Talk:Timurid dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Timurid dynasty 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.
???	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.

	Timurid dynasty 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.

Timurid dynasty 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 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no
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 Nyasaland 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, Duchy of Lucca, Lordship of Ireland, Mexican Empire Coat of Arms: Adamawa Emirate, Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Confederation of the Equator, New Spain, West Florida Map: Baranya-Baja Republic, California Republic, Republic of Manitoba Venezuela (second republic) Infobox: Anjouan, Baranya-Baja Republic, Belgian Congo, Kingdom of Chile, Orange Free State Quality watch: 11 FA-Class former country articles - 8 GA-Class former country articles.

This article has no idea what it is about... It talks about the 'Timurid Dynasty' in theory, and yet Timurid Empire directs here as well... So it should talk about that too... It dosen't really- It skips a hundred years with, "After the end of the Timurid Empire in 1506" and starts talking about Mughals- who have their own article anyway... 125.237.60.139 08:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 confusion 2 May I say... 3 Timurids were not "oringally" Mongolian 4 Recent changes 5 What happened to the 14th century? 6 History 7 Timurid Empire is Turk Empire

[edit] confusion

Turkic refers to a language group; Turkish refers to an ethnic group. the Timurid dynasty was formed by Mongols from central asia but over time they began to speak the Turkic language, hence the Turkic designation. They shouldn't be confused with Turkish (people in turkey) Steelhead 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Timurids were not "Turkish".--Zereshk 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Christ, not here as well. See the dispute on the Talk:Babur page - you can't describe the Timurids as "Turkish", that's simply idiotic. There seems to be no limit to the number of nationalist morons out there who feel it incumbent upon themselves to "claim" important historical figures for one nationality or another in an entirely anachronistic way. Stop it! Sikandarji 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• As far as i understood from the protected version, it does not describe as Turkish but Turkic. I checked the source, now directly copying the paragraph from Britannica here:

Timurid Dynasty: (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia. After Timur's death (1405), his conquests were divided between two of his sons: Miranshah (d. 1407) received Iraq, Azerbaijan, Moghan, Shirvan, and Georgia, while Shah Rokh was left with Khorasan. ...

You see, if this is wrong you should correct and provide sources rather than accusing. This is not a mental problem of anyone. Furthermore, in my opinion, Turkic refers to the language family not the nationality. Regards. E104421 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How can a dynasty belong to a linguistic family? In any case by the time of Akbar the Timurids only spoke and wrote in Persian (Akbar had to have Babur's memoirs translated from the Chaghatai because he couldn't read them). If you must give them an ethnic label (and I think that's a bad idea) then call them Turco-Mongols, but they represent such a mixture of ethnicities and languages that it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's an elite identity, not a national or ethnic one. That's the point. I suggest you read Beatrice Forbes Manz "The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity" in Jo-Ann Gross (Ed.) Muslims in Central Asia. Expressions of Identity and Change (Duke University press) 1992 pp27-45, plus the relevant articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Sikandarji 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, a dynasty cannot belong to a lingusitic family, but it's written there as Turkic dynasty. I'm not a native English speaker, but as far as i understood, it means either Turkic speaking dynasty or dynasty of turkic people. In Britannica, there are Turkic people and Turkic languages entries both refering to each other. In my opinion, better to use the Turkic term in the context of language cause Turkic is a relatively new term for etnic labelling that doesn't correspond to anything precisely. In this way, Turkic dynasty means Turkic speaking dynasty or their descendents. For the etnical labelling, i'm strongly agree with you. For Timurids article, as you said, better to call them Turco-Mongols. For me, etnical labelling is not necessary. However, in my opinion, it's worth noting the language spoken by both the elite and the people, in addition, the language of literature. Since these contitutes an important part of the culture. I'll have a look at the sources you mentioned. Thanx. Sincere regards. E104421 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that turkic is being used to describe both a language and a culture. You can see this clearly in the bit under culture! While ethnic descriptions do open a whole can of unnecessary worms, perhaps a closer geographical description might be useful? This isn't my area, so I leave it up to others to add this. I'd just add that there's a lot of intelligent debate here that should perhaps be incorporated into the page at a later date. Certainly the exact use of the word turkic ought to be dealt with and justified. Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sikandarj, even though I respect your opinions, please do not forget that in wikipedia, we can only cite sources, and Britannica is definitely a valid source. Even if it cannot be cited as a stand-alone source, it definitely merits a mention. Half of Wiki was created from Britannica's 1911 edition :)) It is not up to us to judge if Brittanica is wrong or right.. I mean, half the articles on wiki are cited to various blogs, forums and self-referenced web-sites, if we cannot even cite Brittanica, how the hell are we supposed to build an encyclopedia in the first place? Brittanica describes them as Turkic, and it definitely warrants more than a simple mention.. That's all. Baristarim 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you like Britannica, then you should respect Britannica's information and accept that the Timurids were NOT Turks. Let me quote Britannica:

