Talk:History of Iran

Link

A link to the pages on Aryans and the Andrnovo culture pages should be included in the bar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo--68.4.210.29 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add them at the bottom "see also" section.--Zereshk 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose two things that I would like feedback on to whoever wishes to help me:

1) That the ancient and post-Arab Iranian history sections need to be revitalized, organized into specific sections, and/or pretty much rewritten

There are two questions here:

Along what lines should these histories be organized --AND-- How should approach such a massive history and make it as complete and reliable as possible (integrating all of the "established" history of Iran)

2) That there should be further sections detailing things like cuisine (I have seen the current cuisine page) and linking major world events cross-culturally (Greek/Persian encounters, Greek/Roman encounters)

Also, on a side note...there is little evidence that suggests that Mossadegh was a "militant nationalist". I believe this is overly-agressive and unncessarily sharp language? Anyone agree/disagree?

Thanks.

-IR

Elamite and pre-Aryan civiliations

I put the attention tag on the page to request the following modifications be made:

I believe the Elamite Empire must be added to the list of sections in the box of "History of Iran and Persia" at the top of the page.

It is now becoming increasingly clear that Iran had vast civilizations and centers of population long before the arrival of the Aryans and the establishment of the Achaemenid empire. (e.g. Jiroft civ. and Elamites)

This is not a minor issue. These civilizations were independent of those of Mesopotamia and deserve greater attention.

Please someone address this.--Zereshk 07:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to contribute myself. I took the tag off.--Zereshk 06:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"History of Iran" series

As the person that wrote the article on the Muzaffarids, I don't believe it belongs in the "History of Iran" bar to the right of the article. The Muzaffarids, while controlling a good chunk of Persian territory during the 14th century, were only one in a handful of regional states in Persia at the time, a handful that includes the Jalayirids, Chobanids, Injuids, Kartids, and Sarbadars. I have been working on the Chobanids, and am going to start on the Injuids and Kartids soon. Since these all controlled parts of Persia, I see no reason why the Muzaffarids should be singled out.

ro4444 9:20 PM, 20 June 2005 (EST)

Just because "Muzzafardis" appears on the Iran bar doesnt mean it cannot appear on, say, the Iraq history bar (if there is one). Youre free to make an Iraqi history bar, and put it on there as well.

However, The Mozaffarian (Muzaffarid in English) were undeniably part of Iran's history. Therefore they should appear on the bar. Your claim would in fact apply to almost every dynasty of Iran. The Safavids were not even Persian. The Seljuks were Turkic. The Sassanids did not speak Persian either. Neither did the Parthians or the Achaemenids. Maybe we should then put the Parthians on the Turkemenistan history bar instead? Why are the Timurids considered Iranian? Werent they from outside the borders of Persia? But then, his very name is Persian: "Teimoor e Lang" (corrupted in English to Tamerlane). The Mozaffarian were no more non-Iranian than the Safavids. see the point?--Zereshk 10:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My issue with the Muzaffarids appearing on the History of Iran bar is not that the family was not originally Persian, but that they were not the masters of Persia. Most of the kingdoms or empires on the bar were THE dominant controller of Persia at one time or another. The Timurids are on there not because they were Persian, but because they dominated most of Persia. The Muzaffarids, on the other hand, cannot brag this achievement. At their height, they were the masters of central Persia only. That is why I feel that they should not belong there, because they did not DEFINE most or all of Persian history during that era.

ro4444 2:05 PM, 21 June 2005 (EST)

After looking at some of the other dynasties on the bar (such as the Ziyarids), I have come to think that maybe they do belong there. However at the same time, what of the other dynasties that ruled Persia at the time? The Kartids of Khurasan, as well as the Sarbadars of western Khurasan and the Chobanids of Persian Azarbaijan, should be included. Perhaps even the Jalayirids, although their rule centered around Iraq.

ro4444 2:09 PM, 21 June 2005 (EST)

We should have a page about The Sarbedaran, I agree. But these were even less prominent than The Mozaffarian.--Zereshk 09:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey would somebody please pay attention to some of the outrageous entries under the subtitle "islamic republic"? For example, Iran being invaded by "yo mamma" in Sept. of 2008, and lower down, "steve" being the speaker of the house ....record 22' of snow falling etc....What is going on? Sept. 16th, 2005 2.45 pm (EST)

Reagn and the Hostage Crisis

Reagan DID NOT negotiate the freeing of the hostages. It was Jimmy Carters administration that did, but it is speculated Regans people made an illegal deal with the Iranians to free them on inaguration day. That needs to be changed.

Nuclear program history

Some history of Iran's nuclear development might be nice. Was it all bought from the US and Soviet Union? Kofannon 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We already have an extensive history report on Iran's nuclear program. It's not really a history thing to include here.--Zereshk 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Persepolis Recreated - The Movie Documentary

Seized and burned by Alexander the Great's conquering army, shaken by uncounted earthquakes, eroded by 25 centuries of rain, fluctuating temperatures and scouring winds, Persepolis-the greatest of the royal residences of ancient Persia-is a definitive ancient ruin.

