Talk:Siege of Baghdad

Additions of Georgia and Armenia to infobox

There has been a trend of adding "kingdom of Georgia" and "kingdom of Armenia" to the infobox.

Weirdly, these are always copy-pasted from (a presumably Slavic) elsewhere; this is shown by the citations to "Vederford, Dzek (2007) Dzingis Kan i stvaranje modernog sveta", which is in reality the slavicsation of "Weatherford, Jack (2004) Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (in any case, not a truly reliable source: see Timothy May: "Considering the numerous factual errors and misguided etymological speculations this reviewer cannot recommend using this as a standard text for a world history class with the exception of using it as a point of discussion on historiography.")

The other two sources are non-English sources I will request a quotation for per WP:RSUEQ. This should be done before the citations are added into the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I have addressed this issue via what I think is a fair and reasonably compromise by adding a collapsible list showing Armenian and Georgian auxiliary participation with a multitude of English reliable sources. 2600:1012:B317:C001:4C60:DCD1:1C75:9424 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Coming here via fixing a reference error to point out – if two words of content really needs nine sources then it should be discussed in the article body, in proportion to the prominence that it receives in reliable sources, with the content from the body being summarized in the lead (including infobox), not just shoehorned in with a reference pile and no further contextualization. Wham2001 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit shows an understandable misunderstanding. As Armenia and Georgia were by this time entirely conquered by the Mongols (see the discussion in Pubblici, pp. 710-713), the Caucasian auxilaries can be counted as "belligerents" no more than the Chinese siege engineers under Guo Kan mentioned by Biran. I fear that the word "auxiliary" has led to the erroneous conclusion that the Georgian or Armenian lords had some sort of choice in the matter—Pubblici notes on p. 719 that they were forced to do so. If the strategic divisions of the Mongol army are needed, it should go under the "Strength" parameter—I am open to discussion on the particulars. I must also echo the above point on WP:CITEKILL and WP:LEAD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added a couple of lines on the auxiliaries under the "Strength" parameter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a tweak to specify Armenians and Georgians in the strength section, listed alongside Chinese auxiliaries. I think it is necessary to specify Armenian and Georgian participation rather than just “from the Caucasus” as that is highly vague and broad. This overall seems to be a fair solution to the dispute, no? 47.51.5.218 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is "highly vague and broad"—do you know of any other possible peoples living in the Greater Caucasus region it could refer to? What is actually "highly vague and broad" is "elsewhere in the empire"—you could easily list twenty different states or peoples who served as auxilaries in this campaign. And why imply that the Georgians and Armenians aren't auxiliaries? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, the Armenians and Georgians were auxiliaries as well, and should be listed as such. I just fixed that. You were the one who decided to put “elsewhere in the empire” in the first place, so I don’t get your point in regards to that. Also, we do not have any sources describing a significant number of auxiliaries from areas other than Armenia, Georgia, and China, therefore, these can and should be specified in the infobox strength section. Another point, Armenia and Georgia were most definitely not the only Caucasian states in the 13th century so why not note specifically *where* in the Caucasus these auxiliaries came from when we obviously know?: see a map here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus_1213_AD_map_de.png | see the latest revision I made, this now definitely seems to be a very fair and reasonable compromise to this issue. 47.51.5.218 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Which Palace

Which Caliphal Palace is mentioned in the article? I assume the Taj Palace? --Aciram (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Assyrian involvement

Assyrians helped mongols destroy Baghdad I have added them to the article please can someone help me add the sources. Ibn al-Athir's writings provide valuable insights into the events surrounding the Mongol attack on Baghdad in 1258. In his historical accounts, he details the siege of Baghdad by the Mongols and the various groups involved in the conflict. While specific passages may vary based on translations and editions, Ibn al-Athir's works offer a firsthand account of the tumultuous events that unfolded during that period. I recommend looking into his chronicles for detailed information on the Mongol invasion and its impact on Baghdad and its inhabitants. Assyrian.crusader (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Assyrian.crusader, firstly please do not use large-language models like ChatGPT to communicate on talk pages per WP:LLMTALK. Secondly, of course there were Assyrians in the army—there were auxiliaries from polities all over the Mongol Empire, of whom the Assyrians were only one. As such, they are covered by "auxiliaries from all over the empire" in the "Campaign against the Assassins" subsection. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

i never used chat gbt

Why was Assyrians removed from the article then no mention in the battle section not accurate page Assyrian.crusader (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Assyrian.crusader Can you show a quote that mentions the involvement of Assyrians, or is this just another disruptive edit like your previous ones? Sikorki (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"The Secret History of the Mongols." Is the book that talks about Assyrians helping mongols destroy Baghdad idk how to use Wikipedia how to add sources I have plenty of sources about a lot of sources involving Assyrians Assyrian.crusader (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The Secret History of the Mongols ends with the rule of Ogedei in 1241. Try again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I know

