Bactria is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who strive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-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.
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.
[[[[[Actually when this area was called Bactria there were no pashtuns living not even 500 km close to it.Bactria is a pure persian,dari,farsi,tajiki heritage and so the Avesta and the zoroastrian.The pure root of todays persian langauge is taken from ancient Bactria. The greatest parsian poets and writers were from Bactria. The history of the Pashtuns that are living around those area now adays goes back to 100 or 150 years ago. I request Mr Amanullah Ghilzai to research more and read some history books. He should try to write the real history. ]]]]]
In response to the above...there were no Tajiks living in the area either since they didn't exist. Explain how Bactrian is a "pure persian,dari,farsi,tajiki heritage" when Bactrian is considered an Eastern-Iranian language while Old Persian and all that came after are Western Iranian. It's rather foolish to inject your political bias into matters of history. That's not a very scholarly thing to do now, is it? I didn't think so. --Moved by RichFarmbrough 09:02 23 August 2006 (GMT).
"From the 1st century AD to the 3rd century AD, Tokharistan was under the rule of the Kushans. They were followed by the Sassanids (Indo-Sassanids). Later, in the 5th century, it was controlled by the Xionites and the Hephthalites but was reconquered by the Sassanids; it was later conquered by the Arabs and then the Mongols."
I do not see any citations!Kirby (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
By the end of the Kushan period, Bactria had come to be known as Ṭoḵārestān. After the conquest of the region by the Sasanians, Ṭoḵārestān formed the core of their province of Kūšānšahr. In the Chinese sources Tu Kho Lo, undoubtedly a transcription of the new name, replaces the older Ta Hsia. --Zyma (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, so I am going to try to invite HistoryofIran to this discussion now. Reason being cause I would like to know what he has to say given that he knows more about this stuff than the both of us. Kirby (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Kirby: Well, what do you exactly want to know? Is there a specific thing? Sometimes Tokharistan was under Sasanian rule and sometimes it was not, so what period are we talking about here? If it's still about the empire during the reign of Khosrow II, the eastern border of the Sasanian Empire most likely extended as far as the Amu Darya, either that, or it looked like this . One thing I know for sure, is that during the reign of Yazdegerd III, the eastern border looked more or less like the map of the link. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There is, just like with the Samarkand article that states "The Turks ruled over Samarkand until they were defeated by the Sassanids during the Göktürk–Persian Wars.", I need to know if this content is true or historical revisionism. The part that I do not see sourced, unless you count  as reliable as Zyma did is this: "From the 1st century AD to the 3rd century AD, Tokharistan was under the rule of the Kushans. They were followed by the Sassanids (Indo-Sassanids). Later, in the 5th century, it was controlled by the Xionites and the Hephthalites but was reconquered by the Sassanids; it was later conquered by the Arabs and then the Mongols."
As I am re-adjusting the borders and fixing province and city names of the map of the Sasanian Empire, I need to know if the part of Bactria being reconquered by the Hepthalites is true or not. Kirby (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Look what I just wrote up above (just finished writing it after you posted this message), is that good enough? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Britannia states that only Tajiks are descendants of the Bactrians which i find completely absurd and offensive. First of, Tajiks didn't even exist that long ago and the modern Tajiks are a mixture and collaboration of different people such as invaders. Secondly, the Pashto language shows close relation to Bactrian in terms of phonetics and that they were both part of the north-western group of eastern Iranian languages. If anything, the Pashtuns are their notable descendants and not the Tajiks who in reality are just Sodighan remnants with turkic admixture. I'm open to opinions but not lies which are propagated on this site by Tajiks and Persians who want to link anything "Iranian" to them only. Sorry if this sounded like a rant, just wanted to clear something. Akmal94 (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You didn't clear anything, it is basically a rant, like all the others things you say in other talk pages. According to you the Pashtuns ruled the world. At least come up with a academic reliable source(s) that supports what you are saying. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I have never said that Pashtuns ruled the world, i don't even know how you got that idea so please distrain from using slander. And what are you doing following me around on other talk pages unrelated to history or Afghanistan? If you have a problem with my suggestions, please address them but the problem here is that many articles on here related to Afghanistan or anything Iranian related always has a Persian undertone to it, from the Ghorids to the Ghaznavids. And since you did politely ask for a source here is one that connects Pashtuns to Bactrians.
