Talk:Safavid dynasty

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

from the Archive

Guys looks like we are starting from the same point again. Please do not discuss topics not related to this entry (for example Armenian genocide and etc). Lets get back to Safavids. Personally I am also of the opinion that we should not put ethnicity in the beginning (weather Shaykh Safi ad-din was Kurdish, Shah Ismail was half this, 1/4 this and 1/4 that, or the dynasty was Turkish speaking in the begining ..). But if people are happy with the current version that is fine. Indeed perhaps the current version edit SA. Vakilian might be acceptable to everyone? Is that so? Mardavich? Atabek? Azerbaijani? GM? Tajik? Kiumars?.. Although Tajik will be back in a couple days and have his own comments. By the way Evan Siegel makes an interesting comment based on Azerbaijani republic book (also mentioned by Mardavich) Soviet Azerbaijani scholarship is capable of a more restrained view of the Turkic character of the Safavids. Thus, one important monograph on “South Azerbaijan” notes that due to the cultural importance of the Persian language, the weight of the Persian-speaking bureaucracy and landlords, and the migration into the Persian heartland of the Safavid capital, the Persian language came to dominate the dynasty’s life. (A. S. Sumbatzadä, Sh. A. Taghiyeva, O. S. Malikov, Janubi Azarbayjan Tarikhinin Ocherki (1828-1917) (Elm: Baku, 1985), p. 208.). Of course the book he is quoting is from the republic of Azerbaijan and we do not use books from Iran or the republic of Azerbaijan is such enteries, but actually such similar statements can be found in Savory and the recent book I mentioned: Safavids: Recreation of a Persian Empire. For example from the time of Shah Abbas and specially afterwards both the Ghezelbash and Turkic were in decline and we do not know if the dynasty remained Turkic speaking then. If someone can archive and we can start from begining to see the discontents of both sides I would appreciate it. Also please just discuss issues related to Safavids only. We do know that Esmail I knew Arabic, Persian and Turkic from references so those are the languages we should mention. I would probably assume that Ismail might have spoken Gilaki since he was in Gilan and raised there but this is a guess thus not substantiated. Greek though could also be possible but we do not know. Thus Persian, Turkic and Arabic is the ones we have proof for and unless there is shred of positive evidence (specimen or a contemporary book that mentions another language) we should forego it. Personally I do not think the current version vakillian is too bad. What is the opinion of other readers? And once again lets please end discussions not related to Safavids. --alidoostzadeh 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, you were the first who proposed Turkic-speaking above anyway, to replace Frye's quote in Iranica. Now you're against it? :) Sa.Vakilian's version is acceptable to me so far, and I provided my comments, which were incorporated. As for book, I wish both you and Mardavich would also agree to use "South Azerbaijan" term, i.e. the title of the book which you cite :). If you don't, then it's not worth picking a sentence out of context. And when you say "we don't know if they remained Turkic-speaking", just recall deep descendant of Safavid, Abbas II, who wrote verses in Azeri Turkic as Tani as late as 17th century. And the two major ruling tribes after Safavis, namely Afshar and Qajars were also Turkic-speaking.

