Talk:Zand dynasty

Laks are not Lur

Laks are not Lur. They are older than Lurs historically and speak a different language.

Map

User:Wayiran tries to include a dubious unsourced low-quality map (which is not even known what it is about). To include a map sveral criteria should be met: 1- The map should have an acceptable quality 2- The map should have a reliable source or it should be based on information from reliable sources 3- If the map is not made by Wikipedians, we should make sure that it's not copyvio. In this case, none of these criteria are met. Wayiran has brought this dubious low-quality map from a no-name website. Alefbe (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained unsourced changes/additions to Zand dynasty

Would Ali mjr care to explain their edits to this article? Judging from the lack of edit summary, lack of response on this talk page, I would assume not. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Revisionism (origin of the Zand dynasty)

This article uses authors as a reference who are known to be Kurdish revisionists, such as Mehrdad Izady. Most notably, the article also relies on Minorsky, in the typical manner of a pro-Kurdish revisionist text, while completely ignoring the most widely recognised and prestigious peer reviewed source: Encyclopaedia Iranica. The Zand dynasty was of Lurish origin - the Lak section of the Lurish tribes (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zand-dynasty). In Iran - the country whence they hailed from and which they actually ruled, this is common knowledge. There is not a single document which would lead us to believe that the Zand DYNASTY, i.e. Karim Khan and his successor, saw themselves as a Kurdish dynasty ruling over Persia. In short: the reference to Kurds is both factually wrong and makes no sense here. Kurdish nationalism is a recent phenomenon and is seriously damaging Wikipedia, because Wikipedia contradicts the most reliable scholarly sources whenever Kurds are involved, which is a pity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.216.80 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

a problem

i tried to add information about doughter of karim khan and his family after zand dynasty , but you deleted it. im from this family and all information was true... there is some wrong informations in this page at the moment , why you accepted them? such as the map of zand dynasty and bolour khanum zand ! i will try to add beter gramatical information and hope to be stayed there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimazandyf (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, which you apparently missed, Wikipedia articles can not be used to reference information on Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi dear . could you tell me why you deleted my new informs?! i wrote refrences correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimazandyf (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

so if my notes is not appropriate for this artcile , please remove blour khanum zandieh and their children who they are actually qajar not zand, my notes is related to zand dynasty and persons of this dynasty who got important officials in iran history such as pahlavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimazandyf (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zand dynasty. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221110309/http://www.iranologie.com/history/history13.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/history13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221110309/http://www.iranologie.com/history/history13.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/history13.html

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) 01:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Theorycrafting

@Qahramani44: Why is this theorycrafting[1] relevant to the lede of this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why it wouldn't be, since the ethnic origin of the dynasty's tribe is still uncertain. If it's enough of a concern then it can be replaced by a mention of Karim Khan's tribe (Zand tribe). I added that simply to end the repeated edit-warring between Kurdish and Lurish origin in the lede. --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate map of the Zand dynasty

