Tang influence beyond the Tien Shan."

No it didn't. If anyone bothered reading Tang Shu and Zi Zhi Tong Jian you'll find that Turgis remained Tang vassals, and so did the Qarluqs and Tashkent. Eevn as late as 753 a.d., titles were granted to the rulers of the Qarluqs and Tashkent as Zi Zhi Tong Jian documents. You cannot create a theory out of a vacuum, when in fact no ancient texts mention any significant change to Tang power after Talas, in contrast clearly mentions Tang power well existed.



" Who knows what would have happened if the Tang had committed a larger army and won. Maybe the central ex-soviet republics in the whole area right up to the caspian sea would be more like mongolia or tibet instead of islamic."

If Tang win, paper will not spread West at the time, Gao Xian Zhi will withdraw considering the objective of the whole capaign is defensive if anyone bothered erading Zi Zhi Tong Jian's account. As for Caspian please, No matter what happended An Shi rebellion would still occur, and Tang would still withdraw its army from Cetnral Asia, even if it didn't, ther is no reason to suppose Tang will expand any further west since its not part of their political interest.

Warhead, can you tell me actually how many battles/skirmish were fought between Tang and Arab. So far i had only heard of Talas, Ferghana, Xinjiang and the Battle which Su-Dingfang defeat Arab force somewhere near Caspian/Iran region. Thanks in advance.

Hi, can you give some dates to these battles you mentioned? I'm interested too.

Jieming

If i'm not mistaken the battle fought between Su-Dingfang and the Arab force should be around 658-663 a.d. and i think battle at Ferghana was around 710+ a.d.
As for the skirmish in Xinjiang, i had no idea about the year. I think Warhead know all those battles.

"Warhead, can you tell me actually how many battles/skirmish were fought between Tang and Arab. "



So far i had only heard of Talas, Ferghana, Xinjiang and the Battle which Su-Dingfang defeat Arab force somewhere near Caspian/Iran region. Thanks in advance. "


I have not herd Su Ding Fang ever encountering the Arabs, where did you get that source from?

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.

Tang ordered Gao Xian Zi to invaded Tashkent and afterwards killed the king. That is why the prince of Tashkent went to Arabia to ask them help him avenge his fther's death. That's why the Gao Xian Zi heard Arabia is coming to invade the steppes and that's why they fought at Talas.

If you want to talk about Talas, the destruction of Tashkent must be mentioned.

To provide more source... sigh...

貴霜陷入分裂，大月氏人在中亞先後建立九個城邦，中國古稱「昭武九姓」。這九個城邦為： 塔什干Tashkent王國(中國古稱石國)、撒馬爾軍Samarkand王國(中國古稱康國)、布哈拉 Bukhara王國(中國古稱安國)、花剌子模Khwarizm王國(中國古稱火尋)、彌秣賀Maimargh(中國古稱米國)、貴霜尼亞Kushania(中國古稱何國)、佉沙Kesh(中國古稱史國)、克布德Kaboudhan(中國古稱曹國)和戊地。

This is how Tashkent came about around 250AD.


Below from Zhi Zi Tong Jian that you love so much

十二月，乙亥，上還宮。
　　關西遊弈使王難得擊吐蕃，克五橋，拔樹敦城，以難得為白水軍使。
　　安西四鎮節度使高仙芝偽與石國約和，引兵襲之，虜其王及部眾以歸，悉殺其老弱。仙芝性貪，掠得瑟瑟十餘斛，黃金五六橐駝，其餘口馬雜貨稱是，皆入其家。

Gao Xian Zhi faked to make peace with Tashkent, then attacked Tashkent. Capturing the King and his followers. Killed their non-military citizens. Xian Zhi is greedy. From his pillage he got gold....

If Gao didn't do this, why would there be the battle of Talas?

Southwest Asia Time Line
750 to 1167 751 AD 751 AD: Battle of Talas: The Tang Chinese were defeated by the Moslem Arabs at the battle of the Talas River northeast of Tashkent. It was at this battle that Chinese papermakers were captured by the Arabs and paper making spread west.
755-763: 755-763: Rebellion of An Lu-shan
Imperial expansion extended until 751 AD when the Chinese lost to Arab Moslems at the Battle of Talas. This was a crucial battle because it caused the Chinese to pull back. The loss of the outermost provinces weakened the Tang emperor Xuanzong. This brought on the rebellion of An Lushan which brought the Chinese borders back to the Great Wall and caused a gradual decline of Imperial power that lasted for 150 years.
683 AD
______________ Mongolia, came under the control of Kyrgyz in 840. Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang
Arab general Qutaiba ibn Muslim had crosses the Amu Darya (Oxus River) in 711, and captures Bukhara. Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang

683_AD The Arab general Qutaiba ibn Muslim captured Samarkand in 711. Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang
early 8th century AD "The word Tatar appears in the Kultigin tablets, which were erected in early 8th century AD and are located close to the Orkhon river near the Mongolian border. These tablets were variously discovered. re-discovered and finally deciphered between the 18th and 20th centuries. According to the inscriptions, Tatars were one of the tribes living in the vicinity of the Altai range of Eastern Asia." Paksoy, Crimean Tatars
713 AD '"Arab armies penetrated into Xinjiang and sacked Kashgar" in 713. Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang
740 - 1335 A.D "The "UYGUR EMPIRE" - 740 - 1335 A.D, Founder - Kutlug Bilgekul Khan, Area - Central Asia and Northern Mongolia.". The 16 Great Turkish Empires
751 AD "Chinese power in Central Asia was decisively crushed by the Arabs in 751 at the Battle of Talas, northeast of Tashkent." Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang
prior to the 9 -10th century "The Khazar ruling class seem to have embraced Judaism sometime prior to the 9-10th century." Paksoy, Crimean Tatars
Circa 850 AD Circa 850 - Uighurs, pushed from Mongolia by the Kirghiz establish their Ulus in the Tarim Basin. This lasted until the Uighurs were conquered and assimilated into the Mongol IL in the early 13th century. Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang
932-1212_A.D, "The "KARAHAN" - 932 - 1212 A.D, Founder - Saltuk Bugra Han, Area - All the Trans-Oxus area including the area between the Issyk and Balkash Lakes". The 16 Great Turkish Empires
934 AD "Uighurs adopted Islam under Abdulkerim Satuk Bughra Khan, the ruler of Kashgar, who became a Muslim in 934." Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang
962 - 1183 A.D, "The "GAZNELI EMPIRE" - 962 - 1183 A.D, Founder - Alptekin, Area - The area from the Trans-Oxus to the Ganges River, and from the shores of the Caspian to the steppes of the Pamir. (Total Area - 4,700,000 Km 2)". The 16 Great Turkish Empires
10th century First mention of Turkmen (al Turk-maniyun) by Makdisi in the 10th century. He used the term to refer to the Oguz and the Karluks. The Oguz were located near Isfijab in the mid Syr Darya region. Krader, Central Asia. Page 57. - W. 4
The Oguz adopted Islam in the 10th century under a leader named Seljuk. Krader, Central Asia. Page 57. - W. 4

Early 11th century Early 11th century first Turkic incursions in Armenia. Wagstaff Landscapes Page 184. - W. 4
1040-1157_A.D, "The "SELCUK EMPIRE" - 1040 - 1157 A.D, Founder - Seljuk, Area - At the East, Balkash and Issyk Lakes and the Tarim Derya; At the West, Aegean and the Mediterranean shores; At the North, Aral Lake, Caspian Sea, Caucasian and the Black Sea; At the South, the area including Arabia and the sea Omman. (Total Area - 10,000,000 Km 2)". The 16 Great Turkish Empires
11th century Mahmud al-Kashgari refers to Oguz and Karluks as Turkmen in the 11th century. Krader, Central Asia. Page 57. - W. 5
Turkmen began to be used to mean Oguz exclusively in the 11 century by Gardizi and Baihaqi. Krader, Central Asia. Page 58. - W. 4

"During the 11th century, Kashgarli Mahmut, the author of Compendium of Turkic Dialects , noted that Tatars were living around Otuken, next to the Uyghurs." Paksoy, Crimean Tatars

1077 - 1231 A.D "The "HARZEMSHAH" - 1077 - 1231 A.D, Founder - Kudrettin Mehmet (Harzemshah), Area - Persia, Southern Caucasia, Dagistan, Afghanistan and most of Central Asia. (Total Area - 5,000,000 Km 2)". The 16 Great Turkish Empires

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"751 AD "Chinese power in Central Asia was decisively crushed by the Arabs in 751 at the Battle of Talas, northeast of Tashkent." Dickens, Soviets in Xinjiang "

BS once again

An Lushan was planning his rebellion for ten years before 755, so Talas has little to do with it. In fact, Lushan suffered a huge defeat to the Khitan not long after the Battle of Talas, losing about 60,000 men, and this probably delayed his rebellion plans.

