Talk:List of Iranic states and empires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Iran List of Iranic states and empires is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Kurdistan
Kurdistan Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate.

Happy editing!
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the project's importance scale.


Read the description of what this list is supposed to include. Its supposed to be a list of empires and states founded by Iranian peoples or those which were heavily influenced by IRanian peoples and culture.Hajji Piruz 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Iranian plateau vs. Central Asia =

The differenciation between Iranian plateau and Central Asia does not make much sense. Most of the dynasties listed in both categories ruled over Central Asia and mainland Iran, other regions, such as Herat or Mashhad, are both, Central Asia and mainland Iran. Also the logic behind the lists is not clear. While the Seljuqs, who originated in Central Asia, are listed under Iranian plateau, the Ghurids and Durranis, who ruled also mainland Iran, are listred among Central Asians. 193.170.48.2 09:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottomans

The sources provided do not claim that Ottoman Empire was an Iranian state, they just say Ottomans inherited some cultural stuff from the Persians. These are two different things. Ottomans also borrowed from Arabs, Greeks, and many other nations, but nobody calls their empire as Arabic or Greek.Heja Helweda 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added the disputed tag since the main page on Ottomans does not support the views here. The editor inserting Ottomans here must be able convince others on Ottomans page that it was in fact an Iranian state.Heja Helweda 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added extra tags, and would like User:Hajji Piruz, who inserted the original claim that Ottomans are Turko-Persianate, to provide proofs to Persian origins of Ottomans. The fact that Persian was used in Ottoman court does not establish basis to claim origin as Persian. Atabek 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the tag. The introduction of the article says: "The following is a List of Iranian states and empires. It includes both states and empires founded by the Iranian peoples and those that have been heavily affected by Iranian civilization or culture". Iranian cultural influence on the Ottomans is undeniable, to the extent that the language of the Ottomans is considered a mix of Oghuz and Persian. Bernard Lewis says: "The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna" (The Iranians, 2001, by Tel Aviv University's Mushe Dayan Center). -193.170.48.2 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if they are heavily affected by Iranian civilization or culture, will they become Iranian, as the title suggests? I would rather have you changed that part of the sentence, or the title of the article. And I remember that Persianate argument from before, I think it was put by Tajik before. DenizTC 19:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it should be made clear that the Ottomans identified with no ethnic group. They did not think of themselves as Turks, nor Persians, or anything for that matter. To them, they were simply Muslims.
Now, having said that, culturally they were Iranians. This is all that the article reflects. The statement is heavily sourced. Just as the Mughals were culturally Iranians, so were the Ottomans.Hajji Piruz 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to understand why you guys insist that states that have been 'heavily' affected by Iranian culture should be Iranian. How many kilos of 'affection'? Have some affection, please :) Is Iranian something like francophone? Anyway, the parts I commented out cry out non-Iranian'ness. Is Ottoman Empire Roman, Greek, Arabic, Armenian, or French? Is Turkey Swiss, Italian, German, French, Iranian, Greek, or Arabic? By the way, Ottomans were ruled as a rule by the family of Osman of the Kayi tribe, a Turkish/Turkic tribe, and they were aware of their heritage. DenizTC 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All those historic states you commented out were Iranian culturally and linguistically. The Timurids, Ghaznaivds, and Khwarezmians were certainly heavily influenced by Iranian civilization, culture, and languages.

As per the Ottomans, it is an undisputed, undeniable, universally accepted fact that their culture was Iranian. Turkish scholars, to my knowledge, dont even contest this. No Turk today can pick up and read an Ottoman text, not only because its writing was in the Arabic script, but because the majority of the Ottoman Turkish language was made up of Arab and Persian words. The cultural language of the Ottomans was Persian. The Ottoman sultans wrote their poetry in Persian. All professional Ottoman scholars in Turkey have to be able to understand Persian in order to understand Ottoman texts. Today, an Iranian who speaks Persian can read Ottoman poetry, a Turk cannot, unless its translated.