Again, no one denies that influence of Persian wakils increased over time under Safavid rule, yet again, this does not replace the fact that Safavid dynasty was Turkic-speaking as was its founder Ismail. Again, Ali, "might have spoken" is not a strong enough of an argument against "spoken". I think we are going around a circle repeated the same thing, because some people don't want to accept the fact, but argue about the conjectures and interpretations. Again saying Turkic-speaking does not make them less Iranian, so it's important to secede from such intolerant thinking. Thanks. Atabek 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources, even the ones written by pan-Turkists, indicate that is not clear if the dynasty remained Turkic speaking for long, therefore describing the dynasty as "Turkic speaking" is incorrect and misleading. And please don't archive open threads with ongoing discussions. --Mardavich 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources statement needs a little classification as to which most. And your labeling pan-Turkist of every Wiki user from Azerbaijan resembles quite precisely that of User:Azerbaijani attempting to insert "Musavat is pan-Turkist" dub on every single page. This similarity is actually worth looking into from sock perspective. Nevertheless, the statement of yours above lacks any ground. Pan-Turkism is an idea of establishing supra state unifying all peoples of a single linguistic domain. As such the idea does not exist in practice in Azerbaijan, Turkey or any other Turkic country, it's not recorded in their laws or constitutions, neither country aspires building such a state. Let it alone, Prof. Sumbatzada, who is quite far from being pan-Turkist either. So accusation above is nothing more than a personal attack by yourself and/or(?) :) user Azerbaijani. Atabek 14:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you diverting the discussion again? I label a source however I like to, it's just my opinion about the source, it doesn't mean that you have to agree with my personal views about a book or its author. So please cease the personal attacks, you have been repeatedly warned by other users and administrators that you should only be discussing the article at hand, not other editors. User:Azerbaijani has absolutely no relations to me whatsoever. If you believe otherwise, please be my guest and file a request at WP:RFCU. --Mardavich 14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We know that later Safavids were Turkic speakers too. Descendant of Shah Abbas I Shah Abbas II was a Turkic poet, and Iranica says the following about the whole dynasty:

The origins of the Safavids are clouded in obscurity. They may have been of Kurdish origin (see R. Savory, Iran Under the Safavids, 1980, p. 2; R. Matthee, "Safavid Dynasty" at iranica.com ), but for all practical purposes they were Turkish-speaking and Turkified.

And this is what Adam Olearius said about the language spoken at Safavids court (it was after the reign of Shah Abbas I, I took this from the archive, but the source is not available online now):

Most of the Persians, with their own language, learn also the Turkish especially in those provinces which have been long under the jurisdiction of the Grand Seignor, as Shirvan, Adirbeitzan, Iraq, Baghdad, and Eruan, where children are taught the Turkish language and by this means it is so common at court that a man seldom hears anyone speak the Persian; as in the Grand Seignior’s country, they ordinarily speak the Sclavonian, and in the Mogul’s the Persian. But in the province of Fars and at Shiraz, they speak only the Persian language.

