Talk:Timur

Genocide

Do you think that the category is appropriate? On Category:Genocide perpetrators I see historic personages like Attila and Genghis Khan. However the terminology is apparently new. Otherwise I'll revert back. Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A genocide is defined as "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." Systematic killing of populations as performed by Timur in several cases, including Delhi, Armenian territories, etc. corresponds to the definition of genocide. It shall be referenced as such for the sake of consistency.

The sources regarding the estimates of victims of Timur's campaigns are missing and shall be completed. Here are the three most recent and recognised references: - In "The History of the Mongol Conquests", John Joseph Saunders (1971) the author estimates that Timur's conquests caused the death of 17 Million victims. - In "Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World", the author Justin Marozzi (2004) estimates that Timur's conquests caused the death of 20 Million victims. - In "Armies of the Ottoman Turks, 1300–1774.", the author David Nicolle (1983) estimates that Timur's conquests caused the death of 17 Million victims.

The figures mentioned in the summary shall be updated to 20 Million as the higher limit. Suggested wording would be: "Estimates vary from 1 to 20 million with several Historian estimating the total number of victims to be around 17 Millions." with the above mentioned sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by As97wiki (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Helen Fein, one of the editors of Teaching About Genocide, is described as a scholar specializing in genocide on her Wikipedia page. In addition, the page Genocides in history (before World War I) has a section about Timur's campaigns that cites sources labeling them genocidal. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki: just checked that, it's poorly sourced actually, page nrs are not even present. Beshogur (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Death toll

Did Timur really kill 17 million people? That is, 5% of the world's population at the time? The source appears to be a 1999 Chicago Tribune article, but the figure seems very hard to believe. It's an incredible figure for 14th-century weapons. I am removing it. No precise figure should be added without a better source than that.

Timur Was half Turkic half Iranian according to the sources . He was known himself as the Shahanshah of Iran and Turan

Timur ancestors were From Barlas tribe which are from Eastern turks like Uygurs & Karluks . But his mother is Iranian and according to his forged family tree for his mother he connects his mother blood line to Epic Iranian Shah of Shahnameh (book of the kings) Mannouchehr . According to his letters to Muzaffarids he claims the Throne of Iran clearly and suggests to Muzaffarids to Open the the way for the Dignity of Iran (Timur). 3rd document about Iranian Prajudice of Timur is his biography book by the pen of his Iranian Lord Chancellor Nizam-i-din Shami who was originally from Tabriz . Inside Zafarnamah on page 10 in the last Paragraph he writes a Poem for timur and Calls him Shah_e_Darvishdoost means king protector of people and serfs Then the author proceeds and says Iran and Turan are under his Command. Here's the original poem : Tony.k95 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"according to his forged family tree" do you know what the word "forged" means? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Epithet

@Beshogur It seems to be reliably attested in many sources, not sure what you mean "given by whom?" (Referring to the epithet). Noorullah (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we compare this to Sahib-i Qiran? I wonder what's the original version of this, if you can provide it. Beshogur (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur Sure, I can try to look for it. As of now, I've only seen it in WP:RS secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, not to disrespect you, but these kind of names were given to all kind of tyrants. I'm not sure how appropriate this is since, Timur doesn't even identify like that unlike "Lord of Aspicious Conjuction". Beshogur (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Religion

There is a little evidence that He was Sunni but not all of historians consider him as Sunni, Sunni Historians in Ottoman and Mamlukid Empires like Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Arabshah consider him as Rafedi even his allience with Christians in the west against Ottomans, Mamlukids and even Abbasid Caliphate in Cairo is similar to Safavid allience with The west, more important that ibn Khaldun in his memoirs narrated that He don't respect Abbas and his household even He only respect Ali and his household, His destroying and lotting of Damascus, and even some historians notes that He has destroyed Mu'awiyah's tomb all of this will let us consider him as Pro-Shia even if He don't curse 3 Caliphs and even if we don't consider him as main sect of Twelvers thought his era was full of Pro-Shia Sufis who considers all of the Twelve Imams as true caliphs of Islam even Timurids in an unknown considered their dynasty as Alid Dynasty back to Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib and the tomb stone of Timur is an evidence for that Alid connection with Alanqua and this Alid ancestor is a mysterious one, maybe they once considered him as the Twelfth Imam himself not a descendant of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyah the famous Hero in middle ages. 94.252.141.71 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to match the "Religious views" section? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

