This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East / Ottoman / Napoleonic era Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Ottoman military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) Former countries: Ottoman Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Low-importance). Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I would like to see source(s) calling this war a "Persian tactical victory". Otherwise this is just original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As i wrote in the edit box, please read the article itself. The major battle of that war was the battle of Erzurum, which Persia won outnumbered. The treaty itself was based on that battle, hence the name treaty of Erzurum. Read the article itself for the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281821%29 SomeGuy1122 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that re-wrote the article using published sources. You are ignoring what the source(s) state and using your own interpretation. Are you saying you have no sources to support your opinion? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you rewrote it to a POV article based on your POV. As I mentioned before the battle of Erzurum is the major battle fought during this war and Persia was victorious in it. The treaty was based on that war, making Persia the victorious side of the war, the source itself is the battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281821%29. Feel free to add it as a source, and feel free to add sources for all the other wars as well. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Erzurum is just that a battle not the war, that is your original research. I have a source that states the result of the war, where is your source(s) for the war? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while your all hopped up on this "your POV" merde. The reference for a Persian victory at the Battle of Erzurum was added by me.[1] . By the way, "The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo."

So that reference does not call the war a Persian victory, either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only original research is that of yours. It's very simple and I repeat:

Treaty of Erzurum = Based on the Battle of Erzurum = The major battle of the short war = Persian tactical victory:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Erzurum_%281821%29 What do you think "tactical victory" means? Major battle of the war won = tactical victory, really couldn't be more simple. The article about the battle of itself is all the source you'll ever need. You got a problem with facts? then let's have an arbiter settle this. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your published source(s)? I see the source for the battle, but nothing for the war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the battle is the source for the war, as the major battle and the decider of the war. I've repeated this four times now, and yet you're pretending the link and the source of it in the link doesn't exist. Tactical victory means battle won no matter how many times you deny it. I will recommend one more time to get an arbiter to settle this as you seem determined to have it your way despite what facts say. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Wikipedia can not reference Wikipedia articles. The source for the battle, as posted above states, "'The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo." Apparently this is information you do not want to read. Do you know what "status quo" stands for?

You can repeat yourself all you want, that does not make it a reliable source. You were asked to present your published sources and instead have ranted about the battle of Erzurum. All you are doing is disruptive editing. This is your last warning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested twice to get an arbiter to settle this, but you refused. Now you've gone and reported this to get it your way? I can see in the report that you have lied about the source, the source I put is the very same source you've put in the battle of Erzurum. The one you so proudly boasted about. You come here now with your last post trying to provoke and bait me, the only one ranting here is you. The major battle won in a war means tactical victory whether you like it or not. I will continue this in the administrator's noticeboard. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persian side had recently lost North Azerbaijan to Russia and Fath Ali tried to compensate his losses by capturing Iraq and East Anatolia. Together with his son Abbas Mirza he campaigned to East Anatolia and his other son tried to capture Baghdad. (Ottoman Empire was occupied with Greek rebellion.) Although Feth Ali initially captured some towns such as Muş, Bitlis and Ercis after the cholera epidemic he had to give up his gains by the Treaty of Erzurum which was actually the ratification of Treaty of Kerden. No gain to either side; how can this be called a tactical victory ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on this war in most of the sources I checked (Cambridge History, Military History of the Ottomans etc), but there are some small entries from Google Books: Historical Dictionary of Iraq, The A to Z of the Ottoman Empire, and this very interesting piece in War and Peace in Qajar Persia, where the war is summarized as "winning the war but losing the peace". On the purely military sphere, the Persians held the upper hand at Erzurum, but at the same time they did fail to make progress in Iraq and their northern invasion was turned back after their battlefield victory due to a cholera outbreak. So the peace negotiations started not on the basis of Persian success, but on the basis of a stalled invasion. One could consider the war itself a "success" for the Persians in so far as they proved superior in the open field, but they certainly gained none of their strategic objectives. I still would not use the term "victory" for either side; "victory" implies a clear-cut result, not a muddled affair like this one. Constantine ✍ 08:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources describing it as a tactical victory, it can be added. However if this is only based on the interpretation of a wikipedia user, then it seems like original research. DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of a user? I repeat: The major battle won during that war was the Battle of Erzurum [2]. The treaty of the war was based on that battle and called "The Treaty of Erzurum". When a major battle is won in a war, it de facto means tactical victory, if not a total victory, not my opinion, fact. In fact the war was set as a victory for the Persian empire as it should be, before Kansas pushed his POV by citing an unreliable source that doesn't even mention the major battle of the war. The editor of the article has put references to back it up [3] "Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East, Volume 4, Page 301-302." This was before Kansas bear put his own source, which he later didn't even mention in the report he made. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well 3 other editors, besides myself, do not agree with your interpretation of how the battle, which was fought in 1821, also signifies the result of the war, which ended in 1823.