In the Iranic world, before it began to succumb to the process of Westernization, the New Persian language, which had been fashioned into literary form in mighty works of art. . . gained a currency as a lingua franca; and at its widest, about the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of the Christian Era, its range in this role extended, without a break, across the face of South-Eastern Europe and South-Western Asia from the Ottoman pashalyq of Buda, which had been erected out of the wreckage of the Western Christian Kingdom of Hungary after the Ottoman victory at Mohacz in A.D. 1526, to the Muslim "successor-states" which had been carved, after the victory of the Deccanese Muslim princes at Talikota in A.D. 1565, out of the carcass of the slaughtered Hindu Empire of Vijayanagar. For this vast cultural empire the New Persian language was indebted to the arms of Turkish-speaking empire-builders, reared in the Iranic tradition and therefore captivated by the spell of the New Persian literature, whose military and political destiny it had been to provide one universal state for Orthodox Christendom in the shape of the Ottoman Empire and another for the Hindu World in the shape of the Timurid Mughal Raj. These two universal states of Iranic construction on Orthodox Christian and on Hindu ground were duly annexed, in accordance with their builders' own cultural affinities, to the original domain of the New Persian language in the homelands of the Iranic Civilization on the Iranian plateau and in the Basin of the Oxus and the Jaxartes; and in the heyday of the Mughal, Safawi, and Ottoman regimes New Persian was being patronized as the language of litterae humaniores by the ruling element over the whole of this huge realm, while it was also being employed as the official language of administration in those two-thirds of its realm that lay within the Safawi and the Mughal frontiers.

A Study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee.

Ottoman incorporation into the Iranic world as well as Ottoman contributions and expansions to the Iranic world should not be underestimated.Hajji Piruz 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We should create something like List of States and Empires influenced by Iranians --Vonones 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. DenizTC 01:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose a move to List of Iranic states and empires.

Several users seem to be confused about what this list is actually about. Iranian here does not mean Iran, it means Iranian peoples.Hajji Piruz 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not founded or ruled by Iranian people either. Enjoying Russian literature most does not make one Russian. DenizTC 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This list is for Iranian countres or the countres founded in Iran land? Which? If this list is for Iranian countres Ottoman isn't a Iranian countres. If this list is about countres founded in Iran ok Ottoman can be in this list. Because Ottoman conquest Iran.--Absar 06:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I added a dispute tag for Ottomans, so lets discuss the issue in details here first. The term "Iranian" here is about culture and civilization, not ethnic origins. No one is disputing that Ottomans were Turks. For example, Bernard Lewis says "It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna..." [1] This is the view of most scholars of orient, that Ottomans were Turk, but they were also heavily influenced by Iranian culture and civilization. --Mardavich 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The cultural thing in the lead seems to me as arbitrary. The title is "List of Iranian states and empires".DenizTC 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Being influenced by Persian culture is one thing, being an Iranian state or empire is quite another. I've removed the Ottoman Empire for now, but the inclusion of the Sultanate of Rum also needs to be discussed.--A.Garnet 10:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reinserted the paragraph, because you removed up to 5 sources. You also removed the Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty from the list, without giving any explanation. The sources provided above support Hajji piruz version that the term Iranian is predominantly a cultural and that the Ottomans and Seljuks of Anatolia may be considered Iranian. As long as there is a tag, there is no need to remove the paragraph, and there is no reason to remove sources. Many dynasties are also (sometimes) considered Turkic, although they were not Turkic, for example the Timurids or the Safavids. Both are mentioned in the List of Turkic states. -193.170.48.2 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
First, the Ayyubids were not removed, they were moved to Iranian Plateau and Middle East section, which is a better place. Second the discussion is about the 'heavily affected by Iranian culture' thing. Being affected by the culture of a nation, does not make one from that nation. So the sources are the sources to an irrelevant thing. DenizTC 12:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, there seems to be confusion. Propose move to "List of Iranic states and empires".
Culture very much changes the identity of a people. For example, the Turks of Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan are Turks because of the culture and language they use.
The Ottomans were Iranic in the sense that the language and culture they practiced was Iranic. Tell me, why are Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan listed in List of Turkic states and empires if culture and language doesn't determine anything?Hajji Piruz 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your point with Turks of Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan are Turks because of the culture and language they use. Anyway, I agree with a move (with a survey) if you want to insist to include the 'culturally Iranian' ones, though I don't see the point with it.DenizTC 20:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so everyone agrees that if we move the page to "List of Iranic states and empires" people will stop removing sourced information?Hajji Piruz 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Are we both everyone? I must admit that I don't know what exactly 'Iranic' means, I think it is not like Turkey->Turkic. According to Wikipedia and some dictionaries I checked, Iranic=Iranian! The article Iranian peoples makes a small distinction, there it is stated that "As Iranian peoples are not confined to the borders of the current state of Iran, the term Iranic peoples is sometimes used to avoid confusion with the citizens of Iran." Imo, a title like Vonones suggests would be needed to include the 'culturally Iranians', whoever they are. I still don't understand why we must try and include them. DenizTC 23:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You still dont seem to understand the difference between Iranian (Iranic) and Iranian (Iran). I'll try to explain quickly. Prior to WWII, the term Aryan was used to described what is today called the Iranian peoples (Kurds, Persians, Ossetians, Talysh, etc...). After WWII, when the the Nazi's had introduced their own Aryan term, scholars switched from using Aryan to Iranian/Iranic so that people would not mix up Aryan with the Nazi Aryan. Today, Iranian means two things, either a citizen of Iran, or Iranian peoples. Iranic is usually used so that people would not associate with the nation of Iran, but rather Iranic civilization, culture, people, and language.

