Jump to content

Talk:Sasanian Empire/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

Change "Thus, the Sasanians aimed to be an urban empire, which were quite successful at. " to "Thus, the Sasanians aimed to be an urban empire, and were quite successful in that endeavor." 74.94.251.41 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Only a minor change was needed to remove the trailing preposition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Both pronunciations are wrong; Sasanian is pronounced: /sɑːsɑːniɑːn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIS101 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sasanian Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Derafsh Kaviani Re-directs to Flag of Iran

Doesn't seem correct to be. Not entirely clued up on the Sassanians, but I don't think the current flag of Iran has much to do with the Derafsh Kaviani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.191.75 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh ... there is no such place as 'Palestine'

Wiki spreading mendacious propaganda again ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.159.28 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Iran not Persia

The title Persian was a miss account on the Greeks for they had to come into contact with the territory of Poorsh and so they assumed that all of the Iranians were Persia(their pronunciation and spelling of Poorsh) even though the sasanian themselves considered themselves Iranians as had their people for years Bohd (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Placename misspelled

In the text that accompanies the Media Viewer map "The Sasanian Empire at its greatest extent c. 620 etc." at

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sasanian_Empire#/media/File:Sassanian_Empire_621_A.D.jpg

the name "Chaceldon" should be "Chalcedon." I would correct it myself, but I don't know how.

Or, if you'd rather:

Chosroes II continues his victorious career, conquering Egypt and Asia Minor and occupying both Alexandria and also Chaceldon across the Bosporus from Constantinople.

Chosroes II continues his victorious career, conquering Egypt and Asia Minor and occupying both Alexandria and also Chalcedon across the Bosporus from Constantinople.

Geoh777 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Geoh777, thank you very much for pointing that out.

Desperately Seeking Susan

Closed by popular demand. Not useful in the absence of specific references. WP:NOTFORUM -- Begoon 15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

that is susanid empire but from sus and susangord and sustotar and susan city and from sustotan trebel in suth west of Iran modern khozestan(sustotan) and antiont susan land the kings spoken susi(khozi) languich. kings of susan land and is susanid dinasty- susan turk 98/5/1 5.235.32.9 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.235.8.242 (talk)

Well, I've tried to explain to you on the talkpage of the other ip address from which you posted this that I have no idea what you are asking for, because I can't understand your comment. You keep posting the same thing repeatedly - it doesn't become more understandable just because it is posted multiple times... Maybe someone else can parse this better than I can, but, failing that, you'll need to try and post something more understandable in English if you want something to be done. -- Begoon 02:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: He's basically claiming that the "kings of Susa" (I assume that's the Elamites) were Turks, and thus the Sasanians were Turks, I think.. lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well I guess they'll need a reliable source for that, then, if they are proposing some sort of addition to the article. Good luck with that. On the other hand, if they just want to chat about an unsupported personal "theory", well: WP:NOTFORUM, I guess... -- Begoon 03:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)-
this empire is susanid dynasty not sasanid. Susa(سوس) or sus is modern shush city in south IRAN.an ancient city and Area.the kings of this dynasty، They spoke in a saus language modern Khozi or kHozestan[1].5.235.137.7 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Eh.. yeah, this is deffo WP:NOTFORUM. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
"The Tribes of Western Iran", V. Minorsky, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 75, No. 1/2 (1945), pp. 73-80.
Page 74, "Middle-Iranian Kingdoms:Parthians and Sasanians". So the source you have supplied states the Sasanians were an Iranian Kingdom. Where is the information concerning the "Susanid"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

sasan is wrong form of susan.susan area was capital and the great city and Governance Center in this period.king was spoken susi and the dynasty started and grew up from this area.the Central and governmental citys was susa(شوش)- sustotar(شوشتر)- susin(شوشی) - susangord (سوسنگرد) 5.235.137.7 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The journal article you provided does not state any of this. In fact, the journal article clearly states the Sasanians were an Iranian kingdom. Unless you can provide a specific page number and quote, we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

