Talk:Samanid Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I think there is a mistake here; Samanid is different from Sassanid.

Samanids and Tajiks[edit]

It should be noted that the tajik identity was formed after the occupation of Central Asia by Turks. I.e. it is a privative(?)definition. It means persian speaking as opposed to turkish speaking. Since at the time of Samanids Central Asia was not occupied or controlled by Turkic tribes Tajik identity does not make sense. It was after the Samanids that turic tribes took control over the region.

   RE: Can You prove that? Bring some sources, please,. I would like to know my history.
Actually the Tajik identity was formed when the Persians from Iran migrated in mass to Central Asia during the Arab invasions, that is according to Iranologist Richard Nelson Frye. --Behnam 06:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a claim and highly questionable and debatable as ricahrd nelson frye is known to make outragoues claims like this one. It almost seems that Everything in Central asia has descended from Persian(iranians) when infact no scholars from afghanistan or tajikstan or in the region has verified or accepted this claim. The tajiks were first to migrate to what is now iran. Ironically Iranians come from what is now tajikistan and afghanistan. Also there are too many people here are reading the western version of central asia and afghanistan history and just tie it into the persian history because they speak the same language which is not true because persian is a western terminology and historically incorrect when reffering to DARI or afghansPashtun786 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

Pashtun Dombdar,

Tajik is a sononymus for Persian. Persians of central Asia use it to define Persians there. Tajiks are not turks, they are pure Indo-Europeans. People who live in Turkey or in areas where they make a minority like in Kurdistan people call them as well as Tajik. Some great Poets called themself as well as Tajiks like Saadi. Even in the Shahnama Soraab (i think it is Sorab) call himself as Tajik. Tajik was used for 2000 years ago to descibe Avestan speaking people by Indians. Even chinese´s and tibetans use this word till today to descibe all Persian people, including those in Iran and Aserbaidshan (Tats). But Pashtuns have turkish origine, at least all non-Kanlari-groups. Jaji= Jajra, Karokhil= Karo, Ghalzai/Ghilzai= Khilij, Abdali= Ebdali (indo-europeans of non-iranic origine from Sibiria and east mongolia who became very strong turkizised). And now add all sub-groups, too.

Dari is the language of Iran, Tajikistan and Persian Afghans while Awghans/Aoghans speak Pashto, a SOUTH-EASTERN iranian language. That means there is no relation to the avestan (bactrian-sogdian-Parsi->Kambuji people). Awghans->Ashvakans! first vedic speaking people who became as well mixed by drawidas and later had developed an own stock of the indo-aryan language, of course not intentionally.

Parsi is Parsi. It differ just in it´s dialects. Btw, our dialect is known as Parsi e/Palawi e Khorassani!! to understand that you have to see who parthians were and who are their descends today-->Tajiks!! Of seven tribes three tribes settled in modern Afghanistan. Now accept it or get die by your facist mentality. best regards

-- 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Koh-Damani

"PERSIAN AFGHANS" wrong, first of all the real scholars will never say that afghans or tajik are "PERSIAN" this is an incorrect Western usage when reffering to these people. Theres an old saying never believe anything that you hear. Also have you seen any afghan historian has accepted any of these articles? or did you hear from your own family saying that they are persian? NO. These articles are written and referenced by iranians, jews, british, americans. How come afghans never write there own articles instead foreigners are doing it for us who have no clue of the language or the culture. Pashtun786 06:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

I know this discussion is 8 years old but i thought i would for people that might read this. You guys are both somewhat right and wrong. The Samainds themselves were from the area we would call "Tajkistan" today and the area has been historically inhabbited by a people called "Tajiks." Richard Frye's statement is wrong since a huge migration of Persians into central asia would have not been possible since the Arabs advanced eastwards into Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Ummayd empire ruled the vast land of Iran all the way to Pakistan so it wouldn't exactly make sense for them to migrate into an area also invaded by Arabs. Secondly, i think the Samanids were more or less just Sodighans who got persianized and adopted Farsi as state language, as you know very well that Farsi was the lingua franca and court language at the time. Also, the word Tajik was revived ruing the soviet rule and was not accepted at first by the majority of Persians from Afghanistan and Tajikistan as the word originally had a negative connation to it. Akmal94 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Pahlavi literature[edit]

is this where 9th-century Pahlavi literature comes from? Jonathan Tweet 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the last Samanid King ruled till 1005[edit]