The books mentions Assyrians helping mongols wdym by your response no correlation to the subject whatsoever even you know Assyrians were involved if I knew how to add sources to the article which page and which book I Would so I need help Assyrian.crusader (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I found no mention of Assyrians in Secret History of the Mongols on google books(which is searchable). Nor did I find any mention of Assyrians Secret History of the Mongols on amazon(which is searchable). --Paramandyr (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Image sizes

• Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width.
  • For example:
    • upright=1.3 might be used for an image with fine detail (e.g. a map or diagram) to render it "30% larger than this user generally wants". (For a reader with the usual base width setting of 220px, this is 285px.)
    • upright=0.6 might be used for an image with little detail (e.g. a simple drawing or flag) which can be adequately displayed "40% smaller than this user generally wants". (For a reader with the usual base width setting of 220px, this is 130px.)
  • Short, wide images often call for upright of 1 or greater; tall, narrow images may look best with upright of 1 or less.
  • When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text.
    • Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable) may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text.
    • Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most.
  • Images within an article, especially those near one another and on the same side, may be more appealing if presented at the same width.
  • If upright is completely absent, that's equivalent to upright=1. But upright alone, with no =scaling factor (e.g. [[File:Dog.jpg|thumb|upright|A big dog]]) is equivalent to upright=0.75; this usage is confusing and therefore deprecated. Historically, "upright" was intended for upright (portrait) images, which look better at a narrower width. Later, the parameter was expanded to support any scaling factor, but the original name remained.

Snowstormfigorion, I reproduce the fifth bullet point of MOS:IMGSIZE which you cited. Please identify the "restriction" you mentioned. I only see vague phrases such as "where it is appropriate", "might be used", etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The first two examples; even if "restriction" was not the accurate choice of word here, it's WP:MOS, a guideline. As such, aside from certain and clear exceptions, should be followed. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

So you think two "short wide images [which] often call for upright of 1 or greater" and which offer "fine detail" are a "certain and clear exception" to the Manual of Style? Can you explain why, Snowstormfigorion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, as I inadvertently missed that portion of the guideline. I've inserted an upright of 1 in the last two images; they're not of fine detail, thus having them enlarged as opposed to the default size is unnecessary, as per the above. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

How can you say they are "not of fine detail" Snowstormfigorion; have you looked at them? The second image especially illustrates specific elements of the text—the caliph being locked with a key in a room with treasures, but both elements are indistinguishable at the low resolution you favour. It also does not help the first image, supposed to be depicting people, if they seemingly depict white blobs with no recognisable facial features. There is no "per the above"; I cannot understand why you wilfully ignore the last two words of "Short, wide images often call for upright of 1 or greater". I will ask for a WP:3O. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

And now I see you have also reduced the size of an 86.89 MB Featured Picture which depicts a specific event in the siege and has received scholarly attention on its own, but I guess you felt it wasn't finely detailed enough? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

A smaller size does not necessarily equate to lower resolution, and the objects and subjects in the images are more than adequately visible without the need to alter the latter's default sizing. As for the siege image, unlike the former two, it clearly falls within the definition of an image with fine details; as the other images' sizes has been reduced, I merely slightly reduced the size of it in proportion. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the notice posted at WP:Third opinion. What even is going on here? The minute changes in image size appear to be aesthetic nitpicking and completely uncalled for. The reduction to the lowest two images, in my opinion, is noticeably worse than Airship's version. Perhaps consider that not everyone has perfect vision and larger images (when sufficient detail is present) are better? Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 would it be alright if illustrations at upright=1.5 through 1.7 were harmonized to one value? Remsense ‥ 论 19:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No objection to standardisation at one value allowing for detail; severe objection to uniform reduction to an incongruous, unprofessional, minute size. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully 1.6 is an ideal mean here. Remsense ‥ 论 02:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hulagu’s Letter to Louis IX Does Not Mention 200,000 Dead