• "... The first Mughal, or Mongol, emperor of India (1526–30) and founder of the Mughal Dynasty there was Baber. As ruler of the principality of Fergana in Turkestan, his birthplace, Baber first tried to recover Samarkand, the former capital of the empire founded by his Mongol ancestor Timur Lenk (Tamerlane) ..." [1]

And it's totally laughable that you people want to put Britannica's controversial and self-contradicting infos above excellent works, such as the work of Prof. Dr. B. Manz, the author of the article "Timur" in Encyclopaedia of Islam. You people simply do not understand the difference between "sources", such as Britannica, and "excellent scholarly sources", such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Tājik 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May I say...

The fact is that the Seljuk Turks and the peoples of Central Asia were called Turks. There is no nation. The chances are, they are all the same people. Think about it. Before they were united into various factions, they were warring tribes that occasionally interbred.

[edit] Timurids were not "oringally" Mongolian

This sentance is unlogical. When Timur who wasn't even a Mongol founded the state he didn't found it as a "Mongolian" state, Timur was Turkic and the official language used in the state was Turkic, Mongolian was never used and they never referred to themselves as Mongols either. Timur did unite the Mogonlian and Turkic tribes in Central Asia therefore often its called a Turco-Mongol state. But to claim that it was solely "mongolian" in origin is nothing but a historical fabrication. The Timurid's as a family were Turkic, the dynasty was originally formed out of a union of Mongol and Turkic tribes.

This is yet again an attempt by some to distort history and delete anything that mentions "Turkic".

No need to discuss this again and again and again ... All sources are given. Case closed. Tājik 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

The "chronological order" proposed by E104421 was wrong, thus I reverted his changes. The Timurids were adopted the established Persian literary tradition. Chaghatay literature developed much later, most of all with Mir Ali Sher Nava'i (who belonged to the last generation of Timurid nobles in Herat, short time before the dynasty was removed by invading Uzbeks). The era of Chaghatay poetry was important, but also very short. It eventually ended with Babur. This is what Britannica says:

• "... After his school companion, the sultan Husayn Bayqarah, succeeded to the throne of Herat, Nava'i held a number of offices at court. He was also a member of the Naqshbandi dervish order, and under his master, the renowned Persian poet Jami, he read and studied the works of the great mystics. ... Nava'i devoted the latter part of his life to poetry and scholarship, writing first in Persian and then in Chagatai. ..."[2]

E104421 also removed the sentens "based on Persian literary tradition". This is POV. Britannica, for example, explains:

• "... With conversion to Islam, the Turks gradually adopted Arabo-Persian metres and literary traditions. ... In the earliest, preclassic period, spanning the 14th and 15th centuries, the influence of the Persian classics was paramount. ..." [3]

Other changes were more or less POV edits. E104421 removed the words "Persian high culture" (although this is mention in many scholarly sources), etc.

