Talk:Ghaznavids/Archive 1

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica

This article is not really good. Maybe this could help:

... The Ghaznavid sultans were ethnically Turkish, but the sources, all in Arabic or Persian, do not allow us to estimate the persistence of Turkish practices and ways of thought amongst them. Yet given the fact that the essential basis of the Ghaznavids' military support always remained their Turkish soldiery, there must always have been a need to stay attuned to their troops' needs and aspirations; also, there are indications of the persistence of some Turkish literary culture under the early Ghaznavids (Köprülüzade, pp. 56-57). The sources do make it clear, however, that the sultans' exercise of political power and the administrative apparatus which gave it shape came very speedily to be within the Perso-Islamic tradition of statecraft and monarchical rule, with the ruler as a distant figure, buttressed by divine favor, ruling over a mass of traders, artisans, peasants, etc., whose prime duty was obedience in all respects but above all in the payment of taxes. The fact that the personnel of the bureaucracy which directed the day-to-day running of the state, and which raised the revenue to support the sultans' life-style and to finance the professional army, were Persians who carried on the administrative traditions of the Samanids, only strengthened this conception of secular power. The offices of vizier, treasurer, chief secretary, head of the war department, etc., were the preserves of Persians, and no Turks are recorded as ever having held them. It was not for nothing that the great Saljuq vizier K¨úa@ja Nezáa@m-al-Molk held up Mahámu@d and the early Ghaznavids as exemplars of firm rule (Nezáa@m-al-Molk, passim; Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 291-93; Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 55-97). ... Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. Ferdows^ sought Mahámu@d's beneficence towards the end of his life, but Mahámu@d and Mas¿u@d are most notably known as the patrons of Persian poets with a simple, lyrical style like ¿Onsáor^, Farrokò^, and Manu±ehr^ (Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 173-77; Clinton; Moayyad). The level of literary creativity was just as high under Ebra@h^m and his successors up to Bahra@mæa@h, with such poets as Abu'l-Faraj Ru@n^, Sana@÷^, ¿Ot¯ma@n Mokòta@r^, Mas¿u@d-e Sa¿d-e Salma@n, and Sayyed H®asan GÚaznav^ (Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 196-97; Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 75-77, 107-10). We know from the biographical dictionaries of poets (tadòkera-ye æo¿ara@) that the court in Lahore of K¨osrow Malek had an array of fine poets, none of whose d^va@ns has unfortunately survived, and the translator into elegant Persian prose of Ebn Moqaffa¿'s Kal^la wa Demna, namely Abu'l-Ma¿a@l^ Nasár-Alla@h b. Moháammad, served the sultan for a while as his chief secretary (Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 127-28). The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin such as Saljuqs and Qarakhanids. Whereas most of the Great Saljuq sultans seem to have remained illiterate, many of the Ghaznavids were highly cultured; as emerges from the pages of Bayhaq^, Mas¿u@d I had a good knowledge of Arabic poetry and was a competent Persian chancery stylist (Bosworth, Ghaznavids, pp. 129-30); ¿Abd-al-Raæ^d commissioned the copying in GÚazna of a superb manuscript on traditions describing the Prophet which survives today (Stern). ...

http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f6/v10f608.html

Propaganda. Simple. How can you trust the neutrality of an Iranian article about Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.147 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the Iran side-bar?

I was wondering why the presence of this "History of Iran" side-bar?

I understand that the rulers were influenced by Persian-speaking culture, which should be mentioned, but it was based in Afghanistan, and largely ruled lands in the Indian sub-continent.

MYLO 01:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would reckon this because of two reasons, the Empire grew out of political situations that were intrinsically part of the Samanid Empire which was Persian. Secondly because the heart of Ghaznevid Empire was Khorasan which has been historically associated with the Persian Empires throughout their history which encompasses a greater part of Northern Sind, Balochistan and Afghanistan so in effect it is actually in todays terms northern pakistan, eastern iran and Afghanistan. The Indian Sub-continent portion of his was the more fluid ebbing and flowing and centested region of the empire. Sort of like why the Russia is an European country rather than Asian because the cossacks.

