Jump to content

Talk:Timur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death toll

[edit]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Or Tamerlane as Timurlane is actually less common my bad. Sidd89 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the most common name is Timur Lenk. But maybe the latter part is not used in English, since I didn't find it all in the article. 109.240.35.214 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Timur Lenk is the article name in Danish, Dutch, Hungarian, Norwegian, Romanian, Swedish and Timurlenk in Slovenian. Apparently 'Tamer' corresponds to 'Timur' and 'lane' to 'Lenk'. I was very confused when the name Tamerlane was used in a movie. Googled it and found I know him better as Timur Lenk... 109.240.35.214 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's a poor quality one though. Not much informative. PadFoot (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...and you would call that a science, or an art? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thoughts? I don't know how to find this original sculpture, any Russian speaker? Beshogur (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Birthdate

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds good, I’ll add 1327 in a bit (or if you want to, you can). Noorullah (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Tamerlanon, the sources are here, and unsurprisingly also cited in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with listing the date as c.1320s or late 1320s or whatever, but as most articles elsewhere indicate a birthdate of 8 April 1336, it might be useful to present this information and why it is believed to be incorrect in the body of the article. AkilinaL (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Great"

[edit]

@Noorullah21: Sources themselves can be POV, but we shouldn't be when citing them. Also, rather than calling him "great" in wikivoice, "he is widely regarded as a great general" would be more NPOV. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"he is widely regarded as one of the greatest military leaders and tacticians in history, as well as one of the most brutal and deadly." -- This is in the lede
Not sure if that's a concern then. Noorullah (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then surely the instance of "great" which I removed is redundant, and can indeed go? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 02:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI Sure. Noorullah (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"boxed in against the east bank of the Volga River in the Orenburg region"

[edit]

For the record -- the distance between Orenburg and Volga is around 400 km. You may want to rewrite that piece R Alexandrov (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

[4] Gérard Chaliand Clearly Says He Comes From The Mongol Barlas Tribe Why Is There A Turk Expression? Tamerlanen Soldiers (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the word before "Mongol Barlas". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timur's Full Name

[edit]

His full name needs to be mentioned here properly which is "Mirza Shuja-ud-din Baig Mohammad Khan TIMUR"

This format was later continued by his direct descendants The MUGHALS who named themselves in the same way as "Mirza Zaheeruddin Baig Mohammad Khan BABUR" and so on... 103.103.43.195 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Beshogur (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]