(Source: "The Travels of Olearius in 17th century Persia" (Translated by John Davies (1662); online: http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/olearius/travels.html) Grandmaster 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't open. But by Persians they mean people from Persia (even Sherwan or Irevan), not necessarily ethnic Persians. That is why some travellers have also called the Ghezelbash as Persians. This is the convention of travellers when travelling to a geographic region. I did not say the later Safavids knew Turkic or did not, but what I said is the dynasty's court language became Persianized after Shah Abbas weakened the Ghezelbash and moved his court to Esfahan and his descendants kept the capital there. That is initially there was more Turkic probably during Esmail's era while Persian was present. Later on the tide reveresed. Also Atabek, Afshar and Qajars were part of the Ghezelbash, not the Safavid dynasty as you mentioned. What I opposed was the inclusion of purely ethnic related stuff in the introduction. Because one can easily introduce that Safavids origin hailed from Persian Kurdistan (consensus of scholars) and put Kurdish in the introduction and etc... Or go further with Frye and say that Azerbaijanis are mainly descendants of Iranian speakers. Or bring Minorsky's statement that Turkic speaking does not mean Turkic ethnicity. These are stuff that I believe we agreed should not be in the introduction. I agree that the Safavids for the most parts were Turkish speaking although I believe their primary court language became Persian after Shah Abbas made Esfahan capital. Even the Ghezelbash historians wrote in Persian. Turkish could have still been alive but for all practical purposes it was overshadowed by Persian in Esfahan and in the courts. But lets get to the issue here. Looks like Atabek agrees with Mr. Vakilian's edits. I personally although object to putting ethnic related sentence in the begining, do not mind the current version. So lets see if we can build a consensus around this. Looks like GM is okay with the current version. I am not going to speak on behalf on Tajik, Mardavich, Kiumars, Azerbaijani. --alidoostzadeh 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can progress by addressing the issues one by one. As for the language of Safavids, judging by the sources it looks like later Safavids were Turkic speakers too, and the primary language at their court was Turkic according to Olearius. At the same time, the language of bureaucracy was predominantly Persian, so the two languages coexisted. The text is not available online anymore, but it was checked by many users while it was there. And indeed, by Persians Olearius meant all the citizens of Persian empire. Grandmaster 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky says that Shah Esmail I was bilingual from an early age. Also all the Safavid shah's were bilingual. But can you first tell me what are the issues here? And what issues do you have with the current version of Mr. Vakilian? --alidoostzadeh 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I already said to Mr. Vakilian on his talk that I'm happy with his edits in general. I think he did a great job in presenting the facts in a neutral fashion. Grandmaster 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks that is good to know. Tajik will probably be back in a day or two. I am not going to speak on behalf of Mardavich or Azerbaijan or Kiumars. But I am also satisfied with the current version and I think it is really time to end these discussions. --alidoostzadeh 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I only think that the first line: Safavids are considered the greatest empire does not sound good. We should say something like Safavid dynasty is considered the establishers of the greatest Iranian empire, etc. Also Arabic conquest is mentioned twice in the lead, it is better not to be repetitive. Grandmaster 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would say that Turkic was the cultural language too, since Safavids created poetry in that language, however Persian was the language of the state apparatus along with being cultural medium. They were indeed bilingual and spoke both languages, but they spoke Turkic as primary language at their court and domestic affairs. Grandmaster 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true Safavids created both Persian and Turkish poetry. For example I recall a quatrain in Persian from Shah Tahmasp. But by judging by the amount of manuscripts we have from the Safavid era, if we look at the works produced all over the empire, Persian clearly overwhelms Tukirsh by many factors. About their domestic affair I think it was mainly in the hands of their Wakils. Their military affair was probably done in Turkish at least up to the time of Shah Abbas. Shah Abbas and the school of Esfahan many of whom were available at the court. Hasan Rumlu a Ghezelbash wrote one of the most important books on Safavid history during that era in Persian. I think the current balance is right as you mentioned since it shows both views which are not contradictory.

Toynbee's assessment of the role of the Persian language is worth quoting in more detail[1]:

“ In the Iranic world, before it began to succumb to the process of Westernization, the New Persian language, which had been fashioned into lit¬erary 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 cul¬tural 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 polit¬ical 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 orig¬inal 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. ”

--alidoostzadeh 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

question

One question, wasnt Sheikh Safi al-Din also Persian?Azerbaijani 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He was actually Kurdish but many dialects of Kurdish like Kermanshahi are mutually inteligble to Persian. Amazingly we have manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa before the Safavids (thanks to Togan) and the clear distortions of these manuscripts were made to hide the Shaykhs ancestry and later on Safavids tried to make claims like the Shaykh was Seyyed, Persian (through Sassanid heritage made for shi'ism) and perhaps even Turkish for their ghezelbash followers. Thus twice the word Kurd was removed from these manuscripts which in my opinion is clear 100% evidence. The Shaykh himself was a Shafi'ite like 80%+ of Kurds and virtually all Sunni Kurds today. Virtually all Sunni Turkish speakers have been Hanafite since their conversion to Islam. Khorasani Iranians were mainly Hanafi also and that is why Pakistan and Afghanistan and Tajikistan are also all Hanafi. Imam Abu Hanifa himself was actually Iranian. Another clear 100% evidence that the Shaykh was Kurdish is that there no record of Turks converting to Shafi'ism. Indeed Sunni Turks and Hanafism went hand in hand. [2]