Nonetheless, is it true that the An Lushan rebellion allowed the Arabs to extend their control to Sogdiana (including Tashkent, Samarkand and Bukhara), because the Tang court actually asked for reinforcements from the Arabs?

Its not simply 10 years, there are preludes that he was ambitious even before that. With the central plain's army decreesing in quality during the Tien Bao era when the emperor actually banned military practice at Chang An, making the power of the border troops much greater than the central ones. He also trusted An Lu Shan too much despite warnings, An Lu Shan was able to make so much of the Khitan peril which was not as dangerous as he claim that he got 160,000 troops in Hobei when in early period the garrisons in Hobei was so lightly defended that the governor constantly complains a shortage and was evidence when the Khitans and Tujue was able to make heavy inroads during Wu Zhao's reign. But the breaking point of the rebellion is really when Li Lin Fu died, with him gone the Yang family start to abuse powers and Guo Zong isn't on friendly terms with An Lu Shan.

Common sense alone could easily discard the ridiculous theory of Talas causing An Lu Shan. Do these ignorant internet skimmers actually think a defeat on the far end of the empire could cause the rebellion in the other end? Thats the equivalent of claims that British defeats in Afghanistan would cause the Fall of the British empire, how preposterous. Tang suffered much bigger defeats than Talas, against Saqal in 707 when Saqal cut the Tarim routes as well as against the Tibetans in the late 7th century when the Tang army there is as large as 100,000 opposed to the small 30,000 in Talas of which not all of them are even Tang troops.



"Nonetheless, is it true that the An Lushan rebellion allowed the Arabs to extend their control to Sogdiana (including Tashkent, Samarkand and Bukhara), because the Tang court actually asked for reinforcements from the Arabs? "

No, Bukhara and Samarqand was long under Arab control since 705. Arabs also had Tashkent and Sogdiana but was driven out of it by the Turgis Khan Sulu in 723. They never gained it until well into the Abbasid. Lost it all for a moment in civil war until Mamun regained them.

Ok, I've posted these in A.E. about the origin of An Lu Shan.



First there is the military background, here is whats wiritten on the primary source:

"At the end of Tien Bao(742-756), because there was great peace in the Middle plain, the emperor cultivated the arts of civilization and abandoned military preparation(from within). He had the spear and arrow points melted down in order to weaken the valiant knights of the empire. Thereuopn anyone who carried warlike arms was punished and anyone who kept prophetic books was executed. Anyone who practiced archery cmmited a crime. .....only in the frontier districts were large bodies of troops maintained. In the Middle plains arms and weapons were stored away to show that they would again be used. Men grew to old age without hearing sound of war........When an emergency arose their knees shook and they were incapable of carrying arms. It was no mere case of ill-fourtune that after this rebels took advantage of the situation to revolt"

As can be seen the disarmament policy left the central plains inexperienced in military making An Lu Shan believe the invasion would be successful.

Second their is the political background, this has to do with Li Lin Fu who had tremendous power at the frontier and all the generals were in fear of him, after An Lu Shan was defeated by the kitans and xi in 751, he decided to revenge them with a far larger army of 200,000, He obtained permission from the court to recieve cooperation of the province of Shuo Fang under the command of a turk name A Pu Su,(whom the Qarluqs helped in capture later), A Pu Su feared An Lu Shan and didn't want to join him but was refused, he thus escaped to the west, since the powerful Li Lin Fu was the superior of A Pu Su, Yang Guo Zong and even Ko Shu Han(who fought in Tibet) condemned him, he was forced to resign from the post and died of illness later, this was a significant event in that he was able to balace the power of diffferent generals and An Lu Shan feared him, when he died in 753, Abn Lu shan grew bolder and didn't listen to the new post. An Lu Shan also got much more reiforcement during this period since he exaggerate the power of Kitan thus his power grew steadily until his force went over 200,000 in size.