~~

Why not he Iran side-bar? The history of Khorassan and the period of the Ghaznavids before they driven off by the Seljuks was a period of history when the Iran was dominated by the ghaznavid faction. The Ghaznavids have left measure of influence on all Afghan, Iranian, Pakistani and even some Central Asian countries a historical legacy in a significant manner due to their rule over those areas. The were located at a crossroads and their wide spread influence was had everywhere and moved historically at the hands of the seljuks, then the khwrezmians and then the ghurids so to peg them down to one particular nations history is folly.--Tigeroo 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Regarding Iranica's article, it is not possible to quote copyrighted material directly here. Mtdashti 15:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Iranian Side bar

I removed the Iranian side bar. First of all the said empire was Turkic and secondly it was located in Afghanistan.

I added the relevant links to History of Afghanistan, Iran and India.

P.S. An information website such as wikipedia is no place for misinformation motivated by naive nationalistic feelings.

Thanks.

Located in Afghanistan? You mean the capital was is in what is today Afghanistan and then in Pakistan. Iran was under their sway all the way upto Rayy and Hamadan and even the Central Asian regions towards Samarkand, I would hardly call that Afghanistan. They were definitely an important part of the history of the region called Iran today as well, maybe you just need to adjust the locations of the side bars. The side bar does not mean the Ghaznavids were not turkish or that their capital was not in AFghanistan, it helps navigate between the people who ruled Iran. Heck Cestiphon and all the old "Iranian"/ Persian Empires had their capitals in Iraq!!! That does not mean they had no impact on the history of the region now called Iran!! Don't let petty modern nationalism get in the way, the Ghaznavids had historical impacts and were the ruling dynasty of more the region today called Afghanistan.--Tigeroo 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no Iran before 1935.--NisarKand 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored blanked material, didn't notice that your removal went beyond just the side bar earlier, plus no discussions since then. Remember the Ghaznavids began as an eastern province of the Samanids and were primarily engaged upon that front and Greater Khorasan was of greater importance to them then the expansions into Afghanistan and South East Asia until the Seljuks finally displaced them and forced them out further east.--Tigeroo 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Terms Turkish and Turkic

I changed the term "Turkish" to "Turkic" to reflect the simple fact that in academia, Turkish relates to Ottoman Turkish culture only.

Turkish doesn't relates to Ottoman Turkish culture only. Infact, Ottoman's founding Kayi Oguz clan was residing in the borders of Gaznavid state at that time. Turkish/Turkic separation is more political than historical. Therefore I changed it back to Turkish.

Ghaznavid Empire based in Afghanistan

No matter how much you argue with own self...Ghaznavid Empire was centered and based in the heart of Afghanistan...called "Ghazni". This means that Ghazni was ruling Iran, Pakistan, India and others. The name "Ghaznavid" clearly has Ghazni in it. Therefore, it all comes to this...Pakistan, Iran and India were ruled by Afghanistan (Ghazni) and by the Afghan people.

It does not matter if the name "Afghanistan" was recognized by Afghanistan's neighbors or not...but it is clearly recorded in history that Afghans lived in the area of Ghazni for ages. Anyone who lives in Afghanistan is called Afghan. The same as anyone living in America is American, regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.

The people of Afghanistan began using the term Afghan as a name for themselves from the Islamic period onwards. According to W.K. Frazier Tyler, M.C. Gillet and several other scholars, "The word Afghan first appears in history in the Hudud-al-Alam in 982 AD.

Therefore, I conclude that Pakistan, Iran and India were ruled by Afghanistan, and also, Pakis, Iranis (Shias) and Indian (Hindus) were ruled by Afghans (kings). By the way....Afghanistan simply means "land of the Afghans"....anywhere there is land and it gets occupied by Afghans...that land is automatically called "Afghanistan".

The key thing in your whole statement is I conclude, which is POV, and which cannot be put into articles. This seems to be your own theory.Khosrow II 00:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What User:Khosrow II stated is his or her's POV.--NisarKand 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ul-Ala, ,om al-mashriq is modern Pakistan and nortwest India!!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MODERN AFGHANISTAN. The name was Khorassan. Afghanistan exists since 1850 and since 1919 officaly.