OOjoor....the jurnal article states sasanid kings spoken khozi(susi) and They are susi means.the kings was susi and this dynasty was susanid and sasan is Commentary form in semitic cultur. Hellenic form is susan and sus empire.5.235.8.242 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Petition to remove all his rants per WP:NOTFORUM --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Support IP has failed to respond with page number and quotes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ (مسالک و ممالک مردمان خوزستان- تیلور فرانسیس و ولادمیر مینورسکی The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. 75, No. 1/2 (1945), pp. 73-80 (article consists of 11 pages) )

Please call rape what it is and do not use awkward euphemisms

"Usage of a woman slave in a home was common, and her master had outright control over her and could even produce children with her if he wanted to." This should be rewritten as "Domestic use of female slaves was common. The master of a female slave had complete legal control over her, including the right to rape and forcibly impregnate her." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8400:92B0:D0AA:BC14:CEE3:851B (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Name section

A name section is necessary. I don't think that citing four different forms of one name ("Sasanian") in the very first line is a good idea. We should remove Sassanian, Sasanid and Sassanid from the intro. Aryzad (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

Under the section "Culture" and subsection "Society", please change/remove "On a lower level, Sasanian society was divided into Azatan (freemen), who jealously guarded their status as descendants of ancient Aryan conquerors, and the mass of originally non-Aryan peasantry." There is no citation for this, but the source can easily be found on google books as being from a children book on the 'Persian Empire' written by a non-historian, who themselves does not cite a source for this claim. Khan S010 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please see the instructions for the edit request template. We don't generally expect other editors to find our references for us. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Map

@LouisAragon: Hello, could you please give examples of the most up to date sources that you mentioned in your recent edit and why you think the old map was better? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 15:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: If you don't mind, I'll add back the other map since there was no reply from you. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: Please don't. You don't have anything near a consensus. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: The discussion's been there for 12 days, without a reply and only person that objected to the map I posted was him. I'll still wait. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 16:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@CuriousGolden: I too prefer the current map. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: Why is that? I'd imagine you'd say topography but it isn't even visible on this map because of all the unnecessarily large, clumsy text. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 17:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I find the original map to be more aesthetically pleasing. Your map looks more simple, amongst others (place names are also difficult to read). - LouisAragon (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think simple style looks better. And personally, I find names on the map I've chosen much easier to read because it's not as clustered together with random sizes of text like the current map. I've used the styles of the lead maps used in Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

"The period of Sasanian rule is considered a high point in Iranian history,[15] and in many ways was the peak of ancient Iranian culture before the Muslim conquest and subsequent Islamisation"

According to whom? Citation 15 leads to nothing. I have read the book cited below and see nothing that would support this sentence.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/arabic-thought-in-the-liberal-age-17981939/7A4EC7064730DD272E74D76237EED2DE

this is a made up citation. Also very easy to tell by a historian, as if you're comparing dynasties, the peak of Iranian History would have been well over a millennia before said empire, during the rule of the Achaemenid empire. Moreover, to randomly picture the Sasanian empire as the "peak of ancient Iranian culture" with no or citation/evidence is silly, and thus unless provided with said evidence, this sentence, as written, should be ignored and removed. Freeyourmines (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Isnt that the wrong source youve linked? Also larger territorial extent does not neccesarily imply peak of culture. I will check it later. HistoryofIran (talk)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

About the entire deletion of the added Kurdish reference in the article

The user @Wario-Man: has deleted my entire addition that shows with valid references on each sentence that historians acknowledge the factor of Kurdish tribes in the multi-ethnic Sassanian empire. He didn't leave me any notification behind, and not any chance to rectify any possible mistakes. His only hints were WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. WP:Fringe says that something is a fringe theory. The references that I added to each sentence are fully valuable sources that contain a not-often-represented information, yet that does not devalue my information as a theory. The sentences were clearly referenced. His second claim is that my references "refer to material such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". If that would be the case then the user @Wario-Man: needed himself to show by proper research that my valid sources are not sufficiently based.