What you seem to be confused about here is that you think the current title "List of Iranian states and empires" implies that all these states and empires have to do something with the nation of Iran. That is incorrect.

Also, as I have repeated over and over again, the Ottomans were part of the Iranic world and they certainly practiced Iranic culture and adopted Iranic civilization.Hajji Piruz 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ottomans and other Turic state can't be in this list.--Absar 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the list of Persian states. Turkic states can be in the list provided that they are 'Iranian', as well, e.g. Seljuks. Ayyubids like some others on the list should rather be called Islamic states more than ethnic based descriptions, bur since they were governed once by a Kurdish person, we can list them here. Also some of them have the phrase 'Turkic identity is controversial'. I want to be ascertained that phrase is (almost) exactly from the mentioned sources to avoid any WP:OR or WP:SYN. DenizTC 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian and Turk have both multiple meanings. For example, the term Turk may also be a reference to medieval Central Asian nomads who spoke related languages and were culturally and linguistically distinct from the settled population of Persia and Arab lands. While today, the word Turk is exclusively used for the citizens of Turkey, in a historical view, it may also be used for certain peoples who were Turks but not related to the modern population of Turkey. In the same sense, the word Iranian may refer to both, the current population of Iran, as well as to linguistically related peoples or historical peoples who spoke related languages and were culturally related to the Persians. Besides this discription, the terms Iranian and Turkish have exclusive cultural meanings, and this meaning is the origin of all other meanings. Historically, the term Turk ment nomadic or (what the Greeks called) barbarian (comparable to the terms Scythian or Mongol). These were not fix names for a certain people, but rather a general expression given to a wide range of different peoples who only seemed to have a similar way of life. At the same time, the word Iranic and its various alternatives (Ajam, Persian, Tajik, etc.) were a reference to the settled population, to agriculture, to culture in general, and so forth. Many so called Persians were not really Persians, but of some other nationality. But because of their way of life and their culture and/or language, they became known as Persians. Logically, many so called Turks were not ethnic Turks, but usually of Mongol or some other origin. But because of their origin and nomadic way of life, they became known as Turks (for example Tamerlane). I agree with Deniz that historical kingdoms should not be nationalized in a modern sense, because all of them identified themselvs as Muslims firt, and ethnic identity was almost meaningless. However, this is not only true for the Ayyubids, but also for the Seljuks, Ottomans, and all the rest. It would be totally correct to call the Seljuks a Persian dynasty, because they were linguistically and culturally Persians. But it is also fully correct to call them Turks. Because that was their origin and their identity. The Ottomans were Persians, Turks, and Greeks at the same time. They were even heavily mixed with Eastern European dynasties, most of all with the royal houses of Hungary and Poland. I think that this article is pointless and needless. However, it is there and people are working on it. I do not think that it is wrong to name the Ottomans in here. The Ottomans were heavily influenced by Persian culture and language. The early Ottoman Sultans even wrote poetry in Persian rather than in Turkish or Greek, and Persian personalities have played a major role in the history of the Ottoman kingdom (for example the school of Rumi or the teachings of Bektash Veli). Even the state religion of the Ottomans (and of the Turks up to this day) was based on the teachings of the Persian scholar Abu Hanifa, as opposed to the the Hanbali teachings of the Arab world. The language of the Ottomans was mutually intelligible with High Persian, and the Ottomans used Persian titles and expression in their court (for example Vizier, Sipahi, Mahtar, Nizam-ı Cedid, Kuva-i Inzibatiye, etc.). --82.83.134.219 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] major change ??