Disputed

I demand to see a credible and convincing evidence from any trustful encyclopedia in which it states that Ghaznavid Empire was based in Khorasan. As I read all the encyclopedias in reference to Ghaznavid Empire....they all explain that Ghaznavid Empire was based in Ghazni (now a city in Afghanistan). There is no encyclopedia that states Ghazni being a city of Khorasan.--NisarKand 02:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Source added. It's from the Encyclopaedia Iranica, written by Brittish Prof. Clifford Edmund Bosworth, one of the word's most renowned orientalists. He is one of the leading historians on the history of the eastern ISlamic lands, specialized on Ghaznavids and Ghoris. Are you happy now? Tājik 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the source, and while it does mention Khorasan, it indicates that the Ghaznavid Empire was a Turkic empire, with the rulers coming down from the north, not locally grown in Khorasan. I further note that User:Tajik has been indefinitely blocked. --Bejnar 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates

What is the dispute about the templates? I am not too familiar with the history of the Ghaznavids but the intro says that they ruled Greater Khorasan, centered in what is now Afghanistan. So based on that it doesn't seem unjustified to add the history of Afghanistan template.. So what is the case for the inclusion/exclusion of that template? Baristarim 10:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"History of Iran or Persia" covers both modern Iran and Afghanistan, "Afghanistan" the country was created in 1747, out of the eastern provinces of Persia, there was no "Afghanistan" at the time of Ghaznavid Empire. --Mardavich 10:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite.. History of country X covers the history of that country. In the history of France, the Roman invasions et al are also mentioned. It means what happened in the history of the area now referred to as X. I am sorry, but following that logic we would have to rewrite nearly every history article in existence. None of the countries in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and some in Europe didn't exist before the 18th century. In that case, we would have to erase everything before 1822 from the History of Greece article. Ancient Greece and modern Greece are very different. Same goes for many other countries. It seems to me that it is both part of the history of Persia and history of Afghanistan. For example, Ottoman Greece is both part of the history of the Ottoman Empire and Greece. Similar. If you think about it, there was no such country as Greece before 1822, anything before the Ottoman conquest was simply the Byzantine Empire. I don't see a problem with having both templates in there. I don't want to get into an edit-war about this though, but I hope that a compromise will be found. Baristarim 10:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation here can't be compared with Greece, there was no "Ancient Afghanistan". The history of the land that is Afghanistan today, was always a part of Persia's history until 1747, when Afghanistan was created. --Mardavich 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. That's why I am asking why both templates can't be included. Maybe have the Afghanistan template after the Persia one? Baristarim 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim, I am from Afghanistan, and I know that putting the template "History of Afghanistan" instead of "History of Iran" would be wrong. If you take a look at the article History of Iran, you will see that this article is a general one, covering the history of the Iranian Cultural Continent. I understand the problem in here, but I do not think that it is necessairy to insert the other template, because Afghanistan's national history is strictly knotted to the Pashtun national movement and the fall of the Safavid Empire. Thus, the history of the nation "Afghanistan" begins in 1747 ... or to be even more precise: in 1919. Before that, the kings of Afghanistan ruled either as "Emperors of Khorasan" or competed with the official Iranian rulers as "Shahs of Iran". The name "Afghanistan" was extended to the entire nation by the British, when they defeated the Qajars in Herat, forcing Persia to accept Afghanistan's independence. Tājik 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik is making pure false statements about the history of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan was created by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747 and it had nothing to do with Persia (Iran) or Iranian people (check here some sources....CIA, Britannica, Dupree, other encyclopedias and even law library information from the United States...[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. In fact, Afghanistan existed many 100s of years before 1747, not as a nation but as an area or territory in the region of Asia. Here are maps from the University of Pennsylvania, clearly showing Afghanistan before 1747 and beyond.

File:Maps of Timurids and Safavids.jpg

Maps from the University of Pennsylvania showing the Empires of both Timurids and Safavids from the year 1407 to 1739.

Notice that the border between Khorasan and Afghanistan was made in around 1506. To locate the capital of Ghaznavid Empire (Ghazni), it is just below under the 2nd "A" in the name of Afgh"a"nistan on the map. Only Persians claim that Afghanistan did not exist, while the entire encyclopedias of the world say it existed for a very long time. Iran was created as a nation in 1935, this is a fact. Because of this, many Persians or Iranians are upset and I guess they feel jealous that Afghanistan was created as a modern state or modern nation in 1747, having much more history than Iran. Anyway, the Ghaznavids are buried in Afghanistan, they ruled Iran from Afghanistan and these people here thinks Ghaznavid Empire should be part of the history of Iran. I'm amazed at what these people here are thinking and claiming.--NisarKand 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghaznavids = Iranian = the biggest joke of a life time