User:HistoryofIran, reverting my edit on an inaccurate statement was not okay. The Zands didn't control the territory north of the Aras River, those lands were ruled by independent khanates only nominally submitting to the government in Shiraz. You say the map was based on numerous sources, however it is clear that you did not read the sources properly.
First and foremost, the Zands did not control the lands north of the Aras River. John Perry's original book on the Zands, named "Karim Khan Zand, A History of Iran, 1747-1779, talks about the situation north of the Aras River and shows that the Zands had only nominal authority in the region. It displays letters between Erekle II and Karim Khan Zand that supposedly show Erekle expressing loyalty to the Zands. However, it also mentions how there was similar correspondence between Erekle and the Ottoman Sultan where he expressed his loyalty to Turkey. Clearly, this was just lip service Erekle paid in order to secure his domains. Here's a direct quote from the source, on page 223:
"Coins can often be called to witness the political affiliation of disputed regions; but in this case they prove to be as two-faced as Erekle’s letters. Silver coins were struck in the name of Esma’il III, or with the Zand-style inscription ya Karim, at Shamakhi, Nakhchevan, Ganja, and Tiflis, between 1178/1764 and 1190/1776—and at Tiflis, for good measure, up to 1213/1798–99, twenty years after Karim Khan’s death.’ More enlightening is the copper series minted at Tiflis during the same period (1179–1210/1765–95), bearing Christian, Georgian, and even Russian iconography—notably the double-headed imperial eagle. There is little doubt that the complimentary reference to Karim was calculated to make the silver coins acceptable for trade throughout Iran, whereas the copper coins—struck for local use only—reflected Erekle’s orientation toward Russia.51 When the Vakil arrived on the banks of the Aras in 1763, with Azerbaijan conquered and every prospect of local support if he marched into Qarabagh, Fath ʾAli Khan Darbani bought him off with the promise of a marriage alliance and Erekle with the delivery of Azad Khan (5.7). Neither of these rulers, however, was required to pay homage in person, or to give hostages, and there is no record of their having paid an annual tribute. On Karim Khan’s withdrawal to deal with the revolt of his cousin Zaki, they were left to consolidate their hard-won empires independently, as the Vakil had still to consolidate his."
As if that wasn't enough, the dissertation "Karim Khan Zand and the Persian Interregnum by Robert Ainsworth McDaniel" correlates the same information, saying that Karim Khan Zand's rule stopped at the Aras River. Richard Tapper also highlights some of the khanates in this period and states that Fath 'Ali Khan of QUba didn't even pay Karim Khan Zand nominal sovereignity on page 115.
Btw, I did in fact read through the sources that you linked, and it seems even they agree with me. For the Cambridge History of Iran, page 71 literally has a map displaying the extent of the Zand state, and the territories north of the Aras as well as Balochistan aren't included in it. Follow your own linked source. Ebrahim Khan Javanshir's article on Encyclopedia Iranica doesn't seem to contain anything relevant to the map, I mean the Khanate of Qarabagh isn't even present there, it's shown fully annexed into Zand Iran. I also looked at page xvii of the Shirvan Khanate book and saw his source for the argument, being the Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus. It agrees with me and labels the Caucasus Khanates as being within Persia's nominal borders and semi-autonomous, which as we can see from previous sources was de facto independence. Look for yourself: [2]. Here's another quote from "From the Kur to the Aras":
"The khans fought against one another or made alliances in order to keep their lands and revenue under familial control. Although Karim Khan’s march to Azarbayjan and the southern banks of the Aras River forced a number of local rulers to hand over hostages,57 the geographical distance from the main center of political authority, and, in some cases, the availability of natural resources, enabled some khans and soltans to assemble limited military power provided by their loyal tribal forces.58"
Although admittedly on page 234, George says that Karim Khan Zand recieved the submission of the Caucasus khans, as we can see from the previous evidence that submission was extremely nominal.
As you can very clearly see, any supposed "acknowledgement" of an already almost non-existent sovereignty of the government in Shiraz was just to secure their domains which they had fought hard for, not translating into actual Zand control of the region. Certainly not enough to show the Caucasian Khanates on this map as FULLY ANNEXED into the Zand domain when that wasn't the case at all. If you want to show this already extremely nominal "sovereignty", at least make the effort to show them as autonomous. Anyone can claim a territory, but it's the ability to enforce it which actually translates into sovereignty. I hope you now realise that you were wrong, and this map needs to be edited. There are also other mistakes, like the lack of autonomous tribal areas and arab sheikhdoms, but I will get into that tomorrow as it's getting late. By the way, sorry if this was a pretty long read but I had to get that off my chest. Kailanmapper (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS, there was nothing wrong with me reverting you, as I have just done once more. Moreover, please see WP:WALLOFTEXT, I'm sorry but I'm not gonna read that. Instead, I'll post some of the stuff mentioned in the sources;

• Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. p. xvii. ISBN 978-1909724808. "Serious historians and geographers agree that after the fall of the Safavids, and especially from the mid-eighteenth century, the territory of the South Caucasus was composed of the khanates of Ganja, Kuba, Shirvan, Baku, Talesh, Sheki, Karabagh, Nakhichivan and Yerevan, all of which were under Iranian suzerainty."

• "(...) "Heraclius II, after his occupation of Erivan in 1749 and defeat of his former ally Azad in 1751-2, could afford largely to ignore the changing situation south of the Aras. After it became obvious that Mashhad (a minor Afsharid remnant at that time) was no longer the seat of the government, and probably about the time of the Zand army's progress through Azarbaijan (1762-1763), Heraclius tendered his submission to the Zand Vakil and received his diploma as Vali of Gurjistan - the traditional Safavid office, by this time an empty honorific." -- - Fisher et al. (1991). The Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 7. page 96 Cambridge University Press, 10 okt. 1991 ISBN 978-0521200950

• "By 1762 another ruler and dynasty, Karim Khan Zand (1750-1779), took control of most of Iran and was recognzied as their suzerain by the khans of eastern Armenia [that is, the khans of Karabakh and Yerevan]. His seat of power was in southern Iran, however, and Transcaucasia was left to Ibrahim Khan of Karabagh and King Erekle II (1762-1798) of eastern Georgia (...) -- Bournoutian, Georga (2002). A Concise History of the Armenian People: (from Ancient Times to the Present). (ed. 2). Mazda Pub. ISBN 978-1568591414

• "Born in 1730, he was the son of Panāh Khan of the Javānšīr tribe, which lived in the plains of Qarābāḡ (Bāmdād, I, p. 10). Nāder Shah Afšār had forced the tribe and its khans to submit to him and to accompany him to Khorasan. After Nāder’s death, Panāh Khan returned to Qarābāḡ and managed to penetrate the eastern sector of the Armenian enclave of mountainous Qarābāḡ (Qarābāḡī, pp. 52-59). In the second half of the century, Ebrāhīm Khan built a strong fortress in Šūšī/Šūša which was referred to, during his lifetime, as Panāhābād (idem, p. 72). When Karīm Khan Zand took control of much of Persia, he forced Panāh Khan to come to Shiraz, where he died as a hostage. " -- EBRĀHĪM ḴALĪL KHAN JAVĀNŠĪR, Enc. Iranica Vol. VIII, Fasc. 1, pp. 71-73

• "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 was those Khanates located closest 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 suzerainty depended 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" - Cambridge History of Iran, 145-146.

