Talk:Siege of Baghdad

Battle of Baghdad?
Shouldn't this be Sack of Baghdad or something similar? There seems to have been some actual battle involved, but this article is really on the whole campaign, which mostly consisted of an advance, a siege, and a sack. As such, I think Sack of Baghdad or Mongol Sack of Baghdad would be a better title for this article. john k (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that we don't have Battle of Constantinople (1453) or Battle of Rome (1527), for some analogous situations. john k (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title needs to be changed. I've read dozens of books about the Mongols, and the event generally isn't referred to as a "Battle".  Instead it's "The Fall of Baghdad" or "The Sack of Baghdad", "The Conquering of Baghdad", or "The Destruction of Baghdad."  I looked through titles at http://scholar.google.com, and based on a quick look, "Fall" and "Sack" are the preferred titles. If I had to choose, I'd probably lean towards "Fall of Baghdad (1258)" as being one of the most neutral, but I could go with "Sack of Baghdad" too.  The word "Sack" is stronger and somewhat more emotional, but it's definitely well-sourced. --Elonka 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We have several Sack of Rome articles - for 387 BC, 410, 455, 846 (somewhat dubiously), 1084, and 1527. On the other hand, for Constantinople it's Fall of Constantinople.  But Baghdad seems definitely like a sack - the Mongols were certainly more vicious than the Visigoths in 410, or than the Arabs in 846, in terms of mass destruction.  If we're going to have any articles entitled "Sack of X", this one seems like a good candidate. john k (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. So, "Sack of Baghdad (1258)" ?  Or just "Sack of Baghdad"?  --Elonka 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Timur appears to have sacked Baghdad again in 1401, but I think this might be a primary topic. What's your thought?  john k (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is there an article on the 1401 event? Also, what is being used for the current-event actions? --Elonka 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sack" is such a loaded word... It is also rather limitative: the "sack" was only one of the phases of the siege itself, which is the subject of the article here. I think we should use a broader and more neutral title such as Fall of Baghdad (1258). PHG (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the same is true of all the other articles called "sack." I wouldn't especially object to Fall of Baghdad (1258), but I'd prefer "Sack". john k (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't the name changed? 68.4.127.102 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Extreme plundering of Baghdad as a Military Tactic?
I do not see the extreme sacking of Baghdad as a military tactic. What about the looting and destruction of the House of Wisdom (i.e the Great Library of Baghdad), does it have any military significance over the next Mongolian military campaigns? The Mongols tended to plunder a city for it's wealth, not concerning the next and possible future use of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.60.197 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While what you say is basically true, massacres WERE used as a military device by the Mongols - they hoped that the spread of the news would terrify the populations of future areas of conquest so that they would submit without a fight in order to save their lives and property. The effectiveness of such measures is, of course, debatable.  It didn't work in Hungary, where large battles ensued that resulted in the virtual annihilation of the Hungarian army and their Cuman allies.  And the morality of these actions is pretty clear. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
 * I think it was just the application of the relatively extreme values of a very tough people who had grown up in a harsh, vengeance based society on the steppes to civilization. On the steppes, when someone lost, they were liquidated. That's just how it was. I don't think the Mongols ever got together in a tent and had a great intellectual debate about the military effectiveness of these tactics. Likely, that's just a retroactive interpolation by later historians trying to rationalize the abject horror of the matter.68.19.231.55 (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they did. This is verified in Reliable Sources. The early Mongol Empire had very good generals, and tactics were regularly discussed and observations of battles later re-evaluated. This is beyond dispute. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Status
I have been working on this article lately, and expect to be intermittently revising/restructuring until next weekend or so, given a GA review that may get in the way. I will remove the tag by Thursday if work is progressing slowly. dci &#124;  TALK   00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Guo Kan
Guo Kan was a son of the Chinese commander Guo Baoyu who served the Mongolian Empire. He and his family served the Mongols and was usually in charge of Chinese artillery and troops recruited under the banner of the Mongolians. They had never been major military commanders. If we need to mention every sub-commanders, the article simply cannot contain it, so that I removed his name. But his name can be mentioned in the article along with other Mongolian officers.--Lauren68 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Historian
An Arab historian said, "The Moslems, being few, were defeated." Before that, we were told that military victory was proof of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.116.118 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

updating article for better sources
While Ian Frasier's New Yorker article is fine for a life-style magazine, he's hardly a scholar of Mongolic/Persian studies, as his intro to the cited article states. We can do much better.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added some material and will tighten the prose a bit.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; note that this doesn't preclude another RM on a different title such as "Fall of Baghdad", it merely established that of the two options "Siege of Baghdad (1258)" and "Siege of Baghdad", the better title is the latter. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Baghdad (1258) → Siege of Baghdad – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of long-term significance and in terms of usage. In the first case, it is a level-5 vital article and one of the most famous battles in Muslim history, traditionally seen as the end of the Islamic Golden Age. This is shown by the usage statistics: this article gets an average of around 935 views per day, compared with an average of 20 per day for the other sieges of Baghdad throughout history.

AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  Reading Beans  07:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "1258" is as important as "siege of Baghdad". I don't see much of an improvement in removing it from the title in favour of the ho-hum title "siege of Baghdad", which is the kind of thing one just assumes there have been several of. This is especially so since one is as or more likely to find the events of 1258 called the "fall of Baghdad", "sack of Baghdad" or "capture of Baghdad" as siege. Srnec (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Cautious oppose There are 6 sieges of Baghdad with articles on Wikipedia, another 3 red links, plus several battles of Baghdad, I feel cautious about deciding there is a primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - By far the most significant siege of Baghdad, as reflected by the page view statistics mentioned above. A fair deal of literature on the subject simply refers to it as the "siege of Baghdad". Generalissima (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom & per Generalissima. I think it's fair to judge this as the primary topic for the phrase, and add a hatnote at the top of the article. sawyer  * he/they *  talk  05:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Given the heavy page view statistics, I think we have to conclude this is by far the most significant and primary of the sieges. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Noting that I initially closed this as "moved" but am reopening it per a request from . Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I dispute the claim above that a fair deal of literature on the subject simply refers to it as the "siege of Baghdad". Yes, but a much larger share refers to it in other ways. Even if the siege of 1258 were the primary topic for "Siege of Baghdad", that alone does not indicate that that should be the title of the article. My argument was precisely that "Siege of Baghdad" does not rise to the level of a recognizable name on its own because of alternative contenders like "fall", "sack" and "capture". For example:
 * 258 GScholar hits for "siege of baghdad" + "1258"
 * 1,340 GScholar hits for "fall of baghdad" + "1258"
 * 276 GScholar hits for "capture of baghdad" + "1258"
 * 678 GScholar hits for "sack of baghdad" + "1258"
 * So, in short, I'm not disputing the relative importance of the 1258 event but the wisdom of dropping "1258" from the title. Finally, compare the pageviews given by the nominator with |Siege_of_Baghdad_(812%E2%80%93813)|Siege_of_Baghdad_(1733)|Siege_of_Baghdad_(865)|Siege_of_Baghdad_(1136)|Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)|Capture_of_Baghdad_(1534)|Capture_of_Baghdad_(1624)|Fall_of_Baghdad_(1917)|Battle_of_Baghdad_(2003) these. I swapped out the Battle of Baghdad (946) for the Battle of Baghdad (2003), which, as the lead says, is also called the "fall of Baghdad" (and I could produce sources calling it a siege). Srnec (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, yes obviously you can use synonyms to describe the events of 1258—this very article uses two of them.
 * In non-specialist literature, the angle taken will nearly always be on the fall of the city (because of the perceived relationship to the end of the Islamic Golden Age) or the sack (because of the infamy traditionally surrounding it). You can see these in the GScholar links.
 * And let's be honest, you cannot refer to what actually happened in Baghdad in 2003 as a "siege"—both sides may have initially planned for it to be one, but that illusion didn't last long. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is pretty annoying... the move was already made, the evidence is crystal clear, most particularly in terms of this being far and away the most sought article with this title. Not sure what the fuss is about to be honest. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The most popular "siege of Baghdad" it is. But is "siege of Baghdad" the common name? It is not. The evidence is crystal clear that "siege" is not the most popular name for this event. It is behind "fall", "sack" and "capture". The issue is not that there are synonyms for 'siege of Baghdad' but that they are far more common than 'siege of Baghdad'. You cannot wave it away as "non-specialist literature", as if the pageviews are a result of people reading the specialist military history. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * if you think "Siege of Baghdad" is not the most common name, why haven't you suggested moving to an alternative title? e.g. Fall of Baghdad (1258)? If this was proposed and strongly evidenced, I could probably get behind it... But as long as it remains at a variant of Siege of Baghdad, then the 1258 qualifier is unnecessary. It's the clear primary topic among topics with that name, and the more sought-after events such as 2003 are in no sense referred to as a siege. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that as long as it remains at a variant of Siege of Baghdad, then the 1258 qualifier is unnecessary. Nothing is gained by removing the date, no matter what the guidelines say. Nothing. This is not THE siege of Baghdad. It is a siege of Baghdad. The most famous and consequential one, yes, but dropping the date will not make it more recognizable. Srnec (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "no matter what the guidelines say"? Very helpful. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Guidelines exist, but if they harm rather than help readers, then WP:IAR. That too is policy. Walrasiad (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Nothing much has changed since this was reopened. So, I am relisting to get more input. Reading Beans  07:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Nothing much has changed since this was reopened. So, I am relisting to get more input. Reading Beans  07:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are many "Sieges of Baghdad".  