I guess it is anything goes now. What I did do:

  1. removed Uzbekistan Tajiks, certainly not a modern Iranian nation (and removed the only ref I removed with it)
  2. unified formatting, eg. changed *'s to ;
  3. same ref with same description was written twice. ref grouped (which causes most of the size deduction on my edits)
  4. Moved Ayyubids from Anatolia to Middle East
  5. changed the arbitrary "culturally Iranian" to "Iranian plateau", "Iranian people"

Mardavich, assuming you have checked my edit carefully enough, I think you will object #5 only, which I want to insist on; it is the encyclopedic one. DenizTC 10:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're altering the lead and putting in a new definition. You're removing Uzbekistan, even though many Uzbek are an Iranian people, and the sections is sourced. Plus middle east makes no sense in this context, the correct term is Iranian plateau. So please get a consensus for your changes.--Mardavich 10:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read above, for instance #1, a minority is not a state. Middle East makes more sense in the context than Anatolia, Ayyubids might have controlled some parts of Anatolia but they were not Anatolian. These were obvious improvements. the culturally Iranian thing is arbitrary in the lead. we need more encyclopedic things. I am open to other suggestions, but I think plateau+people is fine. DenizTC 10:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I am going to remove that 'description' in the lead. It does no good. DenizTC 10:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to remove the former country cats as well, as this is a list of counties, not a country article. DenizTC 11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the page to "List of Iranic states and empires" as per the talk with Denizz. Hopefully this will end the dispute.Hajji Piruz 16:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hajji Piruz why you are including Turkic and other mixed dynasties in this article. The inclusion of the Ottomans, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Khwarezms, Qajars and Timurids is absurd. Yes these empires ruled parts of and/or most of the territory corresponding to modern day Iran. Theses states may have adopted Persian language and culture (as well as Arabic) but they were not Iranic states, they were Turkic (except for the Timurids who were Mongolic) states who ruled over areas of Iran. This article should only include actual Iranic states otherwise it is misleading. Londium 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have brought up my sources. Why are you in denial about outside influence? Its not a bad thing. The Ottomans werent Turks either, they didnt even like the term Turk or to be called Turks. All the Ottoman sultans were of mixed descent (Persian, Greek, Armenian, Turk, etc...).

What is your definition of "pure"? By your logic, the Ottomans should be removed from List of Turkic states and empires also.Hajji Piruz —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:28, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I made some minor changes. I still want to remove the second sentence of the lead. Also, I want the 'Turkic identity is controversial' sentence to be rephrased. It seems to me that the sources suggest a culture affected greatly by Persian culture, they don't suggest non-existance of Turkicness, whatever it is. Also we should not be afraid to use the term 'Turkish' wherever the sources use that term. DenizTC 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afsharids

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Afsharids as Iranic. All sources I have read clearly state that they were of Turkic origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Empire

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Ottoman Empire as Iranic. Any fool knows what category the Ottoman Emire falls under.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Using such word as "fool" in Wikipedia is prohibited. For disscusion about Ottomans , please read section Ottoman Empire(in this page). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hepthalites

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Hepthalite as Iranic. My sources point to a Mongol origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghaznavid Empire

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Ghaznavid Empire as Iranic. My sources point to a Turkic origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Khwarezm Shahs

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Khwarezm Shahs as Iranic. My sources point to a Turkic origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timurid dynasty

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Timurid dynasty as Iranic. My sources point to a Turko-Mongol origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbasid Caliphate

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Abbasid Caliphate as Iranic. My sources point to an Arab origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Seljuq Empire

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Seljuq Empire as Iranic. My sources point to an Oghuz Turkic origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Safavid dynasty

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Safavid dynasty as Iranic. My sources point to an Turkic origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the tags in Wikipedia is according to a general guideline.If the wikilink is pointing to a major article , you can disscuss your point of view in that major article itself ; that means Safavid dynasty has it's own Wiki-page and it's Iranic nature is well-dissussed there , and if you think that's wrong , you can talk about it there . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mughal Empire

I added a request for a citation that explicitly categorizes the Mughal Empire as Iranic. My sources point to an Turko-Mongol origin.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for spam. You're right regarding their origins. The first line reads: "The following is a list of Iranic states and empires. It includes both states and empires founded by the Iranian peoples and those that have been heavily affected by Iranian civilization or culture." ie it takes into account both Iranian and Iranian-influenced states so it should, perhaps, be reworded to better reflect that. The usefulness of such lists (see similar "Turkic" one) is an entirely different matter, of course. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)