|
Post by ALTAR on Jun 15, 2007 1:07:52 GMT 3
he was only defeated once in battle ever, by Topal Osman Pasha, but in the next battle he defeated him and and he was killed. in all other battles he defeated the Ottomans. He was also defeated by Kumyks twice in his Dagestan Campaign too
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Jun 15, 2007 1:19:25 GMT 3
In Safevids Era, Turkmenistan Turkmens(Teke, Yomud, Sarıq, Goklen etc.) always attacked Khorasan which was ruled by Safevids. Safevids were took some measures such as
- Settled Afshar, Ustaclu, Rumlu clans(All of them were Oghuz, Turkmen) who were Qizilbash and escaped from Ottoman Empire's Anatolia to Iran(especially Southern Azerbaijan). They were like border patrols against Turkmenistanis. In contrast Turkmenistanis were Sunnite and this made them hateful against these clans. It was resulted extremely bloody conflicts between them.
So Nadir Shah was from this Afshar tribe:)
- some kurd tribes(kirmanji; zafranlu and sadlu clans) were also exiled there to prevent Turkmen Campaigns against Khorasan too... Today they are living in Bojnurd city of Khorasan.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jun 15, 2007 20:37:51 GMT 3
He was also defeated by Kumyks twice in his Dagestan Campaign too yes thats true, he was never able to really subdue them, but they never won a large scale battle against him, only small skirmishes and ambushes as they prefered guerillia tactics. also your comment about Afshars was very accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 12, 2008 6:05:47 GMT 3
"..also do not like the way modern Persian Iranians try to claim him as a Persian-Iranian hero. I do not believe that he did his wars for Iran - he did them for himself. He was also a Turk by blood and culture.." Said Mr.Erkoc I should say in contrast to 14 centuries of chaos passed in Irans history (due to it's geographical location as the last stronghold of last people of iranian origin) the conscience and awareness about history of iran for the first time is growing especially amongst the youth. So figures like Nader Shah wont have the place they had in the past. Whether he was Turkmen (which I believe) or pure blooded-persian, his deeds in Inida are still a shame for iranian history ( here in Iran we usually dont celebrate people who cut heads or spill blood as heroes I dont know about lands where people adore Ghengis Khan, Iulius Caesar and other bloodthirsty conquerers) So feel free if you want to take this personage. Those claims about Nader here are now old and today turned out to be wrong.
"but Iranians have more of a claim on him than any other nation, after all he was from Khorasan and Khorasan is part of modern Iran" Said Mr. Temujin T hese old-fashioned claims are becoming weak in iran after 14 centuries being passed. He fought for himself Yes!. But you have to notice that eversince Turkish migration into Iran (greater Iran) many of them considered it an honour to stand in the place of pre-arabic conquest persian kings as well as it was favourable for them to take place of the islamic kingship e.g. Some Seljuks claimed themselves to be descndency of the last King of the Sassani Dynasty, or for example one of them took the title of "Maleksah" (having both Shah which is iranian way of kingship and Malek "Arabic King" to keep content the Islamic-arabic point of view). So no Surprise Nader fought against Afghans to gain the title Shah of Iran and of course for his own cause! the same case is Aqa Mohammad Khan Qajar, who was praised again to establish a more stable government in Tehran only for his descendants to lose any last hope for far-wounded Iran. But now he is no more praised, he did many crimes against Iranians in his lifetime just to take the title Shah of Iran (which was an honour even on that time) so no good deeds for Iranians but for himself. Iranians I think are becoming conscious that they dont lack heroes in their history to celebrate guys like these.
"He wasnt from khorasan, khorasan ends at Bojnurd, he was from southern Turkmenistan which now laies in north east Iran, the turkmens have been livining there since the seljuks time," Said Mr.Nisse
Khorâsân "being literally the “Land of the Sun." in old persian Encyclopaedia Britannica was an Iranian province which is now divided between many countries of CA and Iran, yet most of it's time it was under iranian control, It doesnt end in Bojnurd ( today the term used is Greater Khorasan) capisce?
from the historical point of view it is also worth to say that the Oghuz were that last wave of Turkics who for centuries had been obliterating people of Iranian stock out of their homelands in today CA like that of Eurasia. Now they are our neighbours. But the reason that still a country with name of Iran exists is a miracle and is that, amongst the people of iranian stock i.e. owners of CA before Turks, the Iranians of Iran were the less vulnerable becasue they managed to establish a government yet in a dangerous strategical region.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 12, 2008 15:15:05 GMT 3
Thank you for informing us, Azadan ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
pantigin
Tudun
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Without Uighurs, there was no Mahmud and without him, there is no complete stories of Turks !
