Talk:Withdrawal through Andalal (1741)

Inconsistency with reputable sources
I cannot find a single source amongst the primary or secondary material on Nader Shah's campaigns which state he lost a single set piece battle in Dagestan. According to these sources every single battle that was fought ended in a decisive Persian victory. After withdrawing from a siege of the last remaining Lezgi castle, and heading back to his base of operations his rear guard and the flanks of his column came under sporadic raids and partisan attacks. Ambushes of isolated units are not battles.

The only two sources which identify a "battle of Andalal" are the following: https://books.google.nl/books?id=cAYhAQAAMAAJ&q=nader+shah+andalal&dq=nader+shah+andalal&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAWoVChMI4Nv8_vmVyQIVg2APCh0sNgMf

and

http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/heroic-resistance-of-the-aguls-against-iranian-conqueror-nader-shah-in-the-first-half-of-the-18th-century

The first one is not a primary source. It is not even a secondary source about Nader Shah's campaigns or even a military history. The second one is pseudo-nationalist propaganda with an incredibly overt bias. (Rather amusingly the title is "HEROIC RESISTANCE OF THE AGULS AGAINST IRANIAN CONQUEROR NADER SHAH IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 18TH CENTURY" and then the text tops in both tone and bias).

Overall there is no credible historiography which says that Andalal was even a battle, there are numerous accounts which directly contradict this by saying that all the pitched battles ended in decisive Persian victories and so the Lezgis and their allies kept to guerilla warfare. The second source even mentions that myths and legends and folklore have become common place in the cultures of the north Caucasus concerning Nader Shah's invasion. It seems the battle of Andalal is a figment of their imagination as it certainly isn't part of any established historiography around Nader Shah's campaigns! Parsa1993 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , hey, yes there ain't much to be found about it. I just thought about creating it and then finishing it alongside other users. There's some other stuff to be found on the Russian wiki about it, but it's difficult. I will both ping Kansas Bear and Doug Weller as they both have access to JSTOR (which makes them able to check virtually every source there is, and should be able to help us clearing our doubts. Maybe we should AFD it even if it's not established.


 * Doug and KB if you happen to read this, is there even something to be found about a pitched battle in Dagestan between Nader Shah and the Dagestanis (Avars, Lezgins, etc) or were it only small skirmishes? Thanks much for your efforts in advance. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After checking google books, the two sources there are written by a journalist and a member of a Folklore society, I found this one source on JSTOR:


 * "The Circum-Caspian Areas within the Eurasian International Relationships at the Time of Peter the Great and Nadir-Shah Afshar, N. A. Sotavov, Iran & the Caucasus, Vol. 5 (2001), p 98; "''However, the Shah failed to resolve that objective. Although in the summer months of 1741 the Iranian troops occupied the area of flatland and piedmont Dagestan, they were still severely defeated in the gory battles at Andalal in late September. As admitted by Mirza Mehdi-Khan, the historiographer of Nadir, the Andalal land had become "the disaster area", where the warriors of the Shah fell an easy prey to the enemy. By the authoritative opinion of the same Sardadvar, "this great troop commander has never seen whatever occasion where an adversary could dispose of him in such a way". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's the problem, only general histories of the area which reference the legends of the people and the folklore refer to a "battle". All the other sources used in the established historiography do not talk of a set-piece battle of any kind. All that we have are accounts which reference ambushes and raids on the withdrawing Persian columns and isolated units in the region of Andalal. As Mirza Mehdi-Khan's Jahangosha-ye Nader is quoted above; "it became the disaster area" for Nader's forces. Also there were no mentions of Nader Shah "fleeing to the mountains" as it was a controlled withdrawal to Derbent which was harassed by light cavalry.