Despite repeated claims, the original letter from Hulagu Khan to King Louis IX of France does not state that 200,000 people were killed during the siege of Baghdad. Strangely, the Wikipedia page doesn’t link to the full text of the letter — only to secondary sources. I found the letter, and the only place where “200,000” is mentioned is in a footnote by Paul Meyvaert, in his article An Unknown Letter of Hulagu Il-Khan of Persia to King Louis IX of France (1980). The note is extremely unclear, especially because the editor does not translate the Latin text, so readers who don’t understand Latin might assume that the “200,000” is his translation of the death toll mentioned in the letter. But what the letter actually says is: “...et de suis computando duo milia milium pugnatorum necauimus, exceptis aliis quorum innumerabilis erat multitudo.” Which means: “we killed two thousand thousands of combatants, not counting others whose number was countless” — in other words, two million fighters, excluding civilians. It’s clearly a hyperbolic number. In the same footnote where Meyvaert mentions the 200,000 figure, he also cites Bar Hebraeus, who wrote: “The Mongols drew their swords and slew all the people of Baghdad — tens of thousands of men.” Bar Hebraeus is one of the most restrained and contemporary sources on the event — and yet, this more moderate account is also ignored in the Wikipedia article on the Siege of Baghdad. 2804:7F0:6A03:309F:A045:F65C:FFAC:35AB (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, of course the Wikipedia page links to secondary sources, because "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". Secondly, to quote the relevant Meyvaert footnote: "As in the case of the number of Assassin castles ... the number of slain is here increased to "at least 200,000" (emphasis mine). The "here" clearly indicates that the 200,000 is his translation of the above passage; otherwise, the figure has no meaning.

If you feel that Meyvaert made a mistake in his article, please submit an article to an established journal; Wikipedia cannot rely on WP:OR, especially when it contradicts the published writings of prominent historians such as Paul Meyvaert, Christopher Atwood or Paul D. Buell. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t say that secondary sources shouldn’t be used, but I did question why they didn’t include the primary source. If there is a primary source, then use it and complement it with secondary sources, but having only secondary sources makes no sense at all. Perhaps whoever included them did so because Meyvaert's note cited Bar Hebraeus and its number was much lower than that of other sources, or perhaps they realized that the correct translation was not 200,000.

I sent the excerpt in Latin, which doesn’t say there were 200,000. I could send several sources that agree with me, but I decided to send only three, with two of them translating correctly to "two thousand thousand", which means two million.

“We defeated him just like all the others in open combat, killing two thousand thousand of his men and a host of others too many to count.” Letters from the East - Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th-13th Centuries - Translated by Malcom Barber and Keith Bate - Page 158

“In this letter written on his own initiative Hulegu emphasizes his successes, particularly the taking of Baghdad, boasting of killing “two thousand[s of] thousand[s of the Caliph’s] men.” although that would seem to work out to two million, the usual estimates place the number of deaths somewhere between one hundred thousand and one million. - Letters to the Khans - Six Tibetan Epistles of Togdugpa Addressed to the Mongol Rulers Hulegu and Khubilai, as well as to the Tibetan Lama Pagpa - Jampa Samten and Dan Martin - Page 303

"Perhaps the best-known example is the figure of two million for those recently killed in Baghdad, cited in Hülegü’s letter of 1262 to Louis IX" The Mongols and the Islamic World - Peter Jackson 2804:7F0:6A03:309F:F859:C77B:86B9:A779 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the secondary sources; I will shortly update the article to resolve the discrepancy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Additions to first paragraph

Moved from Talk:AirshipJungleman29

What you want me to discuss about? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Baghdad&diff=prev&oldid=1315263970 Shadow. 547 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, why do you want to add an uncited, partially incorrect, and likely AI-generated text to the first paragraph of a featured article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Its not ai Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