I watered that this information on this article for the sake of compromise, but in the long run all the scholarly sources 10-20 years from now will have this information anyway and it is not information that can be hidden since texts of these ancient manuscripts of Safwat As-Safa are available.. And two contemporary sources Safwat As-Safa and the history of Hamdullah Mustawafi is what we have of the Shaykh. Some informations just take longer to digest in the scholarly world although already consensus by Safavid historians has been reached with this regard and the Shaykhs Sunnism is now a given. But I do think some scholars have overlooked the mutual relatioshhip between Shaf'ite and Kurds and how these two factors really complement each other strongly. That is both factors help prove that the Shaykh was Shafi'ite and a Kurd. Thus the male line of Safavid's is not Turkic and goes directly down to Pirouz Shah Zarin Kolah which is purely Iranic name: Piruz(victor)+Shah(King)+Zarin(golden)+Kolah(hat). But they were Turkified in speech later on much like most Azerbaijanis who genetically do not share genetic patterns with Yakuts[3]. Actually the Oghuz Turks according to Kashghari were Persianized and used a lot of Persian words and had mixed with Persians. So this phenomenon of turkification is probably pre-Islamic and started with Soghdians. Anyways let me know you opinion on the current article. --alidoostzadeh 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

attempts at a new consensus

Guys I archived the past discussion. Too many things were being put not related to the Safavids. About the current version looks like Mr. Vakilian and Atabek agree. I personally do not think it is too bad, and I have no problem with the current version. I am not going to give my opinion on behalf of other users so if anyone has a problem with the current version and disagrees with, please state it. --alidoostzadeh 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who agree with the current version: Vakilian, Atabek, Grandmaster, Ali Doostzadeh. I would like to hear comments from other users in hopefully finishing this dispute (Pejman, Mardavich, Tajik, Azerbaijani, Kiumars) --alidoostzadeh 21:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the article in its current shape (full of English and other mistakes!) should not be presented even for voting. It really needs a good re-write which can open the door to more arguments. Let’s get it close to a presentable level first otherwise we will end up arguing about changing an “a” to a “the”! We are not in a hurry, are we? Kiumars 19:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the grammer can be fixed. It is the content that we need to agree upon first. If you see any grammatical mistakes feel free to fix it. But right now I need more comments from other users if they agree with the content of the article? --alidoostzadeh 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should ask some neutral native English speaker to help us with the language. Also, what's up with removal of the word Turkic throughout the article? Can anyone provide reasons for this Turkophobia? And what's the point in a statement that Ismail was an Iranian Azeri? There's no such ethnicity, and back in the day all Azeris were Iranian by nationality. Let's stick to the wording we agreed on, or at least observe neutrality. Grandmaster 11:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the word Turkic speaker or Azeri speaker is correct. I thought that was what we agreed upon in the introduction of SA. Vakillian? I have re-added that section. --alidoostzadeh 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixes

I fixed a few English mistakes and I think the followings need to be addressed too.

• The opening paragraph: Safavids (1501-1722); according to the list of the Safavids kings the dynasty lasted till 1760 (Ismail III), it was the empire that ended in 1722-1736! (See the Safavid Shahs of Iran).This discrepancy needs to be explained/sorted.
• Local States:
• 1. “There were too many local states in Iran” is bad English, consider changing to “many” or “numerous”, etc.
• 2. 1500 change to 1500CE. In its current format it can be confused for the number of the rulers on the first read.
• Founder of …
• 1. “His advent to power was due to Turkman tribes”; bad English, consider changing to “was with the support of the …”or “due to the support/help/etc of the Turkman tribes of ..”, etc.
• Beginning!
• 1. (Ottoman Turkish for "red heads" due to their red headgear), this is already mentioned in the section above it. Delete one.
• 2. Safavid's power in Iran was based on the military power of Qizilbash Turkic tribes. It was initially but not thru the dynasty!