• "Karim Khan had also received the submission of Georgia and the various khans of the South Caucasus." - From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move Into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813, page 234 / "Panah Khan's son, Ebrahim Khan, governed Qarabagh with the approval of Karim Khan Zand" - same source, page 262

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me break it down for you then. Here's a quote from "Karim Khan Zand, A History of Iran 1747-1779 page 223:

• "Coins can often be called to witness the political affiliation of disputed regions; but in this case they prove to be as two-faced as Erekle’s letters. Silver coins were struck in the name of Esma’il III, or with the Zand-style inscription ya Karim, at Shamakhi, Nakhchevan, Ganja, and Tiflis, between 1178/1764 and 1190/1776—and at Tiflis, for good measure, up to 1213/1798–99, twenty years after Karim Khan’s death.’ More enlightening is the copper series minted at Tiflis during the same period (1179–1210/1765–95), bearing Christian, Georgian, and even Russian iconography—notably the double-headed imperial eagle. There is little doubt that the complimentary reference to Karim was calculated to make the silver coins acceptable for trade throughout Iran, whereas the copper coins—struck for local use only—reflected Erekle’s orientation toward Russia.51 When the Vakil arrived on the banks of the Aras in 1763, with Azerbaijan conquered and every prospect of local support if he marched into Qarabagh, Fath ʾAli Khan Darbani bought him off with the promise of a marriage alliance and Erekle with the delivery of Azad Khan (5.7). Neither of these rulers, however, was required to pay homage in person, or to give hostages, and there is no record of their having paid an annual tribute. On Karim Khan’s withdrawal to deal with the revolt of his cousin Zaki, they were left to consolidate their hard-won empires independently, as the Vakil had still to consolidate his."

Any submission the rulers of the the Khanates of the Caucasus had to the Zand dynasty was nominal only,they were de facto independent.

"Even when rulers on the plateau lacked the means to effect suzerainty beyond the Aras, the neighboring Khanates were still regarded as Iranian dependencies." Yes, they were regarded as dependencies by the Iranians, but that doesn't mean they actually controlled the territory. Any government can claim a land. However, it's the ability to control a territory that actually translates into sovereignty. Therefore, this doesn't really prove the Zands actually control the territory.

The sources you linked also agree with me, in fact page 71 LITERALLY has a map displaying the extent of the Zand dynasty and shows that the lands north of the Aras River were not included in Karim Khan Zand's domains. Listen to your own source.

• ""Heraclius II, after his occupation of Erivan in 1749 and defeat of his former ally Azad in 1751-2, could afford largely to ignore the changing situation south of the Aras. After it became obvious that Mashhad (a minor Afsharid remnant at that time) was no longer the seat of the government, and probably about the time of the Zand army's progress through Azarbaijan (1762-1763), Heraclius tendered his submission to the Zand Vakil and received his diploma as Vali of Gurjistan - the traditional Safavid office, by this time an empty honorific." Yeah, EMPTY honorific.

Here's a quote from "Karim Khan Zand: Makers of the Muslim World": "Although the chroniclers ignore it, Iran’s hold on the regions north of the Aras was completely eroded over the next forty years; so that when Agha Mohammad Khan in 1796 and 1797 tried to restore it by Nader Shah’s methods, this backfired for his Qajar successors and resulted in the definitive loss of the region to Russia." Thus infering the Zands didn't control the area. The Cambridge History of Iran says this too, on page 95. I mean this is ridiculous, follow your own source.

Here's a quote from Karim Khan Zand and the Persian Interregnum by Robert Ainsworth McDaniel: "There, in the Caucasus mountains a new Georgian monarchy had asserted its independence in the years after Nadir's death and, largely because of the political vacuum which resulted from the preoccupation of its neighbors with other affairs, had been able to maintain itself throughout the 1750's."

It's clear as day that any submission the Khans of the region had to Karim Khan Zand was nominal, they were basically left to fend for themselves on their own. Even if you wanted to show that nominal Zand dynasty authority over the Khanates, it certainly doesn't justify them being annexed on the map. Kailanmapper (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the sources clearly state that they were under Zand suzerainty, to what extent is irrelevant. Cherrypicking specific pages and ignoring others is not really helping this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying they were under Zand influence and nominal control. However, what I am denying is that Zand control on the region was strong enough to show them as annexed directly into the Zand empire. Like I said before, at least show them as autonomous not directly annexed. The Zands had de jure control over the area, but the area was de facto independent. De facto suzerainty is much more important than de jure suzerainty because it shows who actually controlled the area, not just what some government says.