About my question to him for further elaboration he wrote however in his talk page:

My edit summary is crystal clear.[20] See WP:BURDEN. You added something to the article and I reverted it. So you should prove why your edits were OK and my revert was wrong. Open a new section on Talk:Sasanian Empire and discuss your concerns. I will reply there. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

He refers here to WP:Burden which is not included in his first reference during the revert. The link leads to a section which is about "Responsibility for providing citations". This makes however no sense as my first addition to the Sassanian page contained flawless sources and already satisfied the requirements. I also intended to work on the little section and add more references and sentences that are very well researched. But I cannot work on it when it gets deleted like that. I ask @Wario-Man: to elaborate the issue and to revert his deletion by himself so I can continuously improve my added section.

RedurMaye (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What valid references?! Your edits[1] were a mix of non-RS, personal opinion, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. Let me clarify them for you:
  • While the Sassanian empire is a multi-ethnic ruling body, the origin of the first Sassanid kings can be traced back to Kurdish origin.
    • Unsourced, POV, and personal commentary
  • According to the Shahname, the great-grandfather of the Sassanid Kings, Sasan, fled eastwards to Persia after a prophecy was made that his descendants would rule Ariana[88][89]. Sasan was described as a herder of camel cattle of one of the feudal lords [90]. Sasan, Ardashir's grandfather, is also said to have married Ram Behesht of the Bazanjan Kurds, who, according to Istakhri, were one of the five Kurdish tribes of Fars. [91]
    • Which one of those claims written by experts or historians? The only legit citation is The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran which should be verified by some experienced editors. Plus not supported by the main articles Sasan and Bazrangi; zero mention of such claims.
  • Dahkhoda wrote in his encyclopedia that the father of the Sassanid king (Ardashir) is the Kurdish shepherd named Papak
  • Dr. Rashid Yasemi, a professor at the University of Tehran, states that Sasan, who is the grandfather of Ardashir_I, is from the Kurdish clan of Shwankara (Shabankara) and that the mother of Papak is the daughter of one of the heads of the Kurdish Bazrangi/Bazanjan clans. The home of this clan is the Kurdish region of Fars Province. Yasemi adds that we can conclude that Ardashir_I was Kurdish
As I said, the only source that should be reviewed is The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran by John Limbert.[2] I ping some users who can review all of your edits. @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, and Wikaviani: Your thoughts? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I found John Limbert's work and this is the actual content from the source:
  • According to Yasami, not only were the Kurds of Fars a major support of Sassanian power, but Ardashir I, the founder of the empire, was himself a Kurd. He says that Sasan, Ardashir's grandfather, married Ram Behesht of the Bazanjan Kurds...
  • Although it is possible that the Kurds of Fars are related to the tribes of Kurdestan, it is more likely that the groups are distinct and that the tribes of Fars are not true Kurds, but Iranian tribes speaking southwest Iranian dialects, perhaps related to mDdern Luri. Such southwest dialects as Luri and Bakhtiari are much more closely related to Persian than to Kurdish. If we reconstruct the ancient linguistic division, then the Kurds of the north spoke a language related to Median--that is, north- west Iranian, and the "Kurds" of the south spoke a language related to Persian, or southwest Iranian...
  • Most conclusive of all is the fact that Kurd in the older Persian or Arab sense meant simply nomad with no particular ethnic connotations. In this case, Ardavan V's letter becomes more insulting, since in effect he is calling Ardashir an ignorant nomad. The term was not even restricted to Iranian nomads--accord- ing to a tenth century work, the Persians called the Mesopotamian Arabs the "Kurds of Suristan." Thus it is reasonable (but hardly certain) that the so-called Kurds of Fars of Sassanian times were not true Kurds at all , but were Iranian nomads speaking dialects related to Persian...
What you did is WP:CHERRYPICKING and misrepresentation. So? --Wario-Man (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment : The source cited by RedurMaye are :

