Talk:Nader Shah's Dagestan campaign

Requested move 13 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over a week and restoring the status quo. Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nader's Daghestan campaign → Nader's Dagestan campaign – Hello. The region is commonly spelled Dagestan not Daghestan. Otherwise the contemporary article called Dagestan, which is the exact same region part of Russia would be called "Daghestan" too. We don't use alternate names for articles, (which falls partly under WP:COMMONNAME). Furthermore all contemporary and most historical sources refer to it as Dagestan as well, not Daghestan. Daghestan = 390.000 hits, Dagestan = 997.000 hits. Anyway, I can't move the article manually back and the creator of this page changed it to "Daghestan" without a consensus or a factually correct rationale. It has to be moved to "Nader's Dagestan campaign", which is currently a redirect and I can't change it all back manually, thus I had to open this section. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Result?
I personally think there is a compelling argument to be made for writing "Decisive Persian defeat". This is because of the costs of the campaigns in terms of military personnel, financial levies, political instability due to the surprising withdrawal of the Persian army etc. I think it's irrelevant that the Lezgis were decimated in every single set-piece battle that they fought as we are not discussing the tactical outcome of individual battles but rather debating the end result of what was in essence a war. I think it's also irrelevant that the majority of Persian casualties were due to the harsh climate coupled with the impossible logistical situation and outbreaks of disease. I mention these things because there seem to be people in every discussion which confuse the decisiveness of a war's outcome with things like the tactical outcome of battles, the nature of the casualties suffered and so on and so forth. I believe we can demonstrate the decisiveness of the Persian defeat through the fact that they failed to achieve their intended goal and furthermore this failure led to (or at least plaid a part in) significant political events within the Persian Empire such as revolts and uprisings.

This reminded me of the debate as to what should be the stated result in the template of the article on Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The circumstances are eerily similar. A great and talented commander launches an invasion with overwhelming numbers and despite gaining a series of empty tactical victories, is forced to retreat due to his enemy's refusal to commit to any further set piece battles as well as the adverse effects of the challenging climate and outbreak of disease in the ranks of his men. People just did not want to admit that the French defeat was decisive. Whether it was because of nationalistic or patriotic sentiment (which most people deny having despite quite obvious evidence to the contrary) or simply because their beloved military genius, Napoleon, (or in this case Nader), had been soundly beaten and as admirers, they had a hard time admitting it, perhaps just as much as the historic conquerors did themselves!

I confess to feeling rather bitter as I went through the sources for the Dagestan campaign, as I am both an Iranian as well as an admirer of Nader. There is a prejudice here which I cannot rid myself of since it is too deeply ingrained, its roots too firmly taken hold in my mind. It took significant internal wrangling before I convinced myself that the evidence shows the thing I dread in this, and let's face it, in any wiki article most. That three word sentence in the result section of the template, "Decisive Persian defeat". I suppose I'm wondering if anyone else has had a good look at the primary and secondary sources who feels the same. Perhaps more importantly is there anyone who has studied the these sources and feels the exact opposite?

In any case I have not come across any primary sources or (reliable) secondary sources which state explicitly the result as a "decisive" anything; they talk of victories or defeats in purely tactical terms with as pertaining to the battles, but no general assessment of the wars as a defeat. I think if we put in a result which was not clearly mentioned in at least several reputable and valid sources, it would constitute O.R. (original research), so until we find that crucial phrase "decisive" in one of the documents we should hold off on changing the result in the template.

Quite soon I'll have a dissertation out which will examine the result of the Dagestan campaigns in which I will aim to demonstrate the seriousness of the Persian defeat. Until then I don't think any academic sources are going to be around stating the outcome of this conflict in clear unambiguous terms. Then we can revisit this article. Parsa1993 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Lak People v2.svg