Please do not make any major edits without consulting others in the talk-page. Thank you. Tājik 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

E104421 , please stop changing information from Iranica! Here are direct quotes:

• "... [Babur's] origin, milieu, training, and education were steeped in Persian culture and so Ba@bor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural influence in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results. ..." [4]
• "... After Timur's invasion (1398), which marked, especially for northern India, a deep hiatus in cultural activity, the age of the first six Mughal rulers (1525-1707) represented the heyday of Indo-Persian literature; it was replenished by fresh waves of talented émigrés from Safavid Persia and by increasing Hindu participation in Persian writing, particularly with the advent of Lo@di (Lodi) rule (1451-1526), when the knowledge of Persian language and literature began to filter through to the Hindu administrative class. [...] After contributing enormously to the birth of Urdu language and literature, Persian, which had been the official language of the empire from 1582 to 1835, was ousted by English.For about eight centuries Persian represented "the strongest factor in the unity and coherence of the Muslims of the subcontinent" (Bausani, p. 65) and, one may add, even of the entire elite taken as a whole. ..." [5]
• "... Persian-language scholarship stagnated after Timur destroyed the Delhi Sultanate in 1398, but revived and expanded exponentially during the years of the Timurid-Mughal dynasty (1526-1739). In this later period Indo-Persian historiography became a vibrant, multi-faceted tradition of scholarship, including autobiography, collections of poetry, ethical treatises, belles-lettres, and manuals of technical prose and administration, conversational discourses, and advice literature (diva@ns, akòla@q, enæa@÷, malfuzáa@t, and nasáiháat literature), literary and Sufi biographies and anthologies (tadòkeras), gazetteers, and innumerable political histories. These were produced at the Timurid-Mughal court in Agra and Delhi and at the independent courts of Persian-speaking rulers in Bengal, Gujarat, the Deccan (qq.v.) and elsewhere, including semi-autonomous Timurid-Mughal provinces as far south as Madras. Indo-Persian historical literature continued to be produced throughout the 18th century; but, as Muslim political power declined following the collapse of Timurid-Mughal rule, patronage decayed, and simultaneously Urdu displaced Persian, first in verse and then, by the mid-19th century, in prose as well. ..." [6]

See also: [7]

So, when the Timurids/Mughals established their rule over the subcontinent, they extended the Persian cultural influence into India. Besides that, the part you are chaning is about the culture of the Timuirds, and as such, it is about the Persian part of it. Tājik 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tajik, you should stop accusing. I made the changes according to Britannica article Timurid Dynasty. You classified the references wrongly, cause in your last revision Timurids reference redirects to Babur article of Britannica. I already explained this to you in your talk page. In addition, you're misrepresenting the Britannica article. "Adopting the literary tradition" is different from "derived from Persian". You're trying to exaggarete the Persian influence as if they were totally Persian. You're also ignoring Chagatai Turkish literature. The Iranica is not a holly book, but mostly written by iran influenced scholars. For this reason, i'm not surprised that if the iranica article exaggerate the Persian influence. Second, i removed just the word "high" not the whole argument as you stated above. On the other hand, this article is focused on Timurids era not the Babur's. You should not mix or combine the two. Furthermore, Timurids and Babur expanded their own culture influence which is affected by many factors including the Persian culture. Regards. E104421 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

E104421, it is you who is accusing, not me! If you discovered a wrong link, then why didn't you just change the link?! You changed the entire article, changed direct quotes from Iranica (which is SUPERIOR to Britannica; this was explained to you so many times, even by specialist User:Sikandarji, but somehow you still do not understand this). If you consider the Encyclopaedia Iranica to be "influenced by Iranians" - which is a totally absurd accusation - only because you are somehow hurt in your Turkish nationalistic feeling, that it's your problem,. not that of Wikipedia or the academic world.

As for the "expansion of cultural influence", the answer is directly given in the Iranica article. The Timurid culture was highly Persianate, and it was this Persianate culture that was expanded into India (in fact, the Persian culture was already present in India since the very beginning of Muslim rule of the subcontinent). The Chaghatay literature is already mentioned in the article. I did not ignore anything. In fact, it was me who added the section about the Chaghatay literature to the article.

