Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 1st, 2012, 11:24 PM   #11

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 2,733
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephistopheles View Post
Not much of one given that the Tang army was only 30k strong (10k Chinese and 20k mercenaries) while the Abbasid army was 200k strong. At least according to Tang records.
Gotta remember who paid the scribes to write what they wrote. If I were the king, and my scribe wrote something which put me or my army in a bad light, you could guess what would happen to him.

Yep, blow up one's wins, blow down one's losses. Way to go. Herodotus did it as well. And did it darn good too.

I believe that pre-Talas the Muslims were expanding eastward, while the Tang were still advancing westward. They were two titans inevitably bound for a clash. Talas provided the colliding point, as well as brought about a mutual checkmate. One could call it a strategic draw then, I suppose. Just like the Battle of Kadesh between Egypt and Hattusa 1400 BC.

In a way, one could say that the effects of Talas have in fact prevailed to this day. While the Kazakhs, Tajiks and Uzbeks have remained by and large Muslims, guys to the east of them have remained Buddhists.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; November 1st, 2012 at 11:43 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 2nd, 2012, 10:17 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Gotta remember who paid the scribes to write what they wrote. If I were the king, and my scribe wrote something which put me or my army in a bad light, you could guess what would happen to him.

Yep, blow up one's wins, blow down one's losses. Way to go. Herodotus did it as well. And did it darn good too.

I believe that pre-Talas the Muslims were expanding eastward, while the Tang were still advancing westward. They were two titans inevitably bound for a clash. Talas provided the colliding point, as well as brought about a mutual checkmate. One could call it a strategic draw then, I suppose. Just like the Battle of Kadesh between Egypt and Hattusa 1400 BC.

In a way, one could say that the effects of Talas have in fact prevailed to this day. While the Kazakhs, Tajiks and Uzbeks have remained by and large Muslims, guys to the east of them have remained Buddhists.
My friend, perhaps you have not seen post of hackenedscribe who describes that no tang historian recorded such things in first place so your talk about royal scribes is a bit funny.



it was an lushan who prevented chinese not Talas a skirmish between tangs and Abbasids.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2012, 07:13 AM   #13

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 2,733
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
My friend, perhaps you have not seen post of hackenedscribe who describes that no tang historian recorded such things in first place so your talk about royal scribes is a bit funny.

it was an lushan who prevented chinese not Talas a skirmish between tangs and Abbasids.
My friend, I was responding to Mephistopheles rather than HackneyedScribe, so I was taking Mephistopheles at his word, besides the word of Wiki. And you can't even spell HackneyedScribe correctly, I'm sure he'd be quite miffed at ya. And what HackneyedScribe meant was that no Tang historian recorded such specific soldier numbers data.

An Lu Shan was just a piece of the bigger Talas jigsaw. An Lu Shan or no An Lu Shan, the Tang still lost to the Abbassids at Talas, according to the majority of the jury.

And you as a thread starter should be encouraging discussion to grow and flourish, instead of trying to kill it when someone says something not so in line with your view of things. You should be a neutral facilitator, rather than a reactive partisan player.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2012, 10:33 AM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
My friend, I was responding to Mephistopheles rather than HackneyedScribe, so I was taking Mephistopheles at his word, besides the word of Wiki. And you can't even spell HackneyedScribe correctly, I'm sure he'd be quite miffed at ya. And what HackneyedScribe meant was that no Tang historian recorded such specific soldier numbers data.

An Lu Shan was just a piece of the bigger Talas jigsaw. An Lu Shan or no An Lu Shan, the Tang still lost to the Abbassids at Talas, according to the majority of the jury.

And you as a thread starter should be encouraging discussion to grow and flourish, instead of trying to kill it when someone says something not so in line with your view of things. You should be a neutral facilitator, rather than a reactive partisan player.
my apologies malay bhumiputra.

I think as athread starter, I must refrain from jumping in this thread quite often and let other esteemed members do the job of speculating on the battle.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 4th, 2012, 04:53 AM   #15

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 2,733
Blog Entries: 1

You could still hop in and out, but you gotta remember to remain strictly non-partisan. Be an enabler, not a disabler. Apology accepted, after much consideration.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 11:14 AM   #16

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

To determine how such a confrontation would go, the topography (and weather)would be paramount as to where such a conflict took place. Then the forces arrayed, their technologies and the logistics involved. Finally, the credibility of the historical information surrounding such data would have to be iron clad.
However, most importantly, would be the genius or the military inventiveness of the two opposing generals. Since Alexander was incredibly advanced in this area and was never defeated on any terrain, I would assume he would be the most prone to have the best advantages. He was an expert at determining his enemies' weaknesses and how to use these weaknesses against them. If there are any technological advantages on one or the other's part, especially with centuries of seperation, this is an unfair comparison. But even with that, I would bet on Alexander.
Zarin is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:22 PM   #17
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 986

When there are competent generals and comparable arms on both sides, which is often the case in war, then the terrain is indeed the ultimate determining factor.
The Qin had its own undefeated generals just as Baiqi and Wangjian, so to claim Alexander as a better general is I'm afraid completely groundless and a result of hero worship.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 07:27 AM   #18

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 2,733
Blog Entries: 1

Nobody, no matter how smart or well informed, can determine with high enough probability the outcome of any match-up, be it in sports, or politics, or war. If anyone could, he would be able to put his talents to such good use that he'd easily end up being a very very wealthy man. Or perhaps a very very hunted man.

Unless one side has immensely overwhelming advantage of power, strength, skill, expertise/experience, resources etc. In which case there wouldn't have been much point in engaging in a match-up in the first place anyway.

One can only make a calculated guess, or even an inspired one, based on the best information available to oneself, which might still turn out to be way way off the mark come the day, week or month of reckoning. But it's always fun to engage in a bit of guesstimation and armchair generalship.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old November 9th, 2012, 08:01 AM   #19

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Nobody, no matter how smart or well informed, can determine with high enough probability the outcome of any match-up, be it in sports, or politics, or war. If anyone could, he would be able to put his talents to such good use that he'd easily end up being a very very wealthy man. Or perhaps a very very hunted man.

Unless one side has immensely overwhelming advantage of power, strength, skill, expertise/experience, resources etc. In which case there wouldn't have been much point in engaging in a match-up in the first place anyway.

One can only make a calculated guess, or even an inspired one, based on the best information available to oneself, which might still turn out to be way way off the mark come the day, week or month of reckoning. But it's always fun to engage in a bit of guesstimation and armchair generalship.
A 100% accurate estimate of what speculation is all about. I couldn't agree more.
Zarin is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
alexander, huangdi, shih, uzbekistan


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alexander the not-so-great Rasta Speculative History 8 March 1st, 2014 07:20 PM
Is Alexander Overrated? Mohammed the Persian Ancient History 328 June 28th, 2011 07:14 AM
Could there be another Alexander? Isoroku295 War and Military History 20 June 6th, 2011 06:10 PM
What if: Alexander did not die in 323 B.C. philhellene Speculative History 56 January 11th, 2011 07:18 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.