Talk:Battle of Chaldiran

Be fair!
Iranian king didn’t capture by ottoman Turks. He was escaped by his worriers.


 * It doesnt say that he was captured. It says he was wounded and nearly captured. An Siarach


 * Yep, he kept his throne for ten more years after the defeat at Chaldiran. So be calm, Deliogul 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Size of armies
The newly changed figures - 200k and 50-80k for the Ottomans and Persians respectively - seem far too large. However the projected figures for this battle often vary and to my knowledge there is no definitive figure. Ive had a quick look at the books i have immediately to hand which are "History of Islamic Societies" by Ira Lapidus," Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe" Daniel Goffman, "Medieval Persia" David Morgan and "The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis for figures over Chaldiran and found none although the admission that figures for this battle often vary and that there is no definitive source for them is stated at times. If we're to have any figures at all rather than simply (Unkown) i think we need to have them citing a source so ive stuck the tags up. An Siarach


 * Safavid were not Turkmen. They were from Ardebil (azarbaijan).

Where you are from geographically does not directly affect your ethnicity. The Safavids were Turkic as is attested by numerous historical works. siarach 12:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Safevids especially shah ismail's actions show that they care turkısh ethnıcıty much more than theır rıvals ottomans. the formal language of the safevid empire was changed to Turkısh by Shah Ismaıl however at the same period Ottomans tried to prevent the alevi and shia movements in the eastern anatolia and they became an allied with the sunni kurdish tribes to break the weight of the shia population. as you know turks was the majority of the alevi and shia population ın thıs period. to sum up ottomans actıons and policıes show that they care islamic homojenity more than turkish homojenity. another point that ı want to add ıs the numbers of the army. the number of the ottoman army and the ınbalance of the numbers of the armıes are totally wrong. in the middle age, creatıng and organisıng a 200000 numbered army ıs imposible. selım s grand father mehmed the conquerer achıeved only 70 000 men to capture the constantınople. the age and technology and especially the population of the middle age world make ıt ımposible. please be objective. stop exaggeate the numbers of the ottoman army. bozkurtss.


 * You are completely wrong my friend. Constantinople was conquered by 100,000 Ottoman warriors and it was, in a sense, easier than defeating a dedicated force like Safavids on open field. The key elements of the Ottoman military success were their wealth and ambition to gather such armies. They were out numbered in nearly every big combat (Battle of Chaldıran, Battle of Otlukbeli, Battle of Mohachs etc.) and their technological advantage was great (Safavids were shocked when they saw Janissaries with their Tüfenks -rifles- ). See you, Deliogul 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Justin McCarthy says that Selim sent home half his army, which solved supply problems and removed the elements in the janissaries which could have listened to heterodox views, is this factored into the final number?


 * "In 1515 Selim marched east with some 60,000 men; a proportion of these were skilled Janissaries, certainly the best infantry in Asia, and the sipahis, equally well-trained and disciplined cavalry. [...] The Persian army, under Shah Ismail, was almost entirely composed of Turcoman tribal levies, a courageous but ill-disciplined cavalry army. Slightly inferior in numbers to the Turks, their charges broke against the Janissaries, who had taken up fixed positions behind rudimentary field works." Who's Who in Military History, John Keegan & Andrew Wheatcroft, Routledge (Selim I, p. 268). Lysandros 22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Caroline Finkel lists 100,000 of whom about 12,000 were Janissary Musketeers which might provide some support. She also gives the 80,000 figure for the Safavids. (SSJPabs (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