@Beshogur Hello , I hope your doing fine and enjoying a nice time. Could you tell me why you reverted my edit on Timur Khan GamerHashaam (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Although I am not Beshogur, I suspect it's because an 1859 translation of a medieval text is not a reliable source, and because a narrative which involves Timur somehow teleporting from the Oxus to Sistan to the Arabian Sea in 1362, when he was nothing more than a warlord, is complete nonsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, these stories are nonsense. Like Chechens defeating him, etc. Beshogur (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Its a medival text GamerHashaam (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If I am correct then the translation was from 1859 and at the time balochs didn't know English and per sandeman despatches they conserved in hindustani with him to communciate meaning the book was translated by a British scholar at the time GamerHashaam (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sir Clements Robert Markham translated the page not to mention that Baluch Nationalism started in 1920s and 1930s thus I don't think it is biased not to mention that it was published by Hakluyt Society GamerHashaam (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If I remenber correctly at the time he served in Iran? GamerHashaam (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Sir Clements Robert Markham translated the page not to mention that Baluch Nationalism started in 1920s and 1930s thus I don't think it is biased not to mention that it was published by Hakluyt Society GamerHashaam (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Would you care to rewrite your comments so they are a) intelligible and b) in one paragraph, rather than five seperate comments? Really helps with collaboration. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright

If I am correct then the translation was from 1859 and at the time balochs didn't know English and per sandeman despatches they conserved in hindustani with him to communciate meaning the book was translated by a British scholar at the time.Sir Clements Robert Markham translated the page not to mention that Baluch Nationalism started in 1920s and 1930s thus I don't think it is biased not to mention that it was published by Hakluyt Society. GamerHashaam (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

...okay? Still doesn't change the basic fact that an 1859 translation of a medieval text which claims that Timur managed to teleport from the Oxus to Sistan to the Arabian Sea in 1362, when he was no more than a warlord, is nothing less than nonsense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah, he is right. I also saw Timur teleported. 46.221.150.123 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

By about 1360, Timur had gained prominence as a military leader whose troops were mostly Turkic tribesmen of the region. He took part in campaigns in Transoxiana with the Khan of the Chagatai Khanate. Allying himself both in cause and by family connection with Qazaghan, the dethroner and destroyer of Volga Bulgaria, he invaded Khorasan at the head of a thousand horsemen. This was the second military expedition that he led, and its success led to further operations, among them the subjugation of Khwarazm and Urgench. GamerHashaam (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

According to the wiki page in 1360 Timur lead 1000 horsemen to invade Persia and he might as well headed for sistan most likely the northern region of zaboul GamerHashaam (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur@AirshipJungleman29 I am awaiting a response otherwise I would need to revert the edit , I request you to respond in 24 hours GamerHashaam (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe you did get a good response. Ruy González de Clavijo lived in the 13-14th centuries. Please see WP:RS, WP:PST, WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"he might as well headed for sistan most likely the northern region of zaboul" oh I see we've decided to completely forgotten about the source saying he reached the Arabian Sea. Anyone mind explaining how? "Well, he might have headed into central Sistan, and then he might have headed into southern Sistan, and then he might have headed south of southern Sistan, and then he might have reached the sea, and then he might have teleported back again." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps he found Aladdin's flying carpet at the Arabian sea! @AirshipJungleman29 Noorullah (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In his childhood, Timur and a small band of followers raided travelers for goods, especially animals such as sheep, horses, and cattle. Around 1363, it is believed that Timur tried to steal a sheep from a shepherd but was shot by two arrows, one in his right leg and another in his right hand, where he lost two fingers. Both injuries disabled him for life. Some believe that these injuries occurred while serving as a mercenary to the khan of Sistan in what is today the Dashti Margo in southwest Afghanistan. Timur's injuries and disability gave rise to the nickname "Timur the Lame" or Temūr(-i) Lang in Persian, which is the origin of Tamerlane, the name by which he is generally known in the West.