Also, my report states that you are interpreting the Dupuy source to suit your own POV since the source does not state that the war was a Persian victory, simply that the battle of Erzurum was a Persian victory. No where in my report I have stated the origination of the source means anything, that is a fallacy you have contrived to call me a liar. "'After I tagged both articles and added citations to his opinion, Someguy1122 is now using a reference(quoted;"The Persian invasion in the north culminated in the Battle of Erzurum, where Abbas Mirza with 30,000 men defeated a Turkish army estimated at 52,000. Peace was finally established by the Treaty of Erzerum; both sides agreed to maintain the status quo.") to force his POV. So now Someguy1122 is falsely using a source to push his original research." I have not said anything about the source in question,except you are clearly misinterpreting it to suit your own POV.

If you continue to call me a liar, I will report you again for personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In fact the war was set as a victory for the Persian empire as it should be, before Kansas pushed his POV by citing an unreliable source that doesn't even mention the major battle of the war."-Someguy1122. This is another false statement made by SG1122.

Per A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, edited by Spencer C. Tucker, page 1140,[4];"In the Battle of Erzurum in 1821, Abbas Mirza and some 30,000 Persians triumph over an Ottoman force of more than 50,000 men. With a cholera epidemic hitting both sides, Persia and the Ottoman Empire agree to peace in the Treaty of Erzurum of July 28, 1823." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should better check the difference between the war and the battle. A war may continue for years and there may be many battles, sieges revolts, epidemics etc. in the war . On the other hand a battle is a major clash in the war. There are historical cases in which the victorious side in a battle was defeated at the end of the war. For example in Siege of Kut the victorious side was the Ottoman Empire. But at the end of the First World War Ottoman Empire was very badly defeated. The same thing applies here. In the battle the victorious side was the Persia. But at the end of war Persia gained nothing. Well in the article Battle of Erzurum (1821) Persia is rightly declared as the victorious side. But this article is about the war and not about the battle. Then, there is no victorious side in the war.(something like a tie in sports). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kb, I won't bother responding to your repeated rant anymore. You went and invented a whole story about the source, in the administrators noticeboard. The source was provided by yourself, but you claimed it was mine, funnily enough and of course considering this is wikipedia, not surprising to me at all, you actually got away with falsifying the whole thing even though I gave you away by showing everything you had said was a lie. I don't care how many people like yourself you get here to help you strengthen your biased POV regarding pure facts, it still doesn't change history, so go ahead and make some more reports to get some more admins to help you vandalize these articles some more, as I see you are still doing, recently reverted someone else's edits based on your views. "Maybe we should better check the difference between the war and the battle". That is called POV, it is not up to you to check the difference, a battle, specially a major battle in a war is a decider for the war, and is simply called a tactical victory. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic, we can write Japanese victory in the result section of ınfobox of WW2, because they destroyed Pearl Harbor. Of course that is not true. Well in the war of 1821-1823 although the human sacrifice was great, Ottoman and Persian empires gained nothing; no territory, no tribute, no reparations nothing . At the end of the war, everything (except human lives) was the same as it was before the war. How can we call this a victory ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on this issue. I have no previous involvement in this or other Ottoman–Persian Wars related articles, and don't know the editors who are involved in this article. Having read the comments above, I can only say that according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters, "sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". That means that if the article claims a "tactical victory" for one of the belligerents, this claim must be supported by a source using this or similar combination of words. I hope this helps. Best regards, Grandmaster 08:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that my recent edit regarding Russian diplomatic support to Iran during the Ottoman-Iran wars (1797-1834) was reverted with concerns about relevance and wording. I would like to clarify why this addition is historically accurate and supported by reliable sources. The primary source for this claim is Yahya Kalantari (1976), who discusses how Russian diplomats actively encouraged Iran, particularly Abbas Mirza, to fight against the Ottoman Empire. The book states that Russian diplomat Mazarovich provoked Iran into war with the Ottomans, offering Abbas Mirza financial incentives. This was part of Russia’s broader strategy, as Britain and Russia had competing interests in the region. Additionally, Serkan Keçeci (2016) also examines Russia’s strategic aims in the Caucasus, reinforcing that Russia played a key role in shaping Iran’s policies against the Ottomans. Here is an excerpt from Kalantari’s work (translated from Turkish): "Russia, through its diplomats, was inciting Iran against the Ottoman Empire. During this period, Abbas Mirza, the heir to Fath Ali Shah, was influenced by Russian diplomats such as Mazarovich, who encouraged Iran to wage war against the Ottomans. This provocation was part of Russia’s strategic decision to weaken the Ottoman Empire." Given this evidence, I believe the inclusion of Russian diplomatic support is historically justified. I am open to rewording the edit to make it clearer if necessary. What do you think? Best, BEFOR01 BEFOR01 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they might have incited the war, but that doesn't make them belligerents. I've reverted you again, please reach WP:CONSENSUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I appreciate your response. I understand that Russia was not a direct belligerent in the Ottoman-Iran wars (1797-1834). However, academic sources (Kalantari, 1976; Keçeci, 2016) clearly indicate that Russian diplomats, particularly Mazarovich, actively incited Iran to engage in war against the Ottoman Empire. This influence went beyond mere regional rivalry—it involved direct diplomatic actions, financial incentives, and strategic encouragement to Abbas Mirza.