Folks don't make jokes with history...Ghaznavids are Afghans not Iranians. Accept the facts and leave Ghaznavids as part of Afghanistan's history.--NisarKand 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Columbia encyclopedia - Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan. In his raids against the states of N India, Mahmud, a staunch Muslim, destroyed Hindu temples, forced conversions to Islam, and carried off booty and slaves. Hindus especially abhorred his destruction of the temple to Shiva at Somnath in Gujarat. Mahmud's territorial gains lay mainly W and N of Afghanistan and in the Punjab. At Ghazna (see Ghazni), his capital, he built a magnificent mosque. His successors in the Ghaznavid dynasty, which Mahmud founded, ruled over a reduced domain with the capital at Lahore until 1186.[8]

Show me one single source that says Ghaznavids were Iranian. I hope you all know that there was no such thing as Iran before 1935.--NisarKand 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ghaznavids were neither "Afghan" in nationality ("Afghanistan" was created 700 years later) nor in ethnicity (they were Persianized Turks).

The Columbia Encyclopaedia is not an authoritative source, and so far, it is the ONLY source that actually lables Sultan Mahmoud "Afghan".

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, names the Ghaznavids - along with the Samanids and Buyyids - as one of the "e great Iranian kingdoms" of the early post-Islamic era.

the Ghaznavids ruled as "Shahs of Iran" (see the Iranica article), they were regarded as "Shahs of Iran" by their subjects (see Ferdousi's Shahnameh), and they patronized Persian culture, language, and identity. In fact, they were the ones who defended the authonomous status of the Persian world against Arab dominance, and - along with the Samanids and Seljuqs - they are the main reason why Arabic was never able to replace Persian.

The emblem of the Ghaznavids - the "Lion & Sun" - is still the national emblem of Iran.

When Sultan Mahmoud conquered Azerbaijan, the local rulers (Shirvanshahs) - in order to preserve their power - assured to the Sultan that they "used Persian in their courts". Tājik 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tājik 12:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Afghan"

The Pashtuns began using the term Afghan as a name for themselves from at least the Islamic period and onwards. According to W. K. Frazier Tyler, M. C. Gillet and several other scholars, "The word Afghan first appears in history in the Hudud-al-Alam in 982 AD." In this regard, the Encyclopædia Iranica states:

“ From a more limited, ethnological point of view, "Afghān" is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paštō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paštūn. The equation [of] Afghan [and] Paštūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paštūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. ”

It further explains:

“ The term "Afghān" has probably designated the Paštūn since ancient times. Under the form Avagānā, this ethnic group is first mentioned by the Indian astronomer Varāha Mihira in the beginning of the 6th century A.D. in his Brihat-samhita. ”

This information is supported by traditional Pashto literature, for example in the writings of the seventeenth century Pashto poet Khushal Khan Khattak:

“ Pull out your sword and slay any one, that says Pashton and Afghan are not one! Arabs know this and so do Romans: Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans! ”

Afghan is not a new word, the word or name existed about 400 years before the Ghaznavids and it still exists until today. Nice try anyway. Why do you insist on trying to hide facts about history? You should realize that it will never work because everything is documented and recorded.--NisarKand 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica... Ghaznavid Dynasty (AD 977–1186), Turkish dynasty that ruled in Khorasan (in northeastern Iran), Afghanistan, and northern India.

The founder of the dynasty was Sebüktigin (ruled 977–997), a former Turkish slave who was recognized by the Samanids (an Iranian Muslim dynasty) as governor of Ghazna (modern Ghazni, Afg.). As the Samanid dynasty weakened, Sebüktigin consolidated his position and expanded his domains as far as the Indian border. His son Mahmud (ruled 998–1030) continued the expansionist policy, and by 1005 the Samanid territories had been divided. The river Oxus formed the boundary between the two successor states to the Samanid Empire, the Ghaznavids ruling in the west and the Qarakhanids in the east.

Ghaznavid power reached its zenith during Mahmud's reign. He created an empire that stretched from the Oxus to the Indus Valley and the Indian Ocean; in the west he captured (from the Buyids) the Iranian cities of Rayy and Hamadan. A devout Muslim, Mahmud reshaped the Ghaznavids from their pagan Turkic origins into an Islamic dynasty and expanded the frontiers of Islam. The Persian poet Ferdowsi (d. 1020) completed his epic Shah-nameh (“Book of Kings”) at the court of Mahmud about 1010.

