Talk:Panah Ali Khan

Persian & independent rule

This is from Abbasgulu Bakikhanov’s Golestani Iram, which was written in Persian and might be available to Iranian readers, I quote the Russian version:

Вслед за смертью Надир-шаха началось общее смятение и анархия, вследствие коих Ширван навсегда отошел от Персии. Тогда образовались здесь отдельные ханства и владетели их, управляя наследственно и независимо, стали самостоятельными государями. [1]

After the death of Nadir shah a total chaos and anarchy began, as result of which Shirvan was lost forever to Persia. That’s when separate khanates emerged here and their rulers, ruling hereditary and independently, became independent sovereigns.

Grandmaster 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The khanates Karabakh, Guba, Talish, Sheki were independent. This is proven, for example, by the fact that they minted their own coins. They had Ambassadors in foreign countries (e.g., Russia for Karabakh khanate). And most importantly, they signed individual treaties on accession to the Russian Empire, separate from the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties. Obviously, the Russian tsar would not bother signing treaties with vassals of another empire -- only with independent rulers. That's why traditionally, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs rebuffed all Iranian claims to lands north of Araxes, stating that even before the Gulistan Treaty was signed, many of those khanates were independent and voluntarily joined the Russian empire. Some references about the independence of the khanates can be found in John F. Baddeley's 1908 book, for example. Others are clear from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and its map.

Here's from John F. Baddeley, "The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus", Longman, Green and Co., London: 1908. "Potto [Russian military historian and general] sums up Tsitsianoff's [the first general, commander of Russian army] achievements and character as follows: "In the short time he passed there (in Transcaucasia) he managed to completely alter the map of the country. He found it composed of minutely divided, independent Muhammadan States leaning upon Persia, namely, the khanates of Baku, Shirvan, Shekeen, Karabagh, Gandja, and Erivan, to which must be added the territory of the Djaro-Bielokani Lesghians, the pashalik of Akhaltsikh..." (p. 71)

Then again when describing the aftermath of Tsitsinaov's murder: "The Georgian princes found in it a fresh opportunity to pursue their personal ambitions; the Muhammadan khans renewed hope of independence; while Turkey and Persia were only too ready to encourage all who on any pretext, or for any reason, were hostile to Russia." (p. 73)

Also, this is a key quote, showing best what Gulistan Treaty really was, and what it was not: "...an armistice was followed in October by the preliminary treaty of Gulistan. Russia by this instrument was confirmed in possession of all the khanates -- Karabagh, Gandja, Shekeen, Shirvan, Derbend, Kouba, and Baku, together with part of Talish and the fortress of Lenkoran. Persia further abandoned all pretensions to Daghestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, and Abkhazia." (p. 90)

"One by one the khanates and other independent States, by policy or by arms, were being brought within the fold of the empire." (p. 135)

"Count Zouboff in 1796 had transferred the throne of Shirvan to his cousin, Kasim, but no sooner had the Russians retired that Moustafa recovered possession, and retained his independence until the fall of Gandja and conquest of Karabagh in Tsitsianoff's time. He had the submitted to Russian suzeiranty..." (p. 139)

"Of all the khanates, Talish, the most distant, alone remained independent, for the reason that its rulers were implacably hostile to Persia." (p. 144)--adil 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Baku "fell into the hands of Persia in the sixteenth century, although it maintained its autonomy under a separate Khan. The Russians finally stormed and took it in 1806, and in a few months' time it will have been a century under the dominion of Russia". Source: James Dodds Henry, "Baku, an Eventuful History", Ayer Publishing 1977 Reprint of the 1905 ed. published by A. Constable, London, p. 3. [2]

"This success caused the Chans of Derbent, Baku, Karabagh, Karaikaitakh, and the Sultan of the Avares, to take the oath of fidelity to Russia." Source: Francis Rawdon Chesney. "The Russo-Turkish Campaigns of 1828 and 1829: With a View of the Present State of Affairs in the...", 1854, p. 27. [3]

Then a quote from Iranica/Bournoutian admits: [4]

In 1795 Agha Moháammad Khan crossed the Araxes (q.v.) and entered eastern Armenia. The khans of Erevan, Nakhjavan, and Ganja submitted, but Ebrahim Khan attacked. He was defeated and sought refuge in the fortress of ˆshusha. The mountainous terrain and ˆshusha's splendid fortifications stood in the way of AÚg@a@ Moháammad's plan for total conquest of the region. By a verbal truce, Ebrahim acknowledged Qajar supremacy and was permitted to continue his tenure as khan of Qarabagh (Qarabaghi, p. 92).