this is from the offical wiki page Timur#Military leader GamerHashaam (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for remembering which page we're discussing. Would you mind remembering where the Arabian Sea is GamerHashaam? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Its on the coast of Baluchistan , Sindh and Part of Gujarat GamerHashaam (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. More to the point, it's 1000km away from Zaboul. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

863 km and 8 days of walking can get you there like from zaboul to chah bahar GamerHashaam (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent use of Google. Now that I know you're capable of reasoned thought, would you mind reading the links HistoryofIran posted above? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ruy González de Clavijo is a third party to this source meaning he is neutral rather then pro timur or pro baloch , also I would like you to present some sources contradicting him which could imply the source of his work is unreliable for now. GamerHashaam (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter if he is a third party. He was a Castilian who spent two months in Samarkand in 1404. That means he is not a reliable source. If you want to know why, read the links above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

of course to document he has to spent time there GamerHashaam (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

Amir Timur was born in Hoja Ilgor, Yakkabag region. Your info him being born in Shahrisabz is wrong. His graveyard is also in same village where he was born. I will request a picture of his shrine. 84.54.86.106 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Once again requesting a name change to a more colloquially common translation

Simply naming this article "Timur" is ignorant of the conventionally used name for this individual (whom is often called either Timur-e Lang or Timurlane, either will suffice.) within modern English. I request that this page be renamed to one of the 2 formerly suggested names above. Sidd89 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Or Tamerlane as Timurlane is actually less common my bad. Sidd89 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Portrait

Hello @Beshogur, you seem to be the largest contributor to this article. May I ask why might you have reverted my edit? We don't normally use a facial reconstruction from the skull of the subject as the image in the infobox, instead we usually use paintings or portraits. PadFoot (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally in line with the previous edits, I've added the better near contemporary portrait instead. Using a 1707 one would not be better, (and possibly not the facial reconstruction). So I support this revision. [1] Noorullah (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a poor quality one though. Not much informative. PadFoot (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

So you claim 1700 depiction of Timur as an Indian leader is correct? Also the reconstruction had been discussed before. Beshogur (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur, I am restoring the stable version then (the reconstruction one). 'As an Indian leader'? Timur has been depicted as a Turk (see the painting, there is no resemblance to the Indians), the painting was made under an Indian emperor (of the Timurid line), but Timur himself has not been depicted as Indian. PadFoot (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean this looks definitely Indian. Of course I know that Mughals are not Indian originally. You get what I mean. Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur, are you perhaps refering to his clothing as Indian? I am not very knowledgeable in this field, but perhaps the robes are incorrect? PadFoot (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Well he's depicted as a Mughal ruler, both clothing and facially.

also part of bigger miniature, even Babur (third left) looks more Asiatic than Timur

Beshogur (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Also there was a similar discussion with an user regarding Devlet I Giray who claimed Russian miniatures were kinda better because Tatars weren't Asiatic looking, but Ottoman miniatures showed them Asiatic. Beshogur (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally in favor of the one from the Zafarnama, (in the revision I pointed out). @PadFoot2008 argued it's of poor quality, but I'd disagree, the picture itself is informative (on being a portrait/depiction of Timur), and it's a near contemporary depiction.