Mahmud's son Mas'ud I (reigned 1031–41) was unable to preserve the power or even the integrity of the Ghaznavid empire. In Khorasan and Khwarezm, Ghaznavid power was challenged by the Seljuq Turks. Mas'ud suffered a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Dandanqan (1040), whence all the Ghaznavid territories in Iran and Central Asia were lost to the Seljuqs. The Ghaznavids were left in possession of eastern Afghanistan and northern India, where they continued to rule until 1186, when Lahore fell to the Ghurids.Encyclopaedia Britannica (Online Edition) - Ghaznavid Dynasty

I don't see why the Ghaznavids would be more important to the history of Iran, when it is major part of Afghanistan's past history?--NisarKand 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghaznavids should be noted as a Turko-Afghan dynasty as some academical writings say so. I don't think persian = afghan DuKaK (☠Talk) 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian Transliteration

It's been several times that the Persian Transliteration of the term "Ghaznavid Dynasty" is being removed by an IP address 85.178.161.###. I believe it's a blocked user of wikipedia or even an active member of wikipedia who removes the transliteration anonymously without using his real account. I do not see any logical and neutral reason for removing that. Is that because their ancestry went back to Turkic origin and that they were Muslims? In fact, their official language and court language was Persian, and they ruled over Persian (Khorasan) territory. Does adding the Persian transliteration make them Persian, so that it is being removed? Although, they were Persianized people. Can you show me any single authentic source which would show that their another or other languages were Turkish? Moreover, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, there is no point for removing it. -Ariana 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghaznavids Decline

I wrote this message in the talk page of User:Tigeroo, but there was a problem in submitting it.

I think the addition of the sentence regarding the Battle of Dandanaqan in the "Introduction" of the Ghaznavid article is inappropriate. First, the article starts by mentioning Apl-tigin (who was not even the real founder of Ghaznavid Empire, but it was his son Subuktagin) and goes suddenly to the Battle of Dandanaqan. If you really insist on having this sentence in the Introduction, while it is supposed to be very brief and short, then you have to mention all the important events took place from the time Sebuktigin founded the empire and until Shah Mahmood died. I am pretty sure, you have at least heard of the most important battles that Shah Mahmud Ghaznawi made in Southern Regions in Punjab and in former India. Some of those battles are way important and significant in the history of Ghaznavids than that of Dandanaqan.

Secondly, I agree that the Battle of Dandanaqan was a major threat to the Ghaznavids power in the region, but it does not indicate their decline as a power in the region. The Seljuks did not have an exact empire before the Battle of Dandanaqan, but after their success in the battle, they formed their Empire. In that battle, Ghaznavids lost only the western regions of their empire i.e. the regions today located in Khorasan province of modern-day Iran (Nishapur, Tus, Mashhad, Damghan, etc.) The Suljeks could hardly reach the Herat city (now in Afghanistan).

The decline of Ghaznavids is considered when they lost Ghazni (their capital) to the Ghorids, not before. If you claim that the decline of Ghaznavids was after the Battle of Dandanaqan, then please provide a reliable and scholarly source. Your claim even contradicts what is written in Masoud-nama or Tarikh-e Bayhaqi of Abul-Fazl Bayhaqi, written during the period of Shah Mahmoud and Shah Masoud. The Ghaznavids remained as the same great power during the period of Shah Masoud. So I will remove the history of Shah Masoud that you put under the section of "Decline". -Ariana 11:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lead section is supposed to very quickly cover the items that will be explored in greater detail trough the main article, and highlight the major ones. I agree a similar sentence is required of Mahmud because under him the Ghaznavids reached their zenith should have been there. You say the Ghaznavids "only" lost their western regions to the Seljuks, but those western regions were the heart of the Ghaznavid empire which was a Khorasan centric based one. Losing those regions relegated them to wild albeit important corners of their previous regime. The loss of Ghazni to the Ghorids is not the beginning of the decline but the beginning of the end. The sack of Ghazni earlier by the Turkic nomads drew Masoud to chase them down leading upto the Battle of Dandaqan after which he abandoned the western regions and Masoud even abandoned Ghazni expecting to lose it after this battle. Seljuks continued to harry the Ghaznavids later and kept nibbling away taking Balkh, Herat and pushing into Seistan and a renewed attack on Ghazni in the years after Masoud. While Ibrahim brought some semblence of respect back to fast retreating Ghaznavids he did so by resuming the push into Hind and securing peace with the Seljuks and abandoning any dreams of reconquest. The history of the Ghaznavids after the Saljuks is one of a continous erosion of territory beyond a temporary stay under Ibrahim and as such equates to a decline. A good view can be seen by looking at the Ghaznavid map post-Dandaqan vs. Mahmud's reign. The encyclopaedia Iranica talks of the empire being reduced and as a rump state post dandaqan, Britannica talks about Masoud I under the decline of the Ghaznavid Empire etc. These two are good enough resources so I will reinstate Masoud to the intro of the decline section. While no doubt it still remained a power, it was no longer as powerful and steadily growing weaker and the milestone towards getting there was the Seljuk reduction. Dandaqan was only the highlight of that reduction and the sentence can easily go in without a direct reference to a particular battle but the general Seljuk conquest if that is more amenable to you.