  • Ferdowsi, 1000 years old, clearly outdated.
  • Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda, a prominent linguist, no expertise for this topic.
  • Gholamreza Rashid-Yasemi, a poet, translator, academic and literary figure, not a historian, thus, no expertise for this topic.
  • John Limbert, he owns a Ph.D. in history and Middle Eastern studies, but even this source cannot be considered as being a high quality source, since the author worked mainly as a diplomat and has only a few books published, no expertise about the Sasanian era. Besides, even if one had to consider this last source as being reliable, RedurMaye misrepresented what it actually says, as Wario-Man said above.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Claiming that the Sasanians were Kurds is really some next level WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. Kurd was not even an ethnicity during that period. Ardashir's father was a dynast, not a shepherd, see; [3] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Limbert cited Yasami/Yasemi's claims (fringe theory stuff). --Wario-Man (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why i said that Limbert was not a high quality source despite his Ph.D. in history.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for the detailed replies. Due to studies I couldn't reply till now. @Wario-Man: states that my introduction in the new section called "Relation of Kurdish tribes to the Sassanian Empire" was a personal opinion and had no base. My introduction said "While the Sassanian empire is a multi-ethnic ruling body, the origin of the first Sassanid kings can be traced back to Kurdish origin." The claim by the editor is entirely groundless because a myriad of sources acknowledge the Sassanian empire as a multi-ethnic unit. My analysis was meant to include peoples into the frame of the empire and not to nullify them. Therefore I based my introduction on the various reports about how the empire was functioning. One single google search discloses already this sentence "The universality of the Sasanian Empire, unlike the Eastern Roman Empire, was not translated into a Christian order but rather an order with Zoroastrianism at its core, but also with a universal multi-ethnic and multi-religious aspect" out of the book "Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire" from Touraj Daryaee, a holder of Ph.D. in History, (ISBN-13: 978-1780763781).

Wario-Man continues to question the source about the grandfather of the Sassanid king Sasan by the words "Which one of those claims written by experts or historians?". The editor ignores the Shahname which is an internationally recognized historical heritage and multiply cited source by academics, and questions the validity of "The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran" by John Limbert, and says it "should be verified by some experienced editors." The book from John Limbert - another Phd graduate in history - has been peer-reviewed on countless scholarly platforms and verified. The claim is confusingly baseless.

Then the editor raises attention to "...Bazrangi; zero mention of such claims." I will re-read the sources and will be able to satisfy all questions. In my knowledge the tribe is mentioned at least in the book of John Limbert. But maybe the way of spelling differed. I will check it for later reference how it was spelled. Still, the content about the Bazancan tribe is correct again. I haven't added all information yet and wanted to enhance the new chapter. There are plentiful of references.

The editor Wario-Man stated that Gholamreza Rashid-Yasemi wasn't reliable either despite him being an Academic. Here is an description of Academia from wiki itself: "An academy (Attic Greek: Ἀκαδήμεια; Koine Greek Ἀκαδημία) is an institution of secondary or tertiary higher learning, research , or honorary membership. Academia is the worldwide group composed of professors and researchers at institutes of higher learning." The information about Papak is not his own, but he is merely one of the historians researching the underrepresented information of Sassanian history. Multiple acknowledged researchers discuss that topic. The sources that are cited are the literal letters of kings in the Sassanian empire. The letter included directly elucidating comments addressed to Ardeshir like "You have been your enemy and brought your death, you, Kurdish man who has brought up in the tents of the Kurds. Who authorized you to wear a crown?". This cannot narrowed down to researchers. I want to add all the information that add to these details.


Lastly @Wario-Man: mentions WP:CHERRYPICKING and claims my added chapter fulfills that breach of rule. The first paragraph clearly says that "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says", which already contradicts the claim of the editor. I do not base my text on one single source but combined different sources. Shahname, the main source of Iranian history, was one of them. This already excludes the possibility of cherry picking.

The claim "Your edits[1] were a mix of non-RS, personal opinion, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE" is entirely baseless when looked at my explanation above. The ethnic origin of the Sassanian kings is no Fringe Theory either but simply underrepresented. The mentioning of the tribal origin of the Sassanian kings is not at all meant to claim the empire as a Kurdish one. An empire is never rooted in an ethnicity alone and especially when the borders are so far away it makes only sense that the elements stem from different peoples. But it is from a sociological point necessary to acknowledge the complex nature of civilization. Presidents of today's world too, are entirely of different origins. Kings of various countries are intermarried and even foreign (such as in Sweden). Not allowing the Kurdish factor to be understood in a representative Wikipedia article only limits the scope of information.