Dear Arian,

Wikipedia is not a site or a book like Puta Khazana or sth like that. The last Samanid King ruled till 1005. That their rule took so long i do not need britanicca or sth. ...i have read the books about them!! I have movies about them!!! I have old texts about them written by arabs!!! PLZ do not hide their full ruling date!! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MADE BY PASHTUNES WHO DOES NOT KNOW SAMANIDS IN AFGHANISTAN!!!

Ps:Dqiqi was writing for the shanameh in the court of the samanids but he died to early so firdowsi wrote for them further the book but they didn´t want it so he wrote the shahname for sulatn mahmud till his death!!! by the way before daqiqi and firdowsi the shahname was written by another persian from merv unfortunatley i have forgotten his life.

and 1+1 is not zero even when the samanids had ruled from 875 or whatever it don´t make 102 years!! it would be very good to visit midnight schools, my tip to you!! education is the most important thing today, don´t forget it!! won´t hurt..even you are a pashtune ;)

User:Tajik-Professor, first keep your Personal Attacks away, you are already aware of wikipedia rules. Here is not like other forum website. Secondly, you cannot remove a well-sourced information. The Britannica source is completely reliable, and you could not even provide a single source for what you wrote. Any unsourced information can be reverted.Ariana310 20:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

does this (819–999) make 102 years??--Tajik-Professor 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. I changed the date of their ruling, and I forgot to change the number of years they ruled. If you can provide a reliable source for what you say (819 - 1005), then you can obviously change it in the article, without any problem.Ariana310 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