You mentioned WP:CONSENSUS, which I fully respect. However, consensus should be built on reasoned discussion and reliable sources, not just personal interpretation. My edit was based on academic research, and I have provided direct citations supporting the claim. If you disagree, I kindly ask you to present counter-sources rather than simply reverting my contribution without a substantive explanation.

If the issue is with phrasing rather than content, I am happy to collaborate on rewording the statement to better align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. Let’s work together towards a fair and well-supported version of this information.

Lastly, I must emphasize that reverting well-sourced edits without providing counter-evidence is not constructive. If this pattern continues without a proper discussion, I may have to escalate the matter through appropriate dispute resolution channels. BEFOR01 (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I understand that Russia was not a direct belligerent in the Ottoman-Iran wars (1797-1834).

You admit that they were not belligerents, yet you want to add them under belligerents..?

You mentioned WP:CONSENSUS, which I fully respect. However, consensus should be built on reasoned discussion and reliable sources, not just personal interpretation. My edit was based on academic research, and I have provided direct citations supporting the claim. If you disagree, I kindly ask you to present counter-sources rather than simply reverting my contribution without a substantive explanation.

You have provided zero sources that they were belligerents. In fact, it seems you are engaging in WP:SYNTH. Please cite a quote from a WP:RS that states that they were belligerents or something a la that. Please understand that I have no issue in adding them as belligerents if you can back it up. Which you at the moment have not.

If this pattern continues without a proper discussion, I may have to escalate the matter through appropriate dispute resolution channels.