Lastly, let me comment on this line from @Wikaviani:: "Ferdowsi, 1000 years old, clearly outdated.". Ferdowsi is THE Herodot of Iranian history, cited by literally all academics, and his works are world heritage. I am doing historical researches myself and am versed in multiple languages that help me reading through researches of too many researchers. I severely doubt the academic seriousness of the editor and request the restoration of my added chapter about Kurdish relations to the Sassanian empire. Wikaviani's comment "...if one had to consider this last source as being reliable, RedurMaye misrepresented what it actually says, as Wario-Man said above" on John Limbert's thoughts are welcome to improve my addition to the article, but is by no means a reason to misinterpret and delete my entry.

@HistoryofIran: goes next level and says "Claiming that the Sasanians were Kurds is really some next level WP:FRINGE and WP:OR". This is a unprofessional claim that contradicts the content of my addition which by no means claims that "Sasanians were Kurds". My first line explained all too clear that the term Sassanian needs to be seen properly as a description for an empire with many ethnicities in it. My clear purpose was to trace the origin of the Sassanian "king". As today's presidents are of different origins, the empires of the past were as well. The hereditary factor is another story here. The second comment "Kurd was not even an ethnicity during that period" is derailing the topic on baseless grounds. What the editor will mean is that Kurds were no unified kingdom or state on ethnic ground. The Kurdish ethnicity however is being acknowledged by reports of countless tribes that all were named in the same way back since the times talked about by Xenophone and older. The statement has a nationalistic idea and does not contribute to the discussion here. Researches on the origin of the Kurds are another topic.

In the end I ask the editors to support the addition of my entry based on these points: - My entry doesn't replace any information but was placed in a separate section - The content is well sourced by Wikipedia rules, and context-wise neutral - The content adds a valuable information on the flexibility of the ancient Iranian empires and enables a view from a sociological perspective. I ask the editors to help perfection the section about Kurdish relation to the Sassanian Empire instead of deleting it from onset. RedurMaye (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No, unlike you, I'm basing my statement on reliable sources.
Here's one example:
It should be remembered that “Kurd” in the sources of the 4th-5th/10th-11th centuries refers to all the transhumants of the Zagros region including the Lors
Also; (Richard Frye,"The Golden age of Persia", Phoenix Press, 1975. Second Impression December 2003. pp 111:) "Tribes always have been a feature of Persian history, but the sources are extremely scant in reference to them since they did not 'make' history. The general designation 'Kurd' is found in many Arabic sources, as well as in Pahlavi book on the deeds of Ardashir the first Sassanian ruler, for all nomads no matter whether they were linguistically connected to the Kurds of today or not. The population of Luristan, for example, was considered to be Kurdish, as were tribes in Kuhistan and Baluchis in Kirman"
"Most conclusive of all is the fact that Kurd in the older Persian or Arab sense meant simply nomad with no particular ethnic connotations. In this case, Ardavan V's letter becomes more insulting, since in effect he is calling Ardashir an ignorant nomad" page 48
What you're trying to prove is pure pseudo-history, which doesn't belong here. The fact that you claim Kurds existed since the time of Xenephone (Xenophon?) makes it pretty clear to me what kind of user we're dealing with here. It is kind of ironic that you're the one to accuse me of nationalistic remarks and that "I'm going next level". I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
"Ferdowsi is THE Herodot of Iranian history" Herodotus is all but a reliable source for Greek/Persian history, he's the guy who claims that the Persians were 2000000 against 300 Greeks at the battle of Thermopylae ... I agree with HistoryofIran's above comment, your comments clearly show that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and as such, we're done here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
After reading the discussion, I would have to agree with HistoryofIran, Wikaviani, and Wario-Man. I do not see academics like Pourshariati, Daryaee, Bosworth, Frye, or Yarshater, addressing this claim. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: I've noticed that Limbert did reference Yasemi, but he then went on in his article to pretty much refute his claims. Also, seeing that Limbert pointed out that Yasemi was a Kurd himself, I think we may have another example of a "Kurdish Intellectual" making outrageous claims by taking certain information out of context for their convenience. Armanqur (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

John Limbert. "The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran." Iranian Studies 1, no. 2 (1968): 41-51. Accessed January 16, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4309997.

