Talk:Ghaznavid Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ghaznavid Empire is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Afghanistan-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghaznavid Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Ghaznavid Empire is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

	Ghaznavid Empire is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-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 has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.	History Portal Geography Portal Atlas Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ). Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WP Former Countries - Things to do: Open tasks for WikiProject Former countries      Edit Correct links: Correct any wikilinks that you find anywhere on Wikipedia where the link is to the wrong version of the state. Some examples of bad links: Referring to the former Free City of Lübeck (an independent entity for 711 years), but the link goes to the modern city of Lübeck. Referring to Napoleon's France, where the link instead goes to modern France. Create redirects: If the article for the correct state does not yet exist, create a redirect to the nearest existing article (if possible) and place {{WPFC|class=Needed}} on the redirect's talk page. Whether or not a redirect has been created, list the wanted article below under "Needed". Article improvement After performing any of these tasks, re-rate the entry via the WPFC banner, and remove the article from the relevant list. Expand: Confederation of the Rhine, Straits Settlements, Belgian Congo, Free City of Lübeck, Kingdom of Ireland, North German Confederation, Spanish East Indies Stubs: Adamawa Emirate, Baranya-Baja Republic, Kingdom of Redonda, Piratini Republic, United States of Colombia Needed: Kingdom of Bavaria Assess: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, German East Africa, Orange Free State Articles requiring particular elements After providing the requested element, please remove the relevant tag from the article's WPFC banner and remove the article from this list. Flag: Alta California, Baranya-Baja Republic, Bishopric of Liège, Lordship of Ireland, Mexican Empire Coat of Arms: Adamawa Emirate, Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Confederation of the Equator, Congo Free State, New Spain, West Florida Map: Baranya-Baja Republic, California Republic, Holy Roman Empire, Republic of Manitoba Venezuela (second republic) Infobox: Anjouan, Austrian Empire, Baranya-Baja Republic, Belgian Congo, Holy Roman Empire, Orange Free State Quality watch: 4 FA-Class former country articles - 3 GA-Class former country articles.

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

Contents 1 Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica 2 Why the Iran side-bar? 3 Copyright 4 Removed the Iranian Side bar 5 The Terms Turkish and Turkic 6 Ghaznavid Empire based in Afghanistan 7 Disputed 8 Templates 9 Ghaznavids = Iranian = the biggest joke of a life time

[edit] Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica

... 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Copyright

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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:^[1]

“

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:^[2]

“

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)