Third is the economic background, here is a passage taken from Zi Zhi Tong Jian:

At the begining of Kai Yuan(712) the annual frontier expenditurewas approximately 2,000,000 strings of cash. By the end of Kai Yuan(741) it had reached 10,000,000 strings. By the end of Tien Bao(755) it had again increased by four to five million. According to the regulations of the Ministry of War those who take part in defeating the enemy or perform military services are rewarded according to a fixed scale and those who hold offices are one or two in ten. After Tien Bao(742) the frontier generals, relying on their favour, asked for the creation of offices........In every one of the more than 40 commanderies of Kuan fu, shuo fang, He xi, and Lung Yu and the moer than30 commanderies of He bei ther ewere government granaries. The larger ones held 1,000,000 shi, the smaller ones, not less than 500,000 shi. They provided the salaries of officials sent out from court. By the end of Tien Bao they were all exhuasted. Such was the ruin brought upon the empire"

One little problem that I came across during our RPG in Dragon Gate Inn: the date of An Lushan's great defeat by the Khitan has been given as both 751 and 752. In the Jiu Tangshu and Xin Tangshu biographies of Lushan, it's the 8th lunar month of 752. But in the reign chronicle of Xuanzong in the Xin Tangshu, it's given as the 8th month of 751 (one month after Talas), and the Zizhi Tongjian also follows this. I've opted to use the 752 date in the RPG, because the Abusi incident probably took place in late 752, near Li Linfu's death, rather than late 751.

Another problem is the date of the Battle of Talas. The Jiu Tangshu dates it to 748 in its biography of Duan Xiushi, while the Xin Tangshu dates it to the 7th month of 751. The Zizhi Tongjian merely puts it as between the 4th month (when the disastrous first invasion of Nanzhao by Xianyu Zhongtong took place) and the 8th month (when An Lushan's Khitan campaign is said to have taken place) of 751. Does anyone have a better answer?

"I've opted to use the 752 date in the RPG, because the Abusi incident probably took place in late 752, near Li Linfu's death, rather than late 751. "


Another fact showing that Qarluqs are still influenced by Tang is when they turned over Abusi to the Tang when Tang demanded him in 754. He was then executed.


"Another problem is the date of the Battle of Talas. The Jiu Tangshu dates it to 748 in its biography of Duan Xiushi, while the Xin Tangshu dates it to the 7th month of 751. The Zizhi Tongjian merely puts it as between the 4th month (when the disastrous first invasion of Nanzhao by Xianyu Zhongtong took place) and the 8th month (when An Lushan's Khitan campaign is said to have taken place) of 751. Does anyone have a better answer? "

Gao Xian Shi was replaced as the protector general of Xi Yu in 751. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Talas. But he still held great power until defeated by An Lu Shan's army and executed.

In the battle of Talas River, Gao Xianzhi (Tang's Korean-born general) was confident in Tang's 20,000 troops that he commanded to face up to the some estimated 150,000 Arabs/Turks/Tibetans. He had every reason to be confident, they have never been defeated. The battle went well for him in the beginning. But when his 10,000 Turk allies defected to the Arab side, his infantry was cut off from his calvery. The battle was lost. The fact that the Turks defected was likely due to his undilopmatic actions before this battle. That was another story. Anyway, Gao pulled back and escaped with several thousands troops, mostly calvery. No one knows the Arabic causalties, but the fact that they did not chase after Gao indicating their lost was heavy. Some of the left behind infantry men were captured and sold as slaves. An unfortunate event was that a group of papermakers in a caravan were captured. They were tortured and eventually gave up the papermaking secret to the Arabs. Gao Xianzhi died serveral years later. Then An-Shi rebelled and Tang never had a chance to revenge the lost. The battle was significent for central Aisa but less so for China. The battle basically left central Asia to Islam.
One can say that the evil Talaban blowing up the historical Budha statues in Afganishan was a continuation of the effects of that battle.

My heart fell for those captured solders and papermakers as I was reading the story. They never saw their homeland again, such is the evil of wars.

how come the Tang Dynasty did not have the chance to avenge their defeat?

it's Taliban,not Talaban

I am just very impressed by the fact that the Tang 's troops went over the pamirs (altitude 4,600 meter) and they reached out to the north eastern part of the pakistan and invaded ...definitely Chinese civilization was the most advanced in the world at that time.

That army has been pilliging the steppes. That's why there was the battle of Talas to begin with. It's a disgrace of the Han culture.

Gao Xianzhi was actually executed with Feng Changqing for their defeat by An Lushan at Luoyang in early 756. They were killed unjustly by Xuanzong because of some slander made against them, but they had been overconfident befor the battle and perhaps one could say Gao was paying for his rapacious behaviour in Central Asia before Talas.

I'm not sure if this has been mensioned...

Gao Xianzhi was actually from Goguryeo (actually his father).

A pretty balanced (but not completely accurate) article about this battle: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1982...le.of.talas.htm

Thanks for the link. Nice read and very educational.