“Although it is possible that the Kurds of Fars are related to the tribes of Kurdestan, it is more likely that the groups are distinct and that the tribes of Fars are not true Kurds, but Iranian tribes speaking southwest Iranian dialects, perhaps related to mDdern Luri. Such southwest dialects as Luri and Bakhtiari are much more closely related to Persian than to Kurdish. If we reconstruct the ancient linguistic division, then the Kurds of the north spoke a language related to Median- that is, north- west Iranian, and the "Kurds" of the south spoke a language related to Persian, or southwest Iranian.” p. 47
“Of course it is impossible to prove that the tribes of Fars were not true Kurds; they might have been. But before the beginning of the twentieth century, no basic distinction was re cognized between Kurdish and Luri.8 Only recently h&ve these two languages been found to follow the N.W.-S.W. or Mede-Persian division. Furthermore, there is simply no trace of Kurdish speakers at presetn either in Fars or on its borders. One of istakhri's five Kurdish tribes of Fars is the Jiloya; at present there is a Lur tribe in the same area with the name Kuh-Giluyeh…” p. 47
“Most conclusive of all is the fact that Kurd in the older Persian or Arab sense meant simply nomad with no particular ethnic connotations. In this case, Ardavan V's letter becomes more insulting, since in effect he is calling Ardashir an ignorant nomad. The term was not even restricted to Iranian nomads--according to a tenth century work, the Persians called the Mesopotamian Arabs the "Kurds of Suristan." Thus it is reasonable (but hardly certain) that the so-called Kurds of Fars of Sassanian times were not true Kurds at all , but were Iranian nomads speaking dialects related to Persian.” p. 48
“From what has been said, it should be clear that the early history of the Kurds cannot be reconstructed with any certainty. Unfortunately, the scarcity of evidence and the romanticizing of the Kurds by Americans and Europeans (they are seen as straigh- forward, outgoing, jolly-good-fellows in opposition to the conniv- ing, double-dealing, cowardly Persians) has resulted in an out- pouring of pseudo-scholarly nonsense, propounding wild theories that can never be conclusively disproved.” p. 48 Armanqur (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Herat Battle 589

Where is Sassanids eastern politics direction to Turk Kaghanate, where is 589 war?164.0.104.179 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Titus

Addition of Info on Sasanian Rump State

I propose the addition of a short segment after the 'Decline and Fall' subheading dedicated to the post-651 rump state the Sasanian dynasty continued to periodically rule in the east. Information on the state is currently presented in a fragmentary manner across various other Wikipedia pages (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and on this page in two unsourced and somewhat vague passages describing 'settled nobles' and Peroz' Chinese-backed exploits, but I think it deserves a more holistic treatment, as concisely laid out by Pashazanous and Encylopedia Iranica (cited on the pages I linked above) as well as other lengthier sources.

A proposal of the raw text of what might be included:

Following the death of Yazdgerd, his son Peroz escaped to the Yaghbu tribes of Tokharistan and in 661 mounted an expedition into Sistan. With the support of the Yaghbu and nominally the Tang Emperor, Peroz managed to occupy much of the former empire's eastern flank, establishing a 'Persian Area Command' based out of Zaranj as a Tang protectorate. Peroz' success was short lived, however, and after only two years of rule Arab expeditionary forces began to reoccupy his lands. By 674, Peroz abandoned Sistan for the Tang court, and the Sasanians would not return until 678 when his son Narsieh accompanied a Tang army under the command of Pei Xingjian. While Pei was publicly tasked with restoring Sasanian power in Iran, he escorted Narsieh only as far as Tokharistan before crowning him 'King of Persia' and turning north to attack the Western Turkic Khaganate, the real intention of his mission. Narsieh remained in Tokharistan with his Yaghbu benefactors for twenty years exhausting his resources and manpower in a prolonged struggle against the Arabs until he too fled to the Tang court.