The region didn't pay taxes or tribute to the Zands, which is a key indicator of sovereignty and shows you just how limited Zand control was on the area. None of this justifies showing the area as directly annexed when they didn't even pay taxes to the central government. That's like saying the Emirate of Herat was directly annexed into the Qajar state because they occasionally paid tribute to Iran, and the Caucasian Khanates didn't even pay tribute.

Again, on page 71 of the Cambridge History of Iran we are presented with a map of the Zand dynasty. It shows that the territories north of the Aras River excluded from the Zand realms. It also says on page 95 that the Iranian control over those lands at this time was eroded. Are you just going to ignore that, coming straight from your own source? Kailanmapper (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment, especially the last line. Moreover, by that logic a lot of maps, if not most, are 'wrong' too. There is nothing wrong with how it is currently shown. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't ignore an obviously credible source just because by that logic a lot of the wikipedia maps are wrong. If that's the case, that means they are wrong. Many wikipedia maps don't even cite their sources. As I have said with countless quotes from reliable sources, the khanates were de facto autonomous/independent. The source clearly states that the territories north of the Aras didnt' pay tribute to the Zands.

There is something wrong with how it is currently. shown. We have already established the area was autonomous. Yet on the current map of the Zand dynasty, it is shown as directly annexed into the Zand kingdom, meaning it pays taxes, has a governor subordinate to the Zands, and is firmly integrated into the administration of the realm. How do you show a de facto autonomous/independent region as fully annexed? Why would that be an acceptable thing to add on to wikipedia? That's misrepresenting the sources and violating the policy on no original research. Nothing about that is okay.

Also, the Shirvan Khanate book claims that the khanates north of the Aras river were all under Iranian suzerainty. However, he cites the source Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus, and guess what- it shows those khanates of the caucasus as having autonomy as well. Don't believe me, check for yourself: [3] When George says that they were under Iranian suzerainty, he doesn't at all try to deny their autonomy.

Stop trying to deny facts correlated by reliable sources. Just because Iranian chroniclers see the area as directly part of the Zand realm doesn't mean it actually was. Kailanmapper (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Yet on the current map of the Zand dynasty, it is shown as directly annexed into the Zand kingdom, meaning it pays taxes, has a governor subordinate to the Zands, and is firmly integrated into the administration of the realm." Says who? Many areas under a kingdom were autonomous, that is nothing new, especially in Iranian/Middle Eastern history. I'm sorry but this looks like WP:JDLI. The sources clearly contradict your claims - ultimately the Southern Caucasus was part of the Zand kingdom. I think our discussion here is over. If you think I am violating the rules, feel free to report me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I say this because on the map Kartli-Kakheti is shown as a vassal of the Zand state, while the rest of the Khanates of the Caucasus are shwon as directly annexed into the Zand state. In reality, both the khanates and Georgia had the same status. Even calling Georgia a vassal is stretching a bit. If having autonomous areas isn't new, why aren't they displayed on the map of the Zands then, given how weak Zand authority was in certain regions. There are different levels of autonomy. When that autonomy borders close to de facto independence, it should be shown on a map. The sources you presented contradicted your own claims, you cited cambridge history of iran as a source yet showed the areas north of the Aras River as Zand when the map on Page 71 and the resulting explanation clearly showed how limited that Zand authority is, claiming a region isn't the same as governing one. Kailanmapper (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:REHASH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you edit the map so it shows the Khanates of the Caucasus as the same color as Kartli-Kakheti? Since they both had the same status within the Zand dynasty it makes no sense to show them differently. Kailanmapper (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• "...source yet showed the areas north of the Aras River as Zand when the map on Page 71 and the resulting explanation clearly showed how limited that Zand authority is, claiming a region isn't the same as governing one. "
• "Yet on the current map of the Zand dynasty, it is shown as directly annexed into the Zand kingdom, meaning it pays taxes, has a governor subordinate to the Zands..."

"Panah Khan's son, Ebrahim Khan, governed Qarabagh with the approval of Karim Khan Zand" -- George Bournoutian (2021). From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move Into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. 234

It appears you are now ignoring the cited sources. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

He may have governed Qarabagh with the approval of Karim Khan Zand, but that doesn't mean that Ebrahim Khalil Khan was subordinate to Karim Khan Zand, that isn't proof of sovereignty. Karim Khan Zand wasn't strong enough to enforce his rule in the area since he was dealing with the revolt of Zaki Khan. Heres a few quotes from "Two Chronicles of the History of Karabagh":

• "The late Ibrahim Khalil Khan entered Karabagh as an independent khan and governor and did not take orders from anyone, but rather forced the submission of all of Karabagh and other velayats." Page 84

• "The late Ibrahim Khan commenced his rule as the independent ruler of Karabagh in the Muslim year 1174, which corresponds to the Christian year 1756 (actually 1760/61). His rule was terminated in the year 1221, which corresponds to the Christian year 1806. He did not acknowledge either Persia's or Rum's [Ottoman] suzerainty." Page 87

• "After the death ad the passing of Panah Khan to the house of God's mercy, his eldest ad valiant so, Ibrahim Khalil Khan, in the year AH 1173 occupied the post of governor of the Karabagh province and began to organize the life of the population. Not subordinate to the rulers of Persia, Rum, or other states..." Page 182

Kailanmapper (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• > "He may have governed Qarabagh with the approval of Karim Khan Zand..."
• > "but that doesn't mean that Ebrahim Khalil Khan was subordinate to Karim Khan Zand"

Choose one.

