Talk:Battle of Krtsanisi

Sources?
What is the source for casualties stated on this tab? It is rather strange that a numerically superior, rather professional, and by all accounts better armed army suffers a loss of almost 30% at the hands of a small militia, which was almost annihilated. Logically speaking, each Georgian militia man should have taken two Persian soldiers before dying. Legends aside, such things do not happen unless one side posseses a superior technology, like fire arms. In this case, actually Persians had fire arms (limited) and Gerogians did not. I think the numbers need revising. mrjahan Nov 3rd, 2006.


 * While the numbers indeed need to be checked, I must say that Georgians actually had fire arms and quite well organized artillery. After the fall of Tbilisi, Agha Muhammad Khan did not execute captive Georgian artillery officers and took them in Persia where they were compelled to serve in the shah's army. --Kober 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Putting it simply, I can not believe the numbers. It looks like one of those propaganda pieces that losing sides put out there as history and keep repeating. It sounds like "yes, we got our butts kicked, but you know what son? We were twice the man they were!!!" Out of a "militia" force of 5000 (losing 3-4 thousand by the end of the day), how many possibly could have been regular, trained soldiers? Or else, the information is wrong: it should read like "Georgians fielded a small but well-armed and professional army of 5000". This I can believe. So, which story should be out there? You decide. --mrjahan 6:30 PM, November 5, 2006 (UTC)


 * Who told you they were militias ? The Battle of Krtsanisi is known as a phyrric Persian victory against a small force of loyalists, who were well trained and skilled warriors and not militias. Georgia almost allways relied on a small professional force. BTW Georgia used muskets much much ealier than the persians, in a very large amount, they built them themselves and used them against enemys since the 15th century. So I am very sure that the Persians even had a great disadvantage in this point. It was 1787. Nearly every georgian warrior carried at least one musket and a few pistols along with his saber and daggers. If not mounted, than on ground and in this case, the georgians had to hold several strategic locations near and around Tbilisi. I think a death ratio of 4-1 for the persians is very typical for that time period, because they lacked on effective amount of small arms like muskets. They just had a smaller amount and the persian regular was equipped with very limited amunition. Besides that, their artillery never outnumbered the georgian artillery, which was decisively effective on elevated positions, though not decisive for the end result

Just dropping some sources here
Just dropping some more sources here that specifically state that Georgia and Tblisi were (re)conquered, apart from the latter being sacked, which was already stated in the article.

I can post more if needed, but I'm sure that Yarshater and Axworthy are sufficient. Overwise its kinda overkill, placing 5+ sources.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)