After Narsieh's retreat from Tokharistan in 708/709, records of the Sasanians' activities in Iran become more sparse. Chinese sources attest a King Pushang, putative son of Narsieh, continuing to fight the Arabs out of Tokharistan in 722, while Narsieh's cousin Khosrow is recorded aiding the Sodgians during the Arab siege of Kamarja in 729. The final named reference to a 'King of Persia' in Chinese sources regards a certain Mù Shānuò (穆沙诺), possibly corresponding to Persian Mehrzad or Mehrdad, who visited the Tang court in 725 and 730. It is not known exactly when Sasanian power in Tokharistan came to a definitive conclusion, but the date fell at some point in the mid eighth century, during which time the Tokhara Yaghbu state likewise collapsed. Embassies from unnamed 'Kings of Persia' which can be reliably linked to the Hindu Kush region continue in Chinese records until 747, and Persian embassies with unknown and likely non-Sasanian provenance continue as late as 772. Beyond this date, it can be said with relative certainty that the descendants of Yazdgerd had been dislodged by the Arabs, over a century after Yazdgerd's death.

Some of the dates and details here vary slightly between scholarly sources and could be described in different ways. Accordingly I haven't marked this as a 'semi-protected edit request' because the text suggested above is not meant to be a verbatim proposal and I haven't included the necessary formatting and citations, I just want to see if editors agree a section like this would be useful in the first place.

65.175.175.141 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Eranshahr's meaning

Eranshahr doesn't mean empire of iranians it means realm of iranians. Shahr means realm. 85.97.56.234 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please specify exactly what changes you want, and provide a reliable source. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 14:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

spelling of Sasanian / Sassanian

If the title has ‘Sasanian’ how about regularising on that spelling throughout? Or is the spelling actually contentious? Simon Grant (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sasanians not originally from Pars? Where did they originate? Sasan not ethnically Persian?

> Although Middle Persian was the native language of the Sasanians (who, however, were not originally from Pars) Is this true? Why is there no citation for this? This seems out of the blue and random since it doesn't say this anywhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.187.118 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Persian Empires numbering?

Both Second Persian empire and Third Persian Empire redirect to this page, while Second Persian Empire (different capitalization) redirects to Parthian Empire instead. The first one assumes that the predecessor Parthian Empire is not a Persian Empire per se, while the second two assume that it is. Given this contradictory numbering, I suggest making Second Persian Empire a disambiguation page instead. 37.170.130.59 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Malays" in Regional Languages

The “Regional Languages” section mentions that, along with the Zutt, “other Indian groups such as the Malays may have also been deported to Meshan.” Since the Malays are not Indian (not in the same sense as the Zutt), this seems unlikely to me. The source does say “Malays”, but could this have been a variant term, mistake, or mistranslation referring to Malayalis? Or were there actually Malays in enough proximity to be taken as prisoners of war by the Sassanids? MrPritzel (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Artabanus IV/V nomenclature

Last ruler of the preceding Parthian Empire is confusingly referred to as 'Artabanus IV' and 'Artabanus V' at different points in article - suggest standardising, probably to Artabanus IV as this appears to be in line with current consensus on the numbering (Schippmann, K. (1986a). "Artabanus (Arsacid kings)". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. II, Fasc. 6. pp. 647–650.), and is the numbering adopted on his Wikipedia page. 37.205.58.148 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I found and fixed all the "Artabanus V"s, let me know if I missed any. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?

"The period of Sasanian rule is considered tobe a high point in Iranian history and in many ways was the peak of ancient Iranian culture before the conquest by Arab Muslims under the Rashidun Caliphate and subsequent Islamization of Iran."


What measurement is being used here to determine status of culture? Shouldn't this be rephrased to be more precise as to what this statement intends?


OilfloatsonOil (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was a poorly worded editorialization and obviously subjective. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sasanian_Empire/Archive_5&oldid=1244003105"