• "Heres a few quotes from "Two Chronicles of the History of Karabagh""

Which is a translation of a primary source, unlike Bournoutian's Kur to the Aras book which is a secondary source, and thus inferior to the latter. Per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources (...) Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. (...) All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Erekle II governed Georgia with the approval of Karim Khan Zand. However, Erekle was de facto independent and didn't pay tribute to Karim Khan Zand, only giving him lip service. The situation was the same for Ibrahim Khalil Khan of Qarabagh, you can be put on a throne with the support of a power, but that doesn't mean they will be subservient to their backer. Here's more quotes from John R. Perry's book on Karim Khan Zand (Karim Khan Zand: A History of Iran, 1747-1779, not Karim Khan Zand: Makers of the mUslim World).

• "Coins can often be called to witness the political affiliation of disputed regions; but in this case they prove to be as two-faced as Erekle’s letters. Silver coins were struck in the name of Esma’il III, or with the Zand-style inscription ya Karim, at Shamakhi, Nakhchevan, Ganja, and Tiflis, between 1178/1764 and 1190/1776—and at Tiflis, for good measure, up to 1213/1798–99, twenty years after Karim Khan’s death.’ More enlightening is the copper series minted at Tiflis during the same period (1179–1210/1765–95), bearing Christian, Georgian, and even Russian iconography—notably the double-headed imperial eagle. There is little doubt that the complimentary reference to Karim was calculated to make the silver coins acceptable for trade throughout Iran, whereas the copper coins—struck for local use only—reflected Erekle’s orientation toward Russia.51"

• "When the Vakil arrived on the banks of the Aras in 1763, with Azerbaijan conquered and every prospect of local support if he marched into Qarabagh, Fath ʾAli Khan Darbani bought him off with the promise of a marriage alliance and Erekle with the delivery of Azad Khan (5.7). Neither of these rulers, however, was required to pay homage in person, or to give hostages, and there is no record of their having paid an annual tribute. On Karim Khan’s withdrawal to deal with the revolt of his cousin Zaki, they were left to consolidate their hard-won empires independently, as the Vakil had still to consolidate his."

• "For all his diplomatic deference, he gave no undertaking to comply with the Vakil’s injunctions, nor did he.44 Karim Khan, faced with a Qajar rebellion and at war with Oman, was in no position to insist. It is worth noting here that Erekle reportedly sent an equally deferential protestation of friendship and subservience to the Ottoman sultan in 1774, in response to the circulars and presents dispatched by the Porte to all the Azerbaijan and Transaraxian rulers in a bid to assure their support, or at least neutrality, in the clash with the Zands in Kurdistan (12.4). The Armenian nationalist, Joseph Emin, recounts how Erekle contemptuously rejected an embassy sent by the Vakil to demand the lapsed tribute of maidens and youths."

Here's a quote from Richard Tapper's book on the Shahsevan:

• "Meanwhile, for much of the Zand era, the major power of eastern Transcaucasia, balancing the Georgian kingdoms of Kartli-Kakhetia in the west, was the khan of Qobbeh (including Daghestan and Darband). Fath 'Ali Khan of the Qaitaq succeeded his father Hosein 'Ali Khan in 1758, and came to dominate the region during and after Karim Khan's rule in Iran. He paid Karim Khan not even nominal allegiance; a marriage alliance of his sister to Karim Khan's eldest son Abo'l-Fath Khan, promised in 1763, was never implemented."

Also, I have literally given numerous quotes from secondary sources proving the region's virtual independence from the Zands. I have referred to those secondary sources multiple times. Scholars like John R. Perry have come to this conclusion that the lands north of the Aras River were de facto independent. The best solution is to show those khanates north of the Aras River in the same color as Georgia, so we can show the lands as de jure part of the domains of Karim Khan Zand while at the same time respecting the fact that they had autonomy.