Once again: your comments in regard of the Iranica prove once again that you really are no expert on the subject, and that you should be careful about what you say. The Britannica is not written by scholars, and the Britannica is not specialized on the subject. Tājik 18:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, "influenced by" was a wrong description (poor choice of the words), better would be "fascinated by". Iranica is not a holly book. The entries in Iranica differs from other reference materials in many cases. Even the terminology differs within Iranica itself (As i pointed out before, the Chionites [8], Hephtalites [9], Sassanids [10] articles for the Chionites from iranica. You'll see all differs. For the Chionites, the CHIONITES article says "a tribe of probable Iranian origin", HEPHTHALITES articles says "the second wave of "Hunnish" tribal invaders", SASANIAN DYNASTY article says "a Hunnic people who by the early fourth century had mixed with north Iranian elements in Transoxiana and adopted the Kushan-Bactrian language, threatened Persia". Then what should we do? Should we rely on iranica as a holy reference or search for other references? That's not my fault.) In my opinion, you're underestimating all components other than Persian. Is this a reflection of your nationalist feelings? or mine? Anyways, lets calm down. Regards. E104421 19:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had already explained that to you. When Iranica speaks of "Huns", it has a totally different meaning. Just check the article "Huns", and especially the part about "Iranian Huns": [11] Direct quotes:

• "... HUNS, collective term for horsemen of various origins leading a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. ..."
• "... The term "Huns" was also used for several tribes who posed a continuous threat to northeastern Iran and northwestern India from the 4th century C.E. [...] Altheim assumed a Turkish origin for all these tribes [...] However, this far too simplistic perspective has been succeeded by a more discriminating view based on Robert Göbl's research. According to Göbl, Iran and India underwent several successive invasions by clearly distinct tribes, whom he referred to collectively as "Iranian Huns." They apparently had no connection with the European Huns, but may have been causally related with their movement. A prominent characteristic, which they shared with all other Central Asian power constellations, was their ethnic mixture, among which the elite was said to be Iranian, or at least expressed itself as such through its coinage (Göbl, 1978, p. 107). It is noteworthy that the tribes in question deliberately called themselves "Huns" in order to frighten their enemies (Frye, pp. 345-46) ..."

So, it's you who is confused, not the sources. As for the Chaghatay literature, you are deffinitly exeggerating its improtance. Chaghatay and Turkic literature in Central Asia had a short "golden age" - less than 50 years! Nava'i was the beginning and Babur the end. It was - for a very short time - succeeded by Azerbaijani Turkic literature in India, for example the divan of Bayram Khan Qezelbash. However (keeping in mind that 2/3 of Bayram Khan's poems were in persian; see Iranica), this was absolutely no comparison to the vast literature composed in Persian. The Timurids produced more literature in Persian than any other dynasty. They created more than 1800 books about science in the Persian language, opposed to less than 1200 in Arabic and ZERO in Turkic (see the Iranica link posted above). So what are you arguing about?! Tājik 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the 14th century?

As with this article's top-poster, I read the history and it details how the dynasty conquered so many land, then gives a quick, "A hundred years later, they were gone"-type blurb. Timur doesn't do any better. It would be nice if someone informed were to fill in the missing century here, perhaps will some help from the articles linked from Timurid Dynasty#Rulers of Timurid Empire. Calbaer 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

"In addition,he transformed Samarqand into the Center of the World." (last sentence, first paragraph, History)That seems unnecessarily confusing. I assume it means he made it into a great city, which he did, but why not just say so? And, why the italics? Am i missing something here?MennoMan 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timurid Empire is Turk Empire

  Timur Empire was a Turkic Empire and Sultan Timur was a Tatar Turk.The grandchild of people of Timur Empire is nowadays Uzbek. Turkish=Uzbek=Azeri=Kazak=Turkmen=Gagauz=Tatar=Kyrgyz=Bashkirt=Chuvash=Uygur(or Uigur) all Turk People . I'm Turkish and I stay in Ankara--88.224.196.43 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)