Yet, the place remains an awesomely impressive sight 2,500 years after it was built. Even today, those who step up to its gigantic terrace of 125,000 square meters and see its majestic columns are filled with a sense of awe drifting into a dream-like trance.

A dream in which one tries to visualize the beauty and dazzling splendor of Persepolitan palaces before their sad destruction.

"Persepolis Recreated" is the name of the most recent documentary film , which is available and you can view here online at this site: Perseplis Recreated - Reconstruction of Persepolis

Nature of the revolution

With regards to this bit of text:

The new government was extremely conservative. It nationalized industry and restored Islamic traditions in culture and law. Western influences were banned and the existing pro-West elite was quick to join the shah in exile. There were clashes between rival religious factions and brutal repression quickly became commonplace.

This needs to be augmented or amended to reflect the fact that the revolution in some cases introduced cultural and legal changes that had never existed before in Iran, even in medieval times. As well, the characterization of the regime as "extremely conservative" is a bit simplistic: the revolution introduced a theocratic government, but it also led to a significant flattening of the social hierarchy in Iranian history, which might be called "progressive". --Saforrest 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1808 map is questionable.

Throughout the 19th century Khorasan/Afghanistan including Herat was independent of Iran. There arent even any signs of affiliation with Persia during this time in history. The extents of Iran shown in the map is questionable in my opinion, while the independent regions (mostly under no central control) are not shown independent at all. This was the time Russia and Britain were jousting for control over this region (with no interference from Iran) and eventually overthrew the non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan through Abdur Rehman.

The map is clearly linked to the University of Texas. There is no way it can be questionable. The link is provided below the image on the image page directly to UT Austin: [1].

Besides, here is another map from the 19th century.

Also, 1808 was a bit before all the colonialist squabbling that you mention. For example, it was in 1825 that the Qajar Šajâ'-al-Saltana was the Amir of Herat. The British were certainly increasingly becoming involved. But it wasnt until the "Paris Treaty" that western Afghanistan finally was annexed for good by Britain. Same for the Russians. The Akhal Treaty for example came in the late 1800s.

Furthermore, one cannot consider khanates as independent regions. Semi-independent perhaps. One cannot consider sporadic uprisings or unrests as criterion of independnece either, since such uprisings were well observable even in the capital Tehran (e.g. the constitutional revolution). Persia has always operated thru vassal, satrap, khanate systems of government, because it was so big. Nevertheless we do know that the Khanates of central Asia were allied with the Qajars, because we have their official correspondences that remain today.--Zereshk 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I should dig deeper into the history of Afghanistan during this period. At least the Hazaras were quite independent (unknown to what extent) after the Mongols were expelled from Persia around 1550. The Hazarajat region goes between Herat, Mazar, Kabul and Kandahar with the population becoming scarcer around northwest and southwest. Some of this region is shown in the green area (Cant see) while most of it is put into Persia. We know Temur conquered the region and Babar had minor wars with the kingdoms in Hazarajat (Persia was not involved). The description of Pashtuns and Hazaras by the British in the 19th century do not indicate any vassalage at all, and Persia was much less involved in the wars between its supposed vassals and others, nor were taxes collected there (I'm talking about 18th and 19 century, east of Herat). Correspondence is possible with the modern Tajik people and the Sayyeds, but neither held power in Pashtun and Hazarajat regions at the time.

I think the geopolitics of the region in the 19th century was quite complex. So it is utterly impossible to make an absolute claim one way or the other. There are so many factors and issues involved that one can consider.--Zereshk 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006 US-Iran tensions

i updated this section a bit. Someone had inserted POV, unreferenced statements (e.g. claimed that Iran's nuclear program only existed since 2005, when in fact the nuclear program itself started under US pressure during the time of the last Shah), so i put in summaries of the existing wikipedia material which has already been NPOVed. The article United States-Iran relations article is getting quite long, but there was a VfD against a part of that page that had split off into a more natural division, so we have to live with the big long article there, at least for a while, and here just a short summary. Boud 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Arab rule

IMHO (I'm neither Persian nor Arab), the section on Arab rule of persia (and most of the rest of the article) sounds like nationalist POV. Here's how it reads: -The Arabs came. -For 150 years, nothing happened -Persians restored home rule. It reads like the Arabs had far less cultural influence on the Persians than e.g. the Americans. Somehow, for unexplained reasons, during this period Persia adopted Islam and the Arabic alphabet, but, unique among the nations conquered by the Caliphate, did not adopt the Arabic language. I'm unqualified to address this obviously fascinating period, but I wish someone would fill in more.