@Kailanmapper: What's the point in having a discussion if you're gonna disregard not only opposition by two others but WP:RS as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I do admit I have been somewhat less civil in this discussion, but that doesn't take away from my point. I feel like you think my argument is that the Khanates were entirely independent of Zand control, which of course isn't true as the sources you have given prove that (although this may not be how you actually feel about my argument). I have been merely trying to prove the khanates were de facto autonomous/independent parts of the Zands but internationally recognized as part of the Zand domain. You yourself inferred they were autonomous parts of the Zand kingdom "Says who? Many areas under a kingdom were autonomous, that is nothing new, especially in Iranian/Middle Eastern history.", but yet you revert my edit saying that they were autonomous parts of the Zand realm. Furthermore, although some of the sources cited show they were de jure under the Zand realm, they also state the autonomy of the khanates. Here's a quote from George's book on the Russo-Iranian war:
"The khans fought against one another or made alliances in order to keep their lands and revenue under familial control. Although Karim Khan’s march to Azarbayjan and the southern banks of the Aras River forced a number of local rulers to hand over hostages,57 the geographical distance from the main center of political authority, and, in some cases, the availability of natural resources, enabled some khans and soltans to assemble limited military power provided by their loyal tribal forces.58"
In addition to this, on page xvii of the Khanate of Shirvan book in the footnotes he says that "purposeful falsehood. 14 The best and the most objective source of the geographical divisions is the recent atlas by Arthur Tsutsiev, Atlas of the Ethno-Political History of the Caucasus (New Haven, 2014)", clearly indicating it is a reliable source. In the atlas, we can clearly see the khanates north of the Aras River are shown as de jure part of the Zand realm but at the same time autonomous.
In addition to that, I have given multiple quotes proving the area's autonomy from a variety of sources as well as a solution "The best solution is to show those khanates north of the Aras River in the same color as Georgia, so we can show the lands as de jure part of the domains of Karim Khan Zand while at the same time respecting the fact that they had autonomy." but so far this has been ignored. Kailanmapper (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Look @HistoryofIran:, this argument is going nowhere. Can you please just fix the map of the Zand dynasty so it shows the Caucasian Khanates as the same color as Kartli-Kakheti so it can show both the Zand suzerainty over the khanates as well as its' autonomy? Maybe we can add another heading in the Zand dynasty article that accurately describes the borders of the state? Kailanmapper (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, writing WP:WALLOFTEXT has never helped. Please at least make the quotes distinct from your own words. Feel free to edit the map yourself, I won't object. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Official languages

Official languages is kurdish and Persian Nashwansaman (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Kurdish? According to whom? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Zand Dynasty map page

Greetings User:HistoryofIran, I have noticed you have removed my map of the Zand dynasty and replaced it with the old one. I would like to point out inaccuracies in your map that should be fixed.
1. The old map shows the regions of Sistan and Balochistan under the Zands. The region of Sistan had been under the sway of the Durrani empire for quite some time, under the auspices of the Kayanids and Shahrakis. Christine Noelle Karimi’s book “The Pearl in its Midst” writes on page 285 the following: While the Kayanids backed the unsuccessful pretender Sulaimān Mīrzā, Mīr Bēg Shahrakī sided with the victorious contender Tīmūr Shāh and received the governorship of Sīstān in exchange. Four years later, the Kayanid family regained the governorship of Sīstān but was placed in a subordinate position to Muḥammad Zamān Khān Pūpalzai Durrānī, who governed the province of Lāsh adjoining Sīstān in the north.350
2. The Zands didn’t control Balochistan either, it was under Naser Khan of Kalat. In the Cambridge History of Iran, John Perry writes: Sistan and Baluchistan, never strongly held and regarded by Nadir mainly as a source of manpower, had remained aloof from the wrangling in western Iran on Nadir's assassination and under Nasir Khan Baluch were partly absorbed into the Durrani empire; thus Lar and Kirman, exercising a tenuous jurisdiction over the coastal shaikhdoms of Makran, constituted the eastern marches of Karim Khan's Iran.
3. This map does not show major tribes like the Bakhtiyari, Qashqai, Feyli, Mokri, and Bani Ardalan. The encyclopedia Iranica article on the Bani Ardalan describes the region as a semi-autonomous frontier province. The Feyli had that status as well, as a semi-autonomous frontier province like in the Safavid empire. As for the other tribes, the thesis “THE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY BETWEEN THE ZANDS AND THE QAJARS, 1193-1209 A.D./1779-1794 A. D.: A SOCIETY IN TRANSITION”, specifically Chapter 8, gives information on the state of tribes under the Zand dynasty.
The non-allied tribes, who assisted the Zand house occasionally and on request from the Zand sovereigns, such as Qaraguzlu, Mokri, Qashqa'i, etc. These tribes were different from the first category, in that they retained their independence on all occasions, paid tribute and did not interfere with the politics of the central government. Perry confirms this information, stating that the major tribes were direct vassals of the central government and not subject to any provincial authority.
4. The map does not show the autonomous Arab sheikhdoms in the region. Page 191 of Willem Floor's article on Borazjan states about the area: "The entire region was tribal in nature, and since the fall of the Safavid dynasty there had been little control there by the central government. Consequently, lawlessness thrived and caravans were attacked at times. Rivalry with other district centres was normal and incursions, temporary occupations, and killings frequently occurred." The area was divided into a wide range of semi-autonomous shaikhdoms like Bushehr, Kangan, Charak, Lengeh,etc.
5. Finally, the map doesn't show the autonomy of the Caucasian Khanates north of the Aras. If the kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti is shown as a Zand vassal, then the rest of the Caucasian Khanates and the major tribes like the Bakhtiyari and Qashqai should be shown as well. Please fix these errors in the map, thanks for taking the time to read this.
Edit: Forgot to mention Gilan was semi-independent according to this article:[4]Kailanmapper (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I did remove your map [5]-a map with initially zero sources, and now with some very vague sourcing. You need a source for more or less every single detail of the map. If you plan to add more sources to your map, please make it so in a way we can see which source supports what. And which Willem Floor article is that? Also, feel free to edit the map yourself. EDIT: autonomous tribes does not equal = autonomy in all the places they populated, especially urban places. There's a difference between a tribe being autonomous, and an area being that - this looks like WP:OR, and I wonder if that also applies to some other stuff as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll make sure to correct the source list and include every source involved in the creation of the map. Also, if information cannot be found on the areas inhabited by the tribe that were autonomous, how about I label where the tribe's general location was (like in this map of Circassian tribes [6]) and say it's autonomous rather than making a border around all areas the tribe inhabited and saying all of those areas were autonomous? EDIT: Also, the Willem Floor article is titled: "Borāzjān, a Rural Market Town in Bushire's Hinterland". Kailanmapper (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Added changes now, with more accurate sourcing and removed tribal boundaries. Should be good to go. Kailanmapper (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kailanmapper: Still vague sourcing. Nothing suggests that https://www.al-ahwaz.com/arabic/history/ahwazq&a/images/ahwazoldmap2.jpg is reliable, it's from a random website named 'al-ahwaz'. What's the source for 'Luristan' and the 'Maragheh Khanate'? And which parts of the map does these links cover? They do not seem reliable either (especially 1 and 2, which are just random websites).