After the Aryan migration from the center in Bakhdi, some of the clans remained in Bakhdi or Bakhtar and the foothills of the Hindu Kush. They called themselves Bakhdi, (Bakht, Pakhat, Pashto and Pashtoon) after the name of their homeland. The same people took part in the fighting between 10 clans of the Aryans on the banks of the river Parushni (Ravi) and have been described as Pakhta. Similarly, in the oldest Aryan text, Veda, the names of Pakhta (the Pashtun people), their kings, princes and prominent figures have been mentioned repeatedly. This shows that about 1400 B.C. the Pashtun tribes had penetrated into the area bordering the Ravi river and it also establishes their way of living, culture and movements. Even now many of the names of the ancient Aryan personalities and tribes are used by Pashtun clans, such as Turvayana, the name of the king of Pakhat, which in present day Pashto also means Tura (sword) and wahuni (wielder) or wielder of the sword. Similarly, the names of tribes, such as Dasa, Brisaya, Pani and Paravata, that lived on the banks of the river Sarasvati or Haravati (the rivers Dehrawaut and Arghandab in Kandahar), survive even today, and according to Nillebrandt belonged to Arachosia (present day Kandahar). Even now such tribes as Dasu, Parvat and Baraich exist among the Pashtuns of Zabul and Zhob.
Neyat-e Afghani, pages 118, 156, 241, 258. Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1, page 82. Veda, Vol. 2, page 18, hymn 17 (part 7); Vol. 2, page 15, hymn 22 (part 8), Vol 2, page 260, hymn 1 (part 8); Vol. 2, page 465, hymn 61 (part 10), published in London
These are just a few sources that connect Pashtuns with Bactrians and the people of Balkh, NOT Tajiks. Akmal94 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I know that you didn't say that 'the Pashtuns ruled the world', don't you get what I am trying to say? Anyway, what is that for a source? Lol Pasthuns lived around 1400 BC? Can you link me that 'source'? Would really like to check it, since I am 100% sure that it is unreliable, heavily outdated, or some kind of legend from some weird source. Always has a Persian tone? Maybe because the dynasties/regions themselves had a Persian tone? And no, I am not following you, but since I have these articles on my watchlist, your rants appears every time in my watchlist. I am not slandering you either, but seeing you make a battleground on these articles, is truly annoying and not something that Wikipedia supports, hence why an admin warned you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Which article? Please explain, i've only addressed my distrain with a few articles that are very badly sourced or with no citations at all. And speaking of Persian undertones, many articles on here about pre-islamic empires in the iranian pleateu always try to relate them back to Iran or Persia. Even you are laughing and doubting that Pashtuns lived around 1400 BC is exactly what i am saying, you people try to think Pashtuns or other Iranic people back then didn't exist yet somehow Persians did. And why do you doubt my sources? are you really saying University of Cambridge is an unreliable source? If you are interested in my sources the on here was compiled by Abdul Hai Habibi who was an Afghan historian with tons of Verifiability in the field of Afghan history.
I can assure you is 100% reliable. Akmal94 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, did someone really say that the Persians lived around 1400 BC? If you had said that the Persians had lived during that period I would have laughed too (perhaps even more), doesn't make a difference - it's just historically wrong, like it makes no sense. It's not reliable, show this to an admin and you will get told that is outdated/unreliable, . And isn't it a bit funny that this article was written by Abdul Hai Habibi, a Pasthun nationalist, who was the same person who forged the Pata Khazana, an "old" Pashto language manuscript that he claimed to have "discovered" in 1944, which the academic community does not acknowledge the manuscript as genuine. Sounds like a reliable "historian" we should listen to, I mean who needs all those modern non-nationalistic reliable sources, f*ck it! Let's agree what Abdul Hai Habibi says! Btw I did not mean to mock you by writing like that, but I couldn't find a better way to say it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm impartial, but it seems if you go all the way to the earliest history there was no one else in the entire area apart from Bactrians. As different entities shifted , broke up, or came into existence or merged with newcomers, it would be little surprise if multiple groups 100s of years later lay claim to Bactrian descent. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
"Britannia states that only Tajiks are descendants of the Bactrians.." --Akmal94
This is not what the article states. Such outright duplicity from Akmal reinforces the opinion this is a nationalistic editor. What the article actually says is:
"The Bactrian people, as with the Soghdians, are primarily the ancestors of modern-day Tajiks.", which is not referenced by Britannica but by Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246 and Library of Congress source AND if anyone, Akmal in particular, had wasted their time to read the quote from Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246, it states, "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia.".
Assuming this quote is actually taken from the Cambridge Encyclopedia then this "discussion" is moot.
However, since the Cambridge Encyclopedia source is unverifiable and I have concerns about this Library of Congress source, it would be prudent to find new verifiable sources for that section concerning Tajiks, Pashtuns, etc. AND, judging from Abdul Hai Habibi rather questionable writings, which do not appear to have been accepted by the academic community, Akmal should look for other sources for his claim(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)