Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Defile/archive1

Battle of the Defile

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The Battle of the Defile was one of the largest and most important battles of the late Umayyad period. Along with the Battle of Marj Ardabil a few months earlier (and arguably the Battle of Tours a year later), it marked the end of Umayyad expansion. The casualties suffered also helped undermine the Umayyad regime, increasing disaffection in Khurasan and removing many of the regime's most loyal forces from the metropolitan regions to the frontier, thus paving the way for the Abbasid Revolution. We are also fortunate to have one of the most complete accounts of a battle preserved in al-Tabari, and we can reconstruct events with more detail than usual for the period. The article was written in 2012, and passed both GA and MILHIST ACR back then, but I've kept working on it since, and I think the time has come to put it forward for FA. Constantine  ✍  14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
A great article. I have a few comments: That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * when mentioning the conquest of Transoxiana by the Muslims, perhaps indicate that this was under the Umayyad Caliphate and link at first mention in the body
 * Good point, done
 * suggest "led to the abandonment of most of Transoxiana by the Caliphate's forces except for the region around Samarkand." rather than the current sentence structure
 * Good point, done
 * might it be better to use Umayyad consistently rather than Muslim or Arab when referring to the army? I initially thought this was a third force, not knowing much at all about early Muslim and Arab history
 * That is a common complaint, I know. I have tried to explain this when introducing the Umayyad Caliphate, although it is somewhat awkward.
 * is there any estimate of what size Junayd's army was when he set off towards Samarkand?
 * Nothing in the sources, AFAIK, and the evidence is scattered. There were 50,000 men sent as settlers when Khurasan was first conquered, but they don't appear to have much increased. Under Qutayba ibn Muslim, there were 47,000 Khurasani Arabs and about 20,000 native levies. Junayd clearly did not have as many available, either because they were sent on other missions, in garrisons (12,000 in Samarkand alone), or simply not called up. But the initial force before the desertions cannot have been much larger than 30,000 men.
 * is there any record of how many Türgesh circled around to attack the baggage train and stragglers near Kish and who their commander was? I assume this wasn't part of the main Türgesh force attacking within the pass?
 * No. The Türgesh are mostly portrayed as the typical faceless horde by the Arab authors, only when the Khaghan or some other senior leader was active did they mention it (and often "the Khaghan" is a stand-in for the Türgesh as a whole). TBH, I doubt the Arabs themselves knew exactly who was attacking them. Tabari merely mentions the Arab commander and that he "suffered martyrdom".
 * link counterattack
 * Done
 * did Sawra survive the relief debacle?
 * No he did not, it is mentioned that he perished in the fire with his companions. Clarified in the text
 * suggest "The events of the Defile"→"The battle"
 * Good point, done
 * should it be Khurasani's rather than Khurasanis'
 * Why? "Khurasani" is an adjective like "German". The sources use "Khurasanis" for the plural throughout.
 * suggest "In the aftermath of the setbacks of this battle"
 * Hmmm, since I give the name of Marj Ardabil next, I prefer to use the name here as well.
 * Suluk is mentioned as the commander of the Türgesh in the infobox, but was he present at this battle? If so, perhaps mention that when the Türgesh force is first mentioned?
 * I can't believe I missed that. Clarified that Suluk was the khaghan.
 * Thanks Peacemaker67, I've addressed the points you raised. If there is anything else, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Link terms and names in image captions.
 * Done.
 * Suluk is duplinked.
 * Done.
 * "in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings, which in turn draws upon the work of the earlier historian Abu'l-Hasan al-Mada'ini, written about a century after the events." Which work does "written about a century after the events" refer to? You could give the time for both works here.
 * Done.
 * I had never seen the word "defile" used in this way before. Is it a synonym of pass? Now it is first used in the article body at "Junayd used the diversion to break through to Samarkand, but as his army exited the defile". Is there a way the term could be used earlier in a context that makes it clearer what it is?
 * Done and linked to wiktionary.
 * It is also a bit confusing that you say both "Defile" and "defile".
 * Capitalized is for the battle, changed to the full name now to avoid confusion.
 * You use Arab and Muslim interchangeably throughout. Were the armies predominantly Arab at this time, or did they not also contain many converts of other ethnicities? For example "the Arab losses at the Defile led to a rapid deterioration of the Muslim position in Central Asia".
 * This is a bit complicated. Indeed, Umayyads, Arabs, and Muslims are used interchangeably, although they are obviously not entirely coterminous. However, this reflects the practice in the sources and is also a way to keep reminding the readers that the Umayyads were an Arab Muslim regime, and that a retreat/advance of the Umayyads also represented a retreat/advance of Islam. The army certainly did contain allied contingents and native converts, but in most cases they are not mentioned except when they had some role to play. For the events described here, allied rulers are completely absent from the sources for the Umayyad army, whether because most native rulers had switched over, or because they were not part of the campaign (Junayd left for Samarkand with the army of the Khurasani Arabs) or because they are ignored. The native converts or mawali are seldom differentiated from the bulk of the Khurasani Arab settlers, chiefly because they were a) subordinate and b) affiliated with the Arab tribes. Also see the note regarding the army's composition.
 * You mention way down in the end that the local Khurasani warriors were also Arabs, I wonder if it should be mentioned earlier, I thought they might have been recruits of local ethnicities until that point.
 * Good point, added a footnote as I couldn't find a good way to segue into a diatribe on that subject in the main body.
 * "This was especially the case with the powerful Syrian army, the main pillar of the Umayyad regime" Maybe it should have been stated earlier that the Umayyads were themselves based in Syria?
 * Good point, done.
 * "to attack the Türgesh in the rear" At/from the rear? "in the rear" reads a bit, err, awkwardly.
 * Indeed, done.
 * "which one of the most detailed accounts of the entire Umayyad era" Only stated this strongly in the intro, which should not have unique info.
 * Very good point, fixed.
 * It is only stated in the intro that the Türgesh were Turkic.
 * Good point, done.
 * It should probably be mentioned in the intro that the aftermath of the battle led to internal turmoil, since this is an important part of the legacy section.
 * Good point, done.
 * Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking the time and for the suggestions. I've tried to address your concerns, please have a look. Constantine  ✍  09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - changes look great, not much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