Do what you want to. Though beware of WP:GAMING and WP:OUCH. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @GreenC Well, if there is no such information on the page using the sources I gave, can you add it? If it is not allowed to be displayed in the template, then we will add the information. BEFOR01 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my war ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_occupation_of_southern_Iranian_lands_(1821) ) page to the war on this page. Eminİskandarli (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see also part Eminİskandarli (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add my war page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mandali_(1822) ) to the war on this page. BEFOR01 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+You can review the Talk section, I gave detailed information there. BEFOR01 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mashallah, you seem to have only learned how to delete pages. But don't worry, this knowledge won't allow you to continue acting biased for too long. @Iranian112 BEFOR01 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pages you and your friends make are without valid sources, and as you say, you made them to "defend Ottomans"Draft talk:Battle of Tuprah Qaleh (1822)#İnfobox military conflict And know you cannot speak rudely to anyone on Wikipedia Iranian112 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look and see who was the first to act rudely here. Here BEFOR01 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to draft according to wikipedia rules, even after that I left a message for you how to move it after editing the draft, where is the disrespect? Iranian112 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are very smart, open a page. Don't talk about the nation's work here. Eminİskandarli (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to draft, the event is basically described in 2 very basic lines, which is fully unsourced. Please remember to create articles of events that are notable and sourced. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should 'Occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821)' and 'Siege of Baghdad (1821)' be swapped for better chronological accuracy? BEFOR01 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I sent you a notification in the talk section, can you help me? BEFOR01 (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand. You mean my talk page? I already replied to you there [5]. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also stated that it needs to be changed, that's why I asked again, don't you have the authority to change it? BEFOR01 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a bit more specific so I know for sure what you're talking about and don't have to often guess. I assume you're now talking about those redunant battle articles getting redirected to this article? Yes, I could do that, but that's work I have to do both due to you and another users actions. I'm generally trying to restrict my time and energy to my watchlist and socks only (at least right now due to a busy schedule). Feel free to be WP:BOLD and do the redirecting and moving of (sourced only) information yourself. No one has opposed it, so I assume you won't get reverted - here's the redirect template [6]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I understand now, but the page is protected, so I am unable to make the edits myself. Would you be able to make the necessary changes? BEFOR01 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice. Looking at the article history, I see your edits was the final straw that led to this heavy protection template. I might fix it in the upcoming weeks, but can't promise anything. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem sir, it's up to you. First of all, I can clarify this if you want. I should have mentioned that I don't do anything on Wikipedia without a source, or you may have noticed that. You can edit this whenever you want, but why don't you do the simplest things on Wikipedia, even if they are correct, just because you are biased?

As you can see, the chronological order of the wars is wrong in the template, and you state that it will take weeks for just one line of editing BEFOR01 (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for this matter to reach a certain conclusion by now. It's hard to believe this was a Persian or Ottoman victory. It would be a huge mistake to drastically alter the outcome simply because of Persian (military) successes against the governors.

Here's what Sabri Ateş, a source we use on the site, wrote: ^[1] BEFOR01 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified and added a new reliable source that emphasizes the limited gains on both sides of the war. It notes that although the Ottoman Empire was militarily unsuccessful, it emerged diplomatically unscathed and even profitable, while Iran, despite military superiority, did not achieve tangible gains.

Since the article is currently locked and I am unable to directly edit it, I kindly request that this new source be added as a reference to improve the article’s accuracy and comprehensiveness.

Thank you for your attention and assistance.

My source is here

The source code I suggest to help editors and avoid wasting time is: < ref>Azap, Eralp Yaşar (2023). Şah Mat: 1820–1823 Osmanlı-İran Savaşı (Siyaset–Harekât–Lojistik / Organizasyon). İstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat A.Ş., p. 286. ISBN 978-625-408-517-8.</ref >

I intentionally left the space between the ref commands empty so that it appears as source code. BEFOR01 (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani

I'll go source by source.

1. The first source linked states on page 90 "but despite Persian victories and strategic opportunities, the war was concluded by the Treaty of Erzerum on 23 July 1823. This maintained the territorial status quo and was a poor reward for the heavy expenditure of Persian lives and money" doesn't particularly support the claim of a Persian victory, also supported by others such as "Persians were not, however, at this moment able to exploit their success" on page 97. The most key part is "Persian victories and strategic opportunities", where the plural form seems to refer to battles and such. This seems to more indicate a military victory but overall war failure, as in the end the treaty wasn't a success. Therefore, it would be invalid to use this as a source for a Persian victory, when it seems to say that the treaty did not go in Persia's favour.
2. Once again, this cites the first source word for word, meaning there is nothing more to add.
3. This one I can't regain access to for the time being, although considering I stated in the edit summary that the war is outright called inconclusive, then that likely is the case, as I'd have no reason to lie.

Furthermore, I'm sure that what @BEFOR01 has provided earlier further supports such a claim (not here to check, I do not speak Turkish).

You stated "this is about the war, not about how Iran conducted the peace talks.". However, a military result is not a final result or what we should go by. There are numerous conflicts where this is the case, such as the Suez Crisis, the Ifni War and others that I know of which are more niche. Just because it seems that Persia scored a military victory, it does not mean they gained from the war, which the sources straight up agree with. If one of the sources straight up says inconclusive, and the other one/two state that Persia didn't succeed within the final treaty, then the result is not their victory, but inconclusive. Setergh (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, @Setergh.

To contribute further to this discussion, I would like to share the English translation of a passage from a Turkish-language academic source.

