Talk:Battle of Parwan

Untitled

Nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.242.146.57 (talk • contribs)

Harper's military encyclopedia gives Khwarezmian strength as 120,000

Excerpt from Dupuy, Trevor N.; Dupuy, R. Ernest (1993). The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History. Harper Collins Publishers, page 366:

1221. Battle of Pirvan. While Genghis was gathering his sons' contingents for another campaign together, Jellaluddin with 120,000 men defeated an advance Mongol force of 3 toumans (30,000 men) in the Hindi Kush Mountains northwest of Ghazni. Genghis moved swiftly to avenge the defeat, and the Turkish prince, deserted by his Afghan allies, withdrew into the Northern Pubjab with about 30,000 men. Genghis followed with more than 50,000.

As of now, there seems to be no controversy after the previous (and last up to now) objection, but I am still adding this info for any possible future objection. --Ruhubelent (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle also gives the Khwarazmian strength as 120,000

Another source cited at the Battle of Indus artice similarly gives Jalal's forces as 120,000 for this battle. Page 273. Here is what it says:

At the head of an army of about 120,000 men, Jellaluddin, son of Mohammad Shah, meets and defeats 30,000 of Genghis Khan’s Mongols in the Hindu Kush in the Battle of Pirvan. Jellaluddin, now deserted by his Afghan allies, withdraws with about 30,000 men into the northern Punjab, pursued by Genghis Khan and a force of 50,000 Mongols.

Adding this note for possible future objections. --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Army strengths

The army strengths in the infobox and the dedicated section seem utterly confused. (Hohum ^@) 13:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? You mean "the lowest estimate" sides should be updated? That is the only thing I see that might be considered confusion. While your point is kinda true, Carl Sverdrup evaluates what the true numbers might have been and states the reported numbers are hugely exagerated whereas others just choose which of the reported ones might be closest to be true, without taking into account the possibility of exageration --81.213.215.83 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated, Hohum. Now the seemingly confusion should go away. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

And what do you think about merging the section Aftermath and Legacy? I think the two should be merged and named "Aftermath and Legacy" because the insurgency that emerged after this battle serves both sections as well as all the things in the legacy section. Also, does the article qualify to be good or A-class? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

MILHIST B-class feedback

An IP-editor requested a reassessment in the MILHIST assessment page. The following are still unreferenced, thus b1=no and still a C-class:

• Infobox
  • Cavalry numbers
  • The mongol losses should be mentioned in the article body with a reference
• Background
  • All of first paragraph
  • Note [a]
  • Last sentence of 2nd paragraph
  • Note [b] (you mention a name, but please also add an inline-ref)
• Army strengths
  • Last sentence
• Battle
  • All of first paragraph
  • Note [e]

What does "On the second day of the battle, to deceive the Khwarezmians, Shikhikhutag mounted straw warriors on spare remounts, which may have spared him from a killing stroke, but Jalal al-Din was not fooled by the ruse." mean? If the ruse didn't fool Jalal al-Din, then how did it spare Shikhikhutag?

The battle section seems rather short. Is there more you could write about this?

Finally, this could use a bit of proofreading, e.g. cavalries → cavalry, news spreaded → news spread, etc.