Talk:History of Iran

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)

Dear friends, it must be stated that Iran isn't Persian nor is it the "land of the Persians". The reason why the Safavids are included in the Iranian history bar is because they were Iranian, their ethnicity was Kurdish-Azeri, both Iranian ethnicities. The reason why the Seljuks are included is because they became "Iranianized", they adopted the Iranian culture and many of the Iranian languages. It is wrong to say that the Mozaffarians were not Iranian, they were of Iranian origin and ruled parts of Iran and Greater Iran. The reason why so many Empires such as the Scythians, Sarmatians and Khwarezm, just to name a few, are included in the History of Iran because like the introduction states that the history of Iran extends to far extents beyond Modern-Day Iran's borders, it is known as Greater Iran. To further correct Zereshk, the Parthians were Iranians. They were Zoroastrian, they spoke the Iranian Parthian language and practiced Iranian culture. To summarize my point, Iranian isn't just a nationality and not being Persian doesn't mean you are not Iranian as Persians were and are just one of the many Iranian ethnicities. Doorood bar baradarane Irooni az Azerbaijan, khoda negahdar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Invasion of Iran in I941 While it is true that the land route through Iran served as a vital route of supplies for the allies in later 1942 and early 1943 onwards, this was not the main reason for the operation. (Neither was the German contingent in the country). The main reason was the creation of a defensive buffer zone against the advancing German armies (in late 1941) and as a resurrection of the 1920's partition of the country into spheres of influence by the Soviet Union and Britain. I will also amend the “Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran” entry.

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

Destruction under the Mongols

"A large number of people, particularly males, were killed; between 1220 and 1258, 90% of the total population of Iran may have been killed as a result of mass extermination and famine."

we really need more sources that agrees with this sentence, if there was then it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeWuzPhoenicians (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There are primary and secondary sources which prove of this statement and it is also a situation of deductive reasoning. Why do I say it is a situation of deductive reasoning? Because it was well-known that Iranian peoples were indigenous and inhabited much of Central Asia but suddenly disappeared and were replaced by the Turkic peoples which inhabit Central Asia now. We know that in around 500BC, the amount of Iranian peoples living during that era was between 20-35 million, there was a significant drop in numbers after the Mongol invasion. The information given for the destruction that took place specifies the cities affected, nearly all of which (except Esfahan) were located in Central Asia. There are plenty of sources but also deductive reasoning must be used in this case. Also, when it is referring to "Iran", it's not referring to what we know as the geographic region of Iran or the Iranian plateay but rather the regions Iranians once inhabited, aka the regions of Greater Iran. Migboy123 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Safavid Empire 1501 1722 AD.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Persian Empire into History of Iran. Ecomt (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Persian Empire into History of Iran. I think that the content in the Persian Empire article can easily be explained in the context of History of Iran, and the History of Iran article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Persian Empire will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Whymant (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Also after the Talk:Afsharid_dynasty#Split all empires will have their own page, so this can be easily merged with the History of Iran. --Ecomt (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a redirect of Persian Empire to History of Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.