"Samanid empire" is not a popular term in English books or academic articles (compare Samanids or Samanid dynasty with "Samanid empire). This page should move back to Samanids. Alefbe (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute. How many sources do you need? ("samanid+empire"&btnG=Search+Books 1). Every empire starts from a "dynasty" so counting "google hits" does not help. For example look at the book The Cambridge history of Iran which is an academic source and it uses both Empire and dynasty. I think the page should be moved to "Samanid empire".--Xashaiar (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For the title, "Samanids" or "samanid dynasty" is much more common in academic sources (compared to "Samanid empire"). For the content of the page, the issue is that empire is a very vague word. The Samanid state wasn't an empire by its standard definition. I was a semi-independent Emirate which was nominally under Abbasid Caliphate. Alefbe (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am the academic source and I explained what the point is. Do not chat.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Xashaiar: please spare us the bizarre assertions that you are an "academic source".
Likewise the "counting 'google hits' does not help" when you are doing precisely the same thing.
FWIW,... Alefbe is correct. The Samanids were a semi-autonomous vassal state of the Caliphate. Although they ran their own (federal) government, they paid a tithe to the Abbasids who gave the Samanids the right to rule and whose support the Samanids depended upon.
The edit warring is disruptive. So settle it on talk. There is no need to call the Samanids an empire, and doing so is misleading. So just simply don't do that. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1. never ever pronounce my name that's very bad for your health. 2. Stop following my edits, you may find better things to do. 3. I proved to everybody on this planet that your logic is 0-order logic which is dead now. Because: My statement was A. The word empire and dynasty have been used and is not "what we invented". B. I explained what I mean. 4. I am correct because I disagree with the "master of copy and pase=Full stop". live with it.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not how things work around here. We do not "live with" what you, Xashaiar, decree should or should not be done.
Your newest assertion that "I [Xashaiar] am correct because I disagree" is just more grandstanding. We are not obliged to pay any more heed to it than your previous assertion that you are an "academic source".
And, "I [Xashaiar] proved to everybody on this planet that your logic is 0-order logic which is dead now" is incoherent. Besides, you have not even responded to anything that has been said. Indeed, all you did was strike out my comment.
As always, you have the option of either A) participating in this discussion in order to make the article better, or B) leaving voluntarily
Not options are C) asserting that "I [Xashaiar] am the academic source", D) "I [Xashaiar] am correct", E) striking out the comments of others.
Take your pick. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You say "Sorry, that is not how things work around here." I agree but I am not sure if I should say it or you. The point of my first comment here was: It is not acceptable to change every instance of empire to dynasty. This change had been done by the user in more than 5 other pages. And his/her "supplement" is to remove maps! The options here are either "you stop following my edits" Or "read my comments and edit summaries more carefully". So here is what the user above does not accept: "Following some academic sources, it is OK to use "samanid empire" at some instances in the article". Simple. BTW how/why/when did you come to this page?--Xashaiar (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Xashaiar is right. Empire and dynasty are not mutually exclusive. more than 300+ hits in google books (not google) [1] should be sufficient to mention both. This is not a place for WP:OR. We follow WP:RS sources and if 300+ books have Samanid empire, then it is more than enough to call them an empire. The Abbassids at this time were under control of Buyids themselves and were just head figures and then the Seljuqs came and again Abbassids were head figures. But this is not a discussion forum. We simply state WP:RS sources and cambridge history of Iran and 300+ hits call it an empire and it does not contradict it being a dynasty. Sassanid dynasty, Sassanid empire are both used and both terms are correct. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has said anything about empire and dynasty being mutually exclusive. Accordingly, Xashaiar doesn't have anything to be "right" about. Least of all when he has himself rejected hit counting as a means to determine frequency.
Alefbe has made his case about the term "empire" being inapplicable to an entity that is dependent on another. Xashaiar may either address that point in an appropriate manner, or he may prefer to yield the field. Those are his options. He may not assert that "I [Xashaiar] am the academic source", or assert that "I [Xashaiar] am correct", or strike out other people's comments, or be a belligerent bully.