This proposal is not helpful to readers and not an improvement. Walrasiad (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To add: you forgot 650 Gscholar hits for "conquest of Baghdad", "1258". If anything is showing a pattern is that "Siege of Baghdad" is perhaps the least common name for this event. Walrasiad (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Seeing a rough consensus for moving, but relisting one more time to allow more comment. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To the relister: I think it has been demonstrated that unadorned "Siege of Baghdad" is not the common name. Srnec (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * then propose an alternative name and let's see the evidence for it. If you don't do so, then your argument in opposing this move is totally irrelevant. Whether or not this is the most common name, it has been established unambiguously that it is the primary topic for the siege of Baghdad variant, so unless and until you propose something else, the move should simply go ahead as per the nomination. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who has a problem with the current name. I don't see a problem in need of fixing, so why would I propose a fix? If an event is called ABCD, with D being the least popular option, and the current title is D (year), the fact that it is the most notable (but not only) event called D does not justify a move to D just because it may not be the most notable event called ABC. A move to A (year) may be an improvement, but it looks like a horizontal move to me if both A and D are fine descriptions of the event. And let's be clear: all the "names" of this event are really descriptions, as is common with military events. In short, I see the current title as a good description of the topic covered by the article. It doesn't have a "name", so choosing "fall" over "siege" is not necessary, and dropping the date doesn't improve it.
 * As for its being the primary topic for the term "siege of Baghdad", pageviews do not show this. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. We do not know what people are searching for to get here. When I do the same GScholar search I did above but excluding mention of the year 1258, I get:
 * 327 hits for "siege of Baghdad" + -"1258"
 * Of course, this doesn't prove that it isn't the primary topic for "siege of Baghdad", but it suggests why it may not be. And we can see what people do when they land on Battle of Baghdad. Srnec (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the current title. It serves its function. It is incumbent on the proposer to prove the case why their proposal would be an improvement.  Walrasiad (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Having reviewed the thread, I'm most persuaded by AirshipJungleman29 and Generalissima. A hatnote at the top of the article would be a better fit than parenthetical disambiguation in the title. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. There's evidence that this is the primary topic for "Siege of Baghdad" both by usage and by long-term significance. The other oppose rationale—that there are potentially other more common names—is worth discussing further, and maybe opening another RM for. Regardless, it doesn't change that this particular move would be an improvement, and a move to something like "Fall of Baghdad" wouldn't change the fact that "Siege of Baghdad" should redirect here (and be mentioned as an alt name). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you spell out why removing the year from the title would be an improvement? I do not understand this view at all. To me, 1258 is the most important component in the current title. More important than "siege" and at least as important as "Baghdad". This article is about an event that, rightly or wrongly, is traditionally treated as a world-changing event, not just another siege. Adding the year(s) to some titles, e.g. Battle of the Bulge, would be positively misleading, but in this case there were other sieges of Baghdad, so I see only benefit in making sure the reader knows this is the big one. Given that it has been demonstrated that the proposed title is NOT the common name, why should we assume readers would understand the short title to refer to the 1258 event? Srnec (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would benefit readers to include all manner of info in titles, Necessary info is present in the lead, and a hatnote will help the few readers that are lost find their way. But our policy is to keep titles concise and not overly disambiguated. This is covered by two parts of the WP:AT policy: WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:CONCISE. I hesitate to go after what is apparently a tangent in your argument, but are you saying you'd prefer "Siege (1258)" over "Siege of Baghdad"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-move comment
In response to : No, I'm saying precisely that I don't see how to choose which of the three terms—"siege", "Baghdad", "1258"—should go, so they should all stay. I just stumbled across a comment from at Talk:Israel–Hamas war: Treating the date as just a disambiguator is missing the forest for the trees: the year is what makes it recognizable as a current event, it's the most important word in the title, it's not just a disambiguator. Obviously, that refers to the Israel–Hamas war, but I think the same thing applies here. Srnec (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Really bizarre move. You're absolutely right. This is a history article. Dates are not gratuitous disambiguators. Historical events are usually much better known by their dates than the wording chosen. "Baghdad 1258" is instantly recognizable. "Siege of Baghdad" is a mystery. I'd be hard-pressed to find a historian who would know what the article was about just by that title alone.  Walrasiad (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Additions of Georgia and Armenia to infobox
There has been a trend of adding "kingdom of Georgia" and "kingdom of Armenia" to the infobox.