The Ottoman army could impossible have been less than 100.000 soldiers. The Ottoman sources themselves, claim that Selim counted his army and then learned that he had organized 140.000 soldiers, from which he dismissed 40.000. This makes 100.000. Why should the Ottomans themselves try to lie, to make their army look bigger? It is more rational to think, that they made it look smaller, and more rational to think, that they would try to make the Safavid army look bigger. The same Ottoman source claim that the Safavid army made up 40.000 soldiers. The Safavid wars before Chaldiran, were fought with 10.000-25.000 soldiers. These soldiers were not even from the Iranian lands, but mainly from Anatolia. The Safavids, who were Shi'ites themselves, also gained their support from other Shi'ite groups, therefore highly unprobable to think that the predominantly Sunnis of Iran would like to fight for the Shah. Let us be rational here. The Safavid army size also needs to be sourced! Page number is missing in Roger Savory's work. I made some changes, and they were among others, based on Roger Savory's work! This should not be a place for Ottoman propaganda! (Xizilbash (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Conversion to shi'ism
I am pretty sure that Shah Ismail's defeat at the Battle of Chaldiran did not lead him to proclaim Imamism as the official Safavid religion--that occured much earlier, in 1501, immediately after the establishment of the Safavid state. See The Waning of the Qizilbash By Kathryn Babayan, page 37.


 * You are right. It is why they couldn't form good relations with the Ottoman Empire. Deliogul 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

200,000? You must be crazy. Modern historians estimates the figure is about 60-80,000 for Turkish Empire and 40,000 for Safevid Azerbaijan. In addition to that, Ismail used a scorched earth policy which destroyed almost all Eastern Anatolia. Nobody in the world could supply such an army in that area. And finally, there were no example in classical era of Turkish Empire gathered over 100,000 men. Manpower doesnt determine the army size but geography and settlement sizes. Nobody gathers an army that he cannot supply. And Mehmed II had 70,000 men while besieging Istanbul and that was his upper limit. He never had 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.177.18 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights for World
When Safavid came to power and established The Safavid Empire, one must remember that they were not Iranians and at that time no Human Rights existed for Politics and Politicians. Whatever they and other leaders decided especially in religious matters for their own respective peoples it caused damages to the their own societies and the future. Today we are expriencing changes from traditional och tribal culture caused by these incompotent leaders to modern, democratic and civil values no matter how strong, beautiful or weak they were. Human Rights is the only solution for changes in Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America and once the politics and societies are based on Human Rights, we'll exprience the Freedom.

Good Luck Every Body :=D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iranian Issue (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/safavid/chaldiran.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1638→1555
In the introduction it was claimed that The battle, was just the beginning of 124 years of destructive war between the two Islamic empires that only ended in 1638 with the Treaty of Zohab . I changes the duration, date and the name of the treaty. Now it reads "...41 years of destructive war between the two Islamic empires that only ended in 1555 with the Treaty of Amasya." Actually neither Amnasya nor Zohab was the end of conflict. But the war that involved the battle of Chaldiran ended by 1555. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is it ?
It should be easier than it currently is, for the reader to figure out where this place actually is.Eregli bob (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I needed to use GeoHack to find where the battle was fought, so you do have a point. The battlefield is 10 miles east of the modern Turksih-Iranian border, roughly Norht of East of Lake Van. How would this be best integrated into the article? Or does someone with good knowledge of the area have a better way of describing the location (hypothetical example: "at the top of a valley that empties into Lake Van, 10 miles east of the modern Turkish-Iranian border"). -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

About the tools of war
In the section "Battle" the text reads, "The advanced Ottoman weaponry was the deciding factor of the battle as the Safavid forces, who only had traditional weaponry, were decimated." -- Exactly what does "advanced Ottoman weaponry" & "traditonal weaponry" mean here? I'm guessing that some of the Ottoman infantry had muskets/arqebuses, but I doubt their horsemen had those firearms -- let alone all, due to the cost of these weapons -- while the Safavid had mostly spears, shields & maybe swords. But guesses like this can lead a reader astray; & it a more important consideration would be rather the troops were supplied their weapons by their rulers, or had to provide them themselves. (A combatant could obtain for himself a spear/lance & shield far easier than a firearm at this time.) And wouldn't this be more of a firearms vs. cavalry engagement? Cavalry weren't armed with firearms at this time to the best of my knowledge. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Strengths Not Realistic
Can 12.000 Safavids dear to battle against technologically advanced 60.000 Ottomans? It's not realistic. Besides, source for 12.000 number isn't reliable. The author Sarwar isn't an Ottoman history expert. The numer, 12.000 thousand can not be verified. The Islamic Encyclopedia says the numbers were close to 100.000 for both armies.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit
With no offence intended to the many editors who have worked hard to produce a thorough article, the use of English is not good. If time permits, and if there are no reasoned objections, I intend to give it a thorough copy edit. And go somewhat beyond that to try and improve the flow and sense of the prose.