At any rate an event that causes an empire to lose half its territory especially the core is definitely one worth distinction. Please also note that the battle was the end of Masouds career, he died in a mutiny arising from his retreat after the battle, after abandoning Ghazni, on his way to the Punjab stronghold of Lahore. So in effect the decline begins at the end of Masuds career which may had indeed started with Ghaznavid power at their zenith and the pre-eminent powers of the land, however it ends with a major contraction followed by another decade or two of internal strife. Therefore neither of the primary sources cited are really not in contradiction with the concept of the start of the decline at all when they speak of the power and might of the Masoud's empire.--Tigeroo 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that during Shah Masoud's ruling, especially at his late years, Ghaznavids started to weakening. They lost their western territories for the Seljuks, but they were NOT the "only" strategic regions in their empire. All the point lies on how you take the term "Decline". If you take it as weakening, then you're right. But as far as I know, using the term "decline" in a political sense for an empire or a government, means "Fall" of that dynasty. For example, refer to the article Decline of the Roman Empire and observe that decline is used a "Fall of the Roman Empire". While we cannot call the ruling of Masoud I's ruling and his late years as the decline of Ghaznavids. Ghaznavids survived more than 100 years after him, and it was restabilized during the ruling of Sultan Ibrahim (1060-1100).

While their decline, in most of the academic source including the Encyclopedia Iranica, is considered after the death of Masoud III and beginning of Bahram Shah's ruling. The losing of Ghazni was the fall of Ghaznavids, although they continued to rule for more than 30 years in Hindustan. So I suggest to start the story of their decline after Masoud III's death. -Ariana 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would posit that decline is a process that is prelude to the fall. The Ghurids were responsible for the Fall of the Ghaznavids. If it is a matter of semantics we can settle for an alternative rendition if you can propose one. I just don't beleive anyone imagines that the Ghaznavids pre and post Masud were the same dominant force. Also Bahram Shah is noted in Iranica as a Vassal of the Seljuks, a first for them since Alptigin broke away from the Samanids. Anyway if it is the wording than I have no issue beyond that the interrenum doesn't belong under Domination either.--Tigeroo 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Khorasani ?

I checked the citation provided in footnote for the proposition that the Ghaznavid Empire was 'Khorāṣānian. While it does mention that it was located, in part, in Khorasan, it indicates quite clearly that it was a Turkic empire with the invaders having come down from the north. There is no question that the originally Turkic Ghaznavids became thoroughly Persianized. However, it was not a home-grown Khorāṣānian empire, so I have deleted the word, and the footnote. I also made sure that the subsequent use of the footnote was preserved. --Bejnar 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam clearly says "Khorasanian". It is not a reference to their ethnic origins but to the region where they came from. The founder of the dynasty, Sebük-Tigin, was a native of Khorasan, even though he was Turkic in origin. The Ghaznavid dynasty was one of the first native Khorasanian states. That means that the founders of the dynasty were natives of Khorasan and did not invade the region. The Seljuqs, on the other hand, were nomadic invaders who invaded and conquered the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.163.223 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Edits

I am a member of WikiProject Grammar. I made some edits to the article's introduction, which were very much needed. Oddmartian2 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)My Talk

Thanks Deniz^T_C 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkish language