Would also like to ping @Goszei (the one who added it). Noorullah (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think those reconstructions are accurate, but that's imo the most common pic used everywhere, and even all statues are based on that face. Beshogur (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I too am in favor of the depiction from the Zafarnama. I think facial reconstructions or statues are only acceptable as lead images in biography articles in cases where no contemporary or near-contemporary depiction exists. — Goszei (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Beshogur, Well, I can't disagree with you there, Timur does look a bit like half-Turk, half-Indian, and Babur and Humayun do look way more Asiatic. Perhaps, it better to stick to the reconstruction. PadFoot (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The cover of The rise and rule of Tamerlane by Forbes Manz (link) uses what appears to be a zoomed-in version of this image, also from the Zafarnama, so it has scholarly backing on that front. Nevertheless, I find the facial reconstruction image far more striking and recognizable, and I have yet to see a good argument against it—"we don't usually use them" is considerably less convincing when you remember we don't usually have them in the first place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the current one in the infobox may be more well-known, but if there are contemporary/near contemporary depictions that exist I believe that is better, and as you mentioned, there is scholarly backing to it.

So it seems to just come down to on whether which one we think is better. Noorullah (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21, this one is also from the Zafarnama but a bit better (I think), what do you think?

PadFoot (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it, but that one seems to be of weaker/less quality then the other Zafarnama one.

Compare the two for yourself: [2] and [3] @PadFoot2008: Noorullah (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The other one has a higher resolution, but you this one to me looks better as it has more detail than the other one. Let's see what the others think @Beshogur, @Goszei, @AirshipJungleman29. PadFoot (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand, why not have a reconstruction of Timur's face? It's the closest thing we get to how he looked. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Facial reconstruction from a skull is more of an art than a science. The depiction from the Zafarnama was presumably drawn by someone who saw Timur with their own eyes, or at least by consultation with someone who did. — Goszei (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

...and you would call that a science, or an art? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Facial reconstructions can give us an idea, but who knows about his skin and hair, etc. I don't think it's 100% accurate, but this can give you an idea. (see no hair version; I'd personally use this if there's appropriate source) Beshogur (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts? I don't know how to find this original sculpture, any Russian speaker? Beshogur (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"if there are contemporary/near contemporary depictions that exist I believe that is better" why? you know that doesn't mean it's more accurate, right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate

Why is the birthdate still 1336? From what I'm seeing, most sources seem to point toward it being far before 1336. The first citation in the lead: "The birthdate commonly ascribed to Tīmūr, 25 S̲h̲aʿbān 736/8 April 1336, is probably an invention from the time of his successor S̲h̲āh Ruk̲h̲ [q.v.], the day chosen for astrological meaning and the year to coincide with the death of the last Il-K̲h̲ān"

In his early life:

"Later Timurid dynastic histories claim that Timur was born on 8 April 1336, but most sources from his lifetime give ages that are consistent with a birthdate in the late 1320s. Historian Beatrice Forbes Manz suspects the 1336 date was designed to tie Timur to the legacy of Abu Sa'id Bahadur Khan, the last ruler of the Ilkhanate descended from Hulagu Khan, who died in that year." -- It seems rather clear, so I'm gonna be changing it. Noorullah (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Invention or not, it's the most common accepted date. Why would we move from well established date to vague 1320s? Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it's wrong? On WP we go by what the high-quality, reliable sources say. 1320s is absolutely the correct date to put; I would even consider "c. 1327", in line with Peter Jackson's conclusion (From Genghis Khan to Tamerlane, 2023, p. 252). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I’ll add 1327 in a bit (or if you want to, you can). Noorullah (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What you don't understand is 1336 is well established. Similarly Atatürk wasn't born in 1881, but it is accepted like that way. Beshogur (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Atatürk is a great example! Like Timur, he later attributed a specific date for his birthday—19 May 1881. Turkey has officially accepted 19 May as his birthday. Has Wikipedia?No—which is why you find "c. 1881" in the lead, instead of "19 May 1881". Similarly, on this article, we go by what is correct, rather than what others would rather believe. We can start an RfC if you disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean even if you ctrl+f, most sources say he was born in 1336. That's the most established date, not 1320s. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)