Posts: 164
|
Post by pantigin on Feb 12, 2008 15:27:15 GMT 3
The Afshar tribes of Iran are two distinct Turkic-speaking ethnic groups. The larger group is concentrated in the north of the country, and the smaller in the south. The Turkic dialect spoken by the Afshar of the north is closely related to the Azeri language, while the dialect spoken by the southern Afshar is more closely related to the Qashqai language.
|
|
pantigin
Tudun
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Without Uighurs, there was no Mahmud and without him, there is no complete stories of Turks !
Posts: 164
|
Post by pantigin on Feb 12, 2008 17:32:09 GMT 3
Nadir Shah (c.1688-1747), King of Persia, was probably the last great Asiatic conqueror in the tradition of Genghis Khan and Timur, and consciously imitated the latter. He started life as a shepherd boy, rising through domestic service to high household office and then state leadership, though like Genghis, and unlike Timur, he remained illiterate. He has also been compared with his near-contemporary Frederick ¡®the Great¡¯ as the master strategist of his state, for his extensive recruiting beyond the frontiers of his country, the careful training of his men, and all-pervading belief in the importance of mobility. Like other great captains of Asia, his forces covered great distances with ¡®supernatural speed¡¯, and excelled at the swift cavalry attack from an unexpected quarter. His heavy artillery was weak but his light artillery was the best in Asia, although this owed much to French and Russian experts whom he employed.
Nadir was sometimes impetuous. On 19 July 1733 he attacked a Turkish position on the Tigris, losing 30, 000 dead and all his artillery and baggage. He proved himself a great leader, rebuilding his army from nothing in two months. From 1736-8 he reconquered Kandahar, from 1738-40 conducted his Indian campaign, reaching Delhi, and from 1740-1 invaded Turkestan, reaching Khiva. His capture of the Khyber Pass on the way to India in 1738 was masterful, and Russian military analysts later studied it as part of their own plans for the invasion of India. On 17 November Nadir sent engineer detachments to improve the approaches to it and give the impression he planned a frontal attack. But on the night of the 18th a force of cavalry set out through narrow gorges to the south of the pass. They covered 50 miles (80 km) in eighteen hours, probably without maps and, being mid-November in the Himalayas, in bitter cold. The next day his cavalry appeared behind the opposing army, cutting them off from their base at Peshawar.
Nadir Shah also appreciated the value of infantry and the precise application of firepower. He had a corps of specially trained marksmen called jazayirchis. Like all great commanders he was renowned for his ability to size up a situation quickly. He also restored the morale that the Persians had lost under a series of incompetent commanders. Under Nadir, the Persians were able to fight and beat ferocious and martial races like the Afghans and Turks. Like Frederick, Nadir brought many foreigners into the army's ranks, notably Afghans and Uzbeks. By rigid discipline and drill, like Frederick again, he turned the Persian army into a formidable fighting machine. His charisma as a leader was enhanced by his ability to recall all the principal officers in his numerous army by their names.
Although brought up far from the sea, Nadir also had an instinctive understanding of the value of naval power. With help from European advisers, he built up a navy in the Gulf and a small fleet in the Caspian Sea. His army then crossed the Gulf and campaigned in Oman. However, his dependence on western gunners and sailors was an indication of how Europe was now pulling ahead in the sphere of military technology.
---from Wikipedia
|
|
pantigin
Tudun
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Without Uighurs, there was no Mahmud and without him, there is no complete stories of Turks !
Posts: 164
|
Post by pantigin on Feb 12, 2008 17:37:17 GMT 3
Takht-e-Tavous ![](http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1406/jewel/17.jpg) last used in 1967 for the coronation of Mohammad Reza Shah ![](http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1406/jewel/coronation.jpg)
|
|
pantigin
Tudun
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Without Uighurs, there was no Mahmud and without him, there is no complete stories of Turks !
Posts: 164
|
Post by pantigin on Feb 12, 2008 18:51:55 GMT 3
above: nadir shah's P E A C O C K throne robbed from moghal emperor of india.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 12, 2008 23:13:24 GMT 3
Agreed upon he was the best commander of CA origin of his time indeed was he a robber, criminal. he is resented and could be taken by pan-turkists, cause persians do not praise him, he is resented.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Feb 13, 2008 10:21:43 GMT 3
Bad thing is that he is also not liked here in Turkey, because of his wars and victories over the Ottoman Empire ;D ;D Poor guy ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Feb 13, 2008 20:33:40 GMT 3
i like him... ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) BTW that wikipedia article has some inacuracies
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Feb 14, 2008 2:21:35 GMT 3
you have the right to ... ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by kokturk on Feb 15, 2008 1:48:52 GMT 3
i like him... ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) BTW that wikipedia article has some inacuracies As an Avshar, I also like him.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Jul 7, 2008 22:27:27 GMT 3
Actually Qajars were the most idiotic dynasty and opportunist to take the chance and gain power in the chaotic post-conquest Iran after that they pathetically yield some important remnants of what was left in then land of Iran and even their own existence to the colonist powers. They are a disgrace in history of the world itself.
|
|