Reference to the Turkish language is irrelevant. First of all, the Ghaznavids were thoroughly Persianized, that means that they spoke only Persian. Secondly, they were of either Qarluq or some other Eastern Turkic origin, and were not related to the Oghuz Turks (back then known as "Turcomans"). This is very clear from the primary Ghaznavid references. Adding the modern Turkish name of the dynasty to this article is like adding the modern Hindustani name of the Holy Roman Empire to that respective article, only because both languages had the same origin. Thirdly, the historical name "Turk" is not the same as the modern expression "Turk". The population of Anatolia was not known as "Turk" until the advent of the Young Turk Ideology and Pan-Turkism. Before that (i.e. before the 20th century), the term "Turk" was considered extremely offensive and insulting, so that even the Ottomans did not call themselvs Turks. With the rise of European-inspired nationalism, Ottoman nationalists adopted the Central Asian word "Turk" as a self-designation, partly aimed to create a new national identity for the Turkish-speakers of Anatolia, and partly aimed to take credit for the historical achievements of Central Asian Turko-Mongols who - in fact - were not related to modern Turks. See Bernard Lewis: "in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." See also the notes by C. Fijnaut & L. Paoli: "The third structural problem had to do with the ethnic hierarchy that prevailed throughout the empire (Ottomon empire). In the Seljuq periods, the authorities viewed Georgians. Iranians and Slavs as the top ranking peoples, and Turks and Turkmens as the lowest. Turkish was a language only to be spoken by people of humble descent, and it is not difficult to find offensive and racist comments in the writings of Seljuq authors: 'Bloodthirsty Turks [...] If they get the chance, they plunder, but as soon as they see the enemy coming, off they run'.' Matters were not much different in the Ottoman period, even though the empire was governed by a small elite at the court, which was Turkish itself. According to Cetin Yetkin, one of the major Turkish authors on the Seljuq and Ottoman periods. 'In the Ottoman Empire, though Turks were a "minority", they did not have the same rights as the other minorities' (Yerkin, 1974: 175). In fact the term 'Turk' was a pejorative. Ottoman historian Naima, who also wrote a book about the Anatolian rebels, uses the following terms for the Turks: Tiirk-i bed-lika (Turk with an ugly face), nadan Turk (ignorant Turk) and eirak-i bi-idrak (Turk who knows nothing)." So, no matter how you take it, the reference to the Turkish language is irrelevant, the same way the reference to the Hindustani language is irrelevant in the Windsors article.

Are you retarded? How can the Turks of Anatolia not be related to the Turkic people of Central Asia if they speak belong to the same family and if their roots are in Central Asia? Your persian nationalistic feelings pretty blatantly demonstrate the idiocracy of threatened iranic people who just cannot accept that Turkic peoples have dominated Central Asia and Iran since the 4th century AD and thus use wikipedia to get your anger out and confuse third parties. How could the Ghaznavids have only spoken persian? How would you know this? They clearly spoke Turkic languages since they were a Turkic empire. It's ridiculous how people like to say that "they only spoke persian" and have completely no idea what they are talking about. Additionally, them being Qarluq Turkic, still makes them very much Turkic and still very very close to the Og'uz branch of the Turkic FAMILY.

Ghaznavid Map

When I created the East-Hem_1025ad map, I used borders of the Ghaznavids as shown in a map located on Google (I don't remember the exact location). Thus the map I created doesn't show the Ghaznavids ruling Kerman, Mukran, or Kusdar. Did the Ghaznavids actually rule those regions, or is my map correct? Please let me know so I can make corrections if necessary and upload an updated map. Thomas Lessman 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I see Persiand are suffering great Inferiority Complex. They "intrude" to nearly every subject in Turksh History and write Persian. If they can't succeed they wirte "Persianeted". I do not understand why wikipedia administrators are consisting on just watching this actions. Selçuks are Persianated, Ghaznavid are Persianated, Selçuk dynasty is Persianated, Al-Farabi, Al-Birun, Uluğ Bey, İbn-i Sina are Persain. the world is a scene for Persians. ha ha !

Another ridicule is that Encyclopaedia Iranica thing. They refer it to justify their racist, expansionist, assimilationist, jingoist claims.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They write "Khorasani State" for sake of not writing Turkish State. What is a Khorasani?

--Polysynaptic (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Iranica is major project of the Columbia University, directed by Ehsan Yarshater. It contains the works of some 500 experts from all over the world, the overwhelming majority being Americans and Europeans, most of them also professors. Your accusations are just ridicules and prove that you have no idea of what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.128.9 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is nothing more then a biased racist freak "thing" that people like you use to distort Turkish history. There is nothing aclled "Khorasani State". search google. If you find except your Encyclopaedia Iranica thing write it down here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysynaptic (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Salam. Welcome back. No one wants to distort any history. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. And Turks and Iranians have had a long history of mutual relationship where cultural influences were exchanged. On Ghaznavids, I would read the Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islam article by Clifford Edmund Bosworth. He is an expert on topic of Ghaznavids and Islamic history in general. In Wikipedia, you can not remove source materials from scholars who are experts in the field. I would understand if it was a fringe site or non-related book to the topic. But both Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica are highly specialized sources [9]. No one denies that Ghaznavids were Turkish in origin (I persume you do not like the word Turkic so I am using Turkish. In Persian, it said as "Tork" and no one differentiate between Turkish and Turkic.). But culturally they were Persianized, had Persian poets in their court, their administrative language was Persian and also they even claimed descent from the Sassanids. For example, you can find hundreds if not thousands of Persian works from the Ghaznavid era and some from the court. Even festivals such as Sadeh and Mehregan (Zoroastrian in origin) were celebrated. But there is not a single page of Turkish from the court (not to ridicule but just stating a fact). So I have no quarrel with you and I am just trying to make you understand that these are expert sources on topic written by well known scholars. I am sure you have heard of Bosworth. As per Khorasani state, I have enough evidence here that Ghaznavids were praised as Kings of Iran