Eralp Yaşar Azap writes the following in his work titled Şah Mat:

"The war between the two states that had been fighting in the East for centuries began in the late 1820s with clashes on the Ottoman Empire's 'Orient' and 'Baghdad' borders, and ended with the Treaty of Erzurum signed in 1823. In fact, both states knew very well from the beginning that they would not gain much from this war. Indeed, when we look at the treaty signed at the end of the war, this becomes clearly evident. However, although the Ottoman Empire could be considered unsuccessful militarily, the fact that the outcome of the treaty was harmless and even almost profitable for the Ottomans is noteworthy. For Iran, which had the upper hand militarily, the war resulted in almost no gain except for a few matters. There were reasons behind this outcome. Iran was under the influence of Russian diplomats, who had played an active role in igniting the war. Britain, on the other hand, encouraged both states to end the war in order to establish a political climate that served its own interests. Considering that both Russia and Britain had followed the war from the very beginning and tried to intervene in the process as they wished, the reason or reasons behind Iran’s failure to achieve major political gains from the war become more understandable. In any case, the war was not launched to gain territory, and especially for Russia, the aim was to politically and militarily weaken both the Ottomans and the Iranians. That this aim was achieved is clearly seen when we look at the political and military developments experienced by both states after the war."^[1]

My main purpose in sharing this is to highlight how this Turkish source describes a war in which the Ottoman Empire emerged diplomatically unscathed and even somewhat advantaged, despite some military setbacks, while Iran, despite being militarily superior in certain areas, failed to achieve any tangible gains.

From a military standpoint, each side gained superiority on one of the two main fronts of the war: Baghdad and Erzurum. The Iranian army suffered significant losses due to a cholera outbreak that erupted in 1821, which also led to the death of Fath Ali Shah’s son, Mohammad Ali Mirza. According to some estimates, Iranian casualties reached as high as 100,000. This proved especially decisive on the Baghdad front. Thanks to Ottoman intelligence advantages and the effective defensive strategies of Davut Pasha, the Iranians failed to capture Baghdad and were defeated in that theater. In contrast, the Iranian capture of Erzurum suggests that both sides achieved success on one front each reinforcing the interpretation that the war ended in a military stalemate.

In addition, to better understand the military dynamics of the war, it may be useful to examine contemporary intelligence reports and official documents. Especially on the Baghdad front, Iran’s failure was shaped not only by the cholera outbreak but also by the Ottomans’ intelligence advantage and Davut Pasha’s strategic defense. These sources can help clarify why, despite battlefield successes, Iran did not emerge from the war with significant political or territorial gains. BEFOR01 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "1821-1823: Southwest Asia: War between Persia and the Ottoman Empire."
• "The Treaty restores the status quo antebellum but also guarantees Persian access to the Muslim holy sites in Iraq and Arabia." --A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle, Vol.III, ed. Spencer C. Tucker, (ABC-CLIO, 2010), 1140.

I could see Stalemate/Inconclusive for the Result.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your insight guys. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{|Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823)|answered=yes}}

169.224.107.25 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give you 2 sources that say this war was a Qajar victory.To be impartial, one of these is a Turkish-language source and one is an Azerbaijani-language source.

1)First source-Sıtkı Uluerler, “The Significance of the Kotur Issue in Ottoman‑Iran Border Determination (1849‑1852)”-The source says:

Especially during the reign of Mahmud II, in the Ottoman-Iranian war between 1821 and 1823, the Ottoman army's defeat on the battlefield against Iran resulted in the loss of territories such as Van, Muş, Bayezid, and others. Although in the final phase of the war Iran was forced to seek peace due to an outbreak of epidemic disease within its own army and subsequently abandoned the territories it had captured, this war negatively affected the Ottoman Empire in every respect.

As can be seen from the source, it is said that the Ottoman army was defeated and that Mus, Van, and Bayezid could have lost their control. The source also notes that this battle had a negative impact on the Ottomans (despite the Qajars' withdrawal from Ottoman territory).

2)Second source-Amina Pakravan-Abbas Mirza and Azerbaijan-The source says:

The war and victory against the Ottomans had greatly boosted the self-confidence of the Azerbaijani army. After this war, the prince had fully consolidated his trust in the Azerbaijani army. Abbas Mirza was in favor of immediately signing the Erzurum peace agreement.(This refers to the Qajar-Ottoman war.)