As you did not answer the question, and instead lied about something so obvious (96% on GPTZero), I won't be responding further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Fall Of Baghdad (Diez Albums).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 4, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-12-04. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The siege of Baghdad took place in early 1258 when a large army under Hulegu, a prince of the Mongol Empire, attacked Baghdad, the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. Hulegu had been sent by his brother, the Mongol khan Möngke, to conquer Persia. When Baghdad's ruler, Caliph al-Musta'sim, failed to reinforce the Mongol army, an angered Hulegu decided to overthrow him. The Mongol army routed a sortie led by al-Musta'sim's dawatdar (a leading minister) and besieged the city. After Mongol siege engines breached Baghdad's walls within days, al-Musta'sim surrendered and was later executed. The Mongol army pillaged the city for a week. The number of deaths was inflated by epidemics of disease, but Hulegu estimated his soldiers killed 200,000. Although the siege is often seen as the end of the Islamic Golden Age, Baghdad prospered under Hulegu's Ilkhanate. This double-page illustration, taken from a 14th-century manuscript of Rashid al-Din Hamadani's Jami' al-tawarikh, depicts the attempted escape of the dawatdar down the river Tigris (centre right); the soldiers on the pontoons forced him back to Baghdad with the loss of three ships. The manuscript forms part of the Diez Albums, now in the collection of the Berlin State Library in Germany.

Illustration credit: unknown

Recently featured:

• Golden-shouldered parrot
• Pedro II of Brazil
• The Massacre of the Mamelukes

Casualties and losses

oh please these "2 million" deaths are literally impossible how does Baghdad have over est over 500,000-1,000,000 population before the Mongol invasion and somehow 2,000,000 people died in Baghdad? Literal nonsense. Conagher0 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Conagher0, in any war it is common for inhabitants of surrounding regions to take refuge from invading armies in large cities with better defences. See e.g. the estimate in Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection by John Man for the 1221 siege of Merv: "a city whose normal population was swollen to over ten times by refugees from the surrounding villages". In this case, the two-million figure is implausible but not impossible, as it is quite likely Baghdad was hosting multiple times its normal population of refugees. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath of the siege

A few interesting facts about Baghdad right after the siege:

A scene of the Kalila and Dimna, 1265-1280, Baghdad, in which a Mongol man punishes a man in Arab clothing.

1) The Persian bureaucrat and historian Ata-Malik Juvayni accompanied Hulagu during the Siege of Baghdad in 1258, and the next year was appointed governor of Baghdad and Khuzistan (after Guo Kan's tenure as first Governor), a post which he would keep during the reign of Hulagu's son and successor, Abaqa Khan (r. 1265-82), under the overall governorship of the Mongol Sunjaq Noyan, governor of the provinces of Baghdad and Fars.
2) A rare Baghdad manuscript is known from the period immediately following the siege: the Kalila and Dimna, 1265-1280, Baghdad (BRR 3655). This illustrated manuscript of the Kalīla wa-Dimna of Abu al-Ma'ali Nasrallah is now located in the Bibliothèque Royale de Rabat, in Rabat, Morocco. It is written in Arabic, and depicts Arabs and Mongols interacting in their traditional outfits in the wake of the Siege of Baghdad of 1258. It is a rare contemporary illustration of the influence of Mongol visual modes, including depictions of Mongol individuals and their clothing, with caftans, boots and typical Mongol hats. In several cases, Mongol protagonists are shown using brute strength against Arab characters.

References

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Which Armenia? Which Georgia?

The "Armenia" in the "Strength" segment of the Infobox currently links to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. I not 100% sure, but I think the only Armenians at the siege were from Zakarid Armenia, led by Prosh Khaghbakian. The Georgian troops too came specifically from the Kingdom of Eastern Georgia, led by Zakare III Zakarian. I suggest these two infobox links should be modified accordingly. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A good shout, I'll modify the links. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Source: "In November 1257, Hűlegű set off from Hamadān in the direction of Baghdad (...) Baiju came from Anatolia to the west bank of the Tigris by the Mosul road. With him were the forces of the Armenian Prince Zak‘arē, the son of Shahnshah Zak‘arian and Prince Pŕosh Khaghbakian. The Mongols placed considerable trust in these Armenian lords, whose assistance they had received since the 1230s." in Bai︠a︡rsaĭkhan, Dashdondog (2011). The Mongols and the Armenians (1220-1335). Leiden ; Boston: Brill. p. 129. ISBN 978-90-04-18635-4. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2026 (UTC)