[10] . In fact the rival Qaraqanids , were considered Turkestan/Turan to them. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I also added some other sources besides the Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam which were already present. Hope this will be enough, so it is not removed in the future. Note I even provided the actual excerpts as well. Thank you. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact Kara-Khanid Khanate -which you "name" "Qaraqanids" but actually "Karahanlılar" which kara means Black in Turkish and Khan is a Turkish rank order- was a Turkish Khanate of Oghuz branch and they called themselves "Türk Hakanlığı" which can be translated to English as "Turkish Haakandom" (Turkish Empire). You have to learn that there is no state which can be categorized as Horasani, Turani or whatever. How do you call Iran? a Persian state or Middle Eastern state? Try to be academic.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merhaba. Actually the correct name would be QaraKhanid not Qaraqanid (my typo) or Kara-Khanid (your form). Their name is written as قراختایی and qAfق is Q and خ is Kh. Also one can take both geographical and ethnic designation of course. For example the Moghuls are also called an "Indian Empire". The Ottoman empire in Persian literature has been consistently called "Rum" and its citizens were called "Rumi" (Greek). Even the people that wrote in the Ottoman Turkish language has called their language "Rumi". The Qarakhanids in terms of the available text at their time were called "Rulers of Turan". That is how Ghaznavid regional writers/poets referenced them. It might not be correct today to use such a designation, but in their own time, this was used. So that is why Iran has also been called various things: "Iranian state, Middle Eastern state, Persian state". All of them are correct and I don't think there is one golden designation. Just wondering, do you have a source for their own self-designation? In Persian literature, they are called Al-e-Afrasiyaab also, since they were linked with the mythological Afrasiyab (from Shahnameh/Avesta) and from what I read (I might be wrong here), they themselves adopted such a mythical genealogy themselves. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Map of Asia 1025ad is not correct

If you look at Asia Minor there is Otoman Empire according to map. Around 1025AD this was still part of Byzantine empire. For reference see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_empire and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_Byzantine_Empire_1045.svg

I think there are other mistakes but for this I am sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.202.65 (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bejnar

I have reverted misleading edits and weasel words ("Non-Persian dynasty of Turkic origin") by User:Bejnar. He had also deleted a source from the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tājik (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check the edit, here, you will see that the source was not deleted, just moved down a bit, and "non-Persian" is not a weasel word, see Wikipedia:Weasel_words definition and discussion. Also "non-Persian" was a direct quote from the citation provided. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted unexplained deletions by an IP. Tajik (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have once again reverted unnecessary and irrelevant additions by an anon IP. Tajik (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Founders of the Gaznavid Empire

Founders of the Gaznavid Empire were Turks.But if we write anything about Turks for example Turkish name of the Gaznavids "gazneliler" someones delete it.

Mahmud's grandfather was Alptigin, a Turkic slave-guard of the Samanids in Balkh who crossed the Hindu Kush mountains to seize Ghazni from the declining Samanid kingdom, located strategically on the road between Kabul and Kandahar. Alptigin was succeeded in 977 by his slave and son-in-law Sabuktigin, who enlarged upon Alptigin's conquests, extending his domain north to Balkh, west to Kandahar and Khorasan, and east to the Indus River. According to Ferishta, Mahmoud's mother was a Persian noble from ZabulistanMuhammad Qāsim HindÅ« Å āh AstarābādÄ« FiriÅ¡tah, "History Of The Mohamedan Power In India", Chapter I, "Sultān MahmÅ«d-e GhaznavÄ«", p.27 - this information contradicts Ferdowsi's satirization of Mahmud for "being descended from slaves on both maternal and paternal side". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyzboyz20 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)