My opinion:In conclusion, we can say that this battle had losses for both sides, but the Qajars still had the upper hand. There are many sources that call this war indecisive, but these sources cannot be ignored. For all reasons, I think it would be more appropriate to change the Result section to Indecisive, eventually a Qajar victory, as in the article Swedish volunteers in Persia.

@Kansas Bear @Wikaviani @Setergh Eminİskandarli (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands: Making a Boundary, 1843–1914 by Sabri Ateş (30 July 2015), page 54 discusses the 1821–1822 conflict. However, the war officially began in 1821 and ended in 1823 with the Treaty of Erzurum. One of the outcomes of the war was the transfer of control over Shatt al-Arab to the Qajar authority. This is fully confirmed by the Russian Wikipedia and a Persian source I have. Eminİskandarli (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GS/AA - topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you're not an extended confirmed user. Another important part of WP:GS/AA: “Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After all, that had nothing to do with this talk.😭 Eminİskandarli (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is also included under this restriction. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh Eminİskandarli (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical result, and the sources once again do not prove anything other than a military victory near the end. They don't indicate a full-on Persian victory politically, which has been the focus of topics above. Setergh (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source emphasizes the Ottoman defeat in the 1821-1823 war. If the Ottomans were defeated, then the Qajars won. The second source clearly emphasizes the Qajar victory. As you said, we can call it a Military Qajar victory. In the end, the Qajars are superior in any case.It appears that this was written in previous versions of the source. Eminİskandarli (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both your sources seem low quality, the second one is certainly not even WP:RS, engaging in anachronism/revisionism by referring to the army as "Azerbaijani", neither an ethnonym nor a nation at the time [7]. You're also still not allowed to participate here per WP:GSAA, please adhere to the policy. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by low quality and where is the army called Azerbaijani? Eminİskandarli (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in neither end up actually supporting your claim. You claim a Qajar victory. They do not, as shown:

1. Military defeat, however the war "negatively affecting the Ottoman Empire" is not another to mean a full-on Qajar victory. Furthermore, why does it not talk about the effects on Persia? Or did you cut that part out?
2. Written by someone who died 67 years ago, and likely written far before that which is already an issue (see WP:AGEMATTERS). Furthermore, as stated by @HistoryofIran, the second source already refers to the army as "Azerbaijani" which is an invalid term. Finally, the victory once again meant the victory in battle, and therefore a military victory. Therefore, it also does not give a final result.

A military victory is not equal to a full-on victory. Other historical events such as the Suez Crisis, Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634), Algerian War (see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Challe), Ifni War and likely many more were military victories, but not full-on victories, sometimes even leading to defeats. Considering the article already states that Iran had won the final battle, there is nothing more that needs to be added, except for perhaps a further explanation on the situations caused within the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran that led to such a final result. Setergh (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to insert six words into the text like "Or did you cut that part?" My opinion is that it's more appropriate to write about the military victory of the Qajars. I asked HOI where the army is called Azerbaijani. I'm just curious. Eminİskandarli (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the place where it says Inconclusive, you can write

Result:Inconclusive

* Qajar military victory

. Or you can directly write.

Result:Qajar military victory

But the first source I gave says that the Qajars were superior. You yourself confirmed that it was a Qajar military victory. The first source I cited refers to Cevdet Pasha's Tarikh-i Cevdet, one of the important sources of the Ottoman Empire. In another source, the reason why the army is called that is because Abbas Mirza was the governor of that period,at that area. @Setergh@HistoryofIran@Wikaviani Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GSAA. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name of that country is not even mentioned in this edit. Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military victores are often (such as in this case) not a result that is provided in the infobox as they are of little relevance and can instead be mentioned in the body of the article (which they are).

I'm not continuing this further, nothing should be changed. Setergh (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur with Setergh and HistoryofIran and I would add that verifiability is about what the mainstream of reliable sources say, not about what two random (unreliable, for the second one at least) sources claim.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with Setergh and HistoryofIran. I see nothing here to change the result of this war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran Added sources were supporting distinct claims and improve verifiability. If some citations are redundant, feel free to trim them, but reverting the entire content seems unnecessary. Happy to discuss which parts you consider citation overkill. Added sources were supporting distinct claims and improve verifiability. BEFOR01 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy (WP:CITATIONOVERKILL). HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]