Talk:Siege of Bukhara

Comments

 * Please trim the Background to a couple of sections or even less. Most of it is absolutely irrelevant to the topic.
 * Will do that soon.✅


 * Pop-histories from Da Capo Press, Fall River Press etc. are better not used.
 * Lonely Planet is a no-go territory.
 * greatest manoeuvres in history - Exaggeration.
 * Will try and find better sources. ✅
 * The Da Capo book has been republished by Hachette, however. As for the quote, I don't think so. Martin has it as "one of the masterstrokes of war"; McLynn has "one of the greatest exploits in all military history ... a strategist of genius"; Sverdrup quotes Liddell Hart ("Rarely, if ever, in the history of the world has the principle of surprise been so dramatically or completely fulfilled" and compares the campaign as a whole to Napoleon's Ulm/Jena exploits.


 * As far as I see, Rossabi has nothing on our subject. The connection is tortuous and derives from orig. research.
 * How so? He explicitly provides a number cap of 200,000.✅ — other citation link deleted


 * Stubbs is a freelancer who has a keen interest in history and there does not exist any reason to use such questionable sources.
 * Sources extinguished. ✅


 * they had also guaranteed certain surprise through the use of scouting screens - No. This is an explicit speculation by Martin.
 * Good point, should I cut that completely or explicitly say 'speculated'? ✅ in any case


 * one historian has suggested - How is this work from about a hundred and twenty five years ago DUE? Histories of that era is littered with errors of omission and commission.
 * What does DUE mean?
 * Most historians consider this unlikely - There is nil evidence that other historians have found Barthold's hypothesis worthy of a rebut.\
 * Sverdrup rebuts at p.153 The Mongol Conquests; I found the initial rebut somewhere else, so that's at least two historians.


 * More later. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)