 * "File:Caliphate 740-en.svg" The description is interesting, and I don't doubt the map's accuracy - but it needs to be based on a verifiable RS.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Phewww, this is problematic. As stated, it derives from Califate 750.jpg, which comes from a RS, namely William Shepherd's atlas. I've also added the two modern atlases I've used, but be advised, this is not lifted directly from any of them. It is a first draft attempt at making a somewhat accurate overview map, and it will change over time, as modifications are made (wiht sources). Right now, it is merely a correction of the more egregious erros of the old Shepherd map (which is reproduced even in modern atlases), but with some corrections (for example, the area around Kabul is shown as not controlled by the Muslims in the Brill atlas, but the Routledge atlas shows it as conquered. The problem is mainly that the early Islamic period is covered in a couple of overview maps in most works, and detail gets lost quickly there.Constantine  ✍  20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. So long as it is tied back to RSs, which it now is. Some interesting divergences from my trusty Muir's, mostly, I suspect, explicable by the factors you outline.


 * All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

 * MOS:BQ states "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." Eg "after the Day of the Defile, many Khurasani tribal surnames never again appear as part of the army in Khurasan, leading one to suppose they had been annihilated or their men had given up fighting. Some Khurasani troops remain, of course, but their divisions are now paralleled by Syrian ones. Thus it appears, particularly from Tabari's emphasis, that the Day of the Defile was practically a turning point in the war with the Turks, at least as far as the Khurasanis were concerned [...]."
 * Cite 41: "p." → 'pp.'.
 * Both done. Constantine  ✍  20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Ye gods, the weeks fly past when the world is gripped by panic... I did list this at FAC Urgents, to no avail it seems, but I'm still reluctant to pull it when it looks like one more comprehensive review might do the trick -- Gog, can I trouble you here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
I am going to have to get the word "MUG" removed from my forehead. Yes, of course I will Ian; right on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Constantine has not edited for three weeks. So, rather than leave my usual list of niggles, I have boldly copy edited the text myself - . IMO the article conveys the facts well, readably, reasonably succinctly and from an impeccable set of sources. The information presented is balanced and to the point. In other words it is up to Constantine's usual standards and I am happy to support the article for FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)