Weirdly, these are always copy-pasted from (a presumably Slavic) elsewhere; this is shown by the citations to "Vederford, Dzek (2007) Dzingis Kan i stvaranje modernog sveta", which is in reality the slavicsation of "Weatherford, Jack (2004) Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (in any case, not a truly reliable source: see Timothy May: )

The other two sources are non-English sources I will request a quotation for per WP:RSUEQ. This should be done before the citations are added into the article. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ilkhanate vs Mongol Empire
FYI User:Malik-Al-Hind:

As chronicled in the "Background" section of this article, Hulegu was acting on behalf of his brother Möngke, ruler of the Mongol Empire. Now, the fundamental dispute here is whether Möngke had ordered Hulegu from the start to take the Middle East as his own. That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256, the year Hulegu himself arrived in the region. But crucially, he did not start calling himself "Ilkhan" until after this siege (Atwood 2004 p. 231). In the recent The Mongol World (2022), George A. Lane says this explicitly:. (p. 283) &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256
 * That is enough to mention "Ilkhanate" in the infobox.
 * Because if Ilkhanate rose in 1256, Then they must be mentioned seperately even if they were working for mongol empire.
 * This is why adding "Mongol empire" in the brackets is the best possible conclusion for this. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not enough. Did you read the final sentences ? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read it. But didn't you yourself said that it's disputed whether Hulagu khan conquered these territories on the orders of Mongke khan or not? And this is why scholars date ilkhanate to 1256? The fact that it's disputed.
 * Like I said, Adding ilkhanate with "Mongol empire" in the brackets is the best compromising solution for this since ilkhanate was formed in 1256. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Go back and read . There is no dispute on whether the Ilkhanate was formally established. Every source is extremely clear is that it was formally established after the Siege of Baghdad. We cannot have the infobox say that the campaign was waged by a state which did not exist. Is that clear? If not, please tell me how you can reconcile "The Ilkhanate was established by Hülegü Khan after the fall of Baghdad in 1258" with "ilkhanate was formed in 1256", and back up your argument using reliable sources. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean i literally quoted your own statement where you said
 * Now, the fundamental dispute here is whether Möngke had ordered Hulegu from the start to take the Middle East as his own. That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256
 * But okay. Ilkhanate was literally formed in 1256, There are many scholarly accounts which gives such ratings such as
 * 1)- Clearly 1256-1335 mentioned here.
 * 2)-Here too clearly ilkhanate's time period is mentioned as from 1256
 * 3)- Here as well.
 * The fact that if Ilkhanate started from 1256 as a state, And if it was even fighting for the Mongols, it still should be mentioned seperately with "mongol empire" in the brackets.
 * Moreover Ilkhanate's infobox itself states that it lasted from 1256 to 1335. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If I ask for reliable sources, and you cite Wikipedia itself, a book on Iranian medicine, a 1927 travelogue, and an overview of thrones in the Middle East, it is a clear indication that you do not understand what "scholarly accounts" are. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I have provided sourcing from ultra-reliable, up-to-date specialists in Mongol history. You have typed "ilkhanate 1256" into Google Scholar and expect to be taken seriously. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I literally cited JSTOR, I don't understand how they are not WP:RS. Moreover I didn't "cite" wiki as a 'proof" but rather as an example. Just like how you yourself gave an example from the background section of wiki page here. |1
 * All the sources till now I have cited clearly gives a range of ilkhanate starting from 1256 to 1335.
 * Moreover, If you are still not satisfied. I will continue Citing more sources..
 * 1)-Clearly states the year 1256-1335 by referring to "Ilkhanate" here.
 * 2)- Here as well..
 * 3)- Extremely RS source, clearly states the same year.
 * 4)- Again "Ilkhanate (1256-1335)"
 * 5)-Cambridge source, Clearly ranges ilkhanate from 1256 to 1345 here.
 * 6)-Again the same..

1)-Look what Britanica says.

"Hülegü, a grandson of Genghis Khan, was given the task of capturing Iran by the paramount Mongol chieftain Möngke. Hülegü set out in about 1253 with a Mongol army of about 130,000. He founded the Il-Khanid dynasty in 1256"

-

2)- Ilkhanate was built by Hulagu, the son of Tolui, the fourth son of Genghis Khan. In 1256, IIKhanate was founded. When Kublai Khan called himself the Mongolian Khan, IlKhanate recognized him as the patriarch until his death.

-


 * So I suggest you to let "Ilkhanate" stay there. Even if it is a matter of dispute and if ilkhanate (which started from 1256) was a vassal of Mongol empire for the first 2 years, It still should be mentioned seperately with "mongol empire" in brackets. That's the most we can compromise with. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)