As you can see, Ibrahim khan attacked (not a typical action of a dependent vassal, now is it?), whilst the three other khans submitted, which means BEFORE that (for decades) they were independent.

Cambridge History of Iran, specifically the pages suggested by Ali, it offers the same explanation: "Even when rulers on the plateau lacked the means to effect suzerainty beyond the Aras, the neighboring Khanates were still regarded as Iranian dependencies. Naturally, it it was those Khanates located closes to the province of Azarbaijan which most frequently experienced attempts to re-impose Iranian suzerainty: the Khanates of Erivan, Nakhchivan and Qarabagh across the Aras, and the cis-Aras Khanate of Talish, with its administrative headquarters located at Lankaran and therefore very vulnerable to pressure, either from the direction of Tabriz or Rasht. Beyond the Khanate of Qarabagh, the Khan of Ganja and the Vali of Gurjistan (ruler of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom of south-east Georgia), although less accessible for purposes of coercion, were also regarded as the Shah's vassals, as were the Khans of Shakki and Shirvan, north of the Kura river. The contacts between Iran and the Khanates of Baku and Qubba, however, were more tenuous and consisted mainly of maritime commercial links with Anzali and Rasht. The effectiveness of these somewhat haphazard assertions of suzeiranty dependend on the ability of a particular Shah to make his will felt, and the determination of the local khans to evade obligations they regarded as onerous." The Cambridge history of Iran By William Bayne Fisher, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 145-146

So there we go, Cambridge history of Iran, also co-edited by Iranian-American Ehsan Yarshater, admits that most khanates were independent, and only sometimes fell into dependency. Interestingly, per Iranian POV, the book goes on to call one of the Georgian kings as simply "vali", to denote his vassal status. But what is important, is that Georgian kingdoms are always placed on the same level as Azerbaijani khanates -- and if someone is gonna keep on trying to diminish the fact of independence of Azerbaijani khanates, and with it, Georgian kings, then we need to involve the Georgian editors into this, as well as knowledgeable Russian and Turkish editors (as the latter two empires were also direct parties to all territorial disputes of the area). --adil 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Azerbaijani khanates north of Araxes did mint their own coins [5]

As of khans and ambassadors, here's what in 1784, Empress Catherine the Great of Russia, wrote to Potemkin:

"The letters of Ibrahim-khan are written with much greater politeness than the Turkish or other Persian ones when they have reached me. Please inform me who he is. How did he become khan? Is he young or old, strong or weak, and are the Persians inclined towards him?"

In July 1784 the empress bestowed upon Musa Sultan, the Karabakh ambassador, the honour of being the representative of a sovereign friendly state, commanding that an artillery salute be given, and that he be shown all the fountains and sights of Peterhof, "all worthy curiosities, especially our fleet". [Central State Military Historical Archives of Russia, fund 52, list I/194, act 72, lines 130-1, in Russian]

As we can see, Ibrahim khan of Karabakh had a very interesting exchange of letters with the Empress (!) of Russia -- I don't imagine some vassal khan of Loristan or Maku sending a letter (and receiving a response from her!) to Empress Catherine the Great. And full military ceremonial honors were afforded to Ibrahim khan's Ambassador -- once again, can one imagine an Ambassador of the Sarab khanate going to Russia and being received there like a king? --adil 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Brandmeister, concerning your last revert, what do you think needs discussion here? --Vacio (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Panah-Ali Khan Javanshir.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Why does Panah Ali have Azerbaijani translation?

No where in this article is stated that he was or spoke Azerbaijani and his khanate, had Persian as official language and didnt use any turkic language for official purposes. (see Karabakh Khanate) 2003:EA:4F4F:C262:B109:AA97:AED1:FF84 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

He was an Azerbaijani Turk, and, just like the Qajar rulers of Iran spoke Azerbaijani. In addition, Azerbaijani translation is needed since there are a lot of surces in Azerbaijani. Hew Folly (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

He was not an Azerbaijani Turk, that ethnonym did not exist back then, and the language had no official status either. Azerbaijani sources are also not WP:RS thanks to historical falsification that goes back to the Soviet era, and does not justify a transliteration. You have already been told of this Hew Folly. Here, have another chance to read the sources this time. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You can not lable any 'Azerbaijani source' unreliable by definition just because of a Wikipedia page that collected alegged cases of falsification. In addition, you do not clarify the term 'Azerbaijani source' in your context. Hew Folly (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"Alleged cases of falsification" says all I need to know about you. You still haven't read the sources, and it's clear that you don't want to because it clashes with your opinion, so I won't bother trying to suggest it again. Just don't push anymore of this historical negationism/revisionism, this is not the site for it, and you will get reported for it. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)