1. https://hafryat.com/ar/blog/%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%83-%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AB-%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85-3-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86
2. https://www.bernamegeh.com/tarihte-hakkari-semdinan-bahdinan-ve-nehri/
3. http://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20121212135456-9462-3.pdf The book "صهوة الفارس"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough for the al-ahwaz link. I forgot to add a few links, my mistake since I didn't bookmark them. My source for Luristan is John R. Perry's book and [7]. My source for the Maragheh Khanate was a map from Richard Tapper and google book previews from "An iranian Town in Transition: A Social and Economic History of the Elites of Tabriz, 1747-1848". The links were used mainly for minor aspects of the map.
The first link was used along with Willem Floor's sources on the sheikhdom of Bastak. The second one was used for Targavar and Margavar. The third link was used for Avroman. The book "صهوة الفارس" was used with Willem Floor's books to help with the Arab shaikhdoms (the ones between Kangan and Lengeh). Can you clarify how they aren't reliable?Kailanmapper (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The same reason as nothing suggests that the al-ahwaz citation is reliable. 1 and 2 are random websites (one of them even has 'blog' in its name), not scholarly published sources. I will check 3 more later. Please see WP:RS and WP:SPS. Which map from Tapper is that? Because in what is undoubtly the most prominent source (The Social Hierarchy in Provincial Iran: The Case of Qajar Maragheh) about the so called "Maragheh Khanate" (i.e. the Moqaddam family), does not call the entity for a "khanate" and simply refers it ruling family as "governors". --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on hafryat being unreliable, since it seems to be just an arabic-language newspaper. There are examples of hafryat articles being cited in books from reliable sources, such as [8], [9], [10], etc. Based on this evidence, the hafryat link seems to be under the description of WP:NEWSBLOG. I can't say the same for the bernamegeh link however, that seems to be an unreliable source. Also the map from Tapper's book on the Shahsevan is on page 97, titled "Map 4. North-West Iran, to show places mentioned in Chapters 5-7".Kailanmapper (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is why I advised you to read WP:RS and (especially) WP:SPS - context matters, blogs are definitely not suitable material for historical stuff. The first source is by Ilan Berman (who? is this the same person as the American lawyer and educator, i.e. not an actual historian?) and published by an obscure, independent house named Rowman & Littlefield. Again, WP:SPS comes into play here. The second is published by trendsresearch..? Some kind of news site or something like that located in Dubai? ([11]). The author of the work is apparently 'TRENDS'? I can't even see what is going in the third. Who is the author? If a newsite is cited by a source, I sure hope it's to do with recent stuff. Anyways, hafryat is a newsite, no scholarly qualifications whatsoever. I've just taken a look at the Tapper source, it was very blurry from the source I used, but it did not seem to show the borders of Maragheh, nor call it a khanate. Anyways, even if it did it wouldn't make us smarter on why it was apparently a khanate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright fair enough, I'll fix that. Also the author from the 3rd one is 'Abd al-Razzaq Muhammad Sadiq. Kailanmapper (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kailanmapper: How's the progress faring? I have more concerns as well; The description "Areas in light green are vassals of the Zands" doesn't sound really right. Ardalan, for example, held Kurdistan as autonomous governors. The khans of the khanates are also often referred to as "governors," as does the Moqaddam family and Musha'sha'. Also, based on EI2, the location of Musha'sha' authority seems off, what source did you use for them? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