I stopped at this point in the article, I will continue later this weekend maybe. Kiumars 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiumars, Qizilbash were the major political force in Safavid state, at least till the reign of Shah Abbas I. Initially, their impact on Safavid state was the same as that of janissaries in Ottoman Turkey. But increasingly they integrated with bureacracy when appointed as governors of several provinces. There was no other military power than Qizilbash in Safavid state until the reign of Shah Abbas. Also saying Qizilbash stands for Ottoman Turkish is not quite precise, as Qizilbash means the same in any Oghuz Turkic language, not just in Ottoman Turkish. Regarding Turkman/Turkoman/Turcoman, I would suggest using the spelling (whatever it is) used by major experts such as, in this case, Savory, Frye or Minorsky. Atabek 07:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote the lead. 1. The article is about Safavid dynasty, therefore it should say: Safavid dynasty were... etc. No need to mention Islamic conquest twice. Savory quote is out of place. If it is there to prove that Safavids were ethnic Iranian, we can add quotes stating otherwise for balance. I think the article clealy explains ethnic background of Ismail. Please share your opnions. Grandmaster 12:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version is still POV. It's kind of funny that the same people who always explain that the Safavids had "no ethnic identity" persist on mentioning the Turkic language in the first sentence of the article. At the same time, they close their eyes and pruposely reject the fact that - despite their Turkic language (let's not mention the other fact that the Safavids were bi- and multi-lingual, some of them having a Turcoman mother, others having a Georgian or a Persian mother), the Safavids did have a clear Iranian identity. This is mentioned in Iranica and EI, and there are other sources that mention this. John R. Perry, Proferssor of Persian literature and language, in comment on Roger Savory's "Iran under the Safavids" (Cambridge University Press; one of the standard primary references on Safavid history), explains in the "International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 300-302":

• "... The background of the tripod basis of Safavid power - the pre-Islamic kingly glory (farr), Imāmī Shi'ite eschatology, and Sufi spiritual mastery - is skillfully sketched. ..."

This point is more important than any language spoken by the Safavids. Safavid power, and their claim on the throne of Iran was based on this: their Iranian identity, and their belief to be the reincarnation of the epic kings of the past. Unlike the previous Turkic and Mongol rulers, the Safavids identified themselvs with Iran and with Iran's Persian identity. One of the first things Shah Ismail did after defeating the Shaybanids was to ask a famous poet in Jām to write an Shahnama-like epic about his victories and his newly established dynasty. Shah Tahmasp patronized the creation of a Shahnama that - until today - is considered the greatest of all. At certain points, more than 10 different artists, including Behzad, were working on it (see the detailed information in Encyclopaedia of Islam). How can you deny all of that? Tājik 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No one denies anything. It is there: "reasserted Iranian political Identity". I don't think they identified themselves with Persian identity, why then would they personally write Turkic poetry? Is writing Turkic poetry part of Persian identity? I think the role of each language should be objectively reflected in the article. Grandmaster 14:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman sultans wrote poetry in Persian. Does that mean that the Ottomans did not identify themselvs with their Oghuz Turkic heritage?!

• "... These Ottoman sultans received a good education during their youth, in which they learned Arabic as a scientific language and Persian as the perfect language for literary expression. As a result many of the subsequent Ottoman sultans, too, showed an interest in Persian literature and even wrote Persian poems themselves. Prince Cem Sultan (Jam Soltān) (d. 1495), Selim I, Süleyman (Solaymān) I the Magnificent (r. 1520-66), Prince Bayezid (d. 1562), and Murād III (r. 1574-95) wrote Persian poetry, collected in divāns (poetry collections), which have survived to the present day (Aydén, pp. 45-56). ..." Iranica