Moreover, custom interpretations of Wikipedia policies don't wash, least of all when WP:CIVIL is routinely violated. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure if Xashiyar violated civil, but are you sure you have not violated WP:civil ? I urge everyone here including Xashaiar not to violate WP:civil and be more friendly. And also for Alefbe not to remove WP:RS sources [2]. All it is required for Wikipedia is 1 WP:RS source but we have 300+ in google books for Samanids that call them an empire, so obviously it should be in the body, infoboxes and possibly the title. Note Sassanid empire and dynasty both have lots of academic books as well:[3][4]. For consistency's sake, we need to follow the same guidelines for Samanids as for Ghaznavids, Sassanids and etc. who have also been dynasties and empires. I see the title of the Sassanids in Wikipedia is Sassanid empire, but the title of Samanids and Ghaznavids lacks the word empire. Safavids article is called a dynasty, but they have also been called Safavid Iranian empire/Persian empire and etc. There is no harm in adding empire to the tile of these empires for their entry, but possibly a uniform title is the best and I think Safavids, Samanids, Buyids and Ghaznavids should also have an added empire in their title.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is about the title of the page and also this edit by Wayiran which has replaced the most common name with a less common name in the infobox and also has included some factual errors (like mentioning Buyids as a successor, instead of Kara-Khanids). None of the links that you provided and nothing in your argument justify replacing Samanid dynasty with Samanid empire in the introduction and the infobox. In his effort to defend Wayiran's edit, Xashaiar has blindly restored it without even correcting apparent mistakes (like mentioning Buyids instead of KaraKhanids), and you are defending that erroneous edit. I should say that I'm quite disappointed by your way of addressing this issue. Alefbe (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I am just trying to be neutral and I think we can solve this through friendly diologue and I have urged Xashiyar to be calm as well. From what I understand, you are claiming there is a contradiction between dynasty and empire or that dynasty is more common than empire. The first claim is not true and the second does not justify keeping dynasty when empire has more than 300+ google book hits. The Samanids were both. The justification for infobox in my opinion is that the term empire is more significant than dynasty. You can be a dynasty but not an empire. But you can't be an empire without being dynasty. If X has a black belt in a martial art, then there is no reason to put red belt. The readers will automatically know it is a dynasty when empire is mentioned, but they won't know if it is an empire (which it is), if dynasty is mentioned. So given empire is more signifcant, and there is many sources that call them an empire, I think empire is better for the info-box and even title. Empire implies dynasty but dynasty does not imply empire, where as empire has been used by more than 300+ google books. The replacement of Samaanids is generally thought to be Ghaznavids but Karakhanids might have taken some territories as well. You are correct and I have edited the infobox to correct that section.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The infobox and the first sentence of the introduction and the title of page should be consistent with most common name in English texts and the way it is usually addressed in Encyclopedias. "Samanids" and "Samanid dynasty" are more common in English books and Academic articles. Also, for Encyclopedias, you can check Encyclopedia of Islam or general encyclopedias (like Britannica). Alefbe (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no general precedence, but Cambridge history of Iran would have more weight than britannica or even Encyclopedia of Islam. As I explained an empire is dynasty by default. But a dynasty is not necessarily an empire. "Chon sad amad navad ham pisheh maast", so I do not see any harm mentioning them as an empire and it follows academic guidelines. You are claiming dynasty is more common, but there is no contradiction between dynasty and empire. Every empire is also a dynasty.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Cambridge history of Iran hasn't used "Samanid empire" as a title of a chapter. Alefbe (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Amir is just another word for Monarchy here, but it is the Arabic word.
No it's not. At that time, Amir was the title of a governor which was nominally under Caliphate. Alefbe (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Samanids ruled as monarchs. The Caliph was no more than a figure head and that is why Samanids are called an empire as well. Cambridge history of Iran does not need to use it as a title of a chapter. As long as it has used it, it is sufficient to denote the Samanids as an empire throughout any such article.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Their title was Amir and they didn't consider themselves as sovereign monarchs (though they enjoyed practical independence). None of them called themselves Shah or anything meaning king. Alefbe (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think we have poets referring to them as Shah..just like Ghaznavid king was called Sultan Mahmud...but title and actual governance is two different matter. Queen of England is a "queen" but not really...--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere (specially after edits like this, based on arguments which are IMO irrelevant to the title of the page and the infobox). I think we should ask opinion of others (but not from a small circle of Iranian Wikipedians). Alefbe (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first page of the chapter on Samanids (in the Cambridge history of Iran). Even Frye (who has used the term "Samanid empire" once) has not used this term in the title of that chapter or its lead (also see this for the usage of various terms in that chapter). Alefbe (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are violating WP:OR by making it seem like dynasty contradicts an empire. Every empire is a dynasty, so the usage of empire does not invalidate it as a dynasty. But empire is a more significant word and it has been used by Frye among others. Since empire is more significant, it should be in the title box. And title of Chapter is of no consequence, what matters is that empire is the most significant term and it has been used by Frye and 300+ more books. And it already contains the definition of a dynasty within it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