Let me know if this seems a bad idea, and don't be shy in letting me know if I get something wrong once I start. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Finished. Criticism and suggestions welcomed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of reference to First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua in "See Also" section
I have added reference to the First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua in the "See Also" section. The Battle of Chaldiran was fought a decade before the First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua. The Ottomans made extensive use of cannons and firearms protected by a barricade of carts to win the battle. Babur procured his cannons and firearms from the Ottomans and used the similar tactics to win the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 06:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Adding "First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanua" to the "See Also" section, is at best, wishful thinking and hardly tangential. As Ghatus stated, "Chaldiran is too far fetched". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of artillery and arquebuses
According to Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire, Gábor Ágoston, page 59; AND, I find it highly unlikely that a generalized book like, World civilizations : the global experience, would go into such detail concerning the use of gunpowder weapons by the Safavid Empire. A detail, currently which, can not be confirmed by more detail specific sources(Matthee, Agoston, Mikaberidze, Roy). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "However, it was only after the battle of Caldiran (1514)- where the Safavids faced, for the very first time, the devastating firepower of an enemy - that the Safavid leadership decided to arm its troops with cannons and arquebuses in a more systematic manner and on a much larger scale than had previously been the case."


 * Hi Kansas Bear:. Apologies if I am being slow, but what change are you advocating? The article would seem to be in line with your source:


 * The Ottomans deployed heavy artillery and thousands of Janissaries equipped with gunpowder weapons behind a barrier of carts. The Safavids, who did not have artillery at their disposal at Chaldiran,
 * and I can't see where World civilizations : the global experience is used as a source. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No changes. I removed it after it was added by Ronaldo. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I jumped in too quickly there. Umm. I shall assume goodwill. (By Ronaldo.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No apology needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Taken from my talk page: Why'd you edit my additions to the Battle of Chaldiran Wiki? (Battle of Chaldiran) I looked at the page on the book you said made you disagree with my revision, however after I read it I didn't find anything contradicting what I added. The book on page 59 (link takes you to the page) "Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire" My textbook clearly states on page 467 as I cited... "Because his artillery was still engaged against enemies in far to the east, Ismâ'il hoped to delay a decisive confrontation with the Ottoman forces under the Sultan Selim." Maybe I missed something in the page you provided, but I think the revision should be reverted back to mine as it is accurate. Thanks if you reply. --RonaldoBerg (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Ron ''EDIT: Scroll to page 479, second paragraph. This has line I quoted... although it is a different edition.Page 479 Paragraph 2'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonaldoBerg (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Battle of Chaldiran
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Chaldiran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ismailsafaviiranica": From Ismail I: [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v8f6/v8f665.html Encyclopædia Iranica. ٍIsmail Safavi]  From Safavid dynasty: "Ismail Safavi" Encyclopædia Iranica 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Result of the Battle, not decisive?
I realy wonder of how some editors here say that the outcome of this battle was not decisive, even though the begin of the article also clearly says (with source) that it ended in an decisive Ottoman victory. They destroyed the Persian army and even occupied the capital of the Persians, so how is this not a decisive victory? Take also in note that the Shia uprisings declined after this battle and that they took quite a lot of land in eastern Anatolia and Mesepotamia Ottomanwarrior12991923 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)