From the available sources, it doesn't really seem like having a position as governor conflicts with being a vassal. For example, the governors of Ardalan are directly and indirectly described as vassals in multiple sources [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Nasr Al-Madhkur, referred to as a governor of Bushehr [17], is also described as a vassal [18], and Perry's book on Karim Khan Zand contains plenty of references to governors being vassals. For example, on page 122 Zu'l-Feqar Khan Afshar, governor of Khamsa and Zanjan, is referred to as being "an indifferent vassal" of the Zands. On page 224, the Afshar governors of Urmia are referred to as direct vassals of the state without being subject to any urban center.
As far as the Musha'sha'iyyah, I used Willem Floor's article "The Rise and fall of the Banu Ka'b". Also what is EI2, could you provide the link? Kailanmapper (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The families/clans I mentioned were still officially designated and functioned as governors, which can for example been seen in Safavid Kurdistan. Simply writing 'vassal' is not showcasing that. EI2 = Encyclopedia of Islam volume 2. I'm on a different computer, so I dont have access to any stuff, but as for the Mushasha: [19] and [20]. The rest of the sources will have to wait when I am on the right computer. Also, I'm not sure why you want to use everything but expert sources. Why use a book about the Ottomans for Safavid administration, when there are so many sources about the latter? Also, only one of those sources is by a scholar in Iranian studies. And you are still not following WP:SPS either, at least two of the sources are not even reliable. Also, you did not answer my most important question: How's the progress faring? For example, the Moqaddam issue still hasn't been fixed, where's the source that shows that they governed that much? The agreement was that you would fix the map if it was gonna stay. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources I gave seem to be cited in other scholarly publications. "Britain and the Persian Gulf 1795-1880" has 390 citations according to Google scholar. [21] "A People without a State: The Kurds from the Rise of Islam to the Dawn of Nationalism" has 33 citations. [22] The Routledge Handbook on the Kurds has 19 citations. [23] To be fair, I couldn't find any citations on "Empire in Asia", although the second volume has 5 citations. I also see what you mean about they functioned as governors, so what if the description is changed to "vassal governors" or "vassal provinces" or something along the lines of that.
The Moqaddam thing is a screw up on my part, I'll fix it if you can give me a description of the territory they controlled at this time. A google books preview from Christoph Werner's book on Tabriz seems to suggest the Moqaddam bordered the Mokris, but I can't find much more than that and the Qajar Maragheh pdf doesn't give any information on the Zand period.
Also I don't have much information on the Safavid administration (I have access to the Tadhkirt al-Muluk through archive.org but I don't have anything else regarding Safavid administration. I've wanted to acquire Willem Floor's book on Safavid administration for a while now, but I can't find it available for free online. If you have access to it could you provide me with information? And please get back to me on the Musha'sha'iyyah, I don't have much information on them particulartly in the 18th and 19th centuries. Kailanmapper (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have never heard of the word "vassal governors" or "vassal provinces". It frankly doesn't make sense. Why didn't you look at the author(s) and its publisher? Michael Gunter is not even a historian, the Ottoman source is obscure, being published by Facts On File, Incorporated (???). Empire in Asia: A New Global History is written by Jack Fairey, who holds an undergraduate degree in History. The afromentioned and remaining sources (with the exception of Matthee) are not specialized in the history of Iran, let alone the Safavids, and let alone 2x their domain/administration. Respectfully, I'm not going to explain next time why x source isn't reliable or less good in this subject. Also, I really don't want to invest so much time and energy to help fix a map I don't have anything to do with. This is your project, not mine.

Yes, I completely forgot, the Moqaddam family first appeared in the Qajar era per Social Hierarchy in Provincial Iran: The Case of Qajar Maragheh, but why are they in a Zand map then? What Christoph Werner book? Also, why is "Zand" written in a Persian transliteration ("Zandiyeh")? And here's the pdf file for the two EI2 articles (page 80–81 for volume 5 and page 672–675 for volume 7) [24]. Though I now see that volume 7 is probably the one you want to read. By Willem Floor's book, do you mean the Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration? I have a physical copy of it, but it's generally about the Safavid administration, with only passing mentions of what happened after. What information do you mean? If the map hasn't improved heavily before the next month, I honestly don't see why it should stay. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2022 (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:

• Mapofthezands1776.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Qajar dynasty and Qajar Iran

Why does this page not have its own page like Safavi, Afsharid, Qajar and Pahlavi dynasties? This page is for the state. 77.67.246.40 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"might've been kurdish"

In the text, it says: "The dynasty was founded by Karim Khan Zand, chief of the Zand tribe, which is a tribe of Laks, a branch of Lurs who may have been originally Kurdish." Whilst just clicking on the Lak main page, it tells us that Laks certainly are Kurds and speak a branch of the Kurdish language? Laks might be culturally similar to Lurs by living amongst them, but does that tell us that they are a branch of the Lurs? Krqftan (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

See [25]. The Lak article probably needs to be rewritten. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)