excuse me can someone please move the picture of a samanid king nasr ii which is covering a part of the text!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethyx (talkcontribs) 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone in here are tajiks or pro-persians that are writing this history[edit]

Most of the information must be verified and accepted by a large scholarly society in afghanistan and historians that are neutral about the subject, other than that apparently everything on here is written favoring an iranian view as everyone on here including the editor is a tajik wannabe persian which in most people's opinion is not the same. (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Pashtun786

Why afghans? how are they considered neutral in this matter? Give sources to counter the facts given by Persians if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talkcontribs) 11:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Samanid trading with Europe[edit]

This article does not mention the Samanids trading with Europe

The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (trans. Richard N. Frye), Page 143 mentions the following:

"...The Samanids were involved in trading with Europe, as thousands of Samanid coins that have been found in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries testify. Trades, agriculture and slave trading were the economic basis of Samanid State...", - I have reworded it. I will be adding it with proper citation.

Lineage of the Samanids[edit]

The article claims "To legitimize the dynasty, the Samanids claimed to be descendants of Bahram Chobin,[9]".. this is somewhat inaccurate. In the book, 'The History of Bukhara' by Narshakhi (Trans. by Richard Nelson Frye), there's an entire chapter called "An account of the house of Saman and their lineage", Here' it says (roughly) "Saman Khuda was one of the descendant of Bahram Chobin", in other words, they didn't simply claim it, they were infact descendants of Bahram Chobin as recorded in their lineage. I will be adding it with proper citation. -- Source: The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (Trans. Richard Nelson Frye), Pg 79, Chapter XXVI. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To IP:, you are writing repeatedly that Samanids were not descendants of Bahram Chobin, rather they simply claimed it. This is not true. The article as it stands is properly cited. Please do not remove/make changes. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

removed two sentences[edit]

During the Samanid period the Tajik nation was formed in Central Asia. The Samanid Empire is considered as the first Tajik state.

I have removed these from the text from the article, being of spurious nature. This is exactly what the official Soviet ethno-nationalist propaganda machine of Tajikistan pumped out, and as such does not belong in a NPOV encyclopaedia.

This is not only contentious but unvalidated. Please do not restore these passages to the article without proper scholarly citations directly making these claims. --Jhelyam (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Is there a particular reason why most of the references (Notes) do not have dates or publishers given, let alone if there are different editions? It should also have a bibliography to supplement the script of the Notes. If these are article titles they should have the Journal, and issue and volume information, shouldn't it? Isn't the idea of providing information so that someone else can find it and use it too? Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact and Historical Source[edit]

in all historical source samanids empire certainly is persian.and verb of tajik were made ​​in later years.samanids named Themselves padishahe iran (king of persia).So if tajik's want are related themselves to the samanids,Because to build identity for their history and their newly establishment country,this identity building shouldn't effected on fact and history. if this post have misspelling excuse me Because my english is some weak.Ali Historian (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Ali Historian

The references supporting Tajik and the word Tajik should stay within the article. I do not see a problem allowing referenced information stating Persian as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The latest "source" from is not published and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's reliable sources requirements. I have added two university sources that state the Samanids were Tajik. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"Tajik" is technically wrong, because it is an exonym which was established much later. The correct expression in here would be "Persian". The Encyclopaedia of Islam (article by Clifford Edmund Bosworth) writes: SAMANIDS, a Persian dynasty which ruled in Transoxania and then in Khurasan also, at first as subordinate governors of the Tahirids [q. v. ] and then later autonomous, virtually independent rulers (204-395/819-1005). --Lysozym (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I personally do not have a preference, for Persian or Tajik. It would appear that the original "Persian"[5] was changed to "Tajik" and later when I caught someone changing it, simply reverted it back without checking. However, of the 5 references for "Persian", the "Islam after Communism" doesn't even mention "Persian" and the other 4 references I am currently checking. There are 3 references that state Tajik Samanids. If you can bring enough sources to indicate that the 3 "Tajik" references are a minority, I would agree to changing it to "Persian". --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Islam is authoritative. See also the Cambridge History of Islam: [6] --Lysozym (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not me you have to convince, it is the multitude of anon IPs that will revert you. You can change it Lysozym, I do not have a problem with "Persian". --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Persian or Tajik, both the same word for the same people. -- (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While searching for the editor that plagiarized part of a book and added it to this article, I found this edit[7] by Scythian1, where he changes the ethnicity to "Tajik". You might ask his opinion on his talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Concern over plagiarism[edit]

The Cultural and Religious efforts section appears to have been copied word-for-word from "History of Afghanistan"[8] and "History of Iran"[9]. I will attempt to re-write the section without changing the "gist" of the section. Any concerns can be posted here. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Weren't Samanids of Parthian stock?[edit]

Wario-Man: It's disputed, some sources state that it's not for sure if they really were descendants of Bahram Chobin, who had become a famous figure mythological-like figure in Khorasan and Transoxiana. But if they were descendants of Bahram Chobin, they had surely been Persianized at that time. By this time, Dehqan was mostly used by Persians and eastern Iranians such as Sogdians, the inhabitants of Khuttal, etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Thanks for the info. So an "Iranian" dynasty is more accurate than Persian and Parthian due to their origin and culture? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Wario-Man: I would say that both Persian and Iranian is correct, but I prefer myself to use Iranian in this case. Some scholars prefer to use 'Tajik', ie Persianized eastern Iranians. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)