It's a well-known fact that the Ottomans, despite being a highly Persianized family, were still very Turkic in identity. Some of the Safavids may have written poems in Azeri Turkish (others, such as Tahmasp Mirzā and Sām Mirzā, wrote in Persian!), but the ethnical identity of the dynasty was clearly Persian. They believed in the Aryan concept of farr, totally unique if compared to previous ruling houses. This is exactly what Minorsky means when he says that "the language of the Safavids was not their race". They were clearly Persian and Iranian in identity - even more than the Seljuqs. "Reasserted Iranian political Identity" is quite not the truth. The Safavids were identified with Persianness and Persian identity by their nighbours, to an extent that the surrounding Sunni empires even tried to abandon the Persian language because they identified it with the Shia Islam of the Safavids:

• "... Like his father, Olōğ Beg was entirely integrated into the Persian Islamic cultural circles, and during his reign Persian predominated as the language of high culture, a status that it retained in the region of Samarqand until the Russian revolution 1917 [...] Ḥoseyn Bāyqarā encouraged the developement of Persian literature and literary talent in every way possible [...] At the same time Sultan Ḥoseyn also allowed his famous vizier, the noted poet ʿAlī-Šīr Navā'ī, to further the cause of his mother tongue, the Turkish spoken by the Chaghatay people and to champion its importance as a language of high culture [...] This developement was certainly related, at least in part, to the fact that in the early 10th/16th century Persia was converted by the Safavid dynasty to the Shi'ite branch of Islamic teaching, wheras Central-Asia remained strictly Sunnite. Chaghatay became to some extent the language this religious community, and Persian literary works from the Safavid realm had an aura of heresy. ..." B. Spuler, "Central Asia in the Mongol and Timurid Periods", p. 174/175, Encyclopaedia Iranica

All of this is pruposely being ignored in the article, and that's why it is POV! Tājik 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Persian identity is POV, not supported by most sources. They were a religious group, not nationalistic. Their claims on Sasanian descent were politically motivated and were aimed to establish legitimacy for their reign, but had nothing to do with ethnic identity. They did not care about that, they were promoting Shia branch of Islam as a base for unification of people of Iran, using force at times. I think Mr. Sa.vakilian was making a good effort in building consensus. But then certain users undid almost all of his edits. We can apply for dispute resolution if we are unable to resolve our differences. Grandmaster 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the "Safavids were Turkic-speaking" is POV, because the Safavid family (and the many women of the royal harem) was much larger than just the rulers. Writing poetry does not define language and identity. If that were the case, then the Ottomans would have been "ethnic Persians and Persian-speakers": Yet, noone claims such a nonsense in the Ottoman page. This article, however, is constantly under POV attack. The Encyclopaedia of Islam wrote a 55-pages-long article about the Safavids, and in no place does it claim that "Safavids were Turkic-speaking". In here, people desperately want to push for this POV. If you are not happy with the words "Persian identity", then also keep out the POV about the Turkish language! Tājik 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well we know the Safavid's were bilingual or tri-lingual. It is safe to say they spoke more Turkic in the begining of their dynasty and more Persian in the end. Specially Esfahan was and is a predominant Persian speaking city. But they definitely knew different languages. Their ethnic background at least from the time of Esmail I was mixed as reflected by the article currently. By the way Savory mentions an interesting paragraph: Why is there a such confusion about the origins of this important dynasty , which reasserted Iranian identity and established an independent Iranian state after eight and half centuries of rule by foreign dynasties? The reason is that the Safavids, having been brought to power by the dynamic force of a certain ideology, deliberately set out to obliterate any evidence of their own origins which would weaken the thrustof this ideology and call in question the premises on which it was based on. Also Safavids primary identity was Shi'i Islam (which is part of national identity), they were also supporting Shahnameh all over and that shows pre-Islamic Persian nationality being supported as well. But what is interesting from this quote in Savory is that had the Safavid's population access to the oldest extant manuscripts and knew Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili was a Sunni, Shafi'ite and Kurds (who were fighting mainly for the Ottomon sides), the dynasty would have suffered problems of legitimacy. --alidoostzadeh 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)