Overall we must do our best to distinguish between established historiography and nationalistic accounts which contain legends, myths and folklore. Not to mention a plethora of sources, including Axworthy, who state explicitly that Nader Shah's only battlefield defeat was Samarra, as well as numerous accounts of the campaigns attesting to the fact that all the pitched battles ended in costly tactical defeats for the Caucasian tribes and this was the reason they never engaged in any more set piece battle later in the campaign (see Axworthy, Floor and Tucker as modern sources in conjunction to the primary sources). I'd be interested in what the other editors thought about changing the title of the article to something like "folklores & legends of Andalal" or something which reflected the nature of the sources as well as the historiography more accurately. Parsa1993 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The fate of the article
&, Given the extensive problems with both the title of the article and especially the content which is drawn from dubious and non-specialist sources, (none of the established works in the historiography of Nader's campaigns, both primary & secondary, are used, chiefly since they are inconsistent with or outright contradict the content of the article) we should discuss whether to delete the article entirely, or (as is my preferred option), turn the article into a non-historical article with clear admission to the fact that it is drawn from legends and folk-tales surrounding actual historic events, in this case Nader's invasion of the Caucasus. In the latter case we should rename the article something like "Caucasian legends/folklore on Nader Shah's invasion of Dagestan". Does anyone have any suggestions with regard to a new title for the article? Parsa1993 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "the content which is drawn from dubious and non-specialist sources.."


 * "As admitted by Mirza Mehdi-Khan, the historiographer of Nadir, the Andalal land had become "the disaster area", where the warriors of the Shah fell an easy prey to the enemy."
 * Clearly Mirza is not a dubious source and N.A. Sotavov writings have been used extensively by other academics.
 * Therefore, there is a viable reliable source(s) stating there was a battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I concur with Kansas Bear. (thanks much once again for your prompt response) The article should definitely stay. We have to solve the last issue however, and that's the additional sourcing part. I could look into some Russian historiography, but my Russian is kinda rusty nowadays, so I would like to avoid any extensive translating by myself. I would like to further finish the article, but I don't have access to other sources, incl. the ones KB just briefly quoted. Can we find a solution for that? - LouisAragon (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * &, Mirza Mahdi does not make any mention of any pitched battles. Even Sotavov does not say there was "a battle" of Andalal but "...in the gory battles at Andalal...", the plural clearly shows that he is not referring to a set-piece battle but instead referring to the series of harrying attacks on the withdrawing Persian columns. Mirza Mahdi's account is in line with all the other histories of the campaign which state the Persian columns came under heavy raids during the withdrawal, I take it one of the harder areas of retreat was Andalal were many of the raids would have taken place. There are still no credible histories of the campaign of Dagestan which state there was a set-piece battle and Axworthy, which is much more credible in this field, directly contradicts this by saying the Lezgis avoided set-piece battles entirely after suffering devastating defeats early on. Also he makes very clear that the only battlefield defeat by Nader was at Samarra. There is a difference between set-piece battles and a series of harrying attacks on disengaged and withdrawing columns which cause heavy casualties. Why isn't anyone directly engaging with these issues which I have raised repeatedly? Please read my entire comment and address the points. Parsa1993 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Even Sotavov does not say there was "a battle" of Andalal but "...in the gory battles at Andalal...", the plural clearly shows that he is not referring to a set-piece battle but instead referring to the series of harrying attacks on the withdrawing Persian columns."
 * Yeah, that's you interpreting what Sotavov is saying, you do not know what he is or is not referring too.
 * "Mirza Mahdi does not make any mention of any pitched battles."
 * Per Sotavov, "...the Andalal land had become "the disaster area", where the warriors of the Shah fell an easy prey to the enemy." Does not sound like a tea party.
 * So Nader was severely defeated, but not in a battle.....
 * Now this is interesting;


 * "This turnabout in the Shah's policy was stipulated by extensive planning to conquer the Central Asia, Afghanistan and India, without however changing his stregic designs in the Caspian-Caucasian direction. That is corroborated by the multiple instructions by the Shah to his brother Ibrahim-khan and Iranian adherents in the Caucasus to secure "peace and quiet" in thsoe regions so as to acquire the littoral up to Astrakhan. The Iranians, however, failed to pacify that land. The Iranian troops dispatched for this purpose in Summer 1738 led by Ibrahim-khan were exterminated completely. The Iranian defeat and the death of Ibrahim-khan could have unfavourable interior and international aftermath. It was not accidental that following the Indian campaign the Shah gazed more and more frequently toward the Caspian and Degestan standing in the way of his hegemonic designs towards Astrakhan and the Crimea. That is confirmed by the specific task set to the high command at a reception honouring the victorious completion of the military campaign in the East:"To enter the Kingdom Kumukh with innumberable troops and put a new earmark upon that country. That earmark will spread fire all over the world." As told by a contemporary called Muhammad Kazim, following that encounter, "the army start to move and, passage after passage, it moved towards Dagestan." The culmination of those policies was the third campaign of Nadir Shah in May 1741 at the head of a 100-thousand-men army. By this, according to Sardadvar, a contemporary Iranian historian, the Shah intended not only to take revenge on the highlanders for the death of Ibrahim-khan, his brother, as he openly declared, but to show his military might to both Russia and Turkey. [paragraph already quoted''] The route of Nadir-Shah in Dagestan, having not only the local but also an international significance, was very telling upon the policies of the opposing parties. The highlanders' struggle for liberation subverting the basis of the Iranian domination in the Caucasus was coincidental with the strategic objective of the Czarist regim in the region and enjoyed sympathy on the part of St. Petersburg, becoming an important factor of rapprochement between the Russian policy makers and the Caucasian land owners.
 * So this so-called "non-battle", involved Nadir Shah's "100,000 man army" being "severely defeated", "routed", as well as having "an international significance". Interesting.
 * LouisAragon,
 * Ramazan Gadzhimuradovich Abdulatipov, is a politician not an historian, thus not a reliable source.
 * "The heavenly rose-garden: a history of Shirvan & Daghestan", appears to be a reliable source.
 * I.G. Ibragimov appears to have a wide range of writings, not sure he's an historian.
 * Lawrence Lockhart is an historian, but we need the name of the book/journal for verifiability. I have not checked the other sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are referring to the strategic consequences of the entire war as a whole, not this particular "battle". It seems you do not understand the difference between a battle and a war or campaign. If you read what I wrote on the talk page of Nader's Dagestan campaigns you would see that I unreservedly take the position that it was a great defeat on behalf of the Persian Empire. You again refused to address my points with regard to Axworthy as well as the established histories of the campaigns. Sotavov clearly doesn't make any mention of a set-piece battle and the context, as well as understanding the other sources, which you don't, makes abundantly clear that these were the harrying attacks on a Persian army already in withdrawal. Mirza Mahdi also makes no mention of a set-piece battle, you avoid this issue, instead because of not actually having read his work, you mistakenly take his description "disaster area" to apply to this "battle" (which he makes no mention of), whereas in fact he was addressing the result of the withdrawal of the Persian army through Andalal, after ending the siege of the last Lezgi stronghold. Yet you are the one talking about "interpretations" and OR. Furthermore, the "battle" didn't involve 100,000-150,000 men, that was the total number involved in the entire theatre of operations, but I shouldn't be surprised since you cannot make the simple distinction between a battle and a campaign. When Napoleon invaded Russia with 500,000+ men, were all the battles in the campaign fought with 500,000 Frenchmen under Napoleon's command? I can only present arguments, I cannot however, force the intellectually deficient amongst us to somehow understand them when they clearly do not even comprehend the very basics of military history, for example the difference between battles and wars. There is nothing more to be said on the issue and please don't be offended because of my insinuations regarding your level of intelligence, or rather the lack of it. I'm merely making the factual observation that you are unable to distinguish between a battle and a war. Parsa1993 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "It seems you do not understand the difference between a battle and a war or campaign."
 * Campaigns consists of battles, last time I checked.
 * "Furthermore, the "battle" didn't involve 100,000-150,000 men..."
 * How do you know how many men were in the battle, that you say did not occur?
 * "Yet you are the one talking about "interpretations" and OR."
 * No, I am taking exactly what Sotavov states. Nothing more. I never said there were 100,000 men in the battle, I said, "involved Nadir Shah's 100,000 man army", granted he may have lost some, but to a nit-picking intellectually challenged plagiarist, I'm sure that slipped right by you.
 * "I'm merely making the factual observation that you are unable to distinguish between a battle and a war."
 * What battle?? You have said there was no battle! Having trouble keeping up?
 * And since you have chosen to issue your 2nd personal attack direct against me, guess that shows you don't have any source(s) to support your opinion(s).
 * Considering you used Kaveh Farrokh as a source throughout numerous articles, you are clearly in no position, intellectually, to be judging anyone. So, regardless of what your opinion is, if Sotavov says "battles", plural, then there had to have been at least one battle ! As for Axworthy, when half his book is non-viewable concerning 1741 via google books, I won't be taking the opinions of a plagiarist.
 * AND, your Nader's Dagestan Campaign section 1741 is unsourced, unless we take into account that you plagiarized it!!!
 * From the blog:


 * "The next campaign took place in Dagestan in 1741 and has on the pretext of punishing those who killed his brother. Nader recruited for the occasion 150,000 soldiers from all parts of Iran, but also Afghan warriors, Tatars and Uzbeks. Many Dagestan tribes left without a fight. But Lezghians decided to defend themselves. Nader had first send 10,000 mounted musketeers led by Mir Alam Khan Khazime, Esmail Beig Minbâshi and Zaman Beig Minbâshi Mashhadi to combat Lezghians. However, they failed to defeat the 30.000 Lezghian Musketeers. Nader then ordered Rahim Khan Uzbek and his troupe composed between 10.000 and 11.000 musketeers from different tribes to come as reinforcements. Together, they devastate the Lezghian army, killing 5,000 men. The rest of Lezghians took refuge in the mountains."
 * From the article:


 * "Nader recruited for the occasion 100,000-150,000 soldiers from all parts of Iran, but also Afghan warriors, Tatars and Uzbeks. Many Dagestan tribes came south to Nader's camp to submit and pay tribute, though others prepared for resistance. Nader first sent 10,000 mounted Tofangchi led by Mir Alam Khan Khazime, Esmail Beig Minbâshi and Zaman Beig Minbâshi Mashhadi to subdue the Lezgis. However, they failed to defeat the 30,000 Lezgi warriors, most of whom were musketeers, and were driven back. Nader then ordered Rahim Khan Uzbek and his troop composed between 10,000 and 11,000 Tofangchi from different tribes to reinforce the engaged Persian troops. Together, 'they devastated the Lezgi army, killing 5,000 men. The rest of Lezgis took refuge in the mountains."
 * AND, the 2nd paragraph is completely unsupported;


 * "Nader eventually reached the last fortress of the Lezgis in northern Dagestan and laid siege to it. But because of the early arrival of winter and outbreak of disease as well as the difficult logistical situation Nader chose to withdraw. This could also have been due to Nader's deteriorating health which made the climate more insufferable. Nader's columns was constantly harassed on their way south and Nader could not bring the Lezgis to commit in a set piece battle despite trying to do so numerous times. The Persian army suffered great casualties and many of the tribes which had initially submitted to Persian suzerainty rebelled again. It was during this campaign that an attempted assassination of Nadir Shah failed. Suspecting his eldest son, Mirza Rezâ gholi, took out his eyes."
 * meaning it's just your opinion, by the blog you plagiarized except for Nader removing Mirza Rezâ gholi's eyes.
 * "my insinuations regarding your level of intelligence, or rather the lack of it"
 * Coming from an insulting plagiarist, I could care less what you think. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Amusing response, however, still no better or coherent. Besides, my observation that you can't distinguish between battles and wars has no bearing on whether I think there was a "battle" or not. I don't expect you to understand, even now that I've explained it. You can't even remain consistent on the numbers you think were involved, or perhaps you are confused still between what a battle is and what a campaign is. For you to still mention the 100,000 figure which the quote you gave made clear was regarding the campaign of 1741 in your comments about the alleged battle, shows beyond doubt, that even now you can't really differentiate between the two. truly astonishing! It seems all this has effected a rather emotional response from you. Oh dear